Jump to content

Talk:Missionary position/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Missionary position. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Missionary position. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Missionary position. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Missionary position. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

It is not "generally a sex position" - it is a sex position

The point is that the lead previously stated that "The missionary position or man-on-top position is generally a sex position..." placing the adverb "generally" prior to the act rather than the participants, and so suggesting that the act may have alternatives rather than the participants. If you feel it is necessary to qualify that it does not always involve a man and a woman, then "generally" needs to be in the right place.

Can you explain why in your mind "generally" is needed, and give specific examples that justify it? There doesn't seem to be anywhere near the furore you imply of hetero bias, and I know there is same sex reference in the lead which is why I said "non-hetero usage is qualified in the lede", and therefore why it's not necessary to have the qualifier "generally" at all. Curved Space (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Curved Space, thanks for this edit. Unlike my friend Rivertorch, I lack excellent grammar skills. I'm okay with grammar enough times, but I definitely have more studying to do on that topic. The reason I've included "generally" and added a WP:Hidden note about it is because, occasionally, editors (IPs or otherwise) have complained about the gendered language and have insisted that the lead is non-neutral because of it. I think this first began in 2007. See Talk:Missionary position/Archive 2#Use of singular "they" and gender neutrality. That the article used to be entirely about heterosexual sexual activity was also occasionally a complaint. But per the WP:Neutral policy, the article is neutral on this matter because the vast majority of reliable sources describe the missionary position in a heterosexual sense. But because there was room to give same-sex couples some weight on the matter, I expanded the lead and lower article just a bit on the same-sex aspect. Anal sex material (which will obviously be viewed as including gay and bisexual men in addition to heterosexuals) was already there. So I added tribadism material. Use of "generally," along with the hidden note and single line about heterosexual couples in the lead, has helped stop editors from trying to use gender-neutral language for the first sentence when the overwhelming majority of sources on the topic don't support gender-neutral language for it. If the topic wasn't so gendered, I'd agree with using gender-neutral language. But, again, it is very gendered. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Meh. Curved Space's edit removes any possibility that "generally" is modifying the sex act, but it also makes the sentence a little harder to read and introduces a new, somewhat far-fetched ambiguity: "generally a woman" could be taken to mean someone who is not always a woman. It's an unlikely reading of it—would she be a shapeshifter?—but I can imagine someone out there getting confused. Repunctuating would be a mixed blessing, so let's not go there. To be honest, I think it probably was OK before—that the likelihood of its being misunderstood was nearly as low as with the new wording. Is there another way to say it that avoids any ambiguity and flows well? I don't know. I'm pressed for time but will try to take a look over the weekend. RivertorchFIREWATER 13:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting, Rivertorch. I didn't think of the text in that way, but I understand what you mean. I guess I'll wait to see what you, Curved Space, or someone else has to state further on the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
All right, let me preface this by saying that I don't think that any change is required; either the current wording or the previous wording is acceptable. In the interest of exploring options, consider:
The last part of the sentence—and engage in sexual intercourse or other sexual activity—strikes me as redundant because it repeats the information found earlier in the sentence: that it is a sex position. I wonder if it is necessary to define "sex position" here. Maybe it is. If not, the sentence can be shortened.
If we say that they face each other, we don't need to specify that the woman is on her back because that's the only way she could lie with the man on top if they're facing each other.
A better word than "generally" might be "typically" because it suggests that something is always characteristic, rather than something that might conceivably be the case some of the time. It doesn't work especially well to simply replace "generally" with "typically", but if the sentence were rewritten, it might just work. Here's an example of a rewrite that's shorter and just possibly clearer:
The missionary position or man-on-top position is a sex position in which two partners face each other, one (typically a man) lying on top of the other (typically a woman).
The parentheses don't bother me, but they could be eliminated like this:
The missionary position or man-on-top position is a sex position in which two partners face each other: one, typically a man, lies on top of the other, typically a woman.
This would also obviate the need for the sentence about sexual orientation, which I find a little distracting. All of the above is just a thought, and I don't feel strongly about it. RivertorchFIREWATER 14:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with either. As I've stated above, my primary issue is with the term "generally a sex position" - both of the above have avoided that niggle. I agree that my solution was not perfect, but my intention was to avoid the "generally a sex act", which as is obvious - I'm against. I have no issue with "typically" being used in lieu of generally and being later in the sentence to describe the participants, not the act.

Is it even necessary to state that the two partners are typically a man and a woman? The rest of the lead makes it clear that this can refer to both hetero and gay/bi pairings, and teh alternate name is "man on top" so why not refer to just "partners"? Why not just

The missionary position or man-on-top position is a sex position in which two partners face each other where one lies on top of the other.

