Talk:Sexual intercourse/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

The Foreskin

I find it interesting that the lubricating effect of the foreskin is completely missing from the article. Without the foreskin's mechanical lubricant action, foreplay may take longer and (unless other lubricant is used) the sex act may be painful for both partners. I realise many men don't understand enough about their penis to leave the foreskin extended before insertion of the penis, but Wikipedia is exactly the sort of place where people look for education about such things.

Hmm. I may expand to include what you speak of. Though I'm busy with a lot of other articles on Wikipedia at the moment. Perhaps, someone else wants to try to tackle this? Flyer22 (talk) 04:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Picture

Why is there a laptop in the 4th picture down? That's just weird. 70.10.94.81 (talk) 05:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not? And please don't edit other people's spelling. Not everyone here on Wikipedia speaks American. Furthermore, please add new contributions at the bottom of the page, not the top. Debate (talk) 06:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Regardless whether it's weird, it is unnecessary. Illustrations should confine themselves to the subject so far as practicable. I've switched in the laptop-free version of the picture. —Christian Campbell 07:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Toads and all other amphibians do not engage in internal fertilization; two toads one on top of the other are not having sex, they are merely conserving body heat. Thus, removing the notation that states stacked toads are reproducing.Triptenator (talk) 03:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

All frogs (including toads) reproduce by external fertilization, that much is correct. Amplexus IS "reproduction" but it is indeed not "intercourse" as it is absolutely non penetrative. If you had read about amplexus, you would have learned that males fertilize eggs the instant they leave the female body. The way the male controls that HIS sperm gets on THESE eggs is to make sure it is done immediately. "Stacked" frogs are not keeping each other warm. Male frogs have extra large thumbs pads (used in field identification) to have a better grip on the female, and to give her that certain little massage/pressure that makes her release her eggs for JUST him.

With the correct justification, indeed the picture has no business on this page.--Tallard (talk) 09:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The image has now been removed. I do point out, though, that sexual intercourse is not necessarily supposed to mean penetrative sex; it's rather supposed to mean "sexual intimacy between two." It's just that society mainly uses it (the term) to mean penetrative sex. However, even with "between," it is still (usually) defined as being between two people (not between two non-human animals). Flyer22 (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Nature

Does it have to be man on top then woman on top then fuck you up the hole>? What is the natural? It is not represented in the pictures but up the hole and man on top woman on top is clearly more important to be viewed. I am not saying that perversion should have no representation but I am saying that its presedent is in itself perverted.
ThisMunkey (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe