Talk:Sexual intercourse/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Choice of lead illustration

The lead illustration is captioned as showing "the missionary position, the most common human sex position", but it shows the woman with raised legs. According to the article, the basic missionary position is the version where no legs are raised. Would it not be more appropriate for the lead illustration to show that position? For example, the one in that section of the other article could be used. --98.158.139.69 (talk) 09:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

If you do not know already, this matter was already addressed: Talk:Sexual intercourse/Archive 8#Is Avril showing "missionary"?. There are clearly different types of missionary positions. And the current lead image of the Sexual intercourse article is the same current lead image of Missionary position article. For why we've settled on that image for the Sexual intercourse article, read the archived discussion I pointed you to (that is, if you have not already read it); it points to a more extensive discussion about the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 09:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Basic position section of the Missionary article you are referring to clearly currently states, "In the missionary position, a woman lies on her back with her legs comfortably spread either flat or raised toward her chest with the soles of the feet resting on the mattress." It was also like that before I made this recent edit there. That line is unsourced at the moment, however, and one aspect of that article that needs fixing up is its sourcing -- its lack of sources, and the fact that its poor sources need to be traded out for better ones. Going back to the picture aspect, the picture you pointed to clearly shows the woman with her legs raised. And I was clear in the aforementioned Is Avril showing "missionary"? discussion that a "legs flat" (as in actually flat) missionary position is not ideal for sexual pleasure...at least according to consistent research surveying women on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 10:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Reproductive behavior vs. Reproductive Behaviour

I noticed that one of these pages redirects here, while the other page points to another article. Which target should both of these pages point to? Jarble (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Jarble, have "Reproductive behavior" redirect to the Reproduction article like "Reproductive Behaviour" does, not only for consistency but because the Reproduction article is more fitting since it is strictly about reproduction and behaviors relating to it. Flyer22 (talk) 20:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

New sections per MOS

Flyer22, I have expanded the sections slightly and have more content and references to add. Please retain the sections to allow the addition of updated references and additional information that will improve the article. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  21:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Putting my objections to you editing near me aside for now, what part of WP:MOS states that the subsection headings you added are needed? I reverted you because I found those subsection headings as unneeded. This is your version of subheadings for the Health effects section, and this is my version. I generally follow MOS:Paragraphs when it comes to whether or not to create subheadings; the part that I mean is where it states, "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text; by the same token, paragraphs that exceed a certain length become hard to read. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." You stated, "created sections for easier editing." I stated, "Revert unneeded subsectioning. Per MOS:Paragraphs, we should not create subsections for a little bit of material. It is not easier reading; it makes the article look bigger than it is from t[he] table of contents." I feel that way about all types of articles, including film articles, as seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 56#Unnecessary subheadings, which violate MOS:Paragraphs, in the Box office sections. Out of that discussion, the editor who best understood what I meant was Betty Logan. I don't create subheadings with the idea of future expansion in mind; I create subheadings based on whether or not the article needs them at that moment. Because of this, I reverted you at the Anal sex article as well, as seen here (followup note here). Flyer22 (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

More noted in the #Style of the article section below. Flyer22 (talk) 07:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Reference style

The article should generally be consistent with its reference style. Bit by bit, I have been changing the reference style of this article to be consistent. This edit by Bfpage, where Bfpage used Template:RP is not consistent reference style. Furthermore, I do not like that reference style; the reason why is because, besides resembling graffiti, it tends to distract our readers. I've seen IPs and registered editors confused about that reference style and remove the additional numbers because they don't know that they are part of the references. For an example, see this and this edit by Starburst9 (talk · contribs). I corrected Starburst9 with a note in the edit summary. You can see here that Starburst9 thanked me for the correction. Maybe Starburst9 is willing to explain here why he found that reference style jarring. Flyer22 (talk) 23:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Removed. Flyer22 (talk) 00:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I was told by Doc James to cite page numbers when referencing a medical text book. Will edit to hide page numbers.

  Bfpage |leave a message  00:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Mostly, I guess it was because I didn't know what it meant. Using "page" or "p." or something would be must clearer than just a colon...especially because its so rare, almost all refs give the range of pages for the whole ref. Starburst9 (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Style of the article

Bfpage, regarding my not liking edit choices you make, it's because the way you edit conflicts with how I edit on a large scale and you make a lot WP:Newbie mistakes, like this recent heading matter in the Sexual intercourse article. You also seem to prefer list form as opposed to WP:Prose form more than I would like, as seen in this section at the Menopause article. That section currently looks differently, but has too many subsection headings. A subheading for a single-sentence paragraph? In the #New sections per MOS discussion above, I noted I do not like that type of editing and that MOS:Paragraphs is clear about that type of editing. Let's take this "Sexual intercourse and disabilities" section you added. Why do we need that section when we already have the "Duration and sexual difficulties" section, and disabilities during sexual intercourse are already mentioned there? We do not need a section for every topic that has to do with sexual intercourse. One paragraph for the sexuality and disability matter suffices, with the Sexuality and disability article being the article for in-depth material on it. And despite my stating that I do not like unnecessary subsection headings, you created this relatively small "Sexual intercourse after surgery" section, as if we need a section specifically for that topic and as if that section should be significantly expanded. As you know, I moved that section, but left your subheading for it intact for now.

With this edit, you stated, "rmoved redundancy." That quote within the reference is not redundancy. I added that quote for the following reasons: Because that reference is not only used for the most common definition of sexual intercourse, but also to relay the most common sexual position, and because the reference could become sort of a WP:Dead link at any time; by sort "sort of a WP:Dead link," I mean that those page numbers could become unavailable on Google Books while other pages in that book on Google Books are available. That source is also used for other things in the article as well, but those two matters are the most contentious. When people add quotes to references, as was done in this other case where you removed the quotes (and I noted, here and here, why the quotes were likely added), it is usually for a good reason. And as for this bit you added, how is that WP:Lead material? For one, stating "Typical sexual intercourse consists of sexual activity" is silly to me since sexual intercourse is sexual activity. For two, "with progression through the phases from attraction, arousal to relaxation with no problems, and with feelings of fulfillment, pleasure, and satisfaction" part is too strict; people experience sexual intercourse differently (for example, people don't always have sexual intercourse with a person because they are sexually attracted to that person), and its pleasure aspect is already covered in the first paragraph, including the other intimate aspects. Flyer22 (talk) 02:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I was tempted to significantly reduce the "Sexual intercourse and disabilities" content you added and to stick the remainder of it at the end of the "Duration and sexual difficulties" section where disability-related pain was already addressed. Instead, with this edit, I renamed the "Duration and sexual difficulties" section to "Duration and genital complications" and moved your "After surgery" content there, and created the "Other disabilities" section out of your "Sexual intercourse and disabilities" content and the disability-related pain content that was in the "Duration and sexual difficulties" section. I initially had the "Other disabilities" section titled "Physical and mental disabilities," but, given that the Disability article is currently so broad in its definition of what a disability is, and the content in the "Duration and genital complications" section could be considered disability content going by that broad definition, I went with "Other disabilities" for the title. Flyer22 (talk) 07:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Further tweaks here; in this edit, I note WP:Due weight for another reason why I don't think the death content needs its own section. Flyer22 (talk) 07:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Update: The "Other disabilities" heading was recently changed by me with this edit. Flyer22 (talk) 16:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing

Ewawer (Enthusiast), when it comes to edits like this (followup note here) and this, make sure that you are sourcing your material (per WP:Burden) and are sticking to what the sources state. I know that you aren't used to using WP:Citation templates and instead go on your knowledge of things and/or copy and paste references that you find in other articles, but even adding a bare URL would help; sure, bare URLs are far more likely to turn into a WP:Dead link, but at least it's a source and can be filled in with WP:Reflinks. Also, while adding citation templates is a pain, you can copy and paste a citation template already in an article, and fill in the correct information for the source you are applying it to. After this article was tagged with Template:Citation needed here, here and here in December 2014, I made this, this, this and this edit to add sources and further fix up the article; that includes the Marriage and relationships section you've recently added to. As you can see, it needs a little more sourcing and tweaks to the references. So I would rather that no more unsourced material is added to it, unless it will be sourced soon afterward. Then again, as you know, I will sometimes source things for you when I can. Flyer22 (talk) 07:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Ewawer (Enthusiast), while I wouldn't call what you added here and here good sources, at least it's something. Thanks. I'll eventually look for better sources for that material, starting by looking to Google Books. Flyer22 (talk) 07:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

123username, same as I asked Ewawer above: Do you have better sources for this and this material, and would you use citation templates? That stated, the BBC News and amnesty.org sources you added are okay. And the europa.eu source you added seems okay; I'm not sure about its reliability, though. Per WP:Dead link, bare URLs are not a good thing. If others don't add citation templates for the sources they add, then I or someone else has to do it. Of course, there are other citation styles, as seen at WP:Citing sources, but the vast majority of this article uses citation templates, and I prefer citation templates. Ewawer recently added a better source for his material, using citation template style. Flyer22 (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

What part is being contested? The part on divorce laws should probably go, the sources added by Ewawer do not even support the claims (I only made it more readable), but divorce legislation is very complex and varies so much by jurisdiction that it probably shouldn't be addressed here. Other than that, are there other problems? 123username (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Europa.eu is the official website of the European Union, so for things such as demographics it can be considered reliable. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

123username, I'm concerned about the canons 1697-1706 vatican.va source and the law.moj.gov Criminal Code of the Republic of China source you added. As for Ewawer, yes, he at times engages in WP:Synthesis, which I indicated above. You think that none of the sources he added support any of the text he was editing?

Tgeorgescu, yes, I saw that europa.eu is the official website of the European Union, but seeing the "Translation controversy" section currently in that article made me wonder if it has other controversies and whether or not they pertain to the site's reliability. Flyer22 (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The sources on divorce do not support the claims (and does not give a page). Now it's well known that most fault-based divorce laws will (at least under certain circumstances) grant a divorce for lack of marital sex. The concepts of "no fault divorce" and "irretrievable breakdown of marriage" have different legal meaning in different jurisdictions. In some (Sweden, Finland) no-fault divorce means divorce on demand: it is given on application without having to cite any reason. In other states you have to swear under oath that there is an "irretrievable breakdown of marriage". But in some jurisdictions you still need to prove to the court that your marital relation is damaged (lack of sex may be a proof) the difference being that the court will not assign 'fault' to any spouse (since it is a 'no-fault' system). The sources that are currently in the text do not discuss the issue of sexual intercourse between spouses as it relates to divorce. If the adultery source is not good, it's easy to find another one (such as [1]). I think the one for ratum sed non consummatum is ok, but even if it's not, there is a link to the main article so it should be fine. 123username (talk) 00:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Just for the purpose of discussion, in relation to divorce proceedings, whether on a fault or no-fault basis, divorce will normally not be granted if the couple applying for divorce are still having sexual relations; and in relation to grounds for divorce which do not involve true fault, such as "separation", "abandonment" etc, the time runs from the time of last sexual relations, and any sexual relations (if known to the court) stops that time from running. Enthusiast (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

This depends on the jurisdiction that you're talking about. If the law requires that the court inquires what goes on in that marriage (whether or not 'fault' is relevant) then you're generally right. But some jurisdictions do not require that or require the analyzing of the marital relation by the court only when one spouse objects to the divorce, with consensual divorce being given without a need for any justification and without the court inquiring into the motives, with the agreement of the spouses being sufficient.123username (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

With this edit (followup edit here), I took care of the recent sourcing issues, specified some text (such as the marital exemption aspect), and expanded on some of the material. Regarding Ewawer's "The complete guide to divorce law" source, he gave page 9 for that source. Perhaps the URL for that source clearly showed the page when he added the source, even though it doesn't now. It's common for the pages of Google Books sources to become restricted, sometimes soon after accessing the source. This is why I sometimes add quotes from the sources in the reference templates. I would hate to think that Ewawer added that source when it supports none of the material. Flyer22 (talk) 06:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, looking at that page again (Ewawer's source), it's now working for me. Is it working for others? Looking at that source, the "With regard to divorce laws, in jurisdictions that have had or still have fault-based divorce law" and "In some no-fault divorce jurisdictions" sentences need more sourcing. Flyer22 (talk) 06:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

With this edit, I fixed my europa.eu formatting and cut away some text pertaining to Ewawer's source; this is because, as stated in that edit summary, I didn't see any sources for all of that material (when I looked on Google Books). Maybe I didn't look hard enough. What I saw is this 2006 Encyclopedia of Sexual Behavior and the Law source, from CQ Press, page 112, stating, "In some of the states that have not completely abandoned fault-based divorce, abuse of drugs can be grounds for divorce." And this 2012 Family Law: Cases, Materials, and Problems source, from LexisNexis, page 386 onward, about adultery and similar (but not about witholding sex or failure to engage in sex). Flyer22 (talk) 07:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Ewawer, I reverted you with this edit for three reasons: Firstly, of course, the topic of "marriage as the most appropriate union for sexual reproduction (procreation)" is relevant. Not only is it supported by the source I added, it is addressed in bullet-point examples lower in that section, with WP:Reliable sources supporting it; that is why I added the WP:Hidden note about it being addressed lower. In various religions and societies, there is a belief that sexual intercourse should only happen within marriage for the purpose of sexual reproduction, or that sexual intercourse within marriage should mainly or partly be for sexual production. The second reason for reverting you is that 123username objects to your removal of this text, and you should discuss that with 123username. The third reason for reverting you is that the no-fault divorce material I added certainly has to do with sexual intercourse; it is clear that no-fault divorces have afforded wives with greater control over their bodies, meaning their bodies are no longer for the husband to use at his will when it comes to sexual intercourse. We go by what the sources state on matters such as these, not personal opinion. Flyer22 (talk) 11:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

With this edit (followup edit here), I added back one of your wording changes and significantly cut down the no-fault divorce material I added; I did this so that it addresses the most relevant points. Again, the "have obtained greater control over their bodies" part is relevant per what I stated above and because it, including the marital exemption aspect of it, is addressed in the first paragraph of that section; so what I left in regarding no-fault divorce is not off-topic in the least. Flyer22 (talk) 12:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

More on sexual reproduction clearly seen with this edit, lower in the section. Flyer22 (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

___

Template:Globalize tag added to the Adolescents section

Dentren, I've been meaning to add more material to that section concerning other countries, so I appreciate you having reminded me of that by tagging the section with Template:Globalize. But the tag you used states, "The examples and perspective in this section deal primarily with the US and the Western World and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject." Since the only text in that section that specifically addresses the United states is the "sex education and abstinence-only sex education curricula" text, I don't see how the section primarily concerns the US and the Western World. What other content in that section do you think is only a US/Western world matter? In what way are you looking for that section to be globalized? Template:Globalize is clear that, before or after adding the tag, you should explain your concerns here at the article talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 05:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

We need to take a closed look on which people the studies cited in the article are based. I doub't it will be Middle East, African or South and East Asian adolescents. Scrutiny is the word. Dentren | ^Talk 10:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Dentren, I considered that you might state something like that, but I don't think it's the way we usually assess matters with regard to Template:Globalize; I mean, we do look for sources that address how things are covered/viewed in different cultures, or sources addressing a specific culture so that we can use it as a diverse example. But it's not up to us to try to determine if the sources focused on Middle East, African or South and East Asian adolescents, and so on, if the sources do not state what country/culture the data is based on. Template:Globalize states, "This tag should only be applied to articles where global perspectives are reasonably believed to exist (e.g., that people in China have a different view about an idea or situation than people in Germany or South Africa)." Unless we have solid reason to believe that the text stating "teenage pregnancy is often disparaged, and research suggests that the earlier onset of puberty for children puts pressure on children and teenagers to act like adults before they are emotionally or cognitively ready" only applies to the US/Western world, we shouldn't assume or imply that it's only a US/Western world matter; similar goes for the text stating "Some studies have concluded that engaging in sexual intercourse leaves adolescents, especially girls, with higher levels of stress and depression, and that girls may be likelier to engage in sexual risk (such as sexual intercourse without the use of a condom)," or the romantic relationships text. We don't state "According to American studies" for matters such as these, in the same way we don't for the Circumcision article. And we can only use what sources are available to us. Compared to the US/Western world, sex education and knowledge of sexual health in general are poorer in various countries/cultures. That stated, I will obviously see what I can do to globalize the section in question. Flyer22 (talk) 14:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not have the time to check the sources right now, but I strongly suspect them of bias. If you feel uncomfortable with the tag remove it for now as it is based on a assumption (on good reasons). For the sake of clarity it doesn't matter who made the study, science is science everywhere, what matters is if the study subject is a subset (e.g. Taiwanese adolescents) and is then without explicit justification presented as universally representative. Dentren | ^Talk 08:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Poor Use of Illustrations

This article should use medical illustrations that demonstrate sexual functions, particularly for those who have little alternatives in sexual education.

The images in the article are better suited for "depictions of sexuality" or "sexual intercourse in art." 66.68.207.59 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sexual intercourse. 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:

• Added archive {newarchive} to http://tidepool.st.usm.edu/crswr/103animalreproduction.html

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

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Cyberbot just removed the link, however I did his job for him and actually added a archive link. Galobtter (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Religions interpretation

For islam..men cannot married more than 4 women. Beside, we islam are not allowed to do temporary marriage (nikad mut'ah). Even there is a people who do this (basically can't except for certain situation) we are not permit to do sex... even women can't do temporary marriage. P/s: sorry if there is a broken english or typo or rude way of explaining it...Have a nice day😉 Yukikowhite (talk) 10:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sexual intercourse. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Template: Sex (biology) and Template:Sex (biology) sidebar

Sharif uddin is adding Template:Sex (biology) and Template:Sex (biology) sidebar (templates he created) to a number of sex articles, which is creating redundancy. With this edit, I reverted Sharif uddin's addition of Template:Sex (biology) sidebar to the lead and his moving the lead image to the left; I stated, "We do not need this Sex template on every sexual article. And it is redundant to the template you placed lower in the article. And we do not usually place lead images on the left." Furthermore, I do not see that the templates are especially relevant to this article since this article is more so about sexual activity than a focus on sex from a biological standpoint.

Sharif uddin has a penchant to edit war over matters such as these, so I have brought this dispute to the talk page right away. Pinging Johnuniq, NeilN, Zad68, Grayfell, Cullen328 and Nigelj and for their input. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

My initial reaction is to agree with Flyer22 Reborn, although I am as always willing to consider other points of view. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm a bit negative about the tendency to put lavish sidebars in articles, and do not see that {{Sex (biology) sidebar}} is needed. The first navbox is the new {{Sex (biology)}} and that is the normal place for navboxes. Certainly the lead image should be in the standard place, on the right. Johnuniq (talk) 11:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2016

197.40.196.134 (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Grayfell (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Recent real-life image

IWJXB, regarding this and what you stated elsewhere, yes, Wikipedia does not censor. But Wikipedia is also clear that we do not include explicit or offensive material simply because we can. Both WP:Not censored and WP:Offensive material are clear about that. And as has been stated on this talk page and the talk pages of other Wikipedia sexual articles, when we can use a less offensive image to display a sexual act, we should. This is per WP:Offensive material. For years, images of real-life sexual acts caused problems for our sexual articles due to POV issues, our readers complaining about porn images being used to display sexual acts, and our readers complaining about the images seemingly being purely for shock value. Wikipedia eventually adopted the routine of using images by Seedfeeder or other drawings and paintings of sexual acts for our sexual articles since they could be just as informative as real-life sexual images without the issues that come with real-life sexual images. Now it's the case that we usually only use a real-life sexual image if there is no alternative that is less offensive.

Regarding that other edit, you might also want to see what WP:Offensive material states about censoring words. If the words are censored by the source, we should stick with the source's censorship. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Recent emphasis on anal sex reverted

MShefa, regarding this and this edit by you, which were reverted by Johnuniq and IdreamofJeanie, they reverted for valid reasons and you need to stop edit warring on the matter. You stated that you were trying to normalize anal sex. No one should be trying to normalize anything when editing this site; see the advocacy essay. Anal sex is already normalized, but the fact remains that it and oral sex are nowhere close to being defined as sexual intercourse as commonly as penile-vaginal sex is defined as sexual intercourse. This remains true even in 2016. Anal sex is not listed as an alternative. Because of the due weight policy, anal sex, oral sex and other sex acts are listed second because they are only defined as sexual intercourse according to some sources, or secondly when it comes to some dictionary sources including anal and oral sex as sexual intercourse. They are listed second because there is so much disagreement about some of them being defined as sexual intercourse or as "real sex." By contrast, penile-vaginal sex is always considered sexual intercourse. Whether people like it or not, penile-vaginal sex is the principal definition of sexual intercourse, and the article makes that explicitly clear (including by way of discussion of how researchers define the matter). The Prevalence section also makes this clear. The article also speaks of the heteronormative aspect of this factor. It is not for us to give artificial equal weight to anal sex and/or other sex acts. You shouldn't be twisting the text in ways not supported by the sources and/or removing things on a "I don't like it" basis. Even the way you reworded the first sentence was off because anal sex is not used for reproduction. And putting "anal" or "anus" before "vagina" or "vaginal" is POV-pushing not only because anal sex is not the most popular form of sex among heterosexuals, but it also is not the most popular form of sex among gay men or lesbians.