The second sentence states "Although commonly associated with heterosexual sexual activity, the sex position is also used by gay and lesbian couples" thus clarifying that it can be used in any sexual gender combination, yet also stating in a non-aggressive manner that it is commonly associated with hetero coupling. Curved Space (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't like the "typically" usages. I think both the previous version and current version are better than those. I think that the "typically" usages are more likely to be challenged (although the one without the parentheses is better than the one with it). As for stating "sexual intercourse or other sexual activity," it's stated because not all sex positions involve sexual intercourse or another form of sexual penetration (when sexual intercourse is defined strictly). The Sex position article is clear about this. Some couples use sex positions that don't involve sexual penetration. And, in the literature, it is significantly more common for sexual intercourse to be defined in a heterosexual sense and as involving sexual penetration than it is to see it defined in a general sense and as involving non-penetrative sex. As for removing any specifics regarding gender for the first line, the heterosexual aspect is there because this particular sex position is primarily heterosexual. Try to find any reliable source material on this sex position that isn't about heterosexuals, and you will see that such information is scarce. In that vein, it is similar to the coital alignment technique, except that the coital alignment technique can be argued as allowing no room at all for non-heterosexual sex. But even in that case, I wouldn't be surprised to see people argue that it can apply to a lesbian couple in an instance where one is using a strap-on dildo to stimulate the clitoris. This missionary sex position being primarily heterosexual is why the article is the way that it is. Per WP:Lead and WP:Principle of least astonishment, we should tell readers exactly what it is, including its primary meaning. Not making the heterosexual aspect clear right off the bat will result in readers being surprised that the vast majority of the article is of a heterosexual nature. Some will want to change the text to gender-neutral language for the rest of the article...when the sources absolutely don't support it and when the use of singular they has proven confusing for this article before. There are sources on this sex position that go into talk of the penis pleasuring the clitoris, vulva, and vagina, and those that also go into cervix and pregnancy talk, making the heterosexual association all the clearer. Anons have also removed "man-on-top" before because they find it gender-specific, even though it's supported by the sources and is the WP:Alternative name. When they see from the beginning that the sex position is primarily associated with heterosexual sex, "man-on-top" isn't much of a problem to them. That the article covers same-sex couples, even though we should see if we can expand that material some more, is something else that should be covered in the lead per WP:Lead. I don't find beginning with the heterosexual aspect aggressive at all.
All that stated, I could go along with the following wording: "The missionary position or man-on-top position is a sex position in which two partners face each other and engage in sexual intercourse or other sexual activity. In this position, typically a man lies on top of a woman, but the sex position is also used by gay and lesbian couples." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
How about something like:
The missionary position is a sex position in which one partner lies on their back and the other lies on top, face to face. The term is most often used to refer to a position for heterosexual vaginal sex in which a man lies on top of a woman (also known as the man-on-top position), but it is also used to refer to similar positions for other kinds of sex, including anal sex and tribadism.
That seems to address the concern that people might be surprised that the article is mostly heterosexual, without I think relegating other uses quite so much as the "typically" phrasings; and gets in "man-on-top" without suggesting this is an acceptable synonym for all forms of this position.
I don't really care if most literature defines positions primarily in a heterosexual way. We have NPOV as our guiding policy, and there is no need to elevate one use above another, other than by noting relative frequency of use of the term. Obviously we should be clear in all parts of the article which forms of the position they apply to.
"...and engage in sexual intercourse or other sexual activity" seems redundant when we have already said it's a sex position - I think a position in which you aren't engaging in some sexual activity isn't a sex position; we clarify in the second sentence which ones it is applied to. "In which two partners face each other" is much too general - that would include sitting and standing sex positions, which are not generally regarded as missionary. TSP (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
The "term is most often used for" suggestion brings in editors who go around removing such wording, even from the second sentence, per the WP:Refers supplement page. This is despite disagreement on that talk page about how far to apply WP:Refers. As is clear by the aforementioned hidden note I added, WP:Refers is also something I've been concerned about. The "most often used to refer to a position for heterosexual vaginal sex in which a man lies on top of a woman (also known as the man-on-top position)" wording makes this aspect of the missionary position seem like some variation. It's not, as explicitly shown by the sources. It is the sex position. And "and engage in sexual intercourse or other sexual activity" is not redundant, per what I've stated above. In both the Tribadism and Frot articles, for example, we note that they are non-penetrative sex acts. Well, tribadism is usually non-penetrative. A sex position might involve sexual intercourse, or other sexual penetration, or not. I didn't state that "a position in which you aren't engaging in some sexual activity [is] a sex position." Specifically mentioning anal sex in the lead could be argued as undue. Yes, gay and lesbian couples are mentioned in the lead, but that's because we should at least note in the lead that gay and lesbian couples also use the position. As for "facing each other," that is a part of the definition -- a big part of it. Look at the sources on this topic. As for not "really car[ing] if most literature defines positions primarily in a heterosexual way," our WP:Neutral policy (which is not a guideline) does care. WP:Due weight is a part of that policy and it is what our WP:Neutral policy is based on. It's also why we define anal sex first and foremost as a penis entering the anus/rectum, regardless of the fact that other anal sex acts exist. We are supposed to give most of our weight to the primary definition and then go into other definitions. That is the way Wikipedia works, for numerous articles, and this one should not be any different. Given what little space something like tribadism has in the article and that it is rarely mentioned in the literature on the missionary position, it can be argued that a specific mention of tribadism in the lead is undue weight. I'm certainly against the mention, and I'm the editor who wrote almost all of the Tribadism article (and requested that Seedfeeder draw the lead image you see in that article; that image is an illustration of tribadism in the missionary position). I am also involved in editing LGBT topics here at Wikipedia, and I understand the struggle that LGBT people go through for representation and neutrality. So does Rivertorch. But Rivertorch and I are always careful to steer clear of WP:Advocacy in our editing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

My issue is primarily with the usage of the term "generally a sex position". All other aspects of the article are secondary to the discussion I initiated. That doesn't mean that they are inconsequential, and you are welcome to bring them to the table as well, but I'd like to reiterate that all I am trying to eliminate is the term "generally" which I feel - and have explained - is at best unnecessary, and worst inaccurate.

My opinion regarding any perceived hetero and/or LGBT bias is that in order to discuss that, we've agreed that it's a sex position - again the result I was looking for. Curved Space (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

