Talk:Non-penetrative sex/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Significant expansion

As seen with this edit, and this, this and this edit that soon followed, I have significantly expanded this article. I also incorporated an incomplete draft that Katieskyv was working on; because it doesn't seem that she will be returning, as most student editors (which I assume Katieskyv is) do not (with regard to editing), I went ahead and used a lot of that material, significantly tweaking it (and will go ahead and inform Katieskyv of that on her talk page). I will better format the references she used (putting them in WP:Citation templates and adding links for them) at a later date.

As also seen with the significant expansion, it is not as easy to define non-penetrative sex, or outercourse, as one would think. The term outercourse, while maybe still qualifying as a WP:Neolgism, being used to define these activities also appears to be more prevalent than the term non penetrative sex or non penetrative sexual activities. While non penetrative sex is the more descriptive title for this article, outercourse (which existed as a Wikipedia article before it was merged with this one) appears to be the WP:Common name; I'm not arguing for a title change, I'm simply putting that out there. Flyer22 (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I also made this tweak moments ago (though maybe it's not "usually" and is more so "more commonly" in that case; it's certainly "usually" with regard to fellatio). Flyer22 (talk) 02:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Noting here that I also added this lead-in sentence for the second paragraph. Flyer22 (talk) 03:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Not sure how I missed this WP:YOU violation, but at least it's fixed now. Flyer22 (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Hookups

Why does hookup culture have a section in this article? To my knowledge, there is nothing to say that these experiences are necessarily (or even probably) going to avoid penetration. It is a completely different issue which may involve particular acts of non-penetrative sex but where this is hardly an inherent trait of hookups in general. 88.104.90.134 (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Late reply: As documented above, that section was/is part of Katieskyv's draft (the draft that I tweaked before adding it to this article). You've raised a valid case regarding that section; I don't mind much if it stays or is deleted. Flyer22 (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Update: I removed some content from the section to keep it on-topic. Flyer22 (talk) 19:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Followup edit here. I don't know if I should simply remove that section, cut it down some more and integrate it into the Health risks section, or move it below the Health risks section. Flyer22 (talk) 19:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

i think it should be removed. i was going to say "cut it down more" but i ended up with only 1 sentence i'd leave. ("Some individuals believe a hookup is "anything but intercourse," which would include only non-penetrative sex acts.") that's the only sentence of that section relevant to this topic. maybe you could fit that into the Health risks section, or simply include a referral to Hookup culture (a "Main article:" type of thing).Colbey84 (talk) 13:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Wrong definition

How can kissing be defined as sex? This article is about non-penetrative SEX but some of the activities included here are not sexual at all. It should only be limited to sexual acts, ie mutual acts that can cause an orgasm. You cannot have an orgasm by kissing, so it is not sex! 188.4.234.183 (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

We go by what the WP:Reliable sources state, per WP:Verifiability, and some of those sources include kissing as a sexual aspect, just like it is noted as one in the Kiss and Making out articles and elsewhere on Wikipedia. They don't call kissing sex (not by itself anyway). And the lead of the Non-penetrative sex article does not call kissing sex either; if you notice, it states "includes various forms of sexual and non-sexual activity" and names kissing after that. I'm not sure what other definitions you are talking about, unless it's cuddling and bundling (tradition); I state that because all of the other acts in the article are undoubtedly sexual. As for "limited to sexual acts, ie mutual acts that can cause an orgasm"... Foreplay does not necessarily lead to orgasm, but is undoubtedly sexual.

And if you are User:Picker78, which you will deny that you are if you are him anyway, you know the drill when it comes to trying to impose your personal definitions on this article and elsewhere on Wikipedia. And on that note, Lost on belmont, you still watching this article? Or have you given up on trying to block Picker78? Flyer22 (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm talking about kissing, cuddling and bundling. These activities should not be included in the article. This article is about non-penetrative SEX and should not include forms of non-sexual activity. It should be limited to sexual acts, ie mutual acts that can cause an orgasm. Foreplay does not necessarily lead to orgasm, but it CAN lead to orgasm. On the other hand kissing, cuddling and bundling CANNOT lead to orgasm so they should not be included in the article. Just remember, this article is about non-penetrative SEX. It should be limited to sexual acts. 188.4.234.183 (talk) 22:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

No, you just remember what I stated above. I'm going by WP:Reliable sources on this matter while you are going by your personal opinion. Kissing is very often considered sexual when in the context of sexual intimacy; not only is that common sense, the sources state so. That is why kissing is included in this article and other articles about sexual activity; it is discussed in various WP:Reliable sources as not just an aspect of non-penetrative sex, but as an aspect of sexual activity in general. And as for cuddling, cuddling is also often an aspect of sexual activity, which is why it is mentioned in more than one Wikipedia article concerning sexual activity. Human sexual activity includes a variety of intimate behaviors, some of which are not necessarily sexual but come along with sexual activity, as also addressed in the Intimate relationship article. Also, I'm not sure why you are stuck on orgasm, but not all types of sexual activity lead to orgasm, but I suppose that depends on how you are defining sexual activity. All types of foreplay certainly do not lead to orgasm.

I'm done having this discussion with you. Flyer22 (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Sex has to do with sexual organs. There is no sex if no sexual organs are involved. This article is not about romance, relationships or intimacy; it clearly is about SEX. 188.4.234.183 (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Flyer is correct, we only go by what reliable sources say. The personal opinions of individual anonymous Wikipedia editors hold no weight here. If authoritative reliable sources say kissing is an aspect of non-penetrative sex, then this article will reflect that. Zad68 00:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

@188: Wikipedia is not the place to correct how the world works. Your reasoning may fully convince yourself, but now you have to go and convince people who write outside Wikipedia because articles reflect what reliable sources say, not what they should say. Johnuniq (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

We have sexual activity defined as, "...is the manner in which humans experience and express their sexuality," and foreplay (which includes kissing) is included in that. Pretty simple. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

First and foremost, as others have said before, everything goes on reliable sources. If you have a reliable source that supports your claims, by all means, put your cards on the table. There are, however, many points you've made that must be refuted. For instance, "kissing is not sexual." Really? It isn't? I may be going only from personal experience here, but I'm pretty sure it is generally not accepted/expected that heterosexual males will proceed to French kiss some of their male friends. Why not? Again, with French kissing, it is generally not accepted to French kiss relatives. Again, why not?

Another statement made by you: "...sexual acts, ie mutual acts that can cause an orgasm." I would say fingering or handjobs blow that one up. I personally have been in situations where stimulation was not mutual (I was the active partner fingering my girlfriend). I was stimulating her sexual organs, and there were orgasms, but there was nothing mutual about it. This meets several of your points (organs and orgasm) but fails mutual, but is still sex.

Lastly, you say that kissing cannot lead to orgasm because... of some reason. A lot of sex is mental. People can orgasm without any stimulation via erotic hypnosis. (Just because you can't, doesn't mean that is isn't possible. But this is entirely irrelevant.)

My statements to you on the subject really don't matter though, because we have reliable sources for our information. Your opinion does not determine content (neither does mine or my personal experiences). If you want to continue in this vein, you can start by finding a reliable source that supports your definition of "sex." Lost on Belmont ^3200N (talk) 00:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Kissing is not sex. It may be part of sexual behaviour in general, but it is certainly no sex. You need to have genitals involved to have sex. Cuddling, bundling, (light) petting, kissing, body massage, foot fetish, nipple stimulation etc. do not fall under the "non-penetrative sex" category, because there are no genitals involved. All these acts are sexual in nature but they are definitely NOT "non-penetrative sex". I know some people will get my point. You can also look at this: http://yourselfseries.com/teens/topic/stds-including-hiv/what-is-sex/ 188.4.234.183 (talk) 05:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

That link doesn't appear to be a reliable source. Even so, it specifically contradicts your earlier statement that orgasm is a defining factor of sex. Perhaps this is an indicator that the definition of sex is not a simple issue, and should be considered ambiguous instead of a yes/no checkbox. This seems to be how most reliable sources treat the matter. Grayfell (talk) 05:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Then maybe there should at least be a distinction between sexual and non-sexual non-penetrative sex, even though I think that there cannot be "non-sexual sex" - I mean, this is crazy. The article writes: "It generally excludes the penetrative aspects of vaginal, anal or oral sexual activity, but includes various forms of sexual and non-sexual activity..." Can anyone explain to me how can there be "non-sexual sex"? Nevertheless if you still insist on keeping this as it is, then you should at least make a distinction between sexual and non-sexual acts. You cannot have footjob, handjob and mammary intercourse (which ARE non-penetrative sex) thrown together with kissing, massage and bundling. The article surely needs some change. 188.4.234.183 (talk) 07:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Kissing is not always a sexual activity, but it can be a sexual activity. Seems pretty clear to me, so what's the problem? The phrasing is a bit clunky? It's clear that's not what you're getting at. Nobody but you is proposing the term "non-sexual sex". Grayfell (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not the one proposing the term "non-sexual sex"; the article does! It clearly talks about "non-sexual activity", whereas the title of the article is "Non-penetrative SEX". This is nonsense. If we are to include acts like kissing and cuddling, then how about caressing or holding hands too? The list can be endless! I'm saying this again: the article is titled "Non-penetrative SEX" and it should only include sexual acts, ie acts that involve sex organs! 188.4.234.183 (talk) 02:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