If you want to discuss this, you should do it here at this talk page, not at my talk page. It should be here so that others will know of the discussion and can easily weigh in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

intercourse.

it says intercourse is for reproduction and pleasure or both, but it's also used for emotional intimacy/communication and i think that should be included. saying it's about reproduction and pleasure hardly describes sex at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.99.93.68 (talk) 06:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The first sentence of the lead states "sexual pleasure, reproduction, or both." Many people include "emotional intimacy" in their definition of "sexual pleasure." And in any case, the first sentence is not the only aspect of the article defining sexual intercourse. The focus of the first sentence is the general definition. The last paragraph of the lead includes what you are looking for; it states, "These activities involve physical intimacy between two or more individuals and are usually used among humans solely for physical or emotional pleasure and commonly contribute to human bonding." There is no need to add all of that in the first sentence. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

"Some children and adolescents can consent" content

I reverted this material that was added by Adriennepjones (talk · contribs). I reverted for reasons not only noted in my edit summary (poor wording, weak source and WP:Editorializing), but also because it is not commonly argued that non-adolescent children can reasonably consent to sexual activity with an adult. Underage "reasonably consent" arguments are mostly discussed in relation to underage post-pubescent teenagers, and/or underage teenagers engaging in sexual activity with each other. Arguments that non-teenagers can reasonably consent to sexual activity with an adult are usually arguments made by pedophiles, child sexual abusers and those wanting to abolish the age of consent laws.

I don't have access to the source that Adriennepjones added, but it was easy for me to see that editorializing was going on. Jytdog, do you have access to this source? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Also pinging Legitimus, who often has access to such sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

here is a better link to the book chapter. This content is drawn from one page of the chapter - will email that to you. I can see it in google books here. Jytdog (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Jytdog. I'll go ahead and read it. What do you think of the source and using it for the material that Adriennepjones added? Should we reword Adriennepjones's material? Add a different source? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Reading the source you have provided me with, Adriennepjones's text was certainly editorializing.

The source states, "Although there are a number of commentators who argue that such legislation impacts on the rights of the child, there has been recognition that some states have enacted overly broad laws to protect children from potential abuse (Perry, 2009). Thus, while in practice a young person in Victoria (Australia) may be fully aware about the consequences of the activity to which they are consenting, if they are under 16 years of age, the law deems them unable to consent to such activity (depending on the age of the other person engaging in the sexual activity)."

I wonder what commentators the source is referring to. And the "overly broad" aspect goes back to what I was stating above; this is usually referring to underage teenagers, including those having sex with other underage teenagers or teenagers who are 18 or 19 (which led to the Romeo and Juliet laws); the "overly broad" aspect is not referring to prepubescents, and it's usually not referring to non-teenagers who are pubescent either. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The reference is a decent one. The source author's large issue is that consent should be moved to the center of law regulating sex and the law should be reworked to eliminate inconsistencies (for example, with consent at the center, there is no logic in criminalizing sodomy). In thinking through this, the author has a section (less than a page) about minors, and notes that the "age of consent" defined in laws is a) somewhat arbitrary and varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction; b) inevitably there will be some people under the age of consent in a given jurisdiction who actually are actually mature enough to give (or not give) consent and these laws are not really fair to them; c) these laws and their strict age limits are widely accepted as necessary to protect people who cannot consent and the "rough justice" they provide is needed.

I understand the revert you did; this is something to check carefully.

If you look carefully at the diff, you'll see that the content was added into the middle of other sourced content, which wasn't appropriate as it broke the connection between the source and the content it was supporting. I stepped back further and don't understand what is going on in the section; Consent and sexual offenses which talks about OFFTOPIC matters like whether rape only involves penis/vagina interactions. The section needs to be reworked to be about the topic named in the header, or the header needs to be fixed. It is unclear what people who have worked on this article so far are after but wherever things end up, it seems likely to me that this section should cite a main article, and just summarize it per WP:SYNC. Nothing new should ever be added to this section here.

The content was added here could be tweaked to better summarize the source and added to age of consent. Jytdog (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying and your giving your opinions.

Now that I consider the "Consent and sexual offenses" title some more, I understand what you mean about including the "whether rape only involves penis/vagina interactions" material there, but I added it there because the section is supposed to include a combination of the topic of consent and the topic of sexual offenses. Rape is about consent. Some sources on the topic of rape, such as ones in that section, are clear that rape used to be limited to penile-vaginal penetration only. This means that if a person did not consent to, for example, anal sex, but had anal sex forced on them, the act was not considered rape. This matter ties into how sexual intercourse has been strictly defined for many years, which is another reason it's relevant to this article. I changed the heading simply to "Sexual offenses." How's that?

As for including what Adriennepjones added, but summarizing it better, I'm okay with that. What text do you propose? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Even though I'm okay with adding a new version of Adriennepjones's material, I don't think that the new material, which is a complicated topic, needs to be in this article. The topics of age of consent and statutory rape are noted well enough in the aforementioned section, and the in-depth detail is at the Age of consent and Statutory rape articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Adriennepjones added some more material, which I tweaked. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk of a Copulation article again

If anyone is interested in whether or not there should be a Copulation article, which would be specifically about non-human animals, see Talk:Copulation#Article created and redirected again. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Banning the page.

This page & all others related to sexual intercourse should be removed. Sexual diseases can be there but these should be removed. Utkarshanayak000 (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Utkarshanayak000: See WP:NOTCENSORED. No one is forcing you to read these types of articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC).

I know but already children are being spoilt by seeing porn videos. Atleast remove the pictures they are too vulgar and life like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utkarshanayak000 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, see WP:NOTCENSORED. And Wikipedia articles are not written with the goal of preventing poorly supervised (or properly supervised, depending on your parenting philosophy) children from reading encyclopedic information. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Neurobiological material

I stated the following on JaKomensky (talk · contribs) talk page: "As seen here and here, I moved your material to the 'Bonding and stimulus variation' section because it fits there and doesn't need its own section. I also cut the lordosis behavior image since the article in question is mostly about humans and lordosis behavior mostly pertains to non-human animals. Also, there is no need link the Copulation (zoology) again; it's already linked at the top of the article and in the 'Other animals' section, where it is best served. As seen with that second link, I added 'neurobiology' as part of the 'Bonding and stimulus variation' heading. Then I made this note. Then, as seen here (followup edit here), I changed my mind. It doesn't need to be a part of the heading. 'Stimulus variation' includes biology, and biology includes neurobiology."

After that, JaKomensk created the "Neurobiological control of sexual intercourse" section, which was essentially material that I'd merged with the aforementioned section except for the fact that it includes more material. I reverted. My issues with this section are the following: The "Bonding and stimulus variation" section is about two topics: Bonding. And what stimulates the body toward or during sexual intercourse. This material is included in one section because the biological material directly relates to mating/bonding. The content that JaKomensky added fits in the "Bonding and stimulus variation" section. I feel that there is no need to artificially split it out into its own section, and disjoint the material on evolution, concealed ovulation, the menstrual cycle, vaginal lubrication, erections and ejaculation. To have the "Neurobiological control of sexual intercourse" section and then to have the "Bonding and stimulus variation" section right after that adds redundancy and a disjointed feel to the article. A title of a section does not mean that the section only includes what the title explicitly states. There is no need for "biology" or "neurobiology" to be in the heading. "Stimulus variation" with regard to sexual intercourse clearly includes biological factors. Having "and" in the title does not mean that the material is only about both things. Sometimes it means that one aspect is discussed and then the other aspect. It's not always a discussion of the two topics as one. And, lastly, this article is mostly about humans; other than the "Other animals" section, there is no need to have a section focus so much on non-human animals, and especially so much on lordosis behavior. There is no need to link to the Copulation (zoology) article in the section, especially not repeatedly (which is WP:OVERLINKING). The Copulation (zoology) link is in the Other animals section where it belongs. From what I see, JaKomensky should be expanding that article with some of this comparison material instead of attempting to jam all of this comparative anatomy and "other animals" material into this article. The Copulation (zoology) article was specifically created to cover copulation among non-human animals, and substantial comparative material would obviously fit there.

On a side note: I'm not sure that all of the neurobiological sources that JaKomensky added are up to par, which is why I'm pinging Doc James and Jytdog for their opinions on the neurobiological sources. Generally, I didn't mind the sources because I am familiar some of the researchers, but that does not mean that the sources are ideal. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

"Bonding and stimulus variation" section, with JaKomensky's material merged into it

Copulation ranges from a purely reproductive activity to one of emotional bonding. For example, sexual intercourse and sexual activity in general often play a strong role in human bonding. In many societies, it is normal for couples to have sexual intercourse while using some method of birth control (contraception), sharing pleasure and strengthening their emotional bond through sexual activity even though they are deliberately avoiding pregnancy. In humans and bonobos, the female undergoes relatively concealed ovulation so that male and female partners commonly do not know whether she is fertile at any given moment. One possible reason for this distinct biological feature may be formation of strong emotional bonds between sexual partners important for social interactions and, in the case of humans, long-term partnership rather than immediate sexual reproduction. For humans in particular, cooperative behavior in a community and, by extension, sexual activity reinforce social bonds between individuals and may form larger social structures. The resulting cooperation encourages collective tasks that promote the survival of each member of the group. In most mammals, the anatomy of the reproductive organs and some circuits of the nervous system are specifically organized for heterosexual copulation. Copulation corresponds to a succession of innate sexual reflexes: erection, vaginal lubrication, lordosis behavior, immobilization, intromission, pelvic thrust and ejaculation. These copulatory reflexes are controlled by hormones and facilitated by sexual pheromones. In hominidae, including humans, several biological factors that control copulation are modified. These changes in neurobiological control of copulation are particularly evident in females of hominidae. Non-primate females copulate only when in estrus, but sexual intercourse is possible at any time of the menstrual cycle for women. Sex pheromones facilitate copulatory reflexes, but, in humans, the detection of pheromones is impaired and they have only residual effects. Non-primate females put themselves in the crucial lordosis position and remain motionless, but these motor copulatory reflexes are no longer functional in women. Unlike mammalian copulation, where copulation is a reflex, controlled by hormones and influenced by pheromones, human sexual intercourse is mostly a voluntary and learned activity, in order to obtain genital sexual rewards. Sexual intercourse or other sexual activity can encompass various sexually stimulating factors (physiological stimulation or psychological stimulation), including different sex positions or the use of sex toys. Foreplay may precede some sexual activities, often leading to sexual arousal of the partners and resulting in the erection of the penis or natural lubrication of the vagina. It is also common for people to be as sexually satisfied by being kissed, touched erotically, or held as they are by sexual intercourse. During coitus, the partners orient their hips to allow the penis to move back and forth in the vagina to cause friction, typically without fully removing the penis. In this way, they stimulate themselves and each other, often continuing until orgasm in either or both partners is achieved. For human females, stimulation of the clitoris plays a significant role in sexual activity; 70–80% of women require direct clitoral stimulation to achieve orgasm, though indirect clitoral stimulation (for example, via vaginal intercourse) may also be sufficient (see orgasm in females). Because of this, some couples may engage in the woman on top position or the coital alignment technique, a technique combining the "riding high" variation of the missionary position with pressure-counterpressure movements performed by each partner in rhythm with sexual penetration, to maximize clitoral stimulation. Anal sex involves stimulation of the anus, anal cavity, sphincter valve or rectum; it most commonly means the insertion of a man's penis into another person's rectum, but may also mean the use of other sex toys or fingers to penetrate the anus, pegging, or anilingus. Oral sex consists of all the sexual activities that involve the use of the mouth and throat to stimulate genitalia or anus. It is sometimes performed to the exclusion of all other forms of sexual activity, and may include the ingestion or absorption of semen or vaginal fluids. Fingering (or digital penetration or digital intercourse) involves the manual manipulation of the clitoris, rest of the vulva, vagina or anus for the purpose of sexual arousal and sexual stimulation; it may constitute the entire sexual encounter or it may be part of mutual masturbation, foreplay or other sexual activities.

JaKomensky's "Neurobiological control of sexual intercourse" section, as separate from the "Bonding and stimulus variation" section

In animals with internal fecundation, transmission of gametes is a crucial activity for the survival of the species. For this reason, in mammals the anatomy of the reproductive organs and some circuits of the nervous system are specifically organized for heterosexual copulation. Copulation corresponds to a succession of innate sexual reflexes: erection, vaginal lubrication, lordosis, immobilization, intromission, pelvic thrust and ejaculation. These copulatory reflexes are controlled by hormones and facilitated by sexual pheromones. Human sexual intercourse is controlled by the same biological factors as those of copulation, but as some of these factors have been modified during evolution, human copulation is an evolution of mammal copulation. These changes in neurobiological control of copulation are particularly evident in females of hominidae. Non-primate females copulate only when in estrus, but in woman sexual intercourse is possible at any time of the menstrual cycle. Sex pheromones facilitate copulatory reflexes, but in humans the detection of pheromones is impaired and they have only residual effects. Non-primate females put themselves in the crucial lordosis position and remain motionless, but these motor copulatory reflexes are no longer functional in women; the positions of sexual intercourse are learned in humans. Unlike mammalian copulation, where copulation is reflex, controlled by hormones and influenced by pheromones, human sexual intercourse is mostly a voluntary and learned activity, in order to obtain genital sexual rewards. Erotic rewards, and especially genital rewards, become a major factor in human sexuality. The primary erogenous zones (clitoris and penis) have two main functions in mammals: to trigger copulatory reflexes (vaginal lubrication, erection, ejaculation…), and to induce learning that improve copulation and reproductive behaviour. Penis and clitoris are also the most human erogenous zones, and their different parts (clitoral glans, clitoral bulb; glans penis, foreskin) are stimulated during intercourse. For these reasons, sexual intercourse is one of the sexual activities that provides the maximum of erotic rewards, and thus becomes one of the preferred activities.

References

I do not see where the problem is. I created a neurobiology section to present the factors that control human sexual intercourse, because behaviors depend on neural structures and neurobiological factors, and because these data were not in the article. And this topic is distinct from the topic of bonding.

What is important to point out is that animal copulation depends mainly on copulatory reflexes (such as lordosis), whereas this crucial motor reflex is no longer functional in hominids. This means that human sexual intercourse is mainly learned, and that there is a major difference between mammalian and human copulation. These data are well known, written by experts (Pfaus, Pffaf, Agmo…) and presented in neuroscientific articles (PNAS, Nature reviews) and reference books (Knobil and Neill's Physiology of Reproduction, Encyclopedia of behavioral neuroscience).

So, please, put the texts back; And improve them if you have additional data.JaKomensky (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

JaKomensky, your section is mostly about comparing non-human animal sexual behavior to human sexual behavior, and it fits in the "Bonding and stimulus variation" section, which already compares non-human animal sexual behavior to human sexual behavior and talks about the penis, vagina, vaginal lubrication, clitoris, etc. We don't need two sections focusing on that, with one specifically titled "Neurobiological control of sexual intercourse" (which, per MOS:HEAD, should simply be "Neurobiological control" anyway). I merged your material with the "Bonding and stimulus variation" section. It was not lost, except for the material that was not needed. You then created a new section with the same material, except with more than the last. The extra information you included consists of material that unnecessarily focuses on non-human animals and unnecessarily talks about the penis and clitoris being erogenous zones, naming clitoral and penile parts and stating that they "are stimulated during intercourse." The "Bonding and stimulus variation" section is already clear that they are stimulated during sexual intercourse; there is no need for such redundancy or to name the parts of the penis and clitoris. The section is called "Bonding and stimulus variation"; it means that it includes both bonding and stimulus material; it does not mean that every stimulation factor is about bonding. Your material is about copulation/mating and stimulation, and the "Bonding and stimulus variation" section is about that too. Your material is currently there, minus the unnecessary pieces you added. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Of course, I could change the title of the section so that you would feel better about where your material is located, but I don't see that a title change is needed for what you added. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I have taken into account some of your remarks, and I have slightly modified the texts.

The objective of this section "Neurobiological control" is to present a major topic for all behaviours: what are the basic biological factors controlling them. And for this article, what are the fundamental neurobiological factors that control intercourse (this topic is different from bonding and stimulus variation). 1) The first paragraph, short, presents the major factors of mammalian copulation. 2) The second paragraph presents point-to-point the main differences between animal and human copulation. And 3) The third paragraph presents the main characteristics of the learning of human sexual intercourse.

Please, do not move texts, but make proposals to improve explanations if they are not explicit enough. Thank you.JaKomensky (talk) 00:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

JaKomensky, you have not taken anything I stated into consideration except for naming the section "Neurobiological control." My above points still stand. I already made a proposal and I implemented it -- cutting the unnecessary parts of your material and merging the rest of your material into an already existing, relevant section. Instead of going along with that, you re-added the same material/format I objected to before. I will now await comments from others. But I will not be agreeing with that setup/extra material. And if need be, this will go to a WP:RfC. In the meantime, I suggest you keep WP:Edit warring in mind. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Each major topic should have a separate section. Neurobiological control is a major topic because there are neurobiological structures that are at the origin of behaviors. This is why it should be necessary to create a section "Neurobiological control" (or a similar title). Bonding is another major topic, especially in monogamous species. It is a consequence of copulation; in mammals, pheromones and sexual rewards induce specific learning: in particular the odor of the sexual partner are memorized and become preferred . Here, too, human-specific neurobiological data could be added. And stimulus variation is also another topic, but it should be broader, to include cultural aspects. Each person learns from their experience and socio-cultural context how to practice intercourse. This section could eventually be called "Patterns of sexual intercourse" , and include individual and sociocultural variations.

I noticed that the behavioral articles in Wikipedia contained little neurobiological data. There are some good scientific books about the neurobiology of behavior. For example : Koob G.F., Le Moal M. and Thompson R.F. (2010). Encyclopedia of behavioral neuroscience. Academic Press - Plant T. and Zeleznik A. (2015). Knobil and Neill's Physiology of Reproduction. Academic Press, 4th edition - Donald W Pfaff and Marian Joels (2016) Hormones, Brain and Behavior Elsevier – etc. In order to improve the wikipedia encyclopedia, should not a summary of these books be included in the corresponding articles?JaKomensky (talk) 08:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

JaKomensky, I'm going to go ahead and state my view on how you've been editing and why I'm a little frustrated right now: I do not consider you to be a completely new editor. Your editing style shows that you are not completely new. In fact, you remind me of Petergstrom, who was topic-banned around the time that you started editing. First, you re-create the Copulation article, despite the hidden note and the fact that editors (especially me) were against its creation for valid reasons. Then, once the Copulation (zoology) article is created in its place, you don't even focus on expanding that article. Instead, you come to the Sexual intercourse article, and add what is essentially "human sexual behavior vs. non-human animal sexual behavior" content. And might I note to you that this is not the Human sexual behavior article? You remind me of a different editor as well, but that is beside the point. Because you are not completely new, I find it even more frustrating that you are seemingly not listening and are doing whatever you want. All that is happening here so far is that I am explaining why I object to your material/setup, and you are ignoring that and doing what you want. That makes this discussion pointless. There is no cooperation. Cooperation doesn't mean that you get to add what you want and then I tweak your content. And your latest content (which included typos) needed tweaking. Since I object to how you are adding this material and since Doc James has recently objected, I suggest you try to work the matter out here. Don't go re-adding your material without WP:Consensus. Let's work out a setup and make sure that we all agree to it before it's added.

You stated, "Each major topic should have a separate section." But, except for discussion of sexual arousal, neurobiology is not a major topic of human sexual intercourse or any other human sexual sexual activity, as should be clear to anyone who has significantly read up on sexual intercourse and other sexual activity. If one wants neurobiology information on sexual intercourse, they usually have to go looking for it. You, for example, are looking for it. What is mainly discussed when it comes to human sexual intercourse are the types of sexual activity, the bonding, the effects (medical and social), dysfunctions, and social and legal views. Each of those major topics has a section in the article. When neurobiology is discussed with regard to sexual intercourse, it is usually in the context of sexual arousal, sexual attraction, mating, bonding and evolution; your content shows that (for example, it talks about sex pheromones), but your content also mainly focuses on animals in general (not solely on humans). This is why I cut your content a little and only kept the non-human animal content that was necessary to understand the evolutionary differences in humans.

I have never been completely happy with the "Bonding and stimulus variation" heading; so I am open to changing that heading. The only reason that I kept the bonding and stimulus material in one section is because the bonding material directly ties into the stimulus material. For example, one sentence in the section states, "It is also common for people to be as sexually satisfied by being kissed, touched erotically, or held as they are by sexual intercourse." So having both a "Bonding" section and "Stimulus" section seemed like an artificial split that would lead to redundancy. Also, the main heading is "Behaviors," and "stimulus" is not a behavior. There's also the fact that stimulus aspects are discussed elsewhere in the article, like the "Benefits" subsection of the "Health effects" section, which mentions oxytocin, and I didn't want people thinking that all of the stimulus material is in a "Stimulus" section. But maybe we can successfully have a "Bonding" section as separate from the stimulus material, although there will be some overlap. The stimulus material could be put under the heading "Effects of stimulation"; this heading makes sense under the "Behaviors" section, since effects of stimulation no doubt concern behavior. Your neurobiology content (the material I cut and tweaked) would be under that heading, but I think that the content should consist of what is currently in the article (the material I cut and tweaked), not the extra stuff you added. That stated, having an "Effects of stimulation" title would make some of the sexual content feel out of place and that content would then need to go into its own section, which would create an artificial split and overlap issues. So I would rather that the section be titled "Stimulation", which would include biological/neurobiological and sexual stimulation information. Would you be okay with this setup? "Stimulation" is not a behavior, but it's clearer than "stimulus" and obviously concerns sexual behavior. If you are okay with this setup, I suggest that I provide a draft of how it would look and that you weigh in on the draft and what changes you would make to it. As for summaries of books, we include some information based on the information from books, but we usually don't include a summary of the books unless it's a book article or the article is specifically about the book in question. I take it that you didn't mean a literal summary of the books, but rather information based on what books state. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not Petergstrom.