For now, I'm fine with leaving in your current use of "generally." I feel that "generally" or "typically" should be used if going with the "man/woman" aspect first...like the sources do. I've noted why above. And Rivertorch has stated that he can be fine with the current version you implemented. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Yup. The discussion since my post above raises all sorts of further questions, and I just don't have time. The current version will suffice. RivertorchFIREWATER 19:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't think the current version is very good at all. The use of "generally" very unclear - it seems to apply to the entire sentence after "is a sex position", meaning that the reader can't work out anything that is always true about the position from the first sentence other than it being a sex position. There is much more that is always true about the position - it always involves one partner lying down and the other on top of them - but this version mixes that up unhelpfully with what is "generally" true.
It also gives undue weight - to heterosexual use of the position for sex acts other than vaginal penetration. Because the first sentence specifies the gender of the participants (with a vague "generally"), but then says it can be used for 'sexual intercourse or other sexual activity', it specifically includes use by opposite-sex couples for e.g. frottage, but relegates use by same-sex couples to the second sentence.
This doesn't reflect our sources at all. Merriam-Webster says it is specifically a male-female coital position. Ask Alice says it is primarily a male-female intercourse position, but also used by other gender combinations for other acts. There is no source I can see that says it is primarily used by male-female couplings for a variety of acts; and secondarily used by other gender combinations.
WP:LEAD says: "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific"; and "If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition". I think mention of gender in the first sentence is being too specific, especially when we decline to also include the most common act for which this position is used.
I think there are three important points that we need to communicate:
  • The definition of the term: a sex position with one partner on their back and the other on top.
  • The primary variant of this: heterosexual vaginal penetration.
  • Other variants of this: by other genders and for other sex acts.
At the moment, on the first point, we don't satisfactorily provide a definition - the universal definition is tangled up with the genders involved in one particular variant (but, weirdly, not what act they might be performing). Regarding the second point, we over-emphasise the genders and never mention the act. For third point, one aspect (other acts) is overemphasised, and the other (other genders) is mentioned unclearly as an afterthought.
I would submit that my draft above (in green) does all three of these much more clearly, and I'm not sure I see what advantages the current draft has over it.
I'm aware of WP:REFERS; however, that is all our sources permit us to say. We don't have data on how often the individual positions are used, only on how the term appears in our sources. We don't actually know that the missionary position is "generally" used between opposite-sex couples - OK, sure, it seems likely; but what our sources say is that the term is "generally" used to refer to opposite-sex couples. TSP (talk) 11:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Taking your objections into consideration, I've explained why we focus on gender for the first sentence: Because reliable sources almost always do. This is the case even with regard to dictionary sources, such as this Merriam-Webster source. So the heterosexual mention is very much WP:Due weight for the first sentence of the lead. By stating "without being too specific," WP:LEAD does not at all support removing "man" and "woman." As you yourself can see, "man" and "woman", or "heterosexual," are in just about all of the sources; so that aspect is a main part of the definition. Stating that the definition or main definition of a term is "being too specific," especially when it leaves out context, is not the way Wikipedia works. As for your suggested text, I've gone over my issues with it. And I'm not opposed to "refers" wording, as long as it's not used for the first sentence and as long as it's needed. After all, we necessarily use it for both the Anal sex and Sexual intercourse articles. But I do try to avoid it; I've dealt with enough editors (mainly one) who go around removing "refers to" wording. That editor (who now has a new registered account) has gotten better about it, after I and others have explained to that editor that not all "refers to" usages should be removed from the lead; for example, when the lead is specifically defining the term and it's not the first sentence. But, again, I'm still cautious on the matter. With regard to your proposal, "refers to" wording is unnecessary. And again, the part of your proposal that suggests "most often used to refer to a position for heterosexual vaginal sex in which a man lies on top of a woman (also known as the man-on-top position)" makes this aspect of the missionary position seem like some variation. It's not, as explicitly shown by the sources. It is the sex position.
You speak of vaginal sex, but that is covered as well. Sexual intercourse is first and foremost defined as penile-vaginal sex, even today. It is why "vaginal sex" redirects to the Sexual intercourse article, is covered in the very first sentence of that article, is why the lead of that article further makes it clear that it (the penile-vaginal sex meaning) is the primary definition of sexual intercourse, but that other definitions of sexual intercourse exist. It is also why that article has a Definitions section further explaining the matter. As one can see, even the Prevalence section of that article is clear that the vast majority of people, including researchers, are speaking of penile-vaginal sex when they state "sexual intercourse." Like the Definitions section of that article makes clear, researchers are usually specific when they mean anal sex or oral sex. Same goes for non-penetrative sex. So, yes, vaginal sex is covered by the very sentence of the lead of the Missionary position article. Furthermore, sources on the missionary position usually don't state "vaginal sex" or "vaginal intercourse" when defining the term, although enough of them do state "coital" to get that point across. They more often state "sexual intercourse" or "coital", if noting sexual activity at all for the definition, other than "sex position." But I've gone ahead and changed "sexual intercourse" to "vaginal intercourse." And "or other sexual activity" should be there because the article is clear that couples may use the position for other sex activity as well, such as anal sex. Go Ask Alice! states, "Some couples also have anal sex in this position." It does not state "gay couples have anal sex in this position." It might be better to stick with "or other sexual activity" in the first sentence than have a separate sentence for it, especially since we then need to be specific about what that other sexual activity is, which is something I feel is best left covered lower in the article. But I've gone ahead and moved the "other sexual activity" aspect to the second sentence, and noted anal sex as an example despite what I've stated above about mentioning it in the lead. We should not be surprised if an anon comes along and removes it. Besides the first sentence, the lead now states, "The position may also be used for other sexual activity, such as anal sex. It is commonly associated with heterosexual sexual activity, but is also used by same-sex pairings."
You stated, "We don't actually know that the missionary position is 'generally' used between opposite-sex couples - OK, sure, it seems likely; but what our sources say is that the term is 'generally' used to refer to opposite-sex couples." I suppose same-sex couples use it just as much, but heterosexual couples are more prevalent. Researchers are explicitly clear that the missionary position is the most popular sex position and that penile-vaginal sex is the most prevalent sex act. Furthermore, the sources typically do not state "generally." The Go Ask Alice! source does, but the vast majority of other sources simply call the missionary position a heterosexual sex position, or are otherwise clear that it is a heterosexual sex position. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
That doesn't seem to address my basic problem, which is: currently, the lead does not offer a clear definition of the subject of the article. "The missionary position or man-on-top position is a sex position in which generally..." - OK, so we're about to list some things that are generally true about the position. What is always true about it - that is to say, what is its definition? We don't ever say. That is a fundamental failing in an article lead.
It surely makes sense to define the universal aspects; then the aspects which are true of, firstly the most common version, then any other versions. Rather than to define one version of the position, even if it's the overwhelmingly most common; then try to define all other variants backwards from it. It's like if our Tire article began "A tire is generally about eight inches wide, fifteen inches in diameter, made of rubber and and on a car. It might also be on a bike." Defining one particular variant of something, then sticking "generally" in front of it without being remotely clear which of the things you're about to say is only generally true, is just not a good way to define something.
You say the vaginal version "is the sex position" - that sounds like you would like to follow Merriam-Webster, and take the approach that the term actually only really applies to that version? We could do that - I wouldn't like it much but it would at least be clear. But I can't see anything to recommend for the current hedging of "generally".
That would also address another issue which I forgot to include, which is the conflation of the terms 'missionary position' and 'man-on-top position'; it is not accurate to say the 'man-on-top position' is used by same-sex couples, which currently-seems to be implied; that term only applies to the heterosexual variants of the position. Again, my variant addresses that.
Basically I just think the current intro is a mess. Relative priority isn't my main issue; my main issue is that it doesn't offer a clear definition, failing in its basic function as a lead.
I'm still struggling to see your substantive objections to my draft. I think the "refers" objection has turned out to be trivial, as you say that it's used perfectly successfully elsewhere and the person removing it was overreacting. And my draft doesn't even mention same-sex couples, so can hardly be seen as giving them excessive representation. TSP (talk) 00:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Your main objection seems to be the word "generally" since there is nothing at all unclear about "a woman lies on her back and a man lies on top of her while they face each other and engage in vaginal intercourse," which is what almost all of the sources state when describing the sex position...except that "sexual intercourse" or "coital" usually take the place of "vaginal intercourse." I see no issue with the current "generally," other than what Rivertorch noted above about its usage, but even he stated that it is unlikely that someone would be confused by it. I am for "generally" or "typically" for the lead sentence in the same way that I am for "generally" in the lead sentence of the Anal sex article. At the Anal sex article, we state "is generally the insertion and thrusting of the erect penis into a person's anus, or anus and rectum, for sexual pleasure." And we do that because there are other versions of anal sex. That we note those other versions after that first sentence doesn't mean that the first sentence shouldn't use "generally." In the case of the Missionary position, we have a few sources noting that couples may use the position to engage in anal sex or other sexual activity. And that is why I have been for "generally" for the lead sentence of this article as well. That, and because, after having edited this article and many other sexual articles on Wikipedia over the years, I know that editors can find the first sentence too restrictive...even when we clarify right after. It's like they don't read past the first sentence. And even if they do, they still find the first sentence false in some way simply because it's defining the primary definition/aspect first; they act like that first sentence excludes all other definitions/aspects. This goes for a number of articles (meaning not just sex topic articles) where editors such as myself have to stress to drive-by editors that the lead sentence is WP:Due weight, and that other definitions or aspects are covered right after it. I've been down that road too many times to not consider "generally" and to give "generally" context after the first sentence. I fail to see how your tire example could at all be compared to this.
No, I didn't state that we should go with the Merriam-Webster definition. The Merriam-Webster definition is hardly any different than the current lead sentence, except for its use of "coital," which is not as clear as "sexual intercourse" or "vaginal intercourse," and the fact that it doesn't state "generally." I'm struggling to understand your objection to "generally." And my objection to your "refers to" wording isn't trivial; this is because your proposed wording makes the act about a term and regulates the heterosexual position to just some variation. In the case of the Anal sex article, as one example, other forms are defined first and then we go into terminology material; it can't be argued as a WP:Refers issue in any way. Yes, your proposed wording "doesn't even mention same-sex couples," but it can obviously be taken to include them since your proposed lead sentence is vague about the type of partners involved. Sources on this sex position usually are not vague about the type of sex partners involved. So, to repeat, we should begin with that aspect first. I compromised by changing the lead sentence per your feelings with regard to vaginal intercourse, and per the "other sexual activity" aspect being vague. But you still can't go along with the way the lead paragraph is? You can't compromise by allowing "generally" to stay? Are we just going to keep debating this until "generally" is removed? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and removed the "generally" usage, and changed the hidden note to reflect the current sentence, because I don't want to keep debating this. And I'm far too busy to keep debating it. But if the issue with certain editors (especially newbie editors) finding that lead sentence too restrictive comes up again, I might re-add it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
And to give another example of using qualifying terms to get across one or more primary definitions and to then present the less prevalent definition after that, see the current lead of the Atheism article. It begins by stating, "Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities." It then goes into "less broadly" and "in an even narrower sense" wording. But, of course, defining atheism is more complicated than defining the missionary position. With the missionary position, we don't have conflicting definitions. We have one definition and a few sources noting that the position can be used in other ways. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with pretty much everything you say here, but I think the removal of "generally" is a step backwards. There's no requirement that the lead sentence provide a dictionary-type definition of the article title, let alone a bulletproof definition, but now we have a definition that is unnecessarily limiting in its scope. Grrr. I can live with it, but I think the previous lead was better. RivertorchFIREWATER 03:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Rivertorch, I obviously prefer "generally" there as well. But we have two editors above who have objected to it, and I'm trying to compromise without sacrificing the definition for the lead sentence. Like I stated above, that definition is not simply the primary definition; it is the definition, and not just in dictionary sources. Also, I'm not stating that we must have a dictionary style to our articles when defining a topic -- meaning using the most common definition first and then going into other definitions -- but I do think it's best, especially when that meaning of the term/concept dominates the topic and therefore the article. As you know, I work on medical topics too. And this -- going with the most common definition or aspect first -- is the case for medical articles as well. Per WP:Due, I don't think it's best to elevate the minority definitions/aspects to the same level as the primary definition(s)/aspect(s) for a lead sentence. And I definitely don't prefer to be vague or leave out an important aspect. In any case, "generally" will probably be re-added if the article faces the "can't look past the lead sentence to see other definitions and/or aspects" issue that some editors have. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid now it's simply logically incoherent. "The missionary position or man-on-top position is a sex position in which a woman lies on her back and a man lies on top of her while they face each other and engage in vaginal intercourse. [...] It is commonly associated with heterosexual sexual activity, but is also used by same-sex couples.[2]" A position in which a woman lies on her back and a man lies on top of her and engages in vaginal intercourse is obviously not used by same-sex couples.