We have sources for kissing and cuddling. Do you have sources for your proposed additions of caressing and hand-holding? Grayfell (talk) 02:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Acts like kissing, cuddling, caressing and hand-holding are part of human sexual activity, or human sexual behavior if you like, but they should not be considered part of non-penetrative sex. Even sources make mistakes. Another common mistake many sources make is confusing handjob with masturbation. So relying on sources is not how it should always be. 188.4.234.183 (talk) 09:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry 188, but relying on sources is exactly how wikipedia works. we trust established published sources, not anonamouse "I know better"s. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 10:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh really... What about some logic too? 188.4.234.183 (talk) 10:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Logic is good but so far all we've heard from you, starting from the opening post, is "because I say so". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I explained my opinion very clearly. I think we should only include acts that involve sex organs. Otherwise, it is not sex. Doesn't it make sense to you? 188.4.234.183 (talk) 14:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

It makes sense that it is your opinion, which counts for squat on Wikipedia unless backed up by reliable sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, then. The vast majority of sources about "non-penetrative sex" only refer to acts involving sex organs. Just search for "non-penetrative sex" on Google and you'll see. They talk about footjob, handjob, mammary intercourse, dry humping etc. Only a handful of "non-penetrative sex" sources talk about kissing or cuddling. What does your logic say? Put them in or leave them out? 188.4.234.183 (talk) 14:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

please see erogenous zone: "People have erogenous zones all over their bodies, but which areas are more sensitive than others vary. Some may resent stimulation that others find arousing. The stimulation of these areas can produce gentle, mild or intense arousal." or even http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/BIGGEST-SEX-ORGAN-IS-STILL-THE-BRAIN-Males-2808087.php In short anything/anywhere is sexual if the person involves gets sexual pleasure from it, and it is not for you or me to limit others' expressions of sexuality. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 11:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

As I wrote above, what you describe is all part of human sexual behavior but not part of non-penetrative sex. Non-penetrative sex has to be limited to acts that involve sex organs. Try to understand the difference. Non-penetrative sex is regarded as an alternative to penetrative sex, meaning that both of them involve sexual contact that can lead to orgasm. "Biggest sex organ is still the brain"? Then shall we include virtual sex too? Or even sexual fantasies? Please be serious! We are talking about sexual contact in this article. 188.4.56.172 (talk) 02:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2014

Please add http://bonesutra.blogspot.com/?zx=6270d3297cd1fda in the list of "External Links" because this website contains accurate graphics and hand-drawn sketches of various positions for men who have non-penetrative sex with men. I would also like to request http://bonesutra.blogspot.com/?zx=6270d3297cd1fda be added in the list of "External Links" for Wikipedia's page titled "Men who have sex with men" and Wikipedia's page titled "Frot" (the page "Frot" is not protected, but I do not know how to properly add a link to http://bonesutra.blogspot.com/?zx=6270d3297cd1fda there). THANK YOU!!!! 50.8.100.203 (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC) 50.8.100.203 (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming as per WP:LINKSTOAVOID. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2015

I would like to edit this page to shift its focus away from the harmful and misogynystic stereotypes of "virginity" as being defined by some sort sex act that must require a penis, and remove it in favor of substituting it with more factual information. In particular, I would like to replace the focus of "virginity" with more focus on how the sexual acts described in the article are often prepared for, executed, and to do so in a way that will not contribute to the social construct of "virginity" we as a modern society have little to no need to subscribe to.

