Talk:Anal sex/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Scuttle

I note the term "back scuttle" is an old fashioned description of anal sex and presumably has its origins in the naval use of the word. I can't find a reliable reference but thought it worth capturing here for now. Garglebutt / (talk) 10:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Anal Sex in Different Religions

The article is unequivocally wrong when it states anal sex is forbidden in Judaism. Between a man and a woman, the practice is permissible. Only under the rubrick of homosexual relationships is it forbidden. (Babylonian Talmud Yevamot 34b; Maimonides' Mishnah Torah, Laws of Forbidden Relations, 21:9) (Joshuare5768 (talk) 23:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC))

Removed citation needed

I thought it silly to ask for citation under the fact that some cultures accept anal sex. This isn't really an arguable fact considering the availability of discussions threads/products/pornography aimed at enjoying the act of anal sex making the statement unarguable being that the Webster definition (5b) of culture is: the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group.[1] However it may be a good idea to erase the statement all together as it is slightly redundant basically only saying "some people like it, some people don't".

P.S. It's late, I'm bored, hope I helped...meh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dallas1138 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 27 June 2008 UTC

Greek

My understanding was that the term "Greek" for the practice arose because culturally, greek women are very careful to keep their hymen intact to be ruptured only by their future marriage partner, and so in pre-marital sexual encounters they permit anal intercourse while disallowing vaginal intercourse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.131.128.151 (talk) 07:31, 24 July 2008 UTC

Need picture on female genital anatomy

Not a bad article but what is missing is the female counterpart of the picture of male genital anatomy. As the article itself points, there are now more heterosexual woman than gay men having anal sex. Clearly, this article needs a clarifying picture for women. Bobbob56 (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 41.182.14.205, 10 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please remove the phrase "Fucked" from beneath the Islamic section of this page. Replace "men gettin fucked" to "men participating" or "men recieving"

41.182.14.205 (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done: this is an exact quote from the cited reference. Tim Pierce (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 94.194.157.59, 25 June 2010

Remove incorrect references to false ideas of paedophilic ideas within the religious strands on this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.157.59 (talk) 11:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

you said that about Islam; But deep shame attaches to the passive partner: "for this reason men stop getting fucked at the age of 15 or 16 and "forget" that they ever allowed/suffered/enjoyed it earlier."

1- your references are extremal false, the writer has a deep hatred against Islam. Reference need to be reviewed Hisham albaldawi (talk) 10:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC) Hisham

what about threesome —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stingbeads (talk • contribs) 08:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Joininghome, 5 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} hey please can you re edit the section of anal sex in islam, the source is from a zionist biased jew, please he has not done any single research remove this shame of a lie away thank yoi

Joininghome (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Joininghome, 5 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The source is extremely false, the writer has deep hatred for islam, this is evident through his vulgar use of language to paint a disgusting image in the reader

Joininghome (talk) 01:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Please read WP:NOTCENSORED, as well. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

suggested corrections to the section on Buddhism

Hi, I have some suggestions for the section on Buddhist views.

(Sanskrit: Kāmesu micchācāra literally "sense gratifications arising from the 5 senses"")

The language here is Pāli, not Sanskrit, and it means Kāmesu loc. pl. "in sense-desires/sense-pleasures" + micchācāra "wrong conduct". Therefore "wrong conduct in sense-desires/sense-pleasures".

However, "sexual misconduct" is subjected to interpretation relative to the social norms of the followers.[103] In fact, Buddhism in its fundamental form, does not define what is right and what is wrong in absolute terms for lay followers. Therefore the interpretation of what kinds of sexual activity is acceptable for a layperson, is not a religious matter as far as Buddhism is concerned.[104]

Unlike most other world religions, most variations of Buddhism do not go into details about what is right and what is wrong in what it considers mundane activities of life. Details of accepted or unaccepted human sexual conduct are not specifically mentioned in any of the religious scriptures in the Pali language.

This is not correct. Unacceptable human sexual conduct is defined in the Pāli Canon at Aṅguttara Nikāya 10.176: "He engages in sensual misconduct. He gets sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man." This is made clear at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_and_Buddhism#Lay_Buddhism.

It should also be remembered that the Pāli Canon is accepted by all sects of Buddhism, albeit not as a primary text for many. It would be fair to say that the definition of sexual misconduct in AN 10.176 would be accepted by all Buddhists.

It is clear from this AN passage that the sexual behavior prohibited by the Buddha was defined according to its social aspect, that is to say as behavior that would break proper social relations: adultery, pedophilia, etc. It would be more correct for the article to say that socially disruptive sexual behavior is clearly defined and prohibited in the Sutta Piṭaka but specific sexual acts such as anal, oral, etc. are not. This is supported by the article cited at footnote 103: http://www.4ui.com/eart/199eart1.htm

Furthermore there is a large quantity of material in the Vinaya Piṭaka, which is the first division of the Pāli Canon, that does forbid specific sexual acts for monks. Anal, oral, masturbation, bestiality, sex with trees, etc., are all defined and prohibited. They constitute one of the highest violations of monastic discipline. Therefore the statement Details of accepted or unaccepted human sexual conduct are not specifically mentioned in any of the religious scriptures in the Pali language is an outright falsehood.

Thanks and I hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.72.68 (talk) 00:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Anal Cancer Murkiness? ~ ReasonableStranger

The section on anal cancer seems opaque and muddled to me. Where is the factual information on increased rates of anal cancer in bi-sexual men and other MSM? Why is it not right up front? This is a serious issue that affects gay and bi men (esp) that have anal sex as an integral part of their sex lives.

Here's a quote I found from a simple google search if anyone would be so kind as to include some form of it in the article, I'd be forever grateful:

"Each year anal cancer is diagnosed in about two people out of every 100,000 people in the general population. HIV negative MSM are 20 times more likely to be diagnosed with anal cancer. Their rate is about 40 cases per 100,000. HIV-positive MSM are up to 40 times more likely to be diagnosed with the disease, resulting in a rate of 80 anal cancer cases per 100,000 people."

By Liz Margolies, L.C.S.W., and Bill Goeren, L.C.S.W. http://www.thebody.com/content/art54524.html

Thank you, Reasonable Stranger

P.S. 'MSM' means 'men who have sex with men'. I looked it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReasonableStranger (talk • contribs) 13:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The section on anal cancer is not right up front because explaining what anal sex is and the practice of it should come before explaining its health risks. I will further see how I can expand that section in the way you speak of. Flyer22 (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

EDIT (Reasonable Stranger) Aug 22nd, 2010: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.221.162 (talk) 02:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks, obviously I'm talking about the murkiness of section ON anal cancer. The stats/facts aren't even "right up front" in the section that supposedly deals with that specific issue. But thank you anyways for your time. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.221.162 (talk) 02:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I'm still not sure what you mean about the stats/facts not being up front in that section, though.

At the beginning, for example, it currently says:

Anal cancer is relatively rare, accounting for about 1 percent of gastrointestinal malignancies, but as many as 4,000 new cases can be diagnosed within a year in the United States, according to the American Cancer Society.[76][77] Most cases of anal cancer are related to infection with the human papilloma virus.[76][77] The incidence of the disease has jumped 160% in men and 78% in women in the last thirty years...

Unless you are speaking of the information you want up there. As said, I will help. As soon as I get a good chance to. Flyer22 (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Judaism

Orthodox Judaism does not teach that anal sex is a sin. It is OK if a couple is married. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Troy100 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

edit requested

Please remove the pornographic image attached to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.171.32 (talk) 01:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Please get a life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LupusRexRgis (talk • contribs) 08:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.2.143 (talk) 20:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Health Risks

I'm rather concerned about the coverage of health-risks of anal sex. Firstly,

"The hazards are due to the vulnerability of the tissues, as the penetration of the anus may cause tearing and bleeding of the soft tissues,[9] and can damage the sphincter muscles, causing incontinence and anal prolapse."

And secondly,

"Frequent anal sex is associated with hemorrhoids, anal prolapse, leakage, ano-rectal pain and ulcers and fissures."

Finally,

Physical damage to the rectum and anus can manifest as generalized ano-rectal trauma, anal fissures,[12] rectal prolapse, and exacerbating (but not causing) hemorrhoids.