My problem with "generally" - and this applies to the anal sex article too - is that, per WP:LEAD, "the first sentence should give a concise definition". Definition, per Merriam-Webester means "a statement of the exact meaning of a word". Something with "generally" in is not, by definition, a definition - it tells you some things that generally - i.e. not always - apply, but not the things that definitionally - i.e. always - apply.

Given that we apply the term to both opposite-sex and same-sex couples, we need to say we are using a definition that can accommodate both. "Missionary position" - in the sense we are using it - cannot mean "a sex position in which a woman lies on her back and a man lies on top of her while they face each other and engage in vaginal intercourse"; because it is possible to say, as one of our main sources for this section says, "the missionary position can also be used by same-sex partners, too". Given that the statement "a sex position in which a woman lies on her back and a man lies on top of her while they face each other and engage in vaginal intercourse can also be used by same-sex partners, too" makes no sense, this cannot be the definition we are using.

So we should define the term, in the sense that we intend to write the article about it, first - e.g. "The missionary position is a sex position in which one partner lies on their back and the other lies on top, face to face" - then note anything that is generally true - that this term is most often applied to the position as used for heterosexual sex. We can't define it solely as a heterosexual position then say same-sex partners use it.

And, yes, per WP:LEAD, the first sentence should provide a definition. That doesn't mean people don't read past it, but the first sentence should tell them if they are on the right article. A first sentence that defines wrongly, or is not a definition (which anything which prefixes nearly all its assertions with "generally" is not) does not serve this purpose. TSP (talk) 10:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I can't follow your logic (and that includes this revert) on this matter, and it is per everything I've already stated above. So I'd rather not repeat myself. For example, you stated, "A position in which a woman lies on her back and a man lies on top of her and engages in vaginal intercourse is obviously not used by same-sex couples." And this is the same "can't see past the first definition or aspect, as if the first definition or aspect excludes any other definition or aspect" issue I was talking about above. We go by one definition or aspect first, and then go into other definitions or aspects after that, all the time on this site. I can list numerous examples, including WP:Good and WP:Featured article examples. We do not usually have vague and/or broad lead sentences. One definition or aspect does not have to exclude the other. Furthermore, the Go Ask Alice! source defines the sex position as "the heterosexual intercourse position in which a male is on top of a female and they are face-to-face," but also notes that "the missionary position can also be used by same-sex partners, too." It does not take the time to change out gendered language for each aspect, because there is no need to do so. Common sense tells us that other gendered pairings can use the same position and that the only difference is the sex act (such as anal sex or tribabism vs. penile-vaginal sex). Like I've noted before, there isn't even truly any other definition of the missionary position but the one that is regulated to heterosexuals.
I've compromised on this enough. If we must go to a WP:RfC, then so be it. But in that RfC, I will make it very clear that the sole definition of the missionary is what the lead sentence currently states, with or without "generally." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that does seem to be where our understanding is differing.
MOS:FIRST: "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is." ... "If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition"
Not what one aspect of the subject is; or what the subject generally is; but what the subject of the article is.
If we are foundering on 'definition', Merriam-Webster says a definition is "a statement of the exact meaning of a word". Note "exact".
All the drafts of the first sentence that you've offered seem to me to fail that.
"The missionary position or man-on-top position is a sex position in which generally a woman lies on her back and a man lies on top of her while they face each other and engage in vaginal intercourse." - this does not tell people what the subject of the article is. It tells them what one aspect of the subject is - even if this is the most common aspect, I still don't think that can be a definition.
"The missionary position or man-on-top position is a sex position in which a woman lies on her back and a man lies on top of her while they face each other and engage in vaginal intercourse." - this does not accurately tell people what the subject of the article is, because that is not the sole subject of the article; its scope is broader than that.
"The missionary position or man-on-top position is a sex position in which one partner lies on their back and the other lies on top, face to face." - this tells the reader what the subject is. A reader who has read that knows what the term means, and what is, and is not, going to be covered by this article.
I'm sorry that you feel you've compromised enough; unfortunately I don't think any of the compromises were improvements. All I ever requested is that the first sentence say what the article is about. We still haven't achieved that. TSP (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
TSP, it may be that you're being unnecessarily narrow in your definition of definition . M-W is not the infallible word of the great lexicography deity, after all; it's just one of several common dictionaries. Three of the seven I checked, including M-W, offer a broader definition in addition to the one you quoted. For instance, AHD allows that definition can mean "a statement or description of the fundamental character or scope of something". In any event, LEAD talks about a definition, but it does not say that Wikipedia needs to expand its mandate and take over Wiktionary's role in the process. The point of a definition is basically to inform the reader what the article is about, not to establish highly precise boundaries of what its title may mean. Also, we're talking about a guideline, not a policy, and it's hardly written in stone: if it's getting in the way of the readability or accuracy of the lead paragraph, I'd have no objection to ignoring it. Sometimes "what the article is about" cannot be stated fully and concisely in one sentence. Perhaps this is one of those times. Consider the main purpose of the lead section as a whole: to summarize the main points of the article. That seems like a much more important objective, from my perspective, and it's one that we do try to achieve across a lot of articles. RivertorchFIREWATER 03:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd say if anything the AHD version makes my point more strongly.
"fundamental character or scope". Is it the fundamental character of the missionary position that it is between a man and a woman for vaginal sex? No, because we also record its use for other acts and by same-sex couples. Is its scope that it is used by a man and a woman for vaginal sex? No, in the same way - we use the term more widely than that.
The fundamental character of the missionary position is that it is a position where one partner lies on their back and the other on top of them. The scope of the term, as we use it in this article, is that it applies to all variations of that position, not just those by a particular combination of people or for a particular act. Again, I think the sentence is signally failing to provide a definition.
I agree that the lead is to tell the reader what the article is about. And I think the current lead, and particularly the first two sentences, do a bad job of that.
Saying in the initial definition what something "generally" is does not inform the reader well what it is; and once you've defined it in terms of "generally", it muddies the rest of your explanation. A far more logical and readable approach, surely, is to define what is always true - i.e. the definition, the "fundamental character and scope" - then secondarily explain anything that is generally or occasionally true? TSP (talk) 09:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Is there anything which is always true about sex, or indeed, about any complex topic? Is there an actionable proposal to change the article? Johnuniq (talk) 10:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes - see my proposed text in green above. TSP (talk) 10:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
This thread is getting very convoluted, with interleaved replies. TSP, I'm going to reply presently to this in a new subsection at the bottom. RivertorchFIREWATER 13:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
TSP, you first objected to the lead sentence because you felt that the lead sentence wasn't being neutral per WP:NPOV. When I pointed out that it was being neutral per WP:NPOV, you moved on to WP:LEAD and argued that we can't regulate the definition to a heterosexual one because WP:LEAD states "the first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific." I already argued against this. The definition of the missionary position is heterosexual in nature, period. So defining it by its sole definition is not "being too specific." In fact, as someone who has worked to help develop the WP:LEAD guideline, I should probably see about clarifying the "being too specific" part there in the future, if it's going to be interpreted by a few editors as meaning that we should be vague or broad with our definitions and not define a topic straight up in the way that reliable sources do.
Now you are citing MOS:FIRST. But MOS:FIRST does not support you. On the contrary. You note that it states that, "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is." Yep. Check. That's what we've done. That heterosexual definition is what the missionary position is, as seen by reliable sources. You stated that MOS:FIRST tells us "If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition." Yep. Check. There is nothing that is not concise about either the current version or the one that removed the "generally" wording. You argued, "Not what one aspect of the subject is; or what the subject generally is; but what the subject of the article is." But the heterosexual definition is not one aspect. It is the aspect, as I've stated times over. And you haven't provided reliable sources showing that the term is defined in any other way. Yes, there are a few sources noting that the missionary position can be used for anal sex or by same-same-sex couples, but that is all. Never is the position defined as "a sex position in which a woman lies on her back and a man lies on top of her while they face each other and engage in anal sex" or "a sex position in which a partner of either, or any, gender lies on their back and someone lies on top of them while they face each other and engage in [whatever kind of sex]." Furthermore, as I've noted more than once, even if there was a non-heterosexual definition, or an anal sex definition, of the missionary position, Wikipedia commonly starts off its lead with one definition -- usually the most common definition -- and then includes other definitions of the topic after that. Just like with dictionaries and encyclopedias, the first listed definition does not preclude or exclude the other definitions. It's the same with Wikipedia, and Wikipedia often has a Definitions or Terminology section to further address the different definitions. We don't allow our lead sentence to be bogged down by an identity crisis simply because there are multiple definitions. We usually choose one, and note others after it. And for those articles that begin with something like "[So and so] does not have a precise definition, but [...]," they are often changed as well.
So, yes, I feel that I've compromised enough on this matter, even attempting to remove "generally." You are the one who restored it. That first sentence does tell readers what the topic is about. It is what the topic is about, with few exceptions. So the broader scope you speak of is barely there. The lead reflects the article's scope exactly. And, again, the lead sentence is not the only sentence we use on this site to tell readers what the topic is about. It's the lead paragraph's job as a whole to tell the reader what the topic is about. The entire lead can even serve that point, as it does with some of our scientific articles, for example. In the case of this article, I think that your issue is that you do not want the lead beginning with the fact that the position is heterosexual in nature, despite the fact that this is how the term is defined. I don't see how beginning with a vague definition as far as gender and/or sexual activity goes, and then specifying the primacy of the heterosexual aspect, and then noting other aspects after that, is better at all. In that latter case, we are still saying that the position means one thing, but that it can be used in other ways. So I still support beginning with the definition that the sources use. All of what has been stated above challenging your viewpoint is why I see no need to continue this debate. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I think WP:NPOV (which, yes, I know and stated is a policy) is still relevant, and I think you're misapplying the WP:DUE section of it; but I think it's less clear for this purpose than WP:LEAD.
You removed "generally", but don't seem to have understood my problem with it. I object to "generally" because defining something in terms of what is "generally" true about it is a bad way to define it - indeed, is not really a definition. You can't fix that by just removing "generally" and saying that the things that are generally true about the subject are actually always true about it.
e.g. saying "A tire is generally made of rubber and on a car" would be a bad way to define a tire, because it's unspecific and unclear. But "A tire is made of rubber and on a car" is even worse, because it's untrue - some tires are neither of those things.
Reading your last response... are you saying there should be no non-heterosexual content in this article? That seems to be what you are saying at times?
If the heterosexual vaginal position is "the definition" of the missionary position, then there should presumably be no content in this article about other positions - a same-sex couple cannot, by definition, use a position that is defined as a heterosexual position. If you don't mean that, I am struggling to think what you think the word "definition" means.
You then later say, "Just like with dictionaries and encyclopedias, the first listed definition does not preclude or exclude the other definitions."
OK, so you there seem to have changed to saying that the heterosexual definition is a definition? That's a very different position to it being the definition. Which do you mean?
Yes, certainly that is "a" definition, and one used in a lot of our sources. But it's not the definition currently used by the article, because the article covers other uses too. This isn't a dictionary where we list in turn all the different things a term can mean; an encyclopedia topic should be about one subject (however broad or narrow that subject is, and however many variants or aspects it has), and define in its first sentence what that subject is, in the scope that it intends to cover it.
One way to resolve this would be to say that the heterosexual vaginal use is the definition - only that is actually the missionary position. That seems to me to be the natural consequence of many of your arguments ("The definition of the missionary position is heterosexual in nature, period"; "But the heterosexual definition is not one aspect. It is the aspect"). Could you clarify if that is your position?
In that case, we should make a new article, I've no idea what it would be called, and move all content about non-heterosexual and non-vaginal use there.
But if we are going to use the term in a way that includes same-sex and non-vaginal uses, as we currently do ("The position may also be used for other sexual activity, such as anal sex. It is commonly associated with heterosexual sexual activity, but is also used by same-sex couples.") then I don't think that is compatible with a belief that the heterosexual vaginal use is "the definition" of the term and "the aspect" of the position. TSP (talk)
Your arguments do not align with our policies or guidelines, or common practice (on Wikipedia or otherwise), and I am done debating this with you. And I haven't "changed to saying" anything. But I will note something else to you: You should also read WP:POVFORK. No, we will not be creating a separate article just to note that a few sources state that the missionary position can be used for anal sex and by same-sex couples. If we need to bring in others on this, I will, but it will be a waste of their time. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
All I mean by changing position is that you refer to something as "the definition"; then say there are other definitions. I'm struggling to see how those resolve, by the meaning of the word "the".
I've cited the policies and guidelines that I feel back up my position. I'm struggling to see how they support yours, but then we don't even seem to be able to agree on what "definition" means.
I'm not suggesting a WP:POVFORK - I'm saying that if "the definition" of the position is the heterosexual position, then content that is not about that should not be in this article. That's just about scope of the article, not POV. For example, Wikipedia hs decided that a railway tire is sufficiently different from an automobile tire that we cover them in different articles. I think there are reasonable positions that the vaginal and anal (and other) missionary positions are the same thing, or are different things; so we could cover them in one article or in two. What I don't think we should do is initially define the term to mean one, then also talk in the article about the other.
You not wanting to debate this is fine; but, of course, does not dictate what is in the article. I did feel the briefer exchange with @Rivertorch: was rather more productive, but have no idea if they felt the same. TSP (talk) 11:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
For goodness' sakes, by stating "Wikipedia commonly starts off its lead with one definition -- usually the most common definition -- and then includes other definitions of the topic after that.", that was me challenging your view that lead sentences must define all of the topic. And I've already stated "or aspect" as well, as in "one definition or aspect." Yes, I've called the non-heterosexual usage an "aspect," but that is for lack of a better word. I then stated that "the heterosexual definition is not one aspect. It is the aspect" because you make it seem like there are definitions of the missionary position that are not heterosexual. There are not any. There are sources defining the term and/or going over aspects of the term, and (so far) one source (Go Ask Alice!) in the article stating that the missionary position can be used for anal sex and by same-sex pairings. I didn't stray from "the"; I was very clear in my latest reply by stating, for example, "never is the position defined as [so and so]" and "even if there was a non-heterosexual definition, or an anal sex definition, of the missionary position [...]."
Having worked on polices and guidelines like WP:Due and WP:Lead, and having argued them successfully time and time again (without fail), I find that you are making up your own views about what the WP:Neutral policy and WP:Lead mean. I understand that people can interpret our policies and guidelines differently; WP:3RR is one rule that is repeatedly debated (as currently seen on that policy's talk page), but neither the WP:Due policy nor the WP:Lead guideline support what you're stating on this missionary position matter. WP:Due, for example, is clearly about going by what the preponderance of reliable sources state. In the case of the missionary position, those sources (even the Go Ask Alice! source that mentions that the missionary position can be used for anal sex and by same-sex couples) are all heterosexual...unless one can find one or more reliable LGBT sources noting that a couple may use the missionary position for a certain sex act. And even in that latter case, such sources would not trump the fact that the preponderance of reliable sources define the missionary position in a heterosexual sense. Your view that "if 'the definition' of the position is the heterosexual position, then content that is not about that should not be in this article" is not true. This is because a source noting that the missionary position can be used in a way that falls outside of its standard meaning or use is on-topic. It is not about some other sex position. It is about the missionary position. Alternative definitions or aspects are included in one article all the time here at Wikipedia. It's also why WP:Alternative title exists. Even related aspects are included in our Wikipedia articles. Your suggestion that "we should make a new article" and that you have "no idea what it would be called, and move all content about non-heterosexual and non-vaginal use there" was a WP:POVFORK suggestion. The sources for that little bit of content are discussing it within the context of the missionary position. It is not its own sex position worthy of a Wikipedia article.
My discussion with you on this has not at all been productive. You are just hearing what you want to hear, and going by what you want to go by. And I will now cease replying to you on this again unless necessary. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Curved Space, something I wanted to note to you earlier is that "generally a sex position" is not what the lead was stating when the lead had "generally" in the spot it was in before. It was stating "generally a sex position in which a woman lies on her back and a man lies on top of her while they face each other and engage in sexual intercourse or other sexual activity." I didn't find this odd because I felt that the lead sentence was acknowledging that this is the general definition, and that the position may be defined or used in another way as well. Once readers questioned what way we meant, they would see the rest of the lead paragraph. It's like stating "[so and so word] is generally a term for [so and so]." Such wording is not stating that the term is "is generally a term." Anyway, like I stated above, there really isn't any other definition of the missionary position anyway. But, still, it can be used for more than just heterosexual sex. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