Also, just as a fun fact, the word "virgin" was originally used in reference to a young, unmarried woman. I realized it has changed by today's standards, however these standards still contribute to the already skyrocketing rates of anxiety experienced by teenagers, and effect teenage boys and teenage girls very differently, as well as adding an additional layer of immense frustration to LGBTQ youth. Breeze3ki (talk) 05:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Breeze3ki (talk · contribs), we're simply going by what the WP:Reliable sources state...with WP:Due weight. Among other things, the article notes how heterosexual couples and same-sex couples may define virginity; obviously, that includes non-penetrative sex or "outercourse." While I understand your concerns, and I note the penis aspect on my user page, Wikipedia is not the place to try to change the world (well, not generally anyway); see WP:Activism. Flyer22 (talk) 07:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

With this and this edit, I made the personal view aspect clear -- that what is virginity, safer sex, or more explicit sexual contact are the personal opinions of these couples. Flyer22 (talk) 07:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

it's been awhile since this was raised. i thought your 2 edit attempts as shown above were...a good start in the first case; fine in the 2nd. i've made an edit to your 1st edit to try to make it even MORE obvious. the reason/s i did so - first, for the sake of both accuracy and impartiality, but, more importantly, because the issue/idea of virginity and who is and is not a virgin AND WHO GETS TO DEFINE THAT AND FOR WHOM has shifted away from 'just' "was there penile penetration or not" to "was there consent". this is a much larger issue, although i don't have any sources for you right now. but that's just because i haven't read anything...not because there aren't any. i'm SURE there are. heck, there are PSAs on broadcast channels about this now. (not that they mention "virginity," but they address the concept of "rape is not sex.") i've heard it talked about--a person who was a virgin and was raped is still a virgin--but i don't know any text sources yet. mostly just opening this up for discussion (and it likely needs to be addressed/brought up on many WP articles about sex), but i went ahead and made the small-ish text change now because i'd probably forget how it came to me to re-word it, and i know it can easily be undone, if there is a consensus to present it/discuss it some other way.Colbey84 (talk) 13:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

see previous comment. Consent has nothing to do with it. If I steal your car, you don't still have it because it was taken without your consent. If you want to redefine virginity then please provide a source, not "there must be some" IdreamofJeanie (talk) 13:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

questionable source

Alan Brauer & Donna Brauer (1991). The ESO Ecstasy Program: Better, Safer Sexual Intimacy and Extended Orgasmic Response

i question the use of this source, at least for it's use here: "Expanded orgasm as a mutual masturbation technique reportedly creates orgasm experiences more intense and extensive than what can be described as, or included in the definition of, a regular orgasm."

i can't verify what's in it, as it's not an available ebook, but i question why a source is used that is, apparently, merely quoting another source? wouldn't it be better to use the original material then? 2 reasons to support this:

• at some point, the original material is misquoted (either in the Brauer book, or by the person who put it on WP)--i'm fairly certain it's "Masters and Johnson" and not "Masters in Johnson" (however apropos that may be); the error makes me question the source even more.
• it appears to be from the Introduction of the source cited, which makes me lean even MORE to "just use the original source."Colbey84 (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Ridiculous lede

Non-penetrative sex includes penetrative sex?? I. don't. think. so. What a mess. Masturbation can be, but is not necessarily, non-penetrative. The lede ridiculously states:"Some forms of non-penetrative sex, particularly when termed outercourse, include penetrative aspects, such as penetration that may result from forms of fingering or oral sex.[4][5][6]" NO "forms" of non-penetrative sex include penetrative "aspects"!! Obviously. And I don't care how many erroneous (again, obviously) references you have. If you have a GOOD authoritative source of this non sequitur, quote it. If it does not include the term "non-penetrative", don't bother wasting our time. This is the kind of rubbish that gives Wikipedia a bad name. Both the lede and several sections need to be corrected.Abitslow (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Abitslow, I didn't see your above post until months after you posted and I'm just now taking the time to reply. The thing about your objections is that reliable sources disagree with you. See what I stated in the #Significant expansion section above. A lot of sources use the term outercourse; that term commonly includes acts that people might consider to be penetrative sex (such as oral sex involving the penis penetrating the mouth or oral sex involving the penetration of the vagina), and it's also a term that is at times used interchangeably with non-penetrative sex. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

To be even clearer, a number of these sources (see here, for example) are subscribing to either the heteronormative "penile-vaginal sex is truest; therefore, the other sex acts don't count" view or the "penile penetration in any form is truest" view; both are views that society often subscribes to. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Classification of Acts by Exclusivity of Penetration

if one french kisses another on the genitals or anus, could that involve penetration? if so, then french kissing should be included in the list of "non-exclusively non-penetrative" acts. i made this change with revision id 783940867. it was reverted by User:Flyer22 Reborn, who has asked me to "prove" that french kissing can involve penetration. i must admit that i'm struggling to find a credible source for such a common-sense proposition. as it stands, french kissing is exclusively non-penetrative, even though by definition, the tongue penetrates the mouth.

