Talk:Anal sex/Archive 1
|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
- 1 Referendum Results Ignored, Admin Blocks Page
- 2 Complaints
- 3 Deleted much?
- 4 Sexual surveys
- 5 What about straight anal sex?
- 6 Brilliant prose?
- 7 psychological arse shagging
- 8 musing or research or what?
- 9 Anal sex among homosexuals
- 10 Anal Sex Yes
- 11 "homosexuals" over "gays and lesbians"
- 12 simplification
- 13 Pregnancy
- 14 Removed from article
- 15 Unresolved objections
- 16 creeping bias
- 17 questions that need to be cleared up
- 18 Depth issue
- 19 Overview
- 20 Heterosexual male receptive anal sex
- 21 image caption
- 22 see also diseases
- 23 How common?
- 24 Removed from article
- 25 Top and Bottom
- 26 Invalid reasons for removal
- 27 Please xplain your revert
- 28 Pitcher/Catcher
- 29 List of positions
- 30 Odd
- 31 Yes, Sam? I'm waiting
- 32 Protected
- 33 The problem(s)
- 34 Mediation
- 35 Initial image too large
- 36 Recent edits
Referendum Results Ignored, Admin Blocks Page
This may also be of interest: Check talk:feces. A self-appointed censor admin is suppressing the wishes of the majority of editors, and she is blocking inclusion of a photograph at feces. Eyeon 23:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have a couple of complaints about this page, as follows:
- in this passage "In the same mentality, women were not officially allowed to find pleasure in sex, therefore sex was only served as a sort of marital prostitution; in this sense, under the sole husband's determination, anal sex was a form of contraception too in the case of couples who already had too many babies, since the ignorance about other methods was total. Similar facts were reported up to a very few decades ago, and it is currently impossible to certify whether this mentality has been totally abandoned or has otherwise been substantially modified."
It seems clear to me that a strong opinion is present here. I object to this statement particularly "sex was only served as a sort of marital prostitution" as even in a specific example, I don't see how consummating the act of marriage can be seen as prostitution, even if in some particular it could, it is quite disturbing to label an entire culture as marital prostitutes. Also, I can't see the point of saying "women were not officially allowed to find pleasure in sex", as even if there are laws to this effect (which I doubt) they certainly would not be enforceable, and would thus be irrelevant.
and this statement here "Although both men and women might enjoy anal sex, because of this physical difference, men often have an easier time enjoying anal sex."
This seems to go far beyond the objective, and rather seems to dwell on some subjective personal musing, not something needed in a encyclopedia entry. If there is some evidence supporting this opinion, please feel free to correct me. Sorry if I came on a bit strong, but while I like this entry overall, I can't stand by on a subject so dear to my heart. ;)
(the above is my first talk edit, which I will now sign, long after the fact Sam Spade 07:21, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC))
I made some edits to this page, and I hope I didn't delete over much. If so, please let me know! It was my first edit, so I would like feedback. thank you
- It would be good when you delete large chunks of text that you wrote a reason for doing so. Why did you remove that text? (and welcome to Wikipedia) Tristanb 07:44, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- I don't know if User:JackLynch which is the editor of the comment above, is the same as User:220.127.116.11 the last contributor to the article. Dysprosia 07:51, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Oh, I should have checked the times better. I haven't really been following the article that closely. The last edit did remove a considerable amount of text, with the only comment Anal sex. Tristanb
I pretty much removed what I was objecting to when I thought it was off topic, and deleted or changed adjectives and phrases. I hindsight I think I failed to replace enough of it with text, but in my own defense I didn't have a lot more to say, and over all I think this article is well written and thorough. Sorry I didn't sign before, but I didn't know how at the time. JackLynch ---
This article needs more reference to sexual surveys discussing the frequency of anal sex among people--and I'm sure all the other sexual practice entries do as well.
Unfortunately most of the scientific research, like most other scientific research, is only available offline or for those with subscriptions to the online journals. Here's one site, though:
What about straight anal sex?
It doesn't seem NPOV to single out gay men with a heading but not include a heading for straight folks.-Hyacinth
- Well, in the west, anyhow, anal sex is largely associated with gay men (though all orientations practice it). -- Pakaran 23:02, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Needless to say, it isn't NPOV to reinforce the associations or stereotypes made by society. I changed the "Reasons for practice" heading, which is redudant as reasons are discussed throughout the article, such as under the heading "Pleasure" (which, by the way, I think is a hilarious heading).-Hyacinth
- Fair enough. Not sure how to change the article though. -- Pakaran 23:20, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Thanks. I think the article is as good or bad as it was before my change, but you are right, it could use some organization. Obviously, things need to be put under the appropriate categories or new ones need to be invented (& the section on "Pleasure" seems more appropriate for a FAQ or Q&A, not an encyclopedia entry).-Hyacinth
As to the added para on lesbians and anal sex: it conflicts with the intro definition: should mention be made of in the intro that anal sex need not involve penile insertion? Furthermore, Is stuff like rimming considered anal sex? Dysprosia 23:38, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- It might be - even if it isn't "anal intercourse". We already mention use of toys on straight men. I'd say that if lesbians practice vaginal sex (whcih some of them do) then they also practice anal sex (which a smaller proportion do). -- Pakaran 23:37, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll make mention of it. Dysprosia 23:38, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Hah. Google proves its worth again! A eunuchs fiddle was an early (historic) form of vibrator before batteries. It consists of an egg shaped thingummy to stuff up you-know-where, a string attached to it, and a bow to make the string vibrate like the string of a violin. I haven't got any direct reference works at hand to cite, but I have read about it in Playboy magazine among others. It is a piece of historical trivia, rather than something popular currently, so I am not totally suprised about the lack of hits on google. Anyway, it is real, but I can't write about it authoritatively, or with any significant amount of precise historical detail. The above is pretty much what I remember about it. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 17:11, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)
This article has had a consistant bias against female receptive anal sex, which I have been working on eliminating since I began editing the wikipedia (literally, it was my 1st edit). I request any/all who have anything useful to add on this subject to do so, and to assist me in reducing the tendancy for this article to be used as a mouthpeice for a bias or POV (not that I think it was ever intentionally used that way). Sam Spade 07:33, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I'm surprised you see it that way really. What you see as bias -- as I understand it, the fact that there's more on male than female receptive anal sex -- I see as there not being all that much more to say. Would you care to expand? Exploding Boy 13:49, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
I don't think it's bias. It's just a reflection of the simple fact that during female receptive anal sex, men are more likely to orgasm than women. So there's an objective sense in which it's better for the male than for the female. (unsigned comment by 18.104.22.168)
- Couldn't the same argument be made about oral sex, or vaginal sex (which many, perhaps most, women are unable to orgasm from alone?) Pakaran 21:54, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In my opinion, vaginal sex is the most typical source of orgasm for women. As for oral sex, it's pretty obvious who is giving pleasure to whom, and when one person has finished receiving, they can start giving in return. I do not understand why there is anything wrong with making the factual statement that in anal sex the male is more likely to orgasm than the woman. A person who does not know anything about sex would not be aware of that, and I do not understand why it has been edited out. Someone please help me to understand.
- Well - I can object here. During anal sex my wife has several orgasms, while I have only one. So if during several minutes she has 3 or 5 orgasms and I have only one, who is "morelikely to orgasm"?
- What happens with you and your wife doesn't really reflect what's average. It doesn't mean anything. The male is more likely to orgasm. Find me some sort of study that says otherwise everett3 Sep. 9 '05 08:23 (GMT)
psychological arse shagging
I placed this sentance in the pleasure section "The psychological associations involved in anal intercourse can not be emphasized enough, and as with all sexual practices, the mind functions as the primary sexual organ and basis behind the erotic pleasures."
User:Exploding Boy replaced it with this "As with other forms of intercourse, psychological pleasure probably plays a significant role."
Frankly, while I distinctly prefer my own wording, both of them are unsatisfactory, and in fact I think the psychological signifigance of anal sex deserves it's own section in the article. Anyone who likes can comment, write their own sentance, sub-section, or whatever. I'd particularly like to hear from explodingboy as to what he disliked about my sentance, and liked better about his own. I suppose I might eventually have to write the afor mentioned subsection myself if nobody beats me to it ;) Sam Spade 13:40, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware that we had to justify all small changes. If you must know I thought the sentence was a little awkward so I tried to make it sound a bit smoother. As I see it I didn't really alter the meaning, though I'm sure there are many who would disagree with your statement that the mind is the "primary sexual organ" (to begin with, physiologically, of course, that's untrue). Be that as it may, if you think there is enough to say about the psychological aspects of anal sex, by all means include a relevant section. I think it may be stretching it a bit to say it warrants an entire section (is there anything similar in other sex-related articles?), but I'll reserve judgement until I see it. Am I to take it your comments on the Featured Article page was directed at me? Exploding Boy 13:49, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
Nope, not unless you've changed your name. I took a glance at the page history, and the stuff I am generally refering to (see my comments at the top of the page) is well before your time on this page (assuming you didn't edit it as an anon). Anyhow, please don't take my objections personally. The goal is to make this an excellent page (perhaps even brilliant prose) rather than anything to do with particular editors. As far as "justifying small changes", you need only do that when someone (as I am doing here) takes issue w them. In this particular case, I am perfectly willing to let the subject digest whilst we we perfect the optimal way to describe the particulars. Sam Spade 14:06, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Oh, ok. Not trying to take things personally, I'm just a bit gunshy at the moment, having been involved in some dispute with another poster. Carry on. Exploding Boy 14:08, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
musing or research or what?
' Among gay men who do enjoy anal sex, some reserve it only for committed relationships. '
1. If you think so, go ahead and reword it instead of removing it from the article. 2. Why not, exactly?
In the interim, I'm moving the sentence back to the article. Exploding Boy 08:41, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)
- Do you have any documentation? And is this common enought to warrant mention? How many is this some. Some isn't very many. Would you say many? How do we know? It doesn't strike me as particularly verifiable. Sam Spade 08:54, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
According to statistics gathered by AIDS organizations many gay men do not have anal sex outside of committed relationships. Will try to find some info if you like. Exploding Boy 08:56, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)
- That would be handy because I recently heard the opposite was true, that monogomy was rare amongst male homosexuals, thus asisting a rise in AIDS rates. Sam Spade 09:05, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Well that's a common stereotype but regardless of its veracity monogamy is not the issue. Aside from the fact that not all gay men are into anal sex, gay men are apparently less likely to engage in anal sex during casual encounters for several reasons including: (1) some see anal sex as being the most intimate form of intercourse and they save it for committed relationships, (2) anal sex is high risk for the spread of STDs, and (3) anal sex is just messier and takes longer than oral/mutual masturbation, etc.
By the way, monogamy is not really the issue when it comes to rising rates of HIV infection. The issue is largely to do with unprotected sex. Exploding Boy 10:11, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)
Anal sex among homosexuals
I really think this is a better section header than 'Anal sex among gays and lesbians' or whatever. Its simply more accurate, and besides, its shorter and looks better. Sam Spade 19:39, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- For one thing the page it links to is rife with links to "hardcore anal sex" and the like. There are better pages out there if we need other links. Exploding Boy 06:42, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
Surprise, surprise. What possible reason is there to provide links to Hardcore Anal Sex Videos, Free Amateur Pics, Free Anal Pics, Free Anal Videos, Hardcore Anal Videos, and Hardcore Hentai Fucking? The page also has a link entitled "How to Eat Ass." If you want to provide an external link, find one that's more suitable. There are hundreds out there.
And I personally don't have an issue with those things, nor do I have an issue with sex-related topics, and yes, I've worked on this one and even nominated it as a Featured Article, but what encyclopaedia do you know that provides links to porn videos? PS: one other good reason I've just discovered is that clicking on one of those links on that page will trap you in a thousand-popup nightmare. That alone is reason enough not to use this link. Exploding Boy 07:00, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
- I likewise dislike popups, and find that convincing ;) Its not my link anyways, some anon posted it and I decided to defend it, since I found it benificial. Sam Spade 07:10, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
"homosexuals" over "gays and lesbians"
Why is it that you prefer the term "homosexuals" over "gays and lesbians"? As for your question ("preferred by whom?"), please see the relevant pages on Wikipedia, starting with project:sexuality. Exploding Boy 08:13, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
- I was being rhetorical w the question, I know of course who prefers that usage. Homosexual is shorter, more precise, and less POV. The term "gay" is quite POV, being supportive of what is thus portrayed to be a happy state of sexuality. Homosexual is neutral and specific, and thus more accurate and NPOV. Sam Spade 08:29, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I think you're confusing non-neutral point of view with facts. We've had this discussion umpteen times: "homosexual" is neither more precise nor neutral nor specific than other terms, and as to it being shorter, that's totally irrelevant. The word "gay" is neutral in part in that it is preferred by those it describes.
As to your suggestion that homosexuality may not be "a happy state of sexuality," I'm afraid that the evidence is overwhelmingly against you, as has been demonstrated amply before.
The American Psychiatric Association states that
All major professional mental health organizations have gone on record to affirm that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association’s Board of Trustees removed homosexuality from its official diagnostic manual, The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Second Edition (DSM II). The action was taken following a review of the scientific literature and consultation with experts in the field. The experts found that homosexuality does not meet the criteria to be considered a mental illness.
In 1992, the American Psychiatric Association issued the following statement:
Whereas homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgement, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities, the American Psychiatric Association calls on all international health organizations and individual psychiatrists in other countries, to urge the repeal in their own country of legislation that penalized homosexual acts by consenting adults in private. And further the APA calls on these organizations and individuals to do all that is possible to decrease the stigma related to homosexuality wherever and whenever it may occur.
According to the APA,
For a mental condition to be considered a psychiatric disorder, it must constitute dysfunction within an individual, cause present distress (e.g., a painful symptom), disability (e.g., impairment in one or more important areas of functioning), or a significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability, or an important loss of freedom. A homosexual or bisexual individual may experience conflict with a homophobic society; however, such conflict is not a symptom of dysfunction in the individual.
The APA Board recognized that a significant portion of homosexual and bisexual people were clearly satisfied with their sexual orientation and showed no signs of psychopathology. It was also found that they were able to function effectively in society, and that those who sought treatment most often did so for reasons other than sexual orientation.
Those who have integrated their sexual orientation into a positive sense of themselves function at a healthier psychological level than those who have not (all of the above taken from the APA website).
So let's finally consider that Point Of View dealt with. Exploding Boy 08:51, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
- I'm a psyche major, and am well aware of the current opinion on the subject, but thank you. I assume you notice the usage of "homosexual" rather than GLTG? Sam Spade 08:58, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
If you're a psych major you have even less excuse for trying to promote the point of view that gays and lesbians are somehow inherently unhappy. And please don't make me post a bunch of stuff on why "homosexual" is not the preferred term. You should know it already as a psych student and because it's been posted many, many times before (some of them for your benefit). Exploding Boy 09:11, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
- I am going to avoid comment on the above slights, and rather redirect your attentions to my statement above, wherein I point out the POV nature of the term "gay". This term implies happiness. It is not an impartial term. Heterosexual is also an impartial term. "Stud" would not be. It implies a variety of things other than simply "heterosexual", much of them positive, and clearly few if any of them NPOV. "Gay" is similar in this way.
- As to if I think homosexuals are happy or not, my POV isn't technically relevant, but I will humor you. As with all humans, homosexuals are variously happy, but I will tell you very briefly about 2 I have known very well, one happy, and one less so. Both of these gentlemen love and believe in God, and this is the deciding factor in their happiness. One was quite happy, because he believed as I do that it is not for men to judge a mans soul, but rather God who knows our hearts. He was a generally good person, and while as with all people he surely had variations of character, he seemed content in his relationship with God, and his status as a good person. I mention him in the past tense only because I have moved several times since I worked with him in Wisconsin. The other guy is a co-worker of mine right now. He doesn't strike me as very gay at all, altho he is by all accounts homosexual. He is a Pentecostal, from a very strict church. They don't allow members to wear shorts, women to wear makeup, and are generally judgmental. He told me that he feels terrible at church, guilty and ashamed. I told him that I felt his church was excessive in its rigidity, and made a big point of reinforcing to him just what the ONLY unforgivable sin is. Blaspheme of the Holy Spirit. By any account I am aware of (and I have studied religion lifelong with unflinching persistence :) this does not involve homosexuality, gay or otherwise :). Ones relationship with God is the root of true happiness in my eyes, not race, creed, sexuality or other nonessentials.
- I pray that was helpful, and I will say in summary that "gay" takes a POV stand, and homosexual does not. Sam Spade 03:41, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I interpret neutrality (NPOV) to mean wikipedia may not endorse any one term over others. I wouldn't, then, get rid of any one term, and try to use common terms that mean partially or wholly the same thing selecting the appropriate term for context. Hyacinth 06:15, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- My comments were not intended as slights, but I cannot understand your examples at all. They seem only to reinforce the view of the APA that it is not homosexuality itself that is the cause of distress among people of that sexual orientation, but rather the discrimination people suffer at the hands of others.
- 'Heterosexual' is a neutral term in a way that 'homosexual' is not. Stud can apply equally to gay or straight people and, in some circles, to men or women; it's not an equivalent term to 'gay.'
- Your remarks lead me to believe that you do not have an understanding of the origins of the terms heterosexual, homosexual and gay. Exploding Boy 06:33, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
One thing is certain, you are not understanding me. Lets just focus on the matter at hand. Gay is POV. Homosexual is not. One is clinical, used in your APA example, the other isn't. I was never trying to say gay people are sad, I was trying to say that homosexual is a precise, unbiased clinical term, and "gay" isn't. There can be an article on gay, but it is a different article from homosexual. One is appropriate as an encyclopedia adjective, the other isn't. Sam Spade 06:39, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Actually the APA says: "Lesbian and gay male are preferred to the word 'homosexual' when used as an adjective referring to specific persons or groups, and lesbians and gay men are preferred terms over 'homosexuals' used as a noun when referring to specific persons or groups. The word 'homosexual' has several problems of designation. First, it may perpetuate negative stereotypes because of its historical associations with pathology and criminal behavior. Second, it is ambiguous in reference because it is often assumed to refer exclusively to men and thus renders lesbians invisible. Third, it is often unclear."
"The terms 'gay male' and 'lesbian' refer primarily to identities and to the modern culture and communities that have developed among people who share those identities. They should be distinguished from sexual behavior. Some men and women have sex with others of their own gender but do not consider themselves to be gay or lesbian. In contrast, the terms 'heterosexual' and 'bisexual' currently are used to describe identity as well as behavior."
"The terms 'gay' as an adjective and 'gay persons' as a noun have been used to refer to both males and females. However, these terms may be ambiguous in reference since readers who are used to the term 'lesbian and gay' may assume that 'gay' refers to men only. Thus it is preferable to use 'gay' or 'gay persons' only when prior reference has specified the gender composition of this term."
"Such terms as 'gay male' are preferable to 'homosexuality' or 'male homosexuality' and so are grammatical reconstructions (e.g., 'his colleagues knew he was gay' rather than 'his colleagues knew about his homosexuality'). The same is true for 'lesbian' over 'female homosexual', 'female homosexuality', or 'lesbianism.'"
"Same-gender behavior, male-male behavior, and female-female behavior are appropriate terms for specific instances of same-gender sexual behavior that people engage in regardless of their sexual orientation (e.g., a married heterosexual man who once had a same-gender sexual encounter). Likewise, it is useful that women and men not be considered 'opposites' (as in 'opposite sex') to avoid polarization, and that heterosexual women and men not be viewed as opposite to lesbians and gay men. Thus, male-female behavior is preferred to the term "opposite sex behavior" in referring to specific instances of other-gender sexual behavior that people engage in regardless of their sexual orientation."
"When referring to sexual behavior that cannot be described as heterosexual, gay, lesbian, or bisexual, special care needs to be taken. Descriptions of sexual behavior among animal species should be termed 'male-male sexual behavior" or 'male-female sexual behavior' rather than 'homosexual behavior' or 'heterosexual behavior,' respectively."
- Avoiding Heterosexual Bias in Language by Committee on Lesbian and Gay Concern, American Psychological Association - http://www.apastyle.org/sexuality.html
- Hyacinth 07:50, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Sam Spade wrote: "Gay is POV. Homosexual is not. One is clinical, used in your APA example, the other isn't. I was never trying to say gay people are sad, I was trying to say that homosexual is a precise, unbiased clinical term, and "gay" isn't."
- Actually, you've got it exactly backwards. Homosexual is the biased, non-NPOV term. It is exactly the clinical nature of the term, which was coined to describe what was considered a pathology, that people object to. Not only that, but it's frequently inaccurate as well. And actually, both terms are imprecise. The point of using neutral terminology is that we allow people to call themselves what they want to be called, and we don't use terms that people object to. Exploding Boy 08:09, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
If you define technical as "specialist" and "scientific" (as opposed to the colloquial sense of "actually") and exclude all else, then you are not being neutral:
- "In particular, the policy does not say that there even is such a thing as objectivity, a "view from nowhere" (in Thomas Nagel's phrase)--such that articles written from that point of view are consequently objectively true. That isn't the policy and it is not our aim! Rather, we employ a different understanding of "neutral" and "unbiased" than many might be used to. The policy is simply that we should characterize disputes rather than engage in them." from NPOV#Objections_and_clarifications
One word can't be chosen above all others. Hyacinth 20:33, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
See my comments on "oriental." "Homosexual" is not "technically correct" and "gay" is not "techcnically incorrect." Exploding Boy 23:48, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
I have sometimes heard rumors and stories about women who become pregnant after anal intercourse, bizarre though it may seem. Frankly, I dont see how such a thing is even possible given the sheer mechanics of it, but I figured I'd bring it up just to see how people respond. I havent added anything to this affect to the article itself; I thought I'd bring it to discussion first simply because I dont really believe it myself. --Oceanhahn 07:07, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I am no expert, but I would assume it is possible for semen to spill during/after anal intercourse, and thus enter the vagina, especially if the woman is face down. This could more easily happen if the woman engages in further sexual activities after anal intercourse. One could imagine the use of a dildo/vibrator would facilitate this. The instrument if insertion does not matter, if for example a guy fingers a girl after masturbating himself, she may get pregnant. I do not think that semen in the rectum can in any way make a woman pregnant directly.--MaxMad 09:56, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Erm... well... To be honest it seems like my son was born due to such incident. Me and my wife don't remember having any vaginal sex during the conception window.
Removed from article
" However, current studies indicate that anal sex is still the primary sexual outlet for gay men; even with unknown partners. Experts cite this as the reason for the recent steady increase in AIDS cases among the gay community. "
I'd like to see some evidence for these claims, in particular that in the first sentence. Exploding Boy 18:30, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
The top of this talk page says: "This article was a featured article candidate with unresolved objections. Please help to resolve these objections so the article can be re-nominated and featured." Here are a few things this article would need, in my opinion, before it reached "featured article" status.
- Images. All featured articles have appropriate and informative pictures. I've heard it rumored that one can find images relating to this topic on the internet, though I wouldn't know, myself.
- External links. There might possibly be a site or two devoted to this topic on the internet.
I would personally be strongly in favor of no pictures at all. You surely mean that all featured articles up to now always had appropriate and informative pictures. Note that having a picture is not a demand for becoming a featured article, and frankly, I think this is a good test case. In particular, a picture of anal intercourse would not add anything, unless you expect people to be unfamiliar with the anus (in which case, see there).
One thing I still miss is a brief recap of what the term ethnonym means. You can't just toss around linguistic terms like this in a non-linguistic article; at the very least give a Wiktionary link. JRM 18:29, 2004 Dec 8 (UTC)
- Come on, JRM, there are other images besides this one that would be relevant. :) For example, we can include a chart, a book cover, a photo of some gay rights activist, a cartoon, a screenshot of some relevant law, etc. It doesn't have to show hot male-on-male action. BTW, what do you think about that famous Flash with "I AM LOOKING AT GAY PORNO!!!" sound? :) Paranoid 22:36, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This is the first article I ever edited on the wiki (actually this talk page was my very first edit). What inspired me to begin editing was the overiding bias against female receptive anal sex. This bias recently returned, and I assume it will probably continue to reoccur. I find this unfortunate, and would request assitsance and understanding from other editers regarding this circumstance. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 17:16, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Cripes, cite a study or something objective, don't just keep emphasizing your POV that girls don't like to take it in the can. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 16:55, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The correct word is "recur."
questions that need to be cleared up
a few initial questions...
- in my circles, the use of sex toys and other activities involving the anus and rectum is referred to as anal play, not anal sex. anal sex, as far as i've known, must involve a penis.
- "Anal sex remains taboo in some cultures..." isn't it many cultures?
- "particularly in older works..." older works? does this mean old poems? old laws? old plays? please elaborate.
more to come later, Kingturtle 17:27, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The article mentions: "Additionally, nothing longer than eight inches (20 cm) -- be it a penis, a vibrator, or anything else -- should be inserted into the rectum. Objects exceeding eight inches risk colliding with the sigmoid colon, the lining of which is probably not much stronger than a wet paper towel, and trauma can result in internal bleeding with potentially fatal results."
When I saw the passage above, I looked up the fisting article, which mentions nothing of the sort. How accurate is the claim of the eight inches (20cm)? Isn't it safe to do this with some progressive practicing? Some people do it and seem happy with it. Eje211 01:41, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It's also hard to reconcile a claim that any part of the digestive tract is "probably not much stronger than a wet paper towel" with the observation that people can swallow and eventually pass things like coins and Lego, while suffering perhaps some pain but seldom "internal bleeding with potentially fatal results." Human bodies don't seem to be that fragile. If the statement is true, a citation would be welcome.22.214.171.124 02:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Removed. You're right, it's a rather ridiculous claim without supporting data. -- Dpark 02:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Is really the part about "sodomy" in USA needed as a part of "Overview"? I don't feel it's general enough to be there. Maybe if we had a section on "Anal sex and totalitarism" it would be more appropriate, with examples of anal sex ban in other countries?
Heterosexual male receptive anal sex
This deserves its own sub-section because it is a completely different subject from heterosexual female receptive anal sex, just as lesbian anal sex would be distinct from male homosexual anal sex. I don't know what you mean by "And please explain why you are editing a subject you have stated "distresses" you", and I challenge you to provide eveidence of my having stated that the subject of anal sex "distresses" me. This is not a homosexual page, and I think we can do w/o identity politics here. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 13:40, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Nonsense. Anal sex is anal sex. Having a subsection of male receptive heterosexual anal sex is unnecessary, and just reveals your bias, frankly. Exploding Boy 18:46, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
That strikes me as a non-answer. Please provide your reasoning. Why are hetero and homosexual separated if what you say is true? Does anyone who engages in it think that female receptive is equivelant to male receptive. Who does think they are unworthy of separate discussion? You apparently, but anyone else? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 08:39, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Female receptive sex obviously involves completely different organs - a better analogy might be in order, here. I must admit, I don't see the point of seperating "heterosexual" and "homosexual" male anal sex. The division seems somewhat arbitrary and obscure to me and does seem to demonstrate some form of bias in and of itself - why are we playing the identity politics card here? I think for the sake of neutrality we should simply avoid it. It would be more neutral to make a section on anal sex with a penis and anal sex with objects (which would cover lesbian and male heterosexual receptive anal sex at the same time). --Axon 11:50, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Good idea, but male receptive needs to be discussed separately from female receptive, their are important differences (woman don't have a prostate, for one thing). (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 12:27, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- In which case, I would agree with EB: if we are discussing things from a biological differences perspective there doesn't seem to be any reason to treat "heterosexual" and "homosexual" male receptive anal sex seperately. --Axon 13:05, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You seem to misunderstand. We wern't debating the homosexual / heterosexual distinction, we were debating a sub-catagory for male receptive heterosexual anal sex. I feel that since men and women differ biologically, discussion of them relating to anal sex should be in different sub-catagories. The more I think about it tho, homosexual and hetrosexual should be in different catagories as well, due to social and cultural differences. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 13:38, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I do understand: do you mean making a sub-category for male receptive heterosexual anal sex isn't making a distinction between homosexual and heterosexual anal sex? I agree men and women differ biologically but I see only the following distinctions on this page: male receptive anal sex, female receptive anal sex, male penetrative anal sex and dildo (or object-assisted, or something) penetrative anal sex.
- Cultural differences is a seperate topic to biological differences. A discussion of the differences between gay and heterosexual sex would belong in the homosexual and heterosexual pages. Perhaps a section on the cultural signifcances (if any) of anal sex might be appropriate here but I'm unsure what (if anything) could be put into such a section. --Axon 14:01, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You have still presented no convincing reason why there should be a subsection there. I'm removing it. Exploding Boy 00:54, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with the latest resectioning by User:JRM. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 22:08, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Sam Spade, your recent edit, summarized as follows:
- "Anal sex among homosexuals - sex w youths cannot be described as "making love" in a NPOV manner"
- is non-neutral and is evidence of your bias and your ignorance on this subject. I suggest that you stop editing this article unless you can remain neutral. Exploding Boy 21:56, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about? Bias? Have a look @ User:Exploding Boy and compare it to (Sam Spade | talk | contributions), or better yet User:Sam Spade/Theoretical Biases. You'll find a consistent emphasis on homosexuality and sex on your page (which you generously provide in order to introduce yourself and iterate your biases), and a corresponding lack of such on mine. Maybe if I had said I was a Fred Phelps disciple or some such, maybe then you'd have a case that I was biased, or had an agenda. As it is, my first edit to the wikipedia was on this page (inspired by the glaring lack of NPOV), and while you may have driven me from some pages where NPOV is not welcome (such as gay bathhouse, heteronormativity, etc...), I don't intend to be driven from here. Who knows what you think my bias is, but I'll tell you straight out: my agenda here is providing NPOV info for our fearless readers. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 22:32, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Edits talk louder than edit summaries, user pages and self-professed agendas. People, this sort of debate is not constructive. This talk page is for discussing the article, not contributors. Exploding Boy, if you have a problem with Sam's edit or you think the summary is wrong or objectionable (other than what you feel it says about Sam), feel free to go into that in more detail. Comments on his "bias", "ignorance" and ability to "remain neutral" should go on Sam's talk page. I personally don't care much for reading this back-and-forth barbing, and I can't imagine many people who will. (This is in no way a judgement of Sam's edit, BTW, which I haven't even looked at—and no, I don't think that invalidates my argument in any way. That I can make it at all without looking at the article sort of proves my point.) JRM 02:16, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)
- I agree with JRM, the focus ought to be on the article, not on other editors. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 10:23, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I didn't drive you from the pages you mentioned. You became unable to continue contributing to them because you can't ignore your own baises, which is clearly what is happening here. You want me to discuss your edit? Fine. You changed "making love" to "having anal sex" because (and again, here I quote you) "Anal sex among homosexuals - sex w youths cannot be described as "making love" in a NPOV manner." This demonstrates both an insurmountable bias and a complete ignorance of the subject matter. There are literally hundreds of excellent books on the subject of sexual relationships between adult males and youths that demonstrate unequivocably that "making love" is a perfectly acceptable descriptive.
The lists on my user page don't describe my biases, they point to the articles I've edited. Unlike you, however, I've never made clear and specific statements about my biases, and I've not shown that I'm unable to surmount them to write neutrally. Exploding Boy 16:59, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
- I must admit, although I agree with the edit - this is a page about the discussion of anal sex so describing the image depicting anal sex is fine - the comment Sam Spade placed on it was highly provocative and inflamattory. It was unneccesary and, by describing the edit in more neutral tones, the whole argument above could've been avoided and we could center on the discussion of headings on this page instead. --Axon 15:45, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The problem with "Roman man and youth having anal sex" is that the word youth is gender neutral. How about either "Roman man and young man having anal sex" or "Roman man and boy having anal sex"? Kingturtle 21:08, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
- The latter sounds better to me. →Raul654 18:15, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
My problem with that is that he clearly is a youth (ie: not a "boy"). Young man is far more accurate. Exploding Boy 21:05, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
- But "Roman man and young man" just sounds silly. Can anyone come up with a better construction? →Raul654 21:11, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
"Roman man and youth" is probably the most accurate. Youth, by the way, means "a young person; especially : a young male between adolescence and maturity." It's obvious that both people pictured are male anyway. Exploding Boy 18:59, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
see also diseases
I've removed the "See also - anal cancer, anal warts" The Anome added, because though it's true the risk of those diseases is increased by anal sex, that goes for lots of diseases and I don't think having a list of all diseases that can be spread by anal sex here is all that useful. --W(t) 16:17, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
Our sources are contradictory.
We quote Dissenting View… Anal sex & AIDS It quotes Bruce Voeller's 1987 US study as stating "10% of women engage with some frequency in anal intercourse". It also extrapolates from a UK study to state, "only 6% of the gay population engage in anal sex on a regular basis". I've read similar statistics in an academic paper on gay men in Britain.
I will point out that the above study claims, "HIV either is a harmless passenger virus of does not exist".
Yet, our article states, "80% of gay men in the United States have engaged in anal sex" and gives heterosexual statistics of 20%, 30%, 40%, and 50%. Sources are given, but not linked. So, what's the real story?
Acegikmo1 5 July 2005 18:42 (UTC)
- In my view we shouldn't be giving numbers at all; such things are notoriously difficult to quantify, particularly when it comes to gay people--researchers can't even agree on how many gay people there are. Exploding Boy July 5, 2005 19:59 (UTC)
- This seems much more reasonable than the contradictions we currently have. Acegikmo1 5 July 2005 20:04 (UTC)
Removed from article
Top and Bottom
The "recipient", aka "Bottom", is the person whose anus is penetrated. The person is called "Bottom" because in a typical missionary anal sex position that person lies flat and face down while the penetrating partner lies atop the Bottom. The recipient is typically called the Bottom regardless of the position(s) used during the sex act.
==Anal Sex Techniques Some anal sex recipients have somewhat negative experiences, often because the taboo nature of the act precludes candid discussions of how to avoid pain and enhance pleasure.
Anal sex enthusiasts are well-known for correctly saying that, "If it was painful, you were doing it wrong". When done properly, anal sex is an intense and pleasurable form of stimulation.
The most necessary elements of a good experience are communication, lubrication, and relaxation.
- Communication - it is important that the partners discuss their plans for the experience beforehand. This is especially important when the recipient is a relative novice. The partners can then agree on the kind of experience and the type, speed, gentleness and/or roughness of the stimulation they wish to have. This is also a good time to discuss some "safe words" the recipient can say to signal they wish to stop, pause, or intensify the activity. One suggestion for safe words is "red light", "yellow light" and "green light". This period of communication also allows the partners to discuss fantasies or positions that they might find particularly satisfying.
- Lubrication - It is important to emphasize that neither the anus nor the colon produce their own lubrication. The lubrication must be supplied, ideally in abundant quantities, by the sex partners. Lubrication helps to ease initial dilation of the anus, and penetration into the colon, both of which help prevent irritation or minute tearing of those tissues. The colon is lined with a delicate mucous membrane that tears easily, similar to the inside lining of your facial cheeks. This tearing would allow the potential entry of viruses from the top's semen into the bottom's body, which is why it is important to minimize any slight nicks or tears, although no amount of lubrication will completely prevent tearing. As an extra measure of protection against infection, proper use of a condom is highly recommended. Water-based lubrication such as Astroglide or K-Y Jelly should be used, since oil-based products will chemically break down the latex which will probably result in a broken condom. Lubrication can also enhance the pleasure of the recipient partner. The rule of thumb is to use as much lubrication as you think you will need...and then use double that amount. Fully coat the condomed penis or the sex toy with water-based lubrication, paying special attention to the tip. After a few strokes, drip more lubrication onto the penis or the toy.
- Relaxation - The purpose of the anus is to remain tightly pursed, in order to retain the body's waste. It must be gently and slowly persuaded to relax. In the same way that an experienced runner prepares for a jog, it is wise to begin slowly and stretch little by little. Often the "top" will caress the buttocks and anus of the recipient, and may lubricate and insert a small finger up to the first knuckle. It may be wise for the "top" to wear a latex glove to prevent infections of any unnoticed nicks on the skin of the finger. The top may also use a small sex toy recommended for anal play with a flared based designed to prevent the toy from being fully inserted and getting stuck inside the bottom's colon, which would require medical attention. After a time, when the bottom signals a willingness, the top may use a thicker finger, a bigger toy, or several fingers. After the bottom senses that they are relaxed and ready to experience the sensations as pleasure, the bottom is ready for penetration by the top.
Penetration should be sensuously slow, gentle, and controlled by the bottom.
==Anal sex positions
- Missionary anal - Although very seldom depicted in erotic movies because it blocks the view of the penetration, this may be a very common position in real life. The bottom lies flat and face down, legs together. After the preparations and relaxations described above, the top will sit astride the bottom with the top's penis or the top's sex toy pointed at the bottom's anus. Slow, gentle penetration can then begin, after which the Top also lies flat entirely on the Bottom's body. This position is very familiar from other kinds of sex, allows the top to feel the curve and shape of the bottom's buttocks, and somewhat minimizes the depth of penetration which may be more comfortable for the Bottom.
- Doggy style - This position maximizes the depth of penetration, which may be desirable by Top and / or Bottom, but poses the risk of pushing against the sigmoid colon. If the Bottom is a male, this position increases the chances of stimulating the prostate. This position makes easier a more vigorous thrusting action.
- Spooning - The Top and Bottom lie on their sides, facing the same direction, with the Top's lubricated penis or toy touching the outside of the Bottom's anus. This allows the Bottom to greatly control initial entry and the depth, speed and force of subsequent thrusting.
- Face to face - The bottom lies on her or his back, legs in the air. This can be easier if the bottom is on a bed or table and the top is standing on the floor.
This information is not only poorly written, it doesn't belong here. It amounts to pure speculation in some areas besides which Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Much of this information is better covered elsewhere or not needed at all.
Exploding Boy 23:23, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Why did you revert the caption? If memory serves, in previous discussion it was more-or-less unaminously agreed that "men" is not a good caption, and we were trying to find alternate terms like youth, boy, 'etc. →Raul654 23:26, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
Invalid reasons for removal
Everything you stated as your reasons for removal are wrong. Let's destroy them one by one.
- This information is not only poorly written: The tradition in wikipedia is that if something is poorly written then someone who wishes to contribute - rather than censor - will fix the supposedly poor writing. Since you did not fix it, I wonder what the real problem is.
- it doesn't belong here: Ridiculous on its face, because if discussion of various aspects of anal sex do not belong in the page named "Anal Sex" then where, exactly, do you propose they do belong? And if you don't think they belong here, why didn't you move the material to where you do think it belongs? You don't think the material belongs anywhere, regardless of how informative, instructive or useful it is? Wouldn't editing for personal reasons violate the purpose and spirit of wikipedia?
- It amounts to pure speculation: Authoritarian, and false, what a combination. Any well-regarded book about anal sex you care to name will tell you substantially the same helpful information as this section. That means that it is *not* speculation. This means that you are flat-out wrong. So where do you get off calling it speculation, exactly? *You* try shoving something up there without lubrication and without relaxation, and then report to us on whether the material is speculation or not.
- besides which Wikipedia is not an instruction manual - Unless you, personally, own wikipedia you are not in a position to tell me or anybody else for what wikipedia is, or is not. First of all, there is nothing in the wikipedia documents that prohibits instructions as long as they are factual and widely accepted. You and I could find many articles that do contain instructions and illustrations, not to mention there is one such link staring you in the face from a previous poster above.
- Much of this information is better covered elsewhere: But you did not link to it. This is one of the big tipoffs that make me so sure that you are not at all interested in keeping wikipedia useful and well-constructed, but rather in just removing material for personal reasons.
- or not needed at all: Also ridiculous on its face, since (as the sections I added point out) the taboo nature of the act precludes candid discussion. There is nothing *more* needed in a page about anal sex than instructions and techniques for how to avoid injury, increase pleasure, and lower the risks of disease. You have a spectacular talent for blanket statements that turn out laughably wrong.
Because all of your reasons are null and void, I am attempting to restore the deleted sections and if I ever find them removed I am going to call for a vote on whether the material should be removed or, as I suspect will happen because there is no valid reason for removal, simply edited to make it better
09:07, July 14, 2005 (PDT)
- Section on Top and bottom removed as already dealt with elsewhere in article.
- Section on communication removed as irrelevant; we're not here to tell people how to have sex. Information on "safe words" not specific to anal sex (much more relevant to BDSM).
- Lubrication issues already covered under Health issues.
- Information under Relaxation already covered under Health issues.
- Positions section: removed unnecessary and speculative information, some of which amounted to original research.
- We were in the middle of discussing these sections before you came along and plonked them all back in wholesale; please discuss any more changes here before making them. And please sign your posts using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Exploding Boy 05:22, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Please xplain your revert
I have added the terms pitcher and catcher before only to have them deleted. The terms are in WIDE use in pop culture and have been used in the following:
http://www.iomfats.org/resources/analsex/ http://www.heroichomosex.com/hero/spirit.html http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=catcher&amp;r=f http://www.dalgazette.ca/archives/2005/02/supersex_in_the_9.html
List of positions
Okay, this list is starting to sound silly and made-up, not to mention fairly useless. What we need is a list that includes a short description, and in the case of obscure slang terms, one or more sources for each term. I'm replacing the current list, which is a list of increasingly odd terms with no description at all, with the positions list in the excerpt quoted above (that had been removed for other reasons). We can edit it from there. --Skoosh 18:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
"In some cultures, only males who are penetrated by other males are considered homosexual, while males who penetrate other males are not."
I find that pretty bizzare. How can the male who penetrates other males for sexual pleasure not be considered homosexual? What cultures are we talking about here?
I suspect this is a reference to Men who have sex with men, a practice which can refer to men who consider themselves straight, but sleep with men (it's a psychological thing, as far as I know). Daydream believer2 13:25, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
- You guys have obviously not studied sociology. In nearly all cultures and situations, a man who is exclusively the "pitcher" or "top" is straight (esp. when he dates, and perhaps even prefers women), whereas a man who is the bottom is seen at best as effeminate, and at worst as exclusively homosexual. Pitchers are nearly always older, more affluent and macho, and the "catchers"... less so, w an emphasis on effeminate impoverished boys of low social standing. This is true in most indigenous peoples, w ancient greeks, and in modern prisons. It is not true however in modern gay culture, which is utterly exceptional. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 21:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Not quite, Sam, and please keep your homophobia to yourself. In some cultures in some historical periods men who had sex with men but exclusively took the active role in anal sex were not considered "gay" or "homosexual," in part because there was no such concept in those times. In many societies, such activity was considered normative (see Ancient Greece, Ancient Japan), and the penetrated male was normally younger than the penetrator, and involved in a mentor-like relationship with him. The younger males would in time grow up to themselves take the active role in anal sex with younger males. Such males were not considered any less masculine than any other male in society, and engaging in sex with other males did not preclude engaging in sex with women.
In addition, the penetrated male was not exclusively "effeminate, impoverished, or of low social standing." In fact, many of them grew up to very highly regarded in society for one reason or other, and there are records of emperors and noblemen in all major societies who had particularly cherished male lovers.
In other cases, particularly in cultures where homophobia is rife, the simple act of anally penetrating another male does not require self-identification as gay, and will not result in being labelled as such. Prisons are one example. In such cases, the one being penetrated is sometimes feminized (eg: in prisons they are often called "bitches"), but not always. In still other cases, the mere fact of having sex with other men does not preclude identifying as straight, for example see the Down low.
And modern gay culture is far from "exceptional" in these regards. Egalitarian male-male erotic and romantic relationships have always existed in which the claims Sam makes did not apply.
Exploding Boy 21:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Cite some. And please, don't use slang to make personal attacks, homophobia is not a clinical term. I most certainly am not afraid of homosexuality, that would be a severe hinderance professionally, as a counselor and therapist. I'm afraid of nothing with God on my side. Heck, even in prison I'd have a sharp stabby object (shank) to stab anybody with who tried to get "fresh", so whats to be afraid of?
- Now, focusing on the article, why do you insist on stating
- "This is often considered to lead to a more pleasurable experience for the man."
- instead of the impartial
- "This is often considered to lead to a more pleasurable experience."?
- And, separately, why won't you allow for descriptions (and possibly images) of sexual positions? Even if you do have a valid argument, the large blocks of text should not be deleted until you state it, and their becomes consensus to do so. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 22:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC) Posted by User:Sam Spade
My dear Sam, go and look them up for yourself since you consider yourself such an expert on the subject. The very fact that you'd call the word "homophobia" slang, and resort to your typical, misguided protestations about the meaning of the word, is evidence of your bias. Stop trying to spread it around. I sincerely hope that no gay people ever visit you in a professional capacity. Exploding Boy 19:24, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Insults and curses aside can be discussed elsewhere, what do you have to say about my article content concerns? ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 21:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, Sam? I'm waiting
Exploding Boy 16:08, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
- For what? Scroll up. I asked you why you deleted large blocks of text, and insist on an anti-female receptive anal sex POV. You responded w personal attacks. Is there some explanation you'd care to offer at this point? Tasks you can do 19:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC) Posted by User:Sam Spade
First, please sign your posts. Second, not at all. The information you keep trying to add in has been discussed at length. Some of the information contradicts other sections of the article; some of it is plain incorrect; and some of it is plain unencycopaedic and unnecessary. I've asked you before: please don't get involved if you're not reading and keeping involved, particularly when you have only the most tenuous grasp of a given topic. And stop accusing me of engaging in personal attacks; I'm simply stating facts. Exploding Boy 19:46, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
- I find it very telling that so many edits were made to the consensus version, and yet you are the only editor to revert to yours. Tasks you can do 12:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC) Posted by User:Sam Spade
- --Besides you. Exploding Boy 16:11, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
I'm sick of seeing your slow edit war of this page pop up in my watchlist again and again and again and again. Work it out, take it to mediation, RfC it, Request arbitration on each other, go outside and beat each other senseless with polystyrene bats, I don't care, just work it out and stop edit warring. --fvw* 12:53, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- I am agreeable to any of those suggestions. Too bad mediation is so ineffectual, or I'd already have tried bringing EB there. If you'd be willing to stay involved to whatever extent, I'm sure that would help. Tasks you can do 13:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC) Posted by User:Sam Spade
It's about time this page was protected. The next positive step would be to ban Sam from editing this or any page concerning homosexuality. Exploding Boy 16:07, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
One appeal of heterosexual anal sex is the fact that the anus is tighter than the vagina
Unfortunately, page protection means we have to rehash all the old discussions, largely for one user's benefit. Here we go.
- 1 Sam would like to remove the statement (in bold here) that "One appeal of heterosexual anal sex is the fact that the anus is tighter than the vagina. This is often considered to lead to a more pleasurable experience for the man." As I've explained to him on a number of occasions, this both contradicts information elsewhere in the article and in other articles on Wikipedia.
- Would you mind sourcing it, EB? If you provide here on this page a source, or preferably sources, for its being considered more pleasurable for a man, Sam cannot complain at its inclusion. My view is that you are correct that it is often considered so but that we ought to be careful not to be seen to endorse the practice, because that in itself represents a POV (one I share with you, EB, but even so, we should strive not to work our own bias into the page).Grace Note 03:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- My big problem with the statement, as I've said, is that it contradicts information given elsewhere in the article and in other articles. The other issue is that I simply don't believe it. This is the type of thing that's exceedingly difficult to source, so we have to resort to what is "often considered"; in this case I fail to see how extreme tightness of the anus would be a source of pleasure for the receptive partner. Exploding Boy 04:56, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
- I'm afraid Wikipedia articles are not useful sources for Wikipedia articles. It's a problem that WP increasingly faces that editors insist that if it's said here, that's authoritative, when the truth is that WP is a tertiary source and articles need to be sourced to primary or secondary sources where possible. Your beliefs, EB, are not good sources either. Please read this and this. If we all agree that nothing can be placed in this article that isn't consonant with these policies, we have a way forward, I believe. Grace Note 06:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
This is a misrepresentation of my edit, and my position. As I have made clear for a VERY long time (my first edit to the wikipedia was in this regards, and can be found up near the top of the page), I oppose the anti-female receptive anal sex bias of this article. I support what the article currently states "One appeal of heterosexual anal sex is the fact that the anus is tighter than the vagina. This is often considered to lead to a more pleasurable experience.", and would add (were the article unprotected) that the taboo status of the act adds to the intellectual erotica of the act. some citations:
- I also remember the first time I told a gay male friend that I liked to take it up the ass. You know who gets really wigged out when they find out that some women like to get buttfucked? Gay men, that’s who.
- the rectum shares a wall with the vagina, and the sexual nerves are actually closer on that side, making the sensation different and sometimes actually stronger.,
- Anal Pleasure and Health: A Guide for Men and Women by Dr. Jack Morin, Down There Press; 3rd Rev edition (July 1, 1998), ISBN:0940208202
- The Ultimate Guide to Anal Sex for Women by Tristan Taormino, Cleis Press; 1st ed edition (December 1, 1997), ISBN:1573440280
- What anti-female receptive anal sex bias??? Exploding Boy 16:14, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
Pitcher / catcher
- 2 Sam, who it must be noted, isn't gay, persists in adding the claim that "The most common [gay slang] term for a top is a "Pitcher," whereas a bottom is often called a "catcher."" This is untrue. Pitcher and catcher are slang terms used by some gay people, yes, but by far and away the most common terms are top and bottom. For Sam the link to gay slang apparently isn't enough.
- Why must it be noted that Sam isn't gay? His opinion is worth nothing here, and it would be worth no more were he gay. What is worth something is properly sourced material. Sam, you need to source this contention or it has to go. If he does source it appropriately, EB, you have to allow it in fairness. By appropriately, I mean he must find a gay source that says so, and reference it correctly in the text. Grace Note 03:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- It must be noted that Sam's not gay because he is clearly misinformed here, yet he's making claims about gay slang despite not being, shall we say, a native speaker. This is another one of those things that is exceedingly difficult to source, but a quick flick through any gay porn rag would enlighten Sam quite rapidly. Exploding Boy 04:56, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
- It is of no account whether Sam's gay. Gayness does not make you more or less able to find and cite a source. The bottom line (no pun intended ;-)) is that he cannot include the paragraph unless he does source it. Grace Note 06:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
This is rather a non-issue, I restored the claim because EB never explained whe he removed it, and instead focused on other aspects of his extensive revert. I make no claims regarding this sentance, or the Pitcher/catcher paradigm, and am glad to compromise on this issue. If EB feels this is a common set of terms used by some, then it should probably be clarified as such and included, but thats up to him. Sam Spade 15:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- What??? I've explained umpteen times that pitcher/catcher are NOT common terms! Exploding Boy 16:18, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
- 3 The descriptions. I find it exceedingly odd that Sam, who has crusaded (and I use the term advisedly) against descriptions of sexual activity in Wikipedia, would insist on adding such nonsense to this article. The disputed sections read as follows:
Although very seldom depicted in erotic movies because it blocks the view of the penetration, this may be a very common position in real life. The bottom lies flat and face down, legs together. After the preparations and relaxations described above, the top will sit astride the bottom with the top's penis or the top's sex toy pointed at the bottom's anus. Slow, gentle penetration can then begin, after which the top also lies flat entirely on the bottom's body. This position is very familiar from other kinds of sex, allows the top to feel the curve and shape of the bottom's buttocks, and somewhat minimizes the depth of penetration which may be more comfortable for the bottom.
This paragraph is not only rife with weasel words ("very seldom," "may be"), but the description cannot be called accurate. This paragraph suggests that there is some accepted procedure for having anal sex in this position, or that the term "missionary anal" is even a common term, neither of which is true. The sentence "This position is very familiar from other kinds of sex" makes no sense and verges on being non-neutral.
It's also worth noting, given the claim about "pitcher" and "catcher," that all of these descriptons use "top" and "bottom" exclusively.
- How does Sam know it's "very seldom" shown in erotic movies? Can he source a study of erotic movies that says so? If not, it should not be included. Again, his personal research is not admissible to Wikipedia. This doesn't even sound like a missionary position to me. The reference to "other kinds of sex" is just weird. It's only familiar if you do that kind of position when not doing anal sex. Again, Sam's personal research is not admissible. Grace Note 03:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- Sam's not being gay again comes into play here; since he's not gay I doubt he's seen many gay porn movies. I also note again the suggestion that there is some accepted procedure for having anal sex (in this position or any other), or that the term "missionary anal" is even a common term. Exploding Boy 04:56, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
- So far as I know, there's no law that prevents straights from watching gay movies. I agree that Sam must source the term "missionary anal" and I agree that it would be unacceptable to suggest it is a procedure with an agreed method. I'm not entirely sure that's the case here, to be fair, but I take your point. Grace Note 06:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
This position maximizes the depth of penetration, which may be desirable by the top and/or bottom, but poses the risk of pushing against the sigmoid colon. If the bottom is a male, this position increases the chances of stimulating the prostate. This position makes easier a more vigorous thrusting action.
This is not the position that maximises the depth of penetration. I have doubts about the claim about protrate stimulation, too, given that it's not very far in and isn't difficult to locate and stimulate. The claim about "vigorous thrusting action" probably isn't strictly accurate either, as such things depend on the individuals performing the act and their specific abilities.
- Both the item about penetration and the item about the prostate need to be sourced. Whether it makes a "more vigorous thrusting action" or not would surely depend on who's doing the thrusting. If Sam is again basing this on personal research, and cannot source it to something reputable, it must come out. Grace Note 03:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- Exactly. All these "instructions" are biased in the assumptions they make, and don't belong in this article. Exploding Boy 04:56, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Be fair, EB. Sam needs only find a source that makes the same assumptions and gives the same "instructions" and he has a case for including it. If he can't or won't, I'm sure he will agree -- stickler for policy that he is -- that he has no case at all for it. Grace Note 06:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, he still wouldn't have a case for including instructions. There is no one way of having anal sex, or of doing most things. These paragraphs are leftovers from a once-or-twice editor who wrote a bunch of garbage that basically was little removed from "dim the lights and put on your favourite CD..." Exploding Boy 07:01, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
I could go on. There are problems with the descriptions of "spooning" and "face to face" as well. Do we need detailed descriptions of each sexual position?
- I agree, EB. We could simply link to the articles in question. Grace Note 03:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
The vaginal sex article has none of that. The missionary position article has much better written descriptions but doesn't even mention anal sex. The doggy style article does mention anal sex. The article is better written than the description here, but still verges on the non-academic in several areas. I wouldn't use it as an example.
The same goes for spooning, which has a noticeable heterosexual bias.
- That's a problem for that article, not this one. Grace Note 03:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
And while we're on the subject, reverse cowboy/girl redirects to reverse amazon (shouldn't it be Amazon?), which also has a definite heterosexual bias among other neutrality issues. I also have to say that I have doubts that this is a popular anal sex position given that the penetrator's penis would be bent in a rather uncomfortable direction during sex.
- You can't have it both ways. Either the reverse amazon article is POV because it has "heterosexual bias" or it's wrongminded to suggest that you can have anal reverse amazon. Not both can be true. Grace Note 03:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- Um. What? Exploding Boy 04:56, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
- You say that the article on reverse amazon has a "heterosexual bias" and then you say that you think it would be uncomfortable for anal sex. Unless you think someone other than "heterosexuals" takes part in vaginal sex, you'd probably have to agree that your two complaints are exclusive of each other. Grace Note 06:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Having these positions in the form of links to the main articles seems like an acceptable compromise, although the main articles are going to need work.
Exploding Boy 16:44, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
I did not write these descriptions, and agree they can be improved, What I disagree with is their removal, rather than the needed edits being made. I think the sexual positions and sexual intercourse articles give some good leads as to the best way to handle this matter, as they are rather fine articles, and set a good precedent regarding descriptions (and depictions) of sexual acts. Sam Spade 15:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
General comment to EB
- If you have specific problems, make specific changes, forget the reverts! What I don't like is your large arbitrary deletions, and your insistance on a anti-female receptive anal sex POV. Out side of that, I have no disagreement w you on this article. How about we ask user:fvw to mediate? I'm no homophobe, no matter wtf you say! Your the only gay persecutor I can remember having had. lets get over it! Tasks you can do 00:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC) Posted by User:Sam Spade
- I would happily mediate if you like. If you both agree, I'll create a subpage and we can thrash it out. I'm not gay and I have no particular views on anal sex one way or the other, so I think I should be acceptable. Drop me a note on my talkpage if you want. Grace Note 03:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about?? I think you're just making random things up at this point, and you're getting dangerously close to becoming offensive. And once again, please sign your posts. Exploding Boy 17:27, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Since Sam has been avoiding this talk page for five days now, I'm going to ask that the page be unprotected. We should also consider banning Sam from editing this and similar articles. Exploding Boy 20:25, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Let's keep the page protected until you sort out your difficulties, EB. Please don't let's start calling for people to be banned just because we don't agree with them. There's too much of that already. Grace Note 03:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- My dear Grace, it takes more than one person to have a discussion. Sam has now absented himself from this discussion for eight days; the article can't stay protected forever. As for calling for Sam to be banned, it's certainly not because I disagree with him (which I do, about almost everything); it's because he repeatedly gets involved in editing certain articles, mostly those concerning homosexuality in some way, in a manner that is non-neutral or factually inaccurate, and he refuses to back down, even in the face of widespread disagreement/opposition, without the threat of RFC/RFA or similar action, and I'm tired of it. Exploding Boy 04:56, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Then, EB, you can agree to informal mediation, and if he refuses to take part but has no good-faith objection to my facilitating it, I will support any action you want to take, including endorsing an RfC. However, Sam has asked for mediation and I'm happy to act as the middleperson, moderating the behaviour both of you are complaining about. I'd say he is at least showing a willingness to discuss the issues, and if he'll accept moderated discussion, I think you can find a way forward without the need for further rancour. Grace Note 06:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- No, Sam hasn't requested mediation. It's accepted practice, not to mention only polite, to make such requests on user talk pages, not to claim you want medition on an article talk page in order to stall discussion. Exploding Boy 07:01, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
- This very post consists of the type of attacks you falsly accuse me of. You can't oppose the unprotection of a page you refuse to discuss, Sam. Exploding Boy 02:17, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Then let's have a fair and structured mediation. Say the word and I'll set up a page. Let's try for a solution that has both of you walk away content with the finished product. Grace Note 03:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- That sounds great, you have my full support. I just noticed your dialogue w EB above, and will be glad to contribute to the discussion and provide the neccessary citations when I have a moment. If need be I'll leave notes on everyones pages (heck, even mine!) and request a formal mediation or whatever formalities he's looking for, but they arn't neccessary as far as I'm concerned. Sam Spade 14:48, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- Look, i don't get where the "instructions" issue comes in... simply put, i'm a heterosexual, virile youth with a heterosexual, virile partner interested in exploring and experimenting with our sexuality. i look to wikipedia as being an academic and mature (ok, strange choice of wording contextually speaking) source for information, one that i can type in something like "anal sex" and recieve actual information rather than extreme gay porn or something along those lines. i wouldn't even consider googling that, ha. In searching for the article "anal sex," i was somewhat interested in the history and such, yes, but also how it is practiced. perhaps all this information is present in other articles, spread over the depths of wikipedia, but even so, it's not linked to. i believe we may suffer some degree of redundance for the sake ease of use... the other sources given within wikipedia seemed to be entirely different articles in entirely different source lines. the "how to" part of the article may be viewed as grotesque or similar verbage, but it's information none-the-less, the single thing wikipedia is built upon. i feel that no information, especially information on lines such as this--that would very difficult to obtain without "wading through the muck," should be excluded. my point is, the "how to" is applicable, clean (relatively speaking), and useful, often required information.
- on the redundance issue, the only way i can describe it is visually, something like "anal sex" is a branch, leading to all the sub-groups and sub-jects which should contain ALL the information on and relating to said branch, through links and the like. this would be different from the "health" or "intercourse" article, maybe only tied by a thread... oh dear, this is some profound philosophical questions regarding the organization and format of wikipedia, which i imagine were inevitable to surface. maybe i'm wrong? the point is, "anal sex" and the proper way to go about is much better suited to be in the "anal sex" article, not existant as ONLY some single sentance in the "intercourse" article. oh man, i would sign, but i don't even know my name... i'll say MMMMMM
- good points, I agree. debates like the above tend to forget the needs of the reader, and I thank you for reminding us of our purpose here. Sam Spade 13:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Then, Sam, would you mind dropping a note onto EB's talkpage and copy mine, asking him to join you and me in informal mediation? I had hoped we could all avoid anything too heavy, but if he needs you to ask him on his talkpage, please do it and then we can make a subpage and get on with it. I'm sure you can resolve your issues but I think it will be helpful to have a *kof* referee, so that if accusations of "personal attacks" and so on are thrown around, you have someone to say "actually, that was a bit near the bone" etc. Fair enough? Grace Note 05:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- Sounds Gr-r-reat! I'll get cracking. Sam Spade 14:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
If EB agrees to stop editing the article until mediation is completed, I will likewise. We can always discuss concerns here on the talk page if absolutely necessary. If EB and gracenote agree (in writing, below), I suggest we request for unprotection. Sam Spade 13:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Well yes, of course, if both of you agree not to edit, there is no problem with the page and other editors should be allowed to edit it. If EB joins the agreement, perhaps Fvw would unlock it. If either of you break it, he will, I'm sure, lock it straight back up again on the version you changed it from. Grace Note 07:15, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Initial image too large
When unlocked, can we shrink the initial image to a more standard size? At 300px, it seems obtrusive on the body text. A standard unsized frame is better, or perhaps explicitly sized at 200px. Obviously, readers who want more image detail can click for the full sized image. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Would somebody please revert the nonsense edits by 126.96.36.199. I've agreed not to edit this article until discussions with Sam Spade are done. Exploding Boy 20:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
- IMHO, they don't appear to be entirely "nonsense"; for the most part, they look like different ways of phrasing the existing content. It could stand a POV cleanup and some copyediting, though. - jredmond 20:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
- The mention of the terms "Greek love" and "Greek" have been removed. They need replacing.
- The term "homosexual sodomy" is inherently non-neutral.
- Replacing "according to some studies" with "studies have shown that" is a subtle change of meaning that is not entirely neutral or accurate.
- "No reliable statistics are available" is better than "we cannot be certain."
- "It may be that" is weaselly.
- Since data on homosexual behavior tends to arouse such controversy, it is difficult to make solid claims in this area" is again non-neutral.
- The phrase "in defining who counts as 'gay'" is redundant.
Exploding Boy 21:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
- I cleaned up quite a bit of that in an edit done right after my earlier comment: . Still working on it, though. - jredmond 21:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Yeah I saw that. Thanks. I just wanted to make clear what I was complaining about. Exploding Boy 21:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
- Ah - got it. Wasn't sure if you had seen it or not. - jredmond 21:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)