TSP's proposed text

In reply to Johnuniq's query as to whether there's an actionable proposal, TSP pointed to this text, which I'm copying here for convenience's sake:

The missionary position is a sex position in which one partner lies on their back and the other lies on top, face to face. The term is most often used to refer to a position for heterosexual vaginal sex in which a man lies on top of a woman (also known as the man-on-top position), but it is also used to refer to similar positions for other kinds of sex, including anal sex and tribadism.

In the interest of refocusing this rather convoluted discussion and determining consensus, I suggest that opinions be given on changing the lead paragraph to the above wording. (Pinging User:Curved Space and User:Flyer22 Reborn. I believe this accounts for everybody who commented earlier in this section.) RivertorchFIREWATER 13:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose. This is poorly worded. The syntax of the first sentence is just weird. (Lies "on top" of what, the other partner's back? And "face to face" with what or whom?) I can parse it, but some readers might well be confused. Assuming it's synonymous for coitus, "heterosexual vaginal sex" is quite probably redundant (Is there another kind of vaginal sex?), and in any event I don't think it's optimal for an adjective denoting a sexual orientation to be applied to a sex act. The parenthetical phrase "(also known as the man-on-top position)" is a dangling participle: taken literally, the sentence says that a woman is also known as a position. I'm sure this could all be reworded to avoid these pitfalls, I don't believe it's necessary to have an ironclad definition and I rather think this has blown up into much ado about nothing—or at least very little. RivertorchFIREWATER 13:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Sure - "on top of them"; "heterosexual" can be dropped, as "man" and "woman" are stated later on. (Though for what it's worth, yes, there are other forms of vaginal sex - by two women using a strap-on, for example.) My point is less about these things and more that I think the first sentence should explain the scope of what the article is going to discuss, rather than just giving one example of it, even if that example is by far the most common.
Alternatively, I'd be much much happier with your suggestion above - The missionary position or man-on-top position is a sex position in which two partners face each other, one (typically a man) lying on top of the other (typically a woman). - than with the current one. TSP (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
This subsection is already growing by leaps and bounds. It's probably not necessary for you to rebut (or even reply to) everything, TSP. There is a proposal on the table. Better to !vote on it. Just saying. RivertorchFIREWATER 14:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Just a quick note: Since lesbian couples can engage in vaginal sex, usage of "heterosexual vaginal sex" does make sense. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Yeah, I'm against the wording, per what I stated above; see, for example, my "15:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)" post. This wording is not supported by the sources, uses "refers to" when we should be cautious of it per WP:Refers, and is WP:Undue. It paints the heterosexual component as just one variation of the missionary position when sources don't present it that way; they present it as the definition of the missionary position. And they don't present anal sex or tribadism used in the missionary position as similar positions. What we have thus far is one source noting that the missionary position may be used for anal sex or by same-sex couples. And since we have a small "Anal sex, tribadism and other aspects" section in the article, this aspect is already given its due weight in the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that does seem to be an issue with our current sources (which really aren't good at all - a huge amount of the article is sourced to a single anonymous opinion column on Go Ask Alice). I'm sure such sources exist - I can't go looking for them from my current internet connection, but I'll work on digging some up.
Per WP:DUE, I am certainly not looking to emphasise any other use over the opposite-sex one - indeed my draft above does not even mention same-sex couples, unlike the current one; but that policy says "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." I think our current first sentence (which, in my view, should be a microcosm of the lead, as the lead is a microcosm of the article) restricts itself to one viewpoint; which may be an issue with our current sources. I'm happy to lose 'refers', though I think in this case it both reflects the source and accurately reflects what we should be aiming to say (that the same term is used for several related positions for different acts). TSP (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
"A huge amount of the article is sourced to a single anonymous opinion column on Go Ask Alice"? No, it's not. As for the rest, I've already debated you above; I'm not going over all of that again in this subsection. For example, I was clear that your version obviously includes same-sex couples. That it doesn't outright state "same-sex couples" matters not on that front. Yes, WP:Due states, "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." And I've noted time and time again to you that the preponderance of reliable sources on the missionary position are heterosexual in nature. You can keep debating this; I won't. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The current lead is fine because it gives key information backed by reliable sources. If someone unfamiliar with English were reading a book where they found mention of the missionary position, the lead would provide a clear explanation. The lead of an article is not the place to catalog the vast array of sexual variety—it's WP:UNDUE. Johnuniq (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Same sex instead of gay and lesbian

I suggest that gay and lesbian couples be replaced by same sex couples in the lead. First, persons who use this position may or may not identify as gay or lesbian. Just having sex with someone of the same sex does not always map neatly onto sexual orientation or sexual identity. Further, people who claim a bisexual identity are rendered invisible by the use of gay or lesbian. Same sex couples is a more inclusive term as well as being more scientifically correct. Any objections to me making that change?AnaSoc (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Same sex pairings is even better! Thanks for the edit.AnaSoc (talk) 02:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) AnaSoc, no, I don't mind. And I changed it to "same sex pairings." I am aware that, like the Same-sex relationship article notes, some activists argue that "gay couple" or "lesbian couple" creates bisexual erasure. It is still the case that we note "gay marriage" in the lead of the Same-sex marriage article, however; that is per WP:Alternative title. It is also still the case that when wanting to be specific about what type of couple we mean, we will, for example, state "lesbian couple." The term lesbian is not defined consistently among lesbian-identified women or researchers, and often refers to any form of female-female romantic and/or sexual attraction or sexual activity.
Also, in the future, I would appreciate you not following me to an article. I know that a lot of editors (newbies included) like to follow me, especially those who know that I edit so many controversial topics, but I don't like to be followed unless I am on very good terms with the editor following me. See WP:Hounding. I've been hounded numerous times, and it is a main reason I generally do not like to be followed. It's also the reason that when WP:STiki was still working for me, I would clear the first page (and sometimes subsequent pages) of my contributions so that only my STiki edits showed. That helped to keep certain editors from following me. With WP:Huggle, trying to conceal my contributions history is a slower (and therefore more frustrating) process. And now I've just given away that secret, but oh well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
talk I did not "follow you" to an article. Please retract your accusation.AnaSoc (talk) 01:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
AnaSoc, if you didn't look at my contributions and come to this article, then what led you to it? I apologize if I was wrong, but I have seen newbie editors interested in sex and gender topics follow me, especially after I just got through interacting with them (like I had just gotten through interacting with you not too long ago at the Clitoris article). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Flyer22 Reborn Your apology is accepted.AnaSoc (talk) 01:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I am in agreeance with changing this to same sex couples but absolutely not same sex pairings.Marketless (talk) 04:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
That's 2 against 1. Go ahead and change it or I will.Marketless (talk) 05:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Stalker Marketless, should I report you? I do have a good idea of who you are -- with your sudden appearance and revert to the previous "gay and lesbian" wording I'd had in the lead -- after (above) I mentioned stalking issues I've had to deal with in the past. But WP:CheckUser would probably be stale. No one has objected to "same-sex couples"; so, no, it's not two against one. I couldn't care less that you made this edit. And do spare me any talk of you being a newbie. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

(e/c) I've reverted, as the rationale for the change was "That's 2 against 1", which doesn't seem to be the case. Nor should changes be made while discussion surrounding it is still ongoing - or at least if changes are made, one should be prepared for them to be reverted. Curved Space (talk) 05:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Curved Space. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Ok.Marketless (talk) 05:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I have never heard of same-sex pairings so why not use the common term same sex couples.Marketless (talk) 05:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Curved Space are you against same-sex couples or same-sex pairings.Marketless (talk) 05:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm against changes being made while discussion is still ongoing. I have no deep passion for either usage and will go by a genuinely established consensus; LGBT is not my area of expertise, so I bow to those who do profess either wisdom or experience. Curved Space (talk) 05:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Have you even heard of same-sex pairings Curved Space what a dumb addition. Why use a term which is so obscure and nobody has heard of. No I think same sex couples is what should be.Marketless (talk) 05:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

You are entitled to that opinion. Put it forward in a mature and responsible manner, and you may gain consensus. Until then - you're now in the domain of edit-warring. Curved Space (talk) 07:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Curved Space Do we go with what the reliable sources call something or go with a tiny minority of sources which name something like same-sex couples? Only a complete and total idiot would call same-sex couples same-sex pairings on Wikipedia.Marketless (talk) 07:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

We go with what is decided through discussion and consensus - not by repeatedly adding material that has already been removed. Now, let's see - you're currently guilty of:

  • Editwarring - for repeatedly inserting material that has been challenged
  • Pointy editing - for adding a template to my talk page purely because I did the same to you, even though I was reverting contentious material - which by now falls under the umbrella of disruption
  • Personal attack - accusing those who hold a viewpoint different to yours of being "complete and total idiot(s)"

In short, you are failing to convince others of your intentions to build an encyclopedia, and as such I've reported you to AIV. Curved Space (talk) 08:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Late response: Thanks for filing that, Curved Space, and for recognizing that the editor's focus was me. I understand Longhair only blocking him for 31 hours instead of indefinitely, but Marketless is indeed WP:NOTHERE and is trolling above. Of course many people have heard of/seen the phrasing "same-sex pairings." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm glad that same-sex couples has replaced same-sex pairings. Same-sex pairings is used for animals not humans and am not sure who put this in the article or if it was a joke but it doesn't matter now the error has been corrected.Marketless (talk) 00:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
It is not true whatsoever that "same-sex pairings" is not used for humans. For example, this 2014 "Bisexuality and Same-Sex Marriage" source, from Routledge, uses it for humans. Same goes for this 2017 "Who Do You Ship? What Tumblr Tells Us About Fan Culture" The New York Times source, which states, "All 10 of the year’s top ships are same-sex pairings, a testament to how friendly Tumblr is to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, as well as to the long history of slash both off and online." If you are going to go by an editor's argument, like you clearly went by AnaSoc's below, then actually fact check first and realize that the editor did not make the same argument you made. Nowhere did AnaSoc state that "same-sex pairings" is never used for humans. Yes, "same-sex pairings" is often used for non-human animals, but it is sometimes used for humans as well (such as in sexual orientation and/or sexual behavior studies, where it might be contrasted with "opposite-sex pairings"). There is no substantial difference between "pairings" and "couples"; they are synonyms. Regardless, like I stated above, you are obviously trolling. You know very well that I added "same-sex pairings" to the lead and that it was not a joke. If you decide to keep trolling me, you will be indefinitely blocked soon enough. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh I am sure that some reliable sources use this odd term pairings but my point is that the majority of reliable sources use same sex couples or same sex relationships. Can't you see that? By the way no-one is trolling you because they disagree with you if you were the one who put this same sex pairings in the article. Get over yourself. If you put same sex pairings back in again it will just be reverted because as you know I am right and you are wrong. Nothing personal though.Marketless (talk) 05:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I prefer same sex couples. When I did a google search for same sex pairings, all of the hits seemed to be about non-human animals. A google search of same sex couples yielded hundreds of hits, and as far as I can tell, they all referred to human same sex couples. BTW, the first hit was the Wikipedia article entitled Same sex couples. There is no Wikipedia article entitled Same sex pairings.AnaSoc (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
As noted above, I don't have an issue with changing "pairings" to "couples." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
And for the record, we don't have an article titled "Same-sex couple" either. Our article is titled "Same-sex relationship." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Noted, and thanks.AnaSoc (talk) 01:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

No evidence of "euphemism" being performed in evoking "The beast with two backs"

   Well, that speech in Othello is clearly slang, a taunt, and a metaphor. But it offers no indication of euphemism; rather, it is a pretty graphic (even tho static) anatomical insinuation of intercourse.
   I grant that it contrasts with such action-laden euphemisms as

"banging", or
the Bard's bestial "tupping"
[presumably topping -- or as with memoranda for modern stock-breeders, covering]
the female
(i.e., IIRC, "your white ewe", which refers to Desdemona, in a wording which is spoken later in the same play).

--Jerzy•t 12:40, :47, & 13:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposed wording change

The current wording of the lead is awkward-city ("in which generally a woman lies"?):

The missionary position or man-on-top position is a sex position in which generally a woman lies on her back and a man lies on top of her while they face each other and engage in vaginal intercourse.[1][2][3] The position may also be used for other sexual activity, such as anal sex.[2] It is commonly associated with heterosexual sexual activity, but is also used by same-sex couples.[2]

Here's my rewrite:

The missionary position, or man-on-top position, is a sex position in which two partners lie facing each other, with one on top of the other; most commonly it involves a man on top of a woman engaging in penis-in-vagina sex.[1][2][3] Missionary also encompasses other gender combinations, including man-on-man and woman-on-woman, and other face-to-face sexual activity, including anal sex, tribading, and sex toy stimulation.[2] However, it does not encompass cowgirl sex where a woman is on top of a man.

WanderingWanda (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I, actually, don't feel it to be particularly awkward — I think the earlier version captures better the broad strokes. By all means, let's see if you can gain consensus for your changes, but for now, let's retain the status quo ante. El_C 21:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I removed the "generally" myself a while ago, as I feel that it's somewhat out of place, and makes for scrappy reading. Having read the above, I actually think a combination of the two is suitable:

The missionary position, or man-on-top position, is a sex position in which two partners lie facing each other, with one on top of the other; most commonly it involves a man on top of a woman engaging in vaginal intercourse.[1][2][3] The position may also be used for other sexual activity, such as anal sex.[2] It is commonly associated with heterosexual sexual activity, but is also used by same-sex couples.[2]

Curved Space (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I feel the same way I felt in the previous discussion. Regarding "most commonly," we don't know if the position is most commonly used by heterosexual couples (as in heterosexual couples use it more than any other couple combination). What we know is that the position is most commonly (almost always) defined or described as a heterosexual sex position/is most commonly associated with heterosexual couples. What we know is that reliable sources report that it is the most common sex position. Per MOS:LEADSENTENCE and WP:REFERS, we shouldn't state "described as" or "refers to," though. I also don't think it's good flow to state "most commonly involves a man on top of a woman" and then "it is commonly associated with heterosexual sexual activity." That's sort of redundant. And beginning with "man and woman," like almost all of the reliable sources on what the missionary position is do, helps explain "man on the top." The WP:Alternative title "man on top" is not using "man" to mean people in general, like "mankind" does; it literally means "man." We could move the "man on the top" part to after "involves a man on top of a woman" so that it reads as "also known as the man-on-top position" in parentheses, but that still doesn't address the "most commonly" issue. On a different note: We could also spell out the "is also used by same-sex couples" part so that we note "with one partner taking the position the man would take" or "with one partner taking the 'on top position'," but I think that is unnecessary. Readers will understand that different couple combinations take the same spots a man and woman would take. And "the position the man would take" wording might come across as offensive, in the same way that lesbian women find the old dictionary definition of tribadism (which describes one of the women as simulating the movements of a male) to be offensive. Obviously this Merriam-Webster definition of tribadism is far more appropriate.
Regarding "generally," the "generally" that is in the lead now is not the "generally" I used. Like I stated in the previous discussion, the "generally" that I used was not stating "generally a sex position." It was stating "generally a sex position in which a woman lies on her back and a man lies on top of her" etc. I still see that use of "generally" to be okay and absent of any awkwardness one might get from the current use of "generally." But maybe the commas added to the current use of "generally" will help decrease any awkward feeling one might get from the lead sentence. I know that one might state that "generally," like "most commonly," is relaying that the position is most commonly used by heterosexual couples, but I see a difference in stating "is generally a sex position in which a woman lies on her back and a man lies on top of her" and "most commonly, it involves a man on top of a woman." The "generally" aspect is stating, or is trying to state, that this sex position is usually described as a heterosexual sex position. I think that "in which, generally" works fine in this regard, and is also leaving room for the "other sexual activity" and "also used by same-sex couples" aspect. We could remove "it is commonly associated with heterosexual sexual activity" if it's considered somewhat redundant to "generally"...just like it would be to the "most commonly" piece, but I think that line helps readers understand why the article is so heterosexual-dominant; it's because the literature is.
Sources... When looking for sources on the missionary position with regard to same-sex couples, one will mainly come across porn videos, porn sources, website sources that are poor or unreliable, and sex guide sources on Google Books that may be poor or unreliable, especially if searching "gay men missionary position" and "lesbian missionary position" instead of "same-sex couple missionary position" or "same-sex couples missionary position," but the person will not get much better results searching the latter two phrases. Even looking for quality sources on heterosexual couples for this topic, one can see that there is not much out there; on regular Google, it's a lot of womenshealthmag.com and cosmopolitan.com sources and similar...while there are few solid book sources addressing it on Google Books. If you want any solid sources on Google Books for it, you are better off searching under "missionary position studies" or similar, and this will get you sources like this 2009 "Sexual Selection and the Origins of Human Mating Systems" source, from OUP Oxford, page 82, which states, "Anthropological studies indicate that face-to-face copulatory positions predominate among the majority of human societies for which reliable information exists. Usually, the woman lies on her back with the man on top of her; the ventro-ventral or so-called missionary position (Figure 5.1)." But there are few quality sources there on it regardless. And searching "missionary position" on Google Scholar? See for yourself. The current sourcing in the article shows the type of poor and unreliable sourcing that I mean. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, it still feels a bit off to me, but I won't insist if everyone else considers it a fair compromise. El_C 00:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, if it's not clear from my comment above, I don't agree to any of the latest proposals. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
El_C, are you saying that you feel that the commas are off? Or are you okay with them? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Oops! I was referring to Curved Space's version. I'm actually happy with the current version, commas and all. Sorry about that. El_C 00:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

_____

References

  1. ^ a b c "Missionary position". Merriam-Webster. Retrieved January 24, 2013. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h "What is the missionary position?". Go Ask Alice! (Columbia University). May 26, 2015. Retrieved December 5, 2015.
  3. ^ a b c Roberts, Keath (2006). Sex. Lotus Press. p. 145. ISBN 978-8189093594. Retrieved August 17, 2012.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Missionary_position/Archive_3&oldid=1027149683"