Before discussing the other points, I still do not understand your position on neurobiology. Do we have to write in wikipedia only what we think people are looking for, or what is important? Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia or a magazine? I agree that neurobiology is generally absent from consumer books, magazine and psychological texts. No publisher wants to invest in a boring book or magazine that will be unmarketable. But neurobiology is very present in specialized scientific works: for example Encyclopedia of behavioral neuroscience - Knobil and Neill's Physiology of Reproduction. - Hormones, Brain and Behavior - Functional and dysfunctional sexual behaviour.. So I do not understand this opposition to write just a few paragraphs to explain what is basically behind each type of sexual activity.

Particularly for sexual intercourse, in women, the difference in neurobiological control is particularly evident and well known. In addition, lordosis is the best known copulatory reflex and it is easy to understand even for non-specialists.

And if you look carefully at my last text, I did not compare "human sexual behavior vs. non-human animal sexual behavior"; I have only presented the data specific to copulation/intercourse, in order to highlight the differences and the absence of lordosis behaviour in woman. This explains why sexual intercourse is learned in women. Maybe we need to present this data differently? JaKomensky (talk) 22:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

You may not be Petergstrom, but you certainly are not new either, which raises my suspicions about your editing, given that you are using a new account. Still, even though it's not easy for me because I've seen all types of deception on this site (and have been enveloped in a lot of the drama that comes with it), these days I'm trying to focus less on editors who may be socks or otherwise returned problematic editors. So I will focus on your material.

You don't understand my viewpoint on the neurobiology aspect; I don't understand your viewpoint on the neurobiology aspect. I will try again, although, given above and below, it seems what people state to you about their concerns is often lost on you. I do appreciate that you take a bit of what is stated into account and try to remedy it. I am stating that the neurobiology material you want to add needlessly focuses on non-human animals when this article is mostly about humans and has an "Other animals" section specifically for a WP:Summary style presentation of sexual intercourse among other animals. We also have the Copulation (zoology) article which is specifically for such material, including comparison to human sexual intercourse/mating. I am stating that I cut the unnecessary material and kept the other material; this includes what you state about "the difference in neurobiological control [in women being] particularly evident and well known." I kept that material. Why are you acting like I got rid of it? I only cut some of your material; see the comparison pieces above (the collapsed templates that you can click on). The only things I cut was unnecessary focus on animals in general, the repeated Copulation (zoology) link, and unnecessary genital text that is already covered (without being unnecessary) in the "Bonding and stimulus variation" section. I am stating that the neurobiology material ties into other aspects, such as sexual arousal, sexual stimulation, mating and bonding and does not need its own section.

As for presenting the data differently. That's what I queried above; one of the things I suggested is that we create a Stimulation section, as separate from the Bonding section. The Stimulation section would include your neurobiology content. So the Behaviors section would look like the following: User:Flyer22 Reborn/A different setup. Would you be okay with that setup, where the Bonding section has its own section and the neurobiology content is in the Stimulation section? If not, why? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Since you have not commented in days, I went ahead and reformatted the section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Prevalence content added based on very old sources

JaKomensky, regarding this edit you made, why are you adding content based on such old sources? Do keep WP:MEDDATE in mind. Times have changed; the world is drastically different now than it was back in 1952 and 1971. You cannot validly add such old sources for the following material: "Collecting reliable data about sexual intercourse prevalence is complex. Cross-cultural studies show that the socio-cultural context has a major influence on sexual behavior. In sexually repressive societies sexual people engage in sexual intercourse infrequently or only for procreation." Nor can you validly add them for the following sentence: "On the contrary, in the most liberal societies, especially when sexuality is socially valued, sexual intercourse is daily from adolescence." Not unless you state, "In 1952" or "In 1971," and so on. But dating the material via text doesn't solve the problem that the material is based on extremely dated sources. And what does "daily from adolescence" mean?

Furthermore, when one part of a section introduces cross-cultural information, additional cross-cultural material should go in that paragraph or after it, not ahead of it in a way that leaves the section talking about cross-cultural information, then oral and anal sex, and then cross-cultural information again. A part of good writing is consistency and avoiding disjointed text. A part of good writing is also avoiding WP:Editorializing such as "On the contrary." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

     ‎

And if a source is about "sex and repression in an Irish folk community" or "marquesan sexual behavior," as two sources you added are, you should not then use those sources to make general statements about societies. A source that is about the Irish folk community is specifically about that community, not about sexual norms in general. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I took these remarks into account and modified the text accordingly. JaKomensky (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

But you haven't taken into account the concern about the age of these sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

As I said in the reverted text: « Due to the westernization of traditional societies, it is generally impossible to conduct detailed surveys of non-Western populations in the twenty-first century. Studies conducted in non-Western societies in the first part of the 20th century do not contain precise and detailed statistics, but the estimates provide information on intercourse prevalence in non-Western societies. »

I doubt there are more thorough studies and recent surveys of intercourse prevalence in non-Western societies than those of Suggs and Marshall. JaKomensky (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

And the age of the sources you used to reach this speculative and synthesized conclusion range from 46 years to 65 years. You still have failed to address the age of the sources. Sundayclose (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

The results are not synthesized. More precisely:

Due to the westernization of traditional societies, it is generally impossible to conduct detailed surveys of non-Western populations in the twenty-first century. Studies conducted in non-Western societies in the first part of the 20th century do not contain precise and detailed statistics, but the estimates provide information on intercourse prevalence in non-western societies. Anthropologists Robert Suggs and Donald Marshall, during their one year field studies in sexually liberal Polynesian societies in the 1950s, estimated intercourse prevalence : in Mangaia in 1958, according to Marshall, at approximate age of 18, 28, 38, 48, the average number of intercourse per night is, respectively, 3, 2, 1, 1, with an average number of night per week of, respectively, 7, 5-6, 3-4, 2-3. « Individual informant data and other sources of information, not only from Mangaia but from elsewhere in Polynesia, indicate that these estimates are probably reasonably valid. » Suggs found similar results in Marquesas Island in 1957: « intercourse usually occurs two or three times per nights » for adolescents and young adults. JaKomensky (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Let me try to simplify this. For the sake of discussion, let's set aside the idea of synthesis (although I still think it's synthesis). The other question that you continue to ignore: Why do you think you can use sources between 46 and 65 years old? Please provide a specific answer to that question. Sundayclose (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

The studies were carried out in 1957-58, the books published in 1966 and 1971. Marshall's estimates are presented in a table, page 123 (indicated in the reference). You can find Marshall's book on https://www.abebooks.com for less than 5$. JaKomensky (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Correspondence of 1925-1926 between Franz Boas and Margaret Mead was also newly available to Freeman. He concludes in the introduction to the book that "her exciting revelations about sexual behavior were in some cases merely the extrapolations of whispered intimacies, whereas those of greatest consequence were the results of a prankish hoax."