For starteres, the ambiguity of saying that "anal sex is associated with hemorrhoids" but later saying that it cannot actually cause them must be cleared up. In general though, I'm getting a bit confused about this topic. I know this isn't a discussion forum or anything, it's just that when I read this article, I get a much more ghastly impression of the physical injury related health effects than on medical sites. I seem to get the impression, and maybe this is the impression you intend to give, from this article that "hemorrhoids, anal prolapse, leakage, ano-rectal pain and ulcers and fissures" are almost inevitable consequences of a fairly active anal sex life ("frequent" is not defined, so it might as well not be there). And yet if I go on the NHS website it doesn't really mention any of these things and the netdoctor only talks about the STI problem[2][3]. Sure, both websites mention the importance of relaxing the sphincter muscle blahblah blah, and Dr. John Dean does mention that "Forced penetration may result in tearing of the sensitive skin around the anus or the sphincter itself. This may result in severe anal pain or even faecal incontinence." (my Italics) But surely this is a matter of the way that the sex is carried out. Should there not be more emphasis on the differences between health risks in properly-done anal sex and that which is done without lubrication or with a tense sphinter and so forth. At the very least, some kind of statistics about the prominence of these sorts of problems amongst receivers of anal sex should be added, I think (Yes, I am aware about the existing information on incontinence, but I think there should be more on the other things, such as anal prolapse.

I am not trying to deny that these problems exist, or to contradict your highly reputable sources by people who know a hell of a lot more than me, and ignorant layman, I just think a few things should be clarified because from personal experience, the majority of people I know who engage in anal sex do not have problems with "hemorrhoids, anal prolapse, leakage, ano-rectal pain and ulcers and fissures", yet this article seems to suggest that these are common problems.86.181.205.252 (talk) 13:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from DavidDeCitore, 20 December 2010

978-it semi-protected}} Setion: Prostate, clitoral and G-Spot stimulation

In addition to open communication building trust is crucial, when it comes to anal sex. Trust is built by consistently delivering on your word. In the context of anal sex the giving partner should take multiple days to do small steps of anal stimulation to gradually build her arousal towards anal play that also builds trust that the giver will not go too fast and hurt the receiver. Take the time to build trust, communicate openly about the experience of every small step, and let the receiver know it does not matter how long it takes. It is about the passion and pleasure of the journey. Thus, anal sex can be a deeply intimate experience for couples.

Section: Further Reading DeCitore, David "Arouse Her Anal Ecstasy" The Best Step-by Step Guide that Provides a Pleasurable Path to Anal Sexuality, so She Enjoys Amazing Orgasms and Loves It from Beginning to End. ISBN 978-0-615-39914-0

DavidDeCitore (talk) 05:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from J.Schmill, 17 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Requesting deletion (2):

1) "Liwat, or the sin of Lot's people, is officially prohibited by most Islamic sects."
Liwat is not allowed by ALL Islamic sects. There is literally no sect of Islam that allows this. The original page for this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_anal_sex cites an unreliable source which do not elaborate at all about anal sex in the perspective of Islam, not to mention having no authority at all to provide accurate interpretation of the Hadith. Did anyone ever opened the source link? It's just a one page containing a piece of hadith. That's about it.

The hadith that was quoted in the source is this one:
'Your wives are a tilth unto you; so go to your tilth when or how you will.' Quran (2.223)
The Quranic verse at the time was referring to the Jews who concocted that: 'If one has sexual intercourse with his wife from the back, then she will deliver a squint-eyed child.'
It is clear that one will not able to produce an offspring at all from anal sex. Therefore the Jews is not referring 'from the back' as being the anus, as women will not get pregnant AT ALL if she were to be entered from her anus, let alone to deliver a squint-eyed child. In other words, a man has to enter a woman through her vagina in order to impregnate his wife, thus the verse above is referring to a man may freely coming from the back of his wife if he so will, provided the entry is still through her vagina.

Maybe this reflects a Jewish misconception as to the origin of Asiatic persons?John Paul Parks (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

There should be no questioning at all if it meant that a man can enter the wife from anus or not, as apart from the fact that the verse is specifically addressing the misconception of the Jews as explained above, there are numerous occasions in Quran that strongly disparage the act of the Luth, which is Liwat. See Al-araf. 80 8 1

Helpful sources:
http://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=86457
http://www.zimbio.com/Islam/articles/2044509/Unnatural+offences+Controversy
http://www.answering-christianity.com/anal_sex.htm

2) This part do not belong in the subsection of this article - Islam. Unless it is about psychological impact of prohibiting homosexual practice (which consequently involves not only Islam, but also the rest of all popular religion and culture up until our modern day), this part of the article only serve to spread a biased view and personal opinion of the author.

"As the fact that liwat is regarded as a temptation indicates, anal intercourse is not seen as repulsively unnatural so much as dangerously attractive: "one has to avoid getting buggered precisely in order not to acquire a taste for it and thus become addicted."[99] In practise, the segregation of women and the strong emphasis on virility leads to adolescents and unmarried young men seeking sexual outlets with males younger than themselves – in one study in Morocco, with boys in the age-range 7 to 13.[100] But deep shame attaches to the passive partner: "for this reason men stop getting fucked at the age of 15 or 16 and "forget" that they ever allowed/suffered/enjoyed it earlier."[99] Similar sexual sociologies are reported for other Muslim societies from North Africa to Pakistan and the Far East.[101]"

J.Schmill (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: In the first part of your request, you need to find a reliable source which says that all sects prohibit this. The sources you supplied, even if they were reliable sources, do not make that claim. The second portion you ask to have removed is sourced and refers explicitly to liwat and Muslim culture, so it seems appropriate to keep in this section. If you can find a reliable source which disputes these claims, then that dispute could be added. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

One of the article/source clearly says "We sum up that having sex in anus is totally forbidden and a major sin. It is also forbidden according to the four Imams and others. ". What it means, which I hoped you have read through the whole article before coming into premature conclusion, is that Islam forbids anal sex, collectively for all sects.

The original article on "Islamic view on anal sex" uses reference from a disputable & incomplete source, which claimed that Sahih Bukhari allows anal sex. As I have clearly explained, this is false - and I have proven to you with clear explanation & complete with 3 reliable sources.

For the second part, I hope you do not confuse sufficiently sourced commentary being able to supersede the importance of relevant contents. The original title of the article is "Islamic view on anal sex" and not its psychological impact. If the latter is the case, then the original author should at least also provide positive impacts as result of Islamic view on anal sex. But he/she didn't, leading the article to be heavily biased and redundant to the whole subject. J.Schmill (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I did read your sources (briefly). The sources quote several people saying that anal sex is forbidden. You, not they, conclude from that that 'all' sects forbid it. That is not allowed here; you need the source to make the claim. I don't follow your argument on the second part at all. Are you arguing that your opinion should prevail because the source didn't cover all the aspects you feel they should have? Celestra (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The "four imams and others" is clear enough to indicate none of islamic sects allow sex in the anus. I did not conclude anything, I only summarize it so that you may understand it better, and it is well based. Unless you can find any reliable source at all that says any sect in Islam allow sex in the anus, the sentence "most of islamic sects" remains false/inaccurate. As I have said again and again, the original article bases its statement from a weak & incomplete source, and I have refuted the content from my sources. Ironically, the original statement itself is a conclusion made by the original author, yet it was acceptable to you? You only "think" that it is true, but you don't have anything to back it up. Just because you "think" something is correct, does not give you the authority to concoct it as the truth, unless you're comfortable of spreading false information. J.Schmill (talk) 04:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand your conclusion, although I can't understand how you can draw such a broad conclusion from those few facts. Those facts fairly support a statement that some sects forbid anal sex. Saying many or most based only on your sources would be a stretch; saying all is not reasonable. For all, you should have a reliable source which explicitly concludes that every sect forbids this. I doubt such a source exists, since I read at www.al-islam.org: "The opinions of our mujtahids vary on the permissibility of anal intercourse." and "It is true that we have conflicting ahadith from our Imams on anal intercourse, ..." The writer goes on to argue that the ahadith which favor the act should be ignored and discourages the pracice, but the existence of conflicting opinions makes the broader statement unlikely. Celestra (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The author did not just discourage, he concluded this: "Using this method of solving the conflicting ahadith gives strength to the prohibitive ahadith and brings us to the preferred view that anal intercourse is not allowed." The conflicting of opinions exist, but is not without contest. And as far as the article goes, it only strengthens the ruling that anal sex is not permissible. You cannot quote from a source and treat it as reliable, but at the same time denies the author's authority on his conclusion. Unless you can find a source that says anal sex is permissible and the ruling is beyond contest, then the fact remains that all Islamic sects prohibit it.J.Schmill (talk) 07:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

"You cannot quote from a source and treat it as reliable, but at the same time denies the author's authority on his conclusion." That's wholly untrue. "reliable" in Wikipedia's sense simply means that the author is a specialist on the topic, not just anybody. Specialists on law and many matters often disagree with each-other. When they do, we note that fact (eg "Professor Smith believes the fall of the Roman empire was caused by economic mismanagement, while Professor Jones believe it was changing population demographics") Both Smith and Jones are reliable, but we report both points of view. Your source wants to disregard some ahadith and accept others. Even then he only says it is a preferred view, not proven fact or absolute. The fact is that you essentially want to obscure the fact that there are views you don't want to be recognised. More information is almost always better than less, and we could certainly add details on the history of the debate, which according to some sources seems to have become particularly contentious with the rise of Wahhabism [4]. However I do have problems with the second para about anal sex in Muslim cultures. I'm sure it goes on, but that has no relevance to the rulings of religion as such. The problem is that the quotation says that it is seen as 'dangerously attractive' in a general sense. This personal opinion is presented as fact. Obviously it is 'attractive' to some people, but the way it is phrased implies that it it inherently and universally attractive, simply because it is treated as a crime. That's a complete non sequitur. You might as well say that sex with children is considered 'dangerously atttractive' in western cultures because it is a crime, and therefore western cultures consider it to be a 'a universal temptation', which is absurd. Paul B (talk) 08:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Gotta agree. Flyer22 (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree with you regarding Smith and Jones. In that case, there are three possible outcome (1)Smith is right (2)Jones is right (3) Both are right. But in our case there are only two possible outcome; either (1)Prohibited or (2)Permissible. It cannot be both. Separate opinions do not exist especially in major issue as this one without one or another being considered fallible, as far as Islamic fiqh goes. But I know that doesn't sit well with WP so I am requesting this edit instead to that particular sentence.

Liwat, or the sin of Lot's people, is officially prohibited by all Sunni Islam school of thoughts[1], but some Shia sects permit its practice between married couple[2].

[1]Anal sex strictly forbidden www.islamweb.net

[2]Preferred view on anal sex in Shia www.al-islam.org

I hope this is inline with WP's philosophy (as Paul phrased it) that 'more information is almost always better than less'. Also I'd like to know if you might consider adding more information, and possibly edit out irrelevant content as Paul has pointed out in the second paragraph. I would gladly do some research on that topic and write up an improved article with more accurate sources & neutral point of view. ThanksJ.Schmill (talk) 16:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

More information would include discussion of histories and debate. Dogmatic assertion from people who run websites are not generally considered reliable according to WP:RS. And, no, you are mistaken when you say "in our case there are only two possible outcome; either (1)Prohibited or (2)Permissible." There are two possible outcomes in the opinions of commentators on Sharia, of which there may be many differing ones. Clearly the literature indicates that there were differing opinions, with some scholars saying (1) and some saying (2). I don't know whether that is historical or continues today, but the opinions of individuals remain just that. Paul B (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I take it that you are not an expert yourself at Islamic jurisprudence to lecture me on that subject. Please leave it to someone with the authority to comment on that. This is not a forum for debates.

Islamweb.net is not the only Sunni Islam source where you can find fatwa on forbidding of anal sex. You can't simply call a source a mere assertion just because it wasn't written in pen and paper or parallel to your personal opinion. For the second source, Celestra used it him/herself to dispute my argument, on the basis that differing opinions exist, as far as Shia Islam is concern (as those differing opinions coming from Shia imamates).

Please proceed with editing the line as I do not see any strong argument/dispute here, as it was presented as natural as possible and only serve to add more detailed information to the original line.J.Schmill (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

In the world the consideration —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.254.228 (talk) 01:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Anal_sex#Prostate.2C_clitoral_and_G-Spot_stimulation

I'm going to remove the following text (an extended discussion of why clitoral and vaginal orgasm may not be different), since (1) this information can be found on the relevant pages by interested readers, and (2) it's not particularly relevant to the article's subject.
(Text in question:
"The clitoris surrounds the vagina somewhat like a horseshoe.[21] The Gräfenberg spot, or G-Spot, is a small area behind the female pubic bone surrounding the urethra and accessible through the anterior wall of the vagina. An orgasm attained through G-Spot stimulation is referred to as "vaginal", because it results from stimulation inside the vagina. The G-Spot is also thought to have legs which are accessible through anal penetration, but recent hypotheses, as well as discoveries, about the size of the clitoris show that clitoral tissue extends considerably inside the vagina. This research may possibly invalidate any attempt to claim that clitoral orgasm and vaginal orgasm are two different things.[19][24]")--TyrS 02:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

As I stated in my edit summary, "It's relevant because it has to do with G-Spot and clitoral stimulation, and as more research comes up, we are finding that [the] two are most likely the same thing." We discuss prostate stimulation in that section. It's only natural that we discuss clitoral and G-Spot stimulation in that section as well, since these are the ways that women orgasm and are the things which may lead to a woman achieving an orgasm through anal sex. Flyer22 (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Flyer22, it's really unclear why you think vaginal vs clitoral orgasm is so relevant to this topic that it needs to be restated in such detail here (instead of, for example, using a "see also" g-spot, clitoris, etc, note). The text I removed still does not read as relevant. It sounds as if you're trying to promote a personal belief: "we are finding that the two are most likely the same thing" doesn't constitute any kind of scientific consensus, and this material really doesn't need to be presented in this way here, since interested readers can easily find it at the relevant articles. Regarding the prostate stimulation, the difference is that that isn't necessarily covered in depth in a more specific article.--TyrS 03:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

As I just stated on my talk page: I am not sure how you view discussing prostate simulation and where the prostate is located as relevant but not the information about where the G-Spot is located and its connect to the clitoris. Just as knowing where the prostate is...is relevant, the same goes for the G-Spot. The information regarding the G-Spot and clitoris likely being of the same origin is relevant to the topic at hand as well. It is not as though the section goes into a bunch of info on the two topics, which have their own articles. It is just as much information as what is stated about prostate stimulation. I also assure you that I have no personal enthusiasm for anal sex. There is no personal promotion going on either.

"Regarding the prostate stimulation, the difference is that that isn't necessarily covered in depth in a more specific article." Let me point out that there is no policy on limiting a topic to just a see also if the information is covered in other articles. If anything, the topic is usually partially discussed in one article with a link pointing to the more in-depth material. That is what I have done. I have made a short paragraph on female sexual stimulation, covering the main points -- how women orgasm and the most important bits of that information. Not seeing how it isn't relevant at all. Flyer22 (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

To further explain, I reverted your removal because your version ends with this:

...but a physiological explanation of why some women may find anal stimulation pleasurable is that the clitoris has "legs" that extend along the vaginal lips back to the anus.[23]

It ends with that without touching on what the clitoris or G-Spot is and why they are so important to female sexual stimulation, which is odd, especially given that we touch on what the "male G-Spot is." It seems even more sexist than your concern over some other matters. People get educated right away on the prostate, but they have to go to the Clitoris and G-Spot articles to know what the heck we're talking about on that matter? It is not how good and featured articles are usually done here; and I do strive for something close to that level (Good and Featured articles) with most of my editing at Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 04:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought I had put in a "see also" after that, which would then direct people to the relevant articles. Hmmm, perhaps too much rapid-fire editing.

I don't think there's any need for accusations of sexism here. My focus is on (as I've said before) keeping the article clearly relevant to the specific topic at hand (especially when the same detailed information is available elsewhere).

I still find it unclear in the 2nd paragraph of the Prostate, clitoral and G-Spot stimulation section how and why "...any attempt to claim that clitoral orgasm and vaginal orgasm are two different things" (which is the whole point of the second 2/3 or so of the paragraph) should be thought to have a direct bearing specifically on the article topic. The connection and relevance of the 'issue' of whether clitoral & vaginal orgasm are different things, as this relates (?) to anal sex, is still not explained. If we could sort this one point out, that'd be great. (I can't really tell at the moment if it's actually a wording or a relevance problem.)

Thanks.--TyrS 05:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't an accusation of sexism, TyrS. It is just that I know you are often concerned about things being sexist on Wikipedia. That section focusing more on male pleasure than female pleasure is something that is sexist to me.