p.s. isn't this penetration distinction absurdly arbitrary? why separate sexual acts into categories based on whether they can be conducted without penetration? ridiculous. --Lucas (talk) 12:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Lucasreddinger, I reverted you because french kissing is not considered to be penetrative sex; the source you duplicated does not support that argument either. And while kissing can be sexual, it is not considered sexual intercourse. It is not sexual intercourse; nor is it non-penetrative sex when going by some definitions. Non-penetrative sex is mainly based on whether or not penile-vaginal sex, penile-anal sex, or oral sex has occurred. Going by the literature, fingering and dildo use are secondary to those aspects. As for ridiculousness, we go by what WP:Reliable sources state with WP:Due weight. For example, some sources consider oral sex to be penetrative sex, while other sources list it as non-penetrative sex (outercourse). Similar goes for fingering. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you reverted me—I'm still here! penetrate (tr. v. 1.a.) is "to pass into or through" . Oral-to-oral French kissing involves the passing of the tongue into the partner's mouth, or the passing of the tongue through the partner's lips. Thus, oral-to-oral French kissing is exclusively penetrative, which is a subset of non-exclusively non-penetrative. As an aside, neither WP:Reliable sources nor WP:Due weight clarify why exclusivity of penetration is a useful classification in this article. I advocate no classification based on such an arbitrary distinction—I instead advocate that we simply list all of the acts together. The readership may find any other number of alternative classifications equally useful, such as the following classification:

• acts that can be performed between any sexes (e.g., French kissing, intercrural/intergluteal intercourse);
• acts that require a heterosexual couple (e.g. mammary intercourse); and
• acts that require a homosexual couple, (e.g. tribadism, frotting).

So why do we classify based on exclusivity of penetration? --Lucas (talk) 00:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I added this concern to the article with Revision 785164290. Cheers. --Lucas (talk) 00:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Lucasreddinger, you are still here, but I reverted your initial edit. That is what I meant by reverting you; see WP:Revert. If you'd rather I state that I reverted your edit, then so be it. Either way, I stand by what I stated above. Unless reliable sources exist stating that French kissing is penetrative sex, we will not be listing French kissing as penetrative sex. Kissing by itself, whether French kissing is included or not, is not considered sex by any reliable source I've come across. Kissing can be an aspect of being sexual, as a number of reliable sources state, but an aspect of being sexual is not automatically the same thing as sex.

As for why there is an "Exclusively non-penetrative" and "Non-exclusively non-penetrative" section in the article, this is likely per previous debates at this talk page; by that, it's likely so that readers know that some acts that are considered non-penetrative may be penetrative in some way, which is covered in the lead (introduction of the article) and in the General section of the "Definitions and practices" section. Exclusivity of penetration is a useful classification in this article because it is addressed in reliable sources. I repeat: "Some sources consider oral sex to be penetrative sex, while other sources list it as non-penetrative sex (outercourse). Similar goes for fingering." Fingering the vagina may be considered penetrative sex, while fingering the vulva may not be considered penetrative sex, for example. And then there are sources that list fingering (meaning all fingering) as "outercourse." We also currently include "Non-exclusively penetrative" and "Non-penetrative" categorization at the Sex position article.

As for your suggested division, I disagree; we don't need that many sections for a little bit of material; see MOS:Paragraphs (what it states about creating sections a for a little bit of material). I would be fine with removing the kissing passage, however. I wouldn't mind much if the kissing passage was removed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

But keep in mind that kissing is listed in the "Exclusively non-penetrative" section because some reliable sources on non-penetrative sex/outercourse include it...since it is a way of being sexual without sexual penetration. French kissing is not considered sexual penetration, and that is why I reverted your edit. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your perspective. --Lucas (talk) 11:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Definition of "Handjob"

Under the heading: Exclusively non-penetrative

you will find the definition of Handjob:

Handjob: the manual sexual stimulation of the penis by a person on a male, often used as a form of mutual masturbation.

Besides this sentences poor construction (stimulation of the penis by a person on a male?), the current movement towards an acceptance of the concept of non-binary gender as well as Transgender individuals is not reflected in this sentence. In fact, this sentence is hetero-normative.

I think the sentence should read something like this to avoid hetero-normativity:

Handjob: the manual sexual stimulation of another persons penis, often used as a form of mutual masturbation.

Badweatherrr (talk) 16:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2018

Under the heading: Exclusively non-penetrative

you will find the definition of Handjob:

Handjob: the manual sexual stimulation of the penis by a person on a male, often used as a form of mutual masturbation.

Besides this sentences poor construction (stimulation of the penis by a person on a male?), the current movement towards an acceptance of the concept of non-binary gender as well as Transgender individuals is not reflected in this sentence. In fact, this sentence is hetero-normative.

I think the sentence should read something like this to avoid hetero-normativity:

Handjob: the manual sexual stimulation of another persons penis, often used as a form of mutual masturbation. Badweatherrr (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Done Simplified and copy-edited. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Eggishorn! --Badweatherrr (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with Eggishorn's change. But, Badweatherrr, regardless of transgender and genderqueer issues, there are a lot of things we won't change on Wikipedia when it comes to anatomical matters. This is per our WP:Due weight policy. Also, our Handjob article currently states "is the manual stimulation of a male's penis or scrotum by another person to induce sexual pleasure, sometimes resulting in orgasm." But as seen at Talk:Human penis/Archive 1#"male humans" should be changed to "humans assigned male at birth", I and others did consider not beginning the Human penis article with the statement that it's something that male humans have. The article now simply begins by describing the organ as male, and this is because the literature does. We can't state that it's simply something that some people have and not specify it as a male reproductive system organ.

In the case of the Non-penetrative sex article, since the content in question stated "on a male" and did not exclude same-sex relations, one might argue that it's not heteronormative. But heteronormative does also concern the gender binary. Our Wikipedia article currently begins by defining it as "the belief that people fall into distinct and complementary genders (male and female) with natural roles in life." Anyway, your suggestion certainly improved the grammar. Thank you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Flyer22 Reborn. I realized afterwards that I had probably poorly stated my position. But thanks for responding and clarifying things. I spend a lot of time reading and writing so sometimes something jumps out at me begging for editing. --Badweatherrr (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Minor risk

In the Health risks section, we have this clause: "however, there is a minor risk that if HIV-infected blood, or genital secretions (semen or vaginal secretions), enter an open wound, the person is at risk." This is an obviously bad construction, but I'm not sure how best to fix it as I don't have access to the reference and am not sure exactly what "minor risk" means in this context.--agr (talk) 14:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Here is a proposed revision "however, there is some risk if HIV-infected blood or genital secretions (semen or vaginal secretions) enter an open wound."--agr (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I made the above change.--agr (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The confusing/contradictory definition of non-penetrative sex used in article

The definition of non-penetrative sex used in the "General" subsection of "Definitions and Practices" is confusing. It states:

While non-penetrative sex (or outercourse) is usually defined as excluding sexual penetration,[1][2][3] some non-penetrative sex acts can have penetrative components and may therefore be categorized as non-penetrative sex

The part that states "some non-penetrative sex acts can have penetrative components and may therefore be categorized as non-penetrative sex" is contradictory. If the sexual acts have "penetrative components" then logically that does not support it's categorization as strictly non-penetrative sex, as the definition previously stated. It more accurate to describe certain non-penetrative sex acts with penetrative components as both penetrative and non-penetrative depending on how they are practiced in any particular instance but point out that they are still generally labeled non-penetrative by experts, despite this. For example, fingering and mutual masturbation can involves penetration or not depending on the technique used but may still be generally categorized as non-penetrative sex. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 03:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

It is probably a typo: it should read: "may therefore be categorized as penetrative sex". Ruslik_Zero 20:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I found nothing contradictory about the previous wording, any more than I find the lead contradictory by stating "Some forms of non-penetrative sex, particularly when termed outercourse, include penetrative aspects, such as penetration that may result from forms of fingering or oral sex." It goes without saying that if we are stating that some non-penetrative sex acts have penetrative components, then we are stating that those non-penetrative sex acts may also be classified as penetrative sex. And we do have a "Exclusively non-penetrative" section and a "Non-exclusively non-penetrative" section in the article. The previous wording stated nothing about the acts being strictly non-penetrative. And as I've noted before on some penetrative sex acts being classified as outercourse or non-penetrative, it's just how the literature is. And I'm following what the WP:Reliable sources state. Plenty of topics have more than one definition and therefore "contradictory" definitions in some cases. That stated, I don't object to this edit...except for "generally." I don't see "generally" making sense there. So I removed it. As that edit shows, I also reverted the unsourced bit about mutual masturbation. And I reverted this WP:Editorializing piece. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)