— Coming of Age in Samoa

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@JaKomensky: You've ignored the question again, for about the fifth time. Let's try again: Do you think a source from 1976 (46 years ago) is acceptable as an up-to-date source? Sundayclose (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I had answered the question: « Due to the westernization of traditional societies, it is generally impossible to conduct detailed surveys of non-Western populations in the twenty-first century. Studies conducted in non-Western societies in the first part of the 20th century do not contain precise and detailed statistics, but the estimates provide information on intercourse prevalence in non-western societies. »

If one looks at google books, many recent books, including science books, use this reference. This suggests that many authors consider it valid. JaKomensky (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

https://www.google.com/search?q=Marshall+D.S.,+Suggs+R.C.+Human+sexual+behavior:+Variations+in+the+ethnographic+spectrum&tbm=bks&ei=McTiWMrIMc2XaZXxprgB&start=10&sa=N#q=Marshall+D.S.,+Suggs+R.C.+Human+sexual+behavior:+Variations+in+the+ethnographic+spectrum&tbm=bks&start=0&*

That's not really sufficient here. If these are historically significant, they could be discusses as being historically significant -but only with modern sources. The whole bit about "the westernization of traditional societies" needs strong sources specifically supporting that point in this context, otherwise it's original research. Are modern, reliable sources discussing the westernization of traditional societies as regards Marshall and Suggs? If so, bring those sources to the talk page for discussion. Grayfell (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@JaKomensky: A Google search is not a reliable source and there, in fact, is the synthesis that I pointed out earlier. The conclusion you state is from 1976. Please read WP:RS, WP:MEDRS, WP:MEDDATE, and WP:OR. I appreciate that you finally responded to the real issue here, but your explanation continues to be unacceptable. Sundayclose (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

References

JaKomensky, like others, I disagree with that setup. Your setup pushed the oral and anal sex material to last. But I had it after the penile-vaginal material because I think it's best to first address the prevalence of vaginal, anal and oral sex, which are recognized as sexual intercourse more than other sexual behaviors, and because we have data on the prevalence of these types. I began with vaginal-penile penetration for reasons the section makes clear; it is the most prevalent and is the most equated with the term sexual intercourse (it's often what people mean when they state "sexual intercourse"). You might be thinking that the oral and anal sex material should be last because of what the term sexual intercourse so often means in the literature, but we don't always know how researchers are defining sexual intercourse. So it's best not to assume that all of the other prevalence material is specifically about penile-vaginal sex. After noting the penile-vaginal sex matter, I then note the oral and anal sex data. I then note the cross-cultural data that we have. Even though it focuses on "what age do women and men have their first sexual intercourse?", I'm not aware of anything more up to date when it comes to cross-cultural data on sexual intercourse. If there is, I ask that editors list it here. After that, I focus specifically on the United States, detailing how the prevalence has changed. The only reason that there is focus on the United States in the way that there currently is in the section is because most of the data we can find on the prevalence of sexual intercourse pertains to the United States. We could cut some of this material, though, and add a bit more from other countries.

The content should not be based on sources as old as 1952 and 1971, though. Not unless we are comparing the change in times. And even then, the sources should be up-to-date sources talking about sexual matters from the past. No need to rely on very old sources when newer sources talk about old content. You don't seem to be understanding why basing text on such old sources and/or specific regions and using them to make general statements is problematic. I repeat: It is because times have changed and what is the norm in one society does not make it the norm in another society. When we talk about 1952, for example, this is before the sexual revolution; so it's not surprising that people were more conservative about sexual activity back then. And even when we compare the sexual behavior of people today to how they were in the 1970s or 1980s, sexual norms and no doubt the prevalence of sexual activity (including sexual intercourse) is drastically different. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

This edit shows an appropriate way to cite older studies. It's contrasted with latter research. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

And using the 2009 sources for the most up-to-material on that adolescent matter is fine because the research on that self-esteem aspect is still inconclusive (although most of the research on that leans toward little or no effect). I don't see that the consensus on that matter has changed in the literature. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2017

AZAANACADEMY (talk) 13:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what is requested. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sexual intercourse. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130510210937/http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/Factsheets/pdf/oralsex.pdf to http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/Factsheets/pdf/oralsex.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/about/organization/dmid/PDF/condomReport.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120313021145/http://blogs.usdoj.gov/blog/archives/1801 to http://blogs.usdoj.gov/blog/archives/1801

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 04:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Language

This article is lacking a section on the language about sexual intercourse. Perhaps it should appear inside the section on "social effects". Sex related language is hightly regulated (socially, sometimes also legally) and full of subtle pragmatic elements (see e.g. the differences btw "making love", "having sex" and "fucking"). Velho 16:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Velho, there is already a section on terminology. I signed your above post for you, by the way. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Lead image

Although it might have been topic of discussion in the past, the images that we have available to illustrate the article by now might be more substantial and better suitable. To get to the point: I don't see how this present, low quality and somehow cartoonish 19th century early-porn illustration would be better suitable than the proposed images (the bottom two). I'd say that those are of higher aesthetic appeal, more natural and closer to real life (compared to the pseudo-romanesque scene above) and overall more illustrative for the purpose of a lead image. Looking forward to your replies.--Lamilli (talk) 10:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for initiating discussion after Johnuniq and I reverted you. I think that the image you call poor quality is not poor quality. It is of higher quality than your watercolor images. It is also a version of the missionary position, which is the most popular sex position. That's not to state that many couples do not also engage in other sex positions (they obviously do), but, per WP:LEADIMAGE, we want the lead image to be more rather than less representative. And having a collage would not work well since it would take away focus from demonstrating the specific act; I only support having one lead image. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

And keep in mind that the first image you added does not clearly show the act of penetration. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The male fantasy it's-art-not-porn evident in the alternate paintings are no improvement over the existing image. Johnuniq (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Out of scope

I removed this text from the Sexual_intercourse#Reproduction section, since it's not really about sexual intercourse. There are clear links to Human reproduction for those who want to learn more about these topics. Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Reproductive methods also extend to gay and lesbian couples. For gay male pairings, there is the option of surrogate pregnancy; for lesbian couples, there is donor insemination in addition to choosing surrogate pregnancy. Surrogacy and donor insemination remain the primary methods. Surrogacy is an arrangement in which a woman carries and delivers a child for another couple or person. The woman may be the child's genetic mother (traditional surrogacy) or she may carry a pregnancy to delivery after having another woman's eggs transferred to her uterus (gestational surrogacy). Gay or lesbian pairings who want the host to have no genetic connection to the child may choose gestational surrogacy and enter into a contract with an egg donor. Gay male couples might decide that they should both contribute semen for an in vitro fertilisation (IVF) process, which further establishes the couple's joint intention to become parents. Lesbian couples often have contracts drafted to extinguish the legal rights of the sperm donor, while creating legal rights for the parent who is not biologically related to the child.

Mikael Häggström, the section is about reproduction. Therefore, the content, which I restored, is not out of scope in that regard. Like I stated when restoring the material, it was added years ago (in 2011) as a compromise for those who felt that the section neglected gay and lesbian couples; see Talk:Sexual intercourse/Archive 6#Rampant Heteronormativity and especially its Talk:Sexual intercourse/Archive 6#Section break: Gathering information/reliable sources and pondering redesign subsection. Actually, I added the gay and lesbian reproduction material because of one editor, but I'm sure others would have eventually complained that the section treats reproduction as only a heterosexual matter. As you likely know, the literature on sexual intercourse mostly concerns heterosexual activity. Just look at the Prevalence section. But we should cover non-heterosexual content when we validly can, and I have at some parts in the article. It's been a trying thing to respect WP:Due weight at this article for years while also compromising with those who might want to "balance the article out" in ways that the literature does not. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I cut the material down to two lines since I can see how the level of detail that was there can seem out of scope. I'll move the other content to the Human reproduction article or some other related article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind that this article is significantly different than it was all those years ago. Valid complaints have been addressed and there is now a Definitions section to help explain matters. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

____

References