I still find it relevant because it has to do with the clitoris and G-Spot, and is only a lone mention of them possibly being "the same thing." But what if we remove only the part about research of the clitoris and G-Spot being the same thing? Would this suffice for you? I'll go ahead and remove that part now, since that seems to be your main problem with it, and I will admit that it is a smidge off-topic. Flyer22 (talk) 05:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much, that'd be great. (For the life of me I can't see how that sentence could be seen as even slightly on-topic, unless the point was to try to encourage female readers to have anal sex. And for the record, I'm more concerned about imbalance and bias in general on Wikipedia than about sexism alone.) Thanks for the co-operation.--TyrS 06:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyranny Sue (talk • contribs)

LOL, I was/am the one who added that whole section. The info on the clitoris and G-Spot being related was certainly not to encourage females to have anal sex. As I stated above, I have no personal enthusiasm for anal sex (I'm female by the way, if you remember). Knowing that the clitoral and G-Spot legs may give them pleasure during anal sex might make some women more inclined to have it, but I don't see how knowing of the two being related would do that. It was added to bring awareness to the fact that G-Spot orgasms may very well be due to the clitoris, which seemed relevant for me to mention. But oh well.

And thank you for your cooperation as well. Flyer22 (talk) 06:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedic tone

A word of caution: editors need to be careful that they don't let their personal enthusiasm for a topic mean that Wikipedia starts to sound like a promoter of any particular practices/products/services/etc. Please keep in mind that, as in any Wikipedia article, the tone of the text should be kept as objective, neutral and relevant as possible, no matter how editors may personally feel about it.--TyrS 03:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyranny Sue (talk • contribs)

semiotics?

Does anyone else think it might be worthwhile/interesting to write a small section dealing with the topic (or the idea of the topic) in a cultural/semiotic context? I.e. the meaning(s) of phrases like "taking it up the ass".--TyrS 10:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyranny Sue (talk • contribs)

You mean like a Synonyms section, like we do for Frot? Sure, I have no objection to it. Flyer22 (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, and also somewhat like the In popular culture section of the cunnilingus article. (Hmmm, maybe "the pragmatics and psychodynamics of terminology" would be more appropriately descriptive than "semiotics")--TyrS (talk) 07:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I definitely feel that you should go for a different heading than Semiotics -- a more commonly used word or words for the title would be better. The Terminology and slang section of the Oral sex article is another example. Flyer22 (talk) 14:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

"Terminology and slang" sounds good.-- TyrS  chatties  08:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyranny Sue (talk • contribs)

I would also say there should not be an In popular culture section, for the very reason that section is tagged in the Cunnilingus article. Such sections are seen as unencyclopedic, and examples for anal sex in popular culture could go on forever. Popular cultures sections are more so accepted by Wikipedia standards when they are not bullet-point lists, and rather prose only, and just a summary of each instance the subject has been popular. Flyer22 (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Female to male (pegging), main image, and lesbian anal sex

Sections about this have been removed from this article time and time again. My guess is because the sections only had one or two sentences about it, it's not too common among heterosexuals, and the main article about the sexual practice of pegging can tackle it. I'll have to read the archives about that.

TyrS very recently added a section on it. Let me make clear that I have no problem with a section on pegging in this article or the image, as long as the section is big enough. Otherwise, I feel that it should all just be under the subsection title Experience of the Heterosexual section. Flyer22 (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I approve of the new main image added by TyrS. Flyer22 (talk) 03:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

TyrS, do you plan to expand the Pegging section? Because that's what I meant about it being under the subsection title Experience of the Heterosexual section -- that both the male-to-female and female-to-male info should be grouped under one title (Experience), as it was before your edit. If it's not going to be expanded beyond a sentence or two or even a few, I am not seeing why it should have its own section. Generally, if a topic has its own article, we should cover it well enough here first (a proper summary) while linking to the main article. I'll go ahead and expand it a bit with some information from the main article. Flyer22 (talk) 04:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I just had to fix the subheadings under "heterosexual" because of the subsections that were meant to refer to male-to-female, and then the "experience" heading seemed unnecessary. I hope that doesn't bother anyone.

About the inclusion of a section on pegging at all, it needs to be here because, by definition, it is a form of anal sex that people practice. Without it, the coverage of the topic is unbalanced.--TyrS 05:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyranny Sue (talk • contribs)

Thanks to Flyer22 for adding more text to the pegging section, thus helping to balance out and thereby improve the whole article.--TyrS 05:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyranny Sue (talk • contribs)

No problem. And for the Homosexual section, do you think we should add a subsection on anal penetration in the lesbian community? I just thought about this earlier today -- we don't have any information in this article on that. I'm just wondering if it needs a subsection or just a paragraph. Flyer22 (talk) 05:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that occurred to me too, and I did a little research but (as you can imagine with only a cursory look) didn't find anything reliable (to say the least). But certainly, if you have time. (Unfortunately, I currently have no reliable citations or anything though.)--TyrS 05:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyranny Sue (talk • contribs)

I know what you mean. While recently expanding the Tribadism article, I came across some articles on Google Books which pretty much make it seem like anal sex is not often practiced among lesbians. I think one book even stated it. I suppose a little about it not being as practiced among lesbians could be added, and we don't need a section for that. Flyer22 (talk) 05:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, from this Google Books search, there is a lot to state about lesbians and anal sex. Flyer22 (talk) 05:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, well found! :) --TyrS 05:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyranny Sue (talk • contribs)

Never mind about that Google search. Regarding anal sex, it's most about gay men. I'll have to gather bits of information from various books about anal sex in the lesbian community. Flyer22 (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

advice

At the end of the Anatomy and Stimulation section we currently have the following, in which we essentially pass on some advice:
"About.com writer Ramon Johnson advises interested parties to familiarize themselves with their body's likes and dislikes, in order to make this practice more enjoyable. He writes that because each person's sphincter muscles react to penetration differently, potential practitioners need to learn how their body works. Exploring the sensitivity of the sphincter and how it reacts when relaxed or tense, practicing relaxation techniques such as deep breathing, using small sex toys, then gradually increasing the size, are a few of Johnson's suggestions for potential practitioners.[13] Open communication with the sex partner is also advised.[13]"
I'm not really sure that as an encyclopedia we should be giving readers advice on sexual practices, which seems to me more the domain of a sex manual than an encyclopedia. Perhaps an external link to the web page in question would be enough.-- TyrS  blah  08:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyranny Sue (talk • contribs)

We don't give advice. It's not Wikipedia giving advice. It's experts or other such people with knowledge in the field giving advice. Wikipedia often relays the advice of experts or people in certain fields. This is no different. And more than just About.com writer Ramon Johnson can be added. It belongs there because it has to do with stimulation through anal sex. He is right -- each person's sphincter muscles react to penetration differently, potential practitioners need to learn how their body works. If "actual experts" are preferred, that can be taken care of as well. Flyer22 (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed the how-to-guide tag, for the reasons stated above. I am not completely sure what problems you keep having with the Anatomy and stimulation section. It is perfectly acceptable to explain what the prostate, G-Spot and clitoris are, which includes where they are located. That section is about anatomy and stimulation, hence the title. So of course information about what these things are and where they are located (how to find them) is going to be in that section. This also goes for advice from experts or people who know what they are talking about regarding human anatomy. You keep objecting to anal sex information regarding the likelihood of pleasure, as though this article is saying everyone will like anal if they do these things. That is not what this article is saying at all. In fact, many people have complained here on this very talk page that the article is mostly negative. Look at Archive 4, as well as previous thoughts at Talk:Anal sex/Archive 4#How to about one line that is still in the lead (though tweaked since then). You don't like Ramon Johnson being used? Fine. We can get "actual experts" on the matter weighing in, but adding a how-to-guide tag just for one part of a paragraph you object to is extreme, as the rest of this article is not like that. There is much to say about how some people's bodies may react to anal sex and what can be done to make anal sex easier for some people, and that stuff should be noted in that section/this article. Flyer22 (talk) 15:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

As stated in my edit summary, I toned down Johnson's comments (and tweaked it again here), until I eventually add other, more qualified sources for such information. And as you can see in the #Edit request from DavidDeCitore, 20 December 2010 section above, there is already a suggested source for it (though only about women's pleasure apparently). My additional information won't be as preachy as that or Johnson's advice. It will be more so along the lines of "Experts state" and what is already there about people's bodies reacting differently...but with better sources. Flyer22 (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing this, Flyer, and I appreciate your co-operation. By the way, I'm sorry you've gotten the impression that I'm especially picking on your section. This is purely coincidental.
However, I have to say I don't agree with your opinion that "adding a how-to-guide tag ... is extreme" and I believe it definitely needed to be pointed out that (as the 'how to' box states) "The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to train". You've replied "Wikipedia often relays the advice of experts or people in certain fields" - if you provide a link to the articles you mean, I will have a look at them.
You also wrote: "It's not Wikipedia giving advice. It's experts or other such people with knowledge in the field giving advice." We do choose what we include, though, and that can be to relay "instructions, advice or how-to content". And this will naturally tend to sound NPOV. It's really important we don't wander off from just presenting the facts into trying to "inspire"/encourage people to do or try something.
Moreover, people can easily be directed to many other sites that provide how-to type advice on anal sex in the External Links section. Perhaps the people complaining (as you say) here on the talk page that anal sex isn't being presented as "positively" as they'd like don't realize that Wikipedia isn't here to train or advise or instruct people in how to carry out certain practices. Furthermore, these people can very easily find anal sex "positively" presented elsewhere on the web. Instructing people on how to have anal sex (even if the advice is relayed) is very unlikely to come across as neutral or encyclopedic.
(Any different problems I might have with the article I will, of course, raise under appropriate headings.)  TyrS  chatties  11:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course I'm going to cooperate, TyrS. When working together, you can be great to work with. It's not "my" section, though, per WP:OWN. It's just a section I put together, in order to present anatomy and why a person may find anal sex pleasurable, which I felt was important. The article seemed lacking without it. As I stated before, it wasn't to promote anal sex, no more than my work on other sexual topics/sex acts was done to promote those issues/practices; it was meant to inform.

I feel that adding the how-to-guide tag was extreme because you'd already brought up the matter on the talk page, and it was just one part of a paragraph you objected to. It wasn't like I wasn't willing to work things out with you.

You say "present facts, not to train." That's what experts are doing if they say "smoking is likely to cause this," "people are advised to use condoms to prevent STDS" (although that's common sense), "people react differently to anal sex." They are presenting facts. I cannot think of any article in particular right now, but there are plenty around Wikipedia in which an expert weighs in on the matter. Why does this seem unencyclopedic to you? Yes, sometimes, it is "guide" information, but that's because these are people who know what they are talking about and are not usually working from strictly personal opinion, and the public should here these thoughts. Yes, we choose what we include, but that's why we balance things out with experts from both sides of a topic weighing in. Right now, there is no expert saying that people's bodies do not react differently to anal sex or shouldn't talk with their sex partner to try and improve the act.

The complaints about negativity? Here is an extensive discussion I had with one person objecting to the "too much negativity": Talk:Anal sex/Archive 4#Section 4.3, and too much negativity in this article?... It has nothing to do with Wikipedia not being here to train or advise or instruct people in how to carry out certain practices.

But on a side note, just for fun, there are Wikipedia articles which show people how to do things, such as Basketball and Football. In cases such as those, I feel that the how-to-guide tag is invalid. I mean, how else will the rules/formats be presented? Flyer22 (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I wrote that because you had written "I am not completely sure what problems you keep having with the Anatomy and stimulation section", which sounded like you were taking it personally (especially since I have quite clearly explained the two issues I've had with it, i.e. relevance and avoiding advice-giving/how-to/manual-like content).

I have just now found out that it's possible to add a how to section box, rather than article box, but it took some searching. If I'd known about that at the time I'd have just used a section box instead. But I still feel it was appropriate to have a how-to box in there as long as there was (and there still is a little) how-to advice in the article.

Sorry, but there is a huge difference in terms of notability, not to mention scientific consensus, between relaying anal sex advice from an individual and relaying medical consensuses on life-threatening matters such as emphysema (etc) and potentially lethal STIs.

Please let me know when you find a specific example to compare.

Whose thoughts the public should hear is always going to be subjective to some extent. But when it comes to such a private subject as sexual practices, it's more important than ever to keep the focus on factuality and neutrality. Choosing to relay the advice of individuals on sexual practices does border on advocacy, and moreover (as I pointed out before) the public can easily get such advice on other sites, which can, of course, be added to the external links section.

I'm not sure what you mean here. What are you saying "has nothing to do with Wikipedia not being here to train or advise or instruct people in how to carry out certain practices"? The discussion? (Are you saying that you think the fact that no-one in that discussion brought up the issue of whether or not it's encyclopedic to have how-to advice in this article means I can't bring it up?)

I just had a look at those sports pages. I couldn't see any how-to advice at the football one - you'll have to show me which section you mean. In the basketball one, yes there is a section (Basketball: Common techniques and practices) however I still strongly feel that there remain significant differences in terms of notability and POV between a description of techniques & practices in a public sporting event and the choice to include advice that borders on advocacy in relation to private sexual practices.  TyrS  chatties  23:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You just said, "Thanks for fixing this, Flyer..." So why are you still tagging this article with a how-to-guide tag? Because of that one line that I have already stated I am going to take care of?

The fact remains that in both of those cases, advice is being relayed. Advice that you should use condoms to protect from STDs and advice that open communication with the sex partner allows for knowledge of the partner's likes and dislikes.

Specific examples? You could look over some medical articles. Experts are in plenty of them, weighing in on the matters.

You keep citing promotion. I am not sure how many times I have to state that I am not some anal sex advocate. I don't care who has or does not have anal sex. I just like informing people on important matters regarding sexual activity. Sex experts are paid to give unbiased information on sexual activity, and there is nothing biased about something as simple as people reacting differently to anal sex. Good articles on sexuality are likely going to have thoughts from sex experts within them. I have already stated that I will take care of that part of the paragraph in a non-preachy way. And since you keep adding a how-to tag, I'm going to have to do that within the next hour or so.

How exactly is it how-to advice to state fact? The fact being that people's bodies react differently to anal sex. As for open communication with the sex partner? That is common sense. You are acting as though there is never any "how-to advice" or "you-should-do-this" type of information in good Wikipedia articles, when clearly there is.

By "has nothing to do with Wikipedia not being here to train or advise or instruct people in how to carry out certain practices," I was addressing your statement about why some people are complaining about the negativity in this article. It is not because they want it to be a sex guide.

The Football article is still partially "how-to" to me, since it goes over the layout. As for the rest, agree to disagree. Now I'm off to tweak the area you find problematic. Flyer22 (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

As long as the material is in the article, Flyer22, that's a reason for the box to be there.-- TyrS  chatties  12:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Speculating about and/or trying to vouch for the true motives of everyone contributing to a given article on Wikipedia is probably fairly pointless. My simple point (again) is that the how-to advice simply isn't consistent with Wikipedia's quality standards and the best place for it is in External Links.-- TyrS  chatties  12:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Flyer22, I asked before if you'd please include a link to exactly which section of which football article you mean, so I can see what you're talking about, as (again) I can't see anything like how-to advice in there at all.-- TyrS  chatties  12:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, there was no need for the box to be there.

Advice when relayed by experts is consistent with Wikipedia's quality standards.

There is only one football article about the sport. The one you already looked at. And to me, going over the setup of the game is the same as informing people on how it is played. Flyer22 (talk)

Hello again Flyer22,
The how-to section box you just removed referred to the last sentence in the section ("About.com writer Ramon Johnson advises interested parties to communicate with their sex partner and familiarize themselves with their body's likes and dislikes, as each person's sphincter muscles react to penetration differently") i.e. relaying non-crucial, non-medical-consensus advice leaning towards advocacy/promotion as per discussion above. I realize you must've put quite a lot of work into this, and I know it sucks when one's work is altered/removed, but I still strongly suggest that this is more appropriate as an external link. Perhaps you can move this how-to style of material into an article in Wikibooks or Wikiversity?  TyrS  chatties  01:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyranny Sue (talk • contribs)

I just replied above. There is no promotion going on by saying each person's sphincter muscles react to penetration differently. That is a fact. There is also no promotion in advising open communication. The point is you said I'd fixed "the problem," and now I have to fix it again or else you'll keep calling it promotion and unencyclopedic. A lot of work did not go into it at all. It was fairly easy. But oh well. Flyer22 (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Flyer22, several things should be taken into very careful consideration when attempting to keep the tone encyclopedic and neutral, particularly when it comes to highly sensitive topics like this one. When we (writing as Wikipedia) choose to relay highly personal advice, that is a choice that needs to be looked at carefully and weighed up against other factors (please see my points 3 & 4 below). -- TyrS  chatties  08:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

And I've stated before, there is no highly personal advice. Also, can you stop talking to me as though I don't know how to write an encyclopedia? See below. Flyer22 (talk) 09:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

First of all can I say the article is looking much better at the moment. My point about the how-to type advice is that any advice which Wikipedia relays or states about any sexual practice, is, in its essence, going to be personal advice, since sexual practices are private, personal activities (and moreover, ones that can be hazardous to people's health; as opposed, for example, to the "comon techniques and practices" section of the basketball article - which I assume is the section you were referring to - in which various plays & formations are described - as a comparison: i.e. a sport, played in public by professionals, is quite a different thing from private sexual activities, therefore I don't think that qualifies as the kind of personal advice or instructions that the how-to box exists in order to point out). You also directed me to a very lengthy discussion you had with someone else who apparently had posted on here complaining that anal sex isn't being presented more "positively". We need to really carefully consider whether or not as an encyclopedia we really do need to do this, and if so exactly why (this applies to all the pages on sexual practices - and any potentially harmful private recreational practice, for that matter; this article, by the way, represents one of Wikipedia's least fancrufty & unbalanced sexual practice articles at the moment - a lot of them are in extremely poor shape). You also previously mentioned, in regards to experts being quoted regarding risks of potentially hazardous private recreational practices, smoking - and I'd say that comparison works much better than the sport one. The fact is that whole attempt to document sexual practices in an encyclopedic way is an ongoing challenge for everyone involved in it on Wikipedia, and I think that finding high-quality articles on more or less comparable topics in other fields is a really good idea, as it can provide guidance. As far as your request, I am simply stating my concerns about quality standards in relation to this article. It is certainly not personal so I'd advise you to avoid taking it that way.-- TyrS  chatties  12:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

p.s. by the way, the concern that parts of the article have read (that's past tense) "more like an anal sex how-to guide than an encyclopaedia article" (- final comment by User:Proteus in nomination discussion of article as candidate for FA) has been raised before. In other words, this type of concern is not mine alone. -- TyrS  chatties  13:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

In my view, there is nothing personal about experts letting society know that "you may damage the anus if you do not take this precaution." It is as vital as the dangers of smoking, given how delicate the anal sphincter is, and the problems it can lead to (HIV/AIDS/Cancer, etc.) if anal sex is performed unwisely. I am sure that most editors would agree with inclusion of the information that is currently there, and would not suggest it be regulated to the External links section only. As for the article being more positive, there's no way that can happen unless we include information from a bunch of sex experts or self-help writers saying how anal sex can be good. So no worries there. And, yes, I am going to take it personally when you seemingly act as though I am promoting anal sex and want people to have it, or that I am not familiar with how Wikipedia works. I have already made clear why I included the information, and that is the truth.

No one said how-to-guide information being in Wikipedia articles is your concern alone. Your concern, whoever, has mostly centered on promotion of anal sex...because you view this sex act as possibly being dangerous. You cite promotion where there is none. You act as though simple facts about damage to the anus, and things that have been proven to prevent this damage, is promotion and should not be mentioned. That is my complaint regarding your edits/thoughts on this topic. Flyer22 (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Will this edit suffice for you? Above, you stated, "Sorry, but there is a huge difference in terms of notability, not to mention scientific consensus, between relaying anal sex advice from an individual and relaying medical consensuses on life-threatening matters such as emphysema (etc) and potentially lethal STIs."... Well, as I stated in my edit summary, most researchers agree that adequate lubrication, bodily relaxation and communication are generally required in order to avoid damage to the anus, avoid pain, or simply enjoy anal sex. This is notable and has medical consensus among researchers regarding anal sex. If you want more sources, more can be found, but I am not going to look for more, as the ones I have provided are sufficient enough. Is the information still somewhat how-to? Yes. But it is also a fact according to researchers. This is important information when it comes to risks and enjoyment of anal sex. If you still have a problem with it, then we will need to bring in the wider community on this, because I am not seeing how this important and valid information is promotion of anal sex, should be removed, or how else it should be worded. Flyer22 (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I would say this paragraph added by is very how-to-guide ish. I will ask that editor to weigh in here. That paragraph should either go or be toned down, in my opinion. Flyer22 (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with what you say above about SilentBobyxy2's contribution - moreover, they added that whole paragraph without joining in the discussion here (on the very issue of advice-giving - seems odd).
I do maintain that, in general, Wikipedia appearing to relay advice or how-to content on any high-risk private/personal/sexual/intimate activity (like anal sex) makes for a obviously unencyclopedic tone, which is why I added the "how-to" box.
I'd also recommend that, considering that (1) this is an encyclopedia, (2) this type of content is highly sensitive and personal, (3) this article topic is a high-risk activity potentially leading to life-long major illness and/or death and (4) the internet more than abounds with promotional anal sex material, we should probably change the order of the 2nd & 3rd paragraphs.-- TyrS  chatties  08:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, I ask that you stop talking to me as though I don't know how to write an encyclopedia. The information I added deals with research trying to prevent any life-long major illness and/or death that may occur from anal sex. And "death" is a bit extreme, as HIV/AIDS patients can live a long life these days. Also see the section on anal cancer. You keep acting as though this very important information is promotion of anal sex, and it's really irritating me. It is not promotion to state that adequate lubrication, bodily relaxation and communication are generally required in order to avoid damage to the anus, as well as pain. These are facts observed time and time again in anal sex participants. Not having adequate lubrication during anal sex can damage the anus (and is likely to, according to a lot of research). Not having bodily relaxation during anal sex can damage the anus. Not communicating with the sex partner can damage the anus. The section on stimulation would be extremely lacking without this information. And I have added it in a neutral way, and have attributed to what every researcher on this topic says. There is not a sex researcher out there to dispute any of this information. I also completely disagree with switching the paragraphs. It makes no sense to mention male stimulation, the experts take, and then female stimulation. The section is better tackling stimulation in both sexes first, and then ending on what the experts have to state. Flyer22 (talk) 09:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, regarding the 2nd & 3rd paragraphs, I meant the paragraphs at the very beginning of the article - sorry, I guess I didn't clarify that sufficiently. Anyhow, judging from the current state of the article it looks like it has definitely been improved in regards to the unnecessary relaying of personal advice, so I congratulate you on the current state of the article.-- TyrS  chatties  12:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't see how it would be best to start off with the female anatomy either. We should definitely start out with the introduction of the anatomy regarding both sexes, then lead into the information exclusive to either sex. We could separate the initial information from the male anatomy information, split it into two paragraphs, if you'd like. I'm glad the personal advice issue seems to be solved, and hope we can now move on. Also, would you stop dissecting my comments when you reply? I've never liked that intersecting/splitting up of the comments, which is why I keep reformatting. Flyer22 (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

the article is about anal sex, not religion

I believe all religious analyses of anal intercourse should be moved to the articles detailing their respective religions.
does the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_and_roll discuss music from the zoroastrian point of view?
does the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football criticise sport as frivolity unrelated to saving souls for the lord's kingdom?
of course not: that would be ridiculous. what makes sex any different from anything else?
I believe that the various prohibitions on coffee, alcohol, dance, pleasure, hair cutting, shaving, not wearing hats, sex, driving automobiles, using electricity, sin, marriage, and all the other crazy stuff banned by all the worlds religions should be separated from the articles covering those topics and dumped into the religions' articles to which they belong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.160.101.3 (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, especially since most of the information in the 'religion' sections detail general prohibitions against sex that include anal sex, and are not about anal sex specifically. If no one objects, I will remove the section. Quigley (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Religious views also have to do with the subject. It is the reason religious views are also tackled in the Homosexuality and Sexual intercourse articles. The Anal sex article should not only tackle the acts and health effects of such acts but cultural feelings as well. Religious views are a part of cultural feelings. Coffee, alcohol, dance, pleasure, hair cutting, shaving, not wearing hats, sex, driving automobiles, using electricity, sin, marriage, etc. deal with cultural views also...even if the articles here about those things do not all address religion. What makes sex different? Religion has major influence on sexual relations; we all know this. Other articles do not matter, however, as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a strong argument on Wikipedia; it is often seen as not even a valid argument.

I have not taken part in adding religious content to this article, but others have, and I doubt they would be willing to remove the religious views. Flyer22 (talk) 16:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, the "stuff banned by all the worlds religions" cannot all be covered in the articles on those religions without those articles becoming extremely huge (which is saying something, since they are already pretty huge). Some things can also seem really random-seeming. Of course religious views on anal sex are mostly going to be covered in the article about anal sex, as to address all of that in one place...and because the topic is anal sex. Flyer22 (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course religious views are a part of cultural views, but the way the section is now, it directly quotes from scripture and religious authorities, therefore providing an original [and often strict and literal] interpretation of how the religious have influenced popular perceptions of anal sex, instead of taking it from a sociological angle. Quigley (talk) 05:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I am completely okay with a little of it being cut down and redesigned. It's complete removal that I was concerned about. Flyer22 (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

also a lot of comments in the religion section are unverified and lack citations, and are clearly just conjectures/opinions. For example, "Orthodox Judaism teaches that..." is uncited, and as a matter of fact, that is not necessarily true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.212.62 (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The article titled SODOMY should cover all religious aspects of anal sex. There is no place for religion in this article other than a passing mention with the Sodomy link.DCX (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Religion has to do with anal sex, for the reasons I stated above. The same is done at the Sexual intercourse article as well. Flyer22 (talk) 06:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and your explanation is a circular argument and a logical fallacy. Please remove the religious section from anal sex or rewrite every single article in Wikipedia with how it related to religion.DCX (talk) 11:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

This entry is extremely bias, POV and reads like a 1950's American propaganda against homosexuality

The second and third paragraphs warn against the pain and possible injury as well as disease that could occur with anal sex, yet the same is true of vaginal sex.

Why did the author insist to include so much condemnation if not to promote a certain set of values?

This article is highly unencyclopedic, extremely biased and anti-gay.DCX (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The second and third paragraphs of the lead (which, with the exception of the positive information on prostate, clitoral and G-Spot leg stimulation, I did not write) warn against the pain and possible injury, as well as disease that can occur because it is true and summarizes an important part of the article, per WP:LEAD. Anal sex is far riskier than vaginal sex, and the type of damage that can occur to the anus/rectum during or as a result of anal sex is not as extreme as any damage that can occur to the vagina during or as a result of vaginal sex. These are simple facts. Would you have us keep this out of the article? If you are saying that the lead should also list a few dangers of vaginal sex, I point out that there are no dangers of vaginal sex other than STDs and that this is not the Vaginal sex article (there isn't one, as it is covered at the Sexual intercourse article).

Really, what condemnation of anal sex are you talking about here? There is an Anatomy and stimulation section (which I created) which certainly is not condemnation. In fact, one editor above felt it was leaning too much toward the positive/promotion of anal sex direction. Is it the Heterosexual sections which bother you? If so, I do not see how, since those sections are not much against anal sex at all. Is it the Homosexual sections? If so, it cannot be helped that so many gay men just are not that into anal sex. If it's the health sections that bother you, it cannot be helped that these are the risks of anal sex. Why should we tone that down? And the religion sections are there because religion has to do with the topic of anal sex as well.

In what way do you see that we could make this article more positive towards anal sex, other than sex guides promoting it? If you have reliable sources (not any and every sex guide) reporting positive research on anal sex, then more can be added. I would be more than willing to help you with that.

But there is nothing highly unencyclopedic about this article that I can see. Just because it does not portray anal sex in the positive manner you would like...does not make it unencyclopedic. Or anti-gay. Flyer22 (talk) 06:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I have already explained,IN WHAT WAY. You have not in good faith seen the issue from another point of view other than your own bias. When noted anti-gay pundits are referencing this article as "proof" that anal sex is "wrong" that should speak volumes.

DCX (talk) 11:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Why would you write this " it cannot be helped that so many gay men just are not that into anal sex." If not to be rude and personally insulting? DCX (talk) 11:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. You act as though this article is about gay men. It's not. It's about anal sex in general. You also act as though the risks and dangers of anal sex should be removed from this article or toned down just so that anti-gay pundits will not be able to have "proof" that anal sex is wrong. Anyone who thinks anal sex is wrong is going to continue to think anal sex is wrong, no matter what is in this article. Again, I ask what would you have us do? Remove all the very reliable facts regarding the risks and dangers of anal sex? It is not about any bias on my part. These are simple facts presented in the article. We cannot make the Health risks sections or Cultural issues sections more positive. The Heterosexual sections are neutral enough. Is it the Homosexual sections you have a problem with? Why would I write that "it cannot be helped that so many gay men just are not that into anal sex"? Because it's the truth. What do you want from that section or any of these sections? I am asking you to name specifics. Is it to portray anal sex more positively? If so, then we are going to need reliable sources for that. Reliable sources to contrast some of the negativity. I don't even see this article as that negative, other than stating the health risks and some of society's historical views on the act. This article is not denouncing anal sex or "gay sex" (I put "gay sex" in quotation marks there, because gay sex is not necessarily synonymous with anal sex). See Frot, for example. I mean, really, is it the Health risks section you have such a problem with? Because I take it that section is your biggest problem with this article. However, that section should be here. If you have reliable sources for a Health benefits section, we could create that. In the meantime, step off the WP:SOAPBOX and calm down. Wikipedia is not your personal outlet to promote anal sex as great and wonderful. It can be great and wonderful to a great many people, but, according to research, it is also the riskiest/most dangerous sex act. Flyer22 (talk) 11:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The recent accusations toward me regarding content at this article is humorous and annoying, really. My work (the Anatomy and stimulation section) gets accused of being too pro-anal by an editor a little above, and now you are accusing me of being anti-gay (on my talk page, which I reverted because my contributions to LGBT topics on Wikipedia show just how non anti-gay I am). Seems I just cannot get a break on the topic; no matter what I do at this article, I am going to get accused of either being pro-anal or anti-anal. I did not even add most of the stuff to this article. Sighs. In either case, I just added a Female to female section,[5][6] which was planned a little above, and which helps to balance out this article a little more.

Dougcweho, any constructive suggestions you have for balancing out some of the negative aspects of this article, I am open to hearing. But calling me anti-gay when I really am not or suggesting the removal of valid aspects of the article simply because you don't like it is not constructive. Flyer22 (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

ONCE AGAIN

I am asking for a NEUTRAL TONE, not a promotional one. The fact that another editor falsely & insultingly accused you of that in a very pejorative way does not give you the right to make the SAME FALSE accusation to me.

1. The risks to health and injury do not belong in the 2nd or 3rd paragraph. They should have their own section, but not in the opening few paragraphs. Otherwise, you ARE advocating AGAINST anal sex, weather that is intentional or not that is the perception and perception is reality.

2. RELIGION has NO PLACE in this article. There already is an article called "SODOMY" which covers the subject. WHY DO YOU NEED TO HAVE BOTH? There is no discussion of Religion in ORAL SEX, use that as a template. Your circular argument doesnt work.

There is no section on religion in oral sex and there is a vague short paragraph about Buddhism in the VAGINAL SEX article. WHY DOES RELIGION HAVE TO BE IN THIS ARTICLE AND NOT THOSE?

3. The Pope says he is not anti-gay, Maggie Gallagher denies she is anti-gay but saying you are not anti-gay then going on to make dog whistle anti gay slurs is disingenuous. If you dislike Gay Men but don't dislike Gay Women it does not mean you don't have an anti-gay bias. Or is it just gay men who you "assume" participate in anal sex that you dislike?

When you odiously wrote "it cannot be helped that so many gay men just are not that into anal sex." you assumed that I was offended because you assume I am a gay man that enjoys anal sex. Your assumption is what demonstrates your anti-gay bias.

DCX (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The article is not non-neutral in my view, that is my point. And you have no right to say I shouldn't accuse you of anything when you have and continue to accuse me of silliness. I accuse you of promotion for the way you have gone about this, suggesting certain topics should not be covered in this article simply because they speak negatively of anal sex. You act as though the article should be more positive, in my view. And I am asking what positive information do you have to add to this article?

1. The risks to health and injury belong in the lead, per WP:LEAD. The lead is supposed to summarize the most important aspects of the article. This goes for any article on Wikipedia. Yes, sections take care of that information, but the lead should address it as well.

2.RELIGION DOES HAVE A PLACE in this article, because whether or not to have anal sex additionally has to do with religion. Some people behave sexually according to their religious beliefs. It is the same reason that the Sexual intercourse article addresses religion. Wikipedia articles on sexuality are not limited to just covering the act. They should cover societal views on the matter as well. This is where religion comes in. Sodomy does not cover all the aspects of religion or other cultural views on anal sex. Just because the Oral sex article does not have sections on religion...does not mean the Sexual intercourse and Anal sex articles should not. The Oral sex article needs way more work anyway. It currently has an unneeded Pregnancy section, for goodness sakes. The truth of the matter is...anal sex has been more taboo, which is why there is so much more to state on it regarding religion. The religious aspects of this article could be cut down, but it should not be removed entirely. I can tell you right now that such removals of what religious views consider of anal sex would keep this article from reaching GA (good article) or FA (featured article) status.

3. I have not made any anti- gay slurs. Saying, "...it cannot be helped that so many gay men just are not that into anal sex." is not an anti-gay slur. It is a factual statement backed up by reliable sources in the Homosexual section. Your taking offense at the line shows more than anything your mindset, that you take it as a slur to state that there are plenty of gay men who are not into anal sex. I was trying to figure out your problems with that and other sections. The only problem I could see you having with the Homosexual section is that it does not portray anal sex as this well-loved act among gay men. Some gay men like it. Some gay men don't. I did not/and still do not see what could be added to that section to make it seem more positive regarding anal sex. I don't dislike gay men, and you cannot prove such a thing, no matter how much you insist you have me figured out. Clearly, you have not looked through enough of my contributions to continue to insist that I do not like gay men. I could have been a gay man, for all you know, since it is clear you did not check my user page. But, oh wait... You act as though all gay men like anal sex, and as though anal is about gay men. And now you even accuse me of disliking gay men who participate in anal sex. Goodness.

When I wrote "it cannot be helped that so many gay men are just not that into anal sex," I assumed you were offended because you made it clear you were offended. I could not care less if you are a gay man who enjoys anal sex. My assumptions about you demonstrates bias? The same can be said of your assumptions about me.

It is completely laughable that you insist I am anti-gay or hate people who have anal sex when I am the damn one who made the article more positive by adding the Anatomy and stimulation section. It's also ridiculous that you keep attributing anal sex to gay sex. Sighs. I'm bringing in editors from Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies to weigh in on this, since it is clear that I cannot discuss this rationally with you. Flyer22 (talk) 01:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Your objections are nothing more than sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "Nya Nay I can't hear you".

1. The fact that BOTH anti-gay and pro-gay advocates find this article to be advocating against anal sex should have told you something, but you willfully ignored it. 2. You still have not made anything other than a circular argument for the inclusion of religion in this article with no clear reason to justify why that section should not be in the Sodomy article. 3. "...it cannot be helped that so many gay men just are not that into anal sex." is not an anti-gay slur. It is a factual statement" - I don't know if it is factual or not, but as a gay man that has never been my experience. What is you research for this, besides a Wikipedia article? Your implication was that I must be bitter from being rejected by so many gay men who rejected my advances presumably for anal sex. You did this in an attempt to shut me down. 4. The fact that you have been thoroughly and willfully unwilling to believe that you are not infallible is just reprehensible. Intent is as important as deeds.DCX (talk) 02:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Whatever, Dougcweho.

1. What anti-gay and pro-gay advocates find this article to be advocating against anal sex. What are you talking about?

2. I have made strong arguments for inclusion. You choose to ignore them and Wikipedia's style for comprehensive articles, saying it's a "circular argument."

3. What is my research? There's research in the damn Wikipedia article. Have you read it? Looked at the sources? They are reliable. It is not Wikipedia reporting that information itself. More research can be found on Google Books. Again, it is not anti-gay to say that plenty of gay men are not into anal sex. That is a fact, whether you accept it or not. Have you even looked at the Frot article? You say my implication was that you must be bitter from being rejected by so many gay men who rejected your advances presumably for anal sex? You say I did this in an attempt to shut you down? I say, "Wrong?!" I find it anti-gay that you act as though it is a lie or is insulting that plenty of gay men do not engage in anal sex. I find it insulting that you automatically attribute anal sex to gay sex.

4. The fact that you thoroughly and willfully believe that I am [fallible] regarding the statement is just reprehensible. I will not say I was wrong for stating a damn fact. A fact backed up by reliable sources. Flyer22 (talk) 02:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

"saying "whatever, Dougcweho" is a further attempt to shut me down and is hardly in good faith. Why do you feel it nessesary to refer to me as asnything more than what I have signed the page as DCX? and saying "Whatever" is very sophomoric.

1. Maggie Gallagher is AntiGay and has indicated this page as advocating against anal sex. DougCWEHO is ProGay and indicates this page advocates against anal sex.

2. A Circular argument is not a strong argument. I ignored nothing.

3. Again, the problem is your intent more than the statement. You intended to insult me buy stating that. As for research, try asking an actual gay man.

4. I believe you are fallible, (double negative=positive) not infallible. I further believe that I am fallible as fallible if not more so than you. I do however believe that I am capable of deductive reasoning. DCX (talk) 02:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Saying "Whatever, Dougcweho" is me being tired of your absurd accusations. You came to this article with an attitude and have continued to take it out on me as though I wrote most of this article. Why call you Dougcweho? Because Dougcweho is your user name, that's why. I usually call all Wikipedia editors by their full user names. So now I'm wrong to call you by the name you picked out and not your assigned nickname? Good grief. "Whatever" is not sophomoric. What is sophomoric is how you have behaved toward me.

1. Maggie Gallagher has nothing to do with this article. But learn to add or point to reliable sources to back your claims. And citing yourself? Eh...

2. You can call them "circular arguments" and weak all you want. Wikipedia disagrees. This is not a simple case of other stuff exists.

3. The problem is what you perceived as my intent. That perception was/is wrong. You can keep stating it as right, but it is still wrong. As for research, they did ask real gay men. And Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, not OR, per WP:OR.

4. Corrected then. Flyer22 (talk) 03:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment: It does seem odd that the lead has two paragraphs about how painful and risky it is. Shouldn't those passages be placed in the "risks" section of the article? Also: Religious views of anal sex certainly belong in this article, but should be kept together in one section. Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The risks information in the lead could be toned down or combined all into one paragraph, but it belongs there, per WP:LEAD. That same information is already covered in the Health risks section, but the lead should summarize the risks. Flyer22 (talk) 03:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree--summarize the controversies and risks without giving as much detail, but also give more weight to the recognition that many people enjoy it--as long as the lead feels balanced between representing the key issues that the average reader needs to know. Aristophanes68 (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll get on that now. But about your alterations of the section order, I feel that it makes more sense to have the Prevalence sections second. The initial sections give an introduction/overview of what anal sex is for each type of couple. So it makes more sense to me that we then go into how prevalent anal sex is among each type of couple. And right now, with the way it is, there are too many subsections, because prevalence in each case belongs to one group. For Heterosexuals, the Prevalence section is about male-to-female. For the Homosexual section, it is about male-to-male. Flyer22 (talk) 03:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I see. Perhaps the "prevalance" section should be given an extra heading level to make it clear that it specifically refers to the previous section? I'll do that and then you see if it makes sense to you. Aristophanes68 (talk) 03:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Cancel that--they're already indented an extra section--you just can't tell it on the page.... Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I was going to change the lead to this:

Anal sex most often refers to the sex act involving insertion of the penis into the anus of a sex partner. The term anal sex can also sometimes include other sexual acts involving the anus, including pegging, anal–oral sex, fingering, and object insertion. A 2009 study of American college undergraduates, the large majority heterosexual, found that one in four reported having had anal sex.

Anal sex is pleasurable for many people, and some may reach orgasm (through stimulation of the prostate in men, and clitoral and G-Spot leg stimulation in women). Others find it painful, in some cases extremely so. Psychological factors, as well as technique, are found to play a role in the experience of pain or pleasure during anal sex.

As with most forms of sexual interaction, individuals are at risk for contracting sexually transmitted diseases, and thus safe sex practices are advised. Anal sex is considered a high-risk sexual practice, and unprotected anal sex is the riskiest of all forms of sexual intercourse. The hazards are due to the vulnerability of the tissues, as the penetration of the anus may cause tearing and bleeding of the soft tissues, and can damage the sphincter muscles. As the rectal mucous membrane provides little natural lubrication, a lubricant is generally used when penetrating the anus.

But your version is good too. It even touches on religion as it should, just like the Sexual intercourse article. I feel a bit about STDs and safe sex practices should be added, though, which I will do in a few moments. Flyer22 (talk) 04:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks like we were mostly on the same page. I just wish I had more sources readily available. I assume my additions are common knowledge, but if I can find some citations, I'll add those. Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I tweaked it to this. And thank you as well. Your help has been much appreciated. Your lead is far better than any I could have thought of in such a quick time frame. It touches on anal sex among lesbians, which is a good add too (though I did just add the section on lesbians today, LOL). I'm not sure if the information about lubricant use should be left out of the lead, since so many researchers say it is vital to preventing damage, but at least that is covered in the Anatomy and stimulation section. Flyer22 (talk) 04:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again--my pleasure. I hope Doug likes it too. Best, Aristophanes68 (talk) 05:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I added in mention that not all gay men engage in anal sex. And Dougcweho seems okay with the new lead. We made peace on my talk page after the new lead was up. He may still have a problem with all the religious information, though, which I will address below in a new section. Flyer22 (talk) 01:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I edit4ed to trim the religious portion, as I commented on below. I first trimmed any reference to religion and homosexuality as related to anal sex, as the topic is anal sex, and not homosexuality. As most people who engage in anal sex are not homosexual and most homosexuals do not engage in anal sex, it is not appropriate. Atom (talk) 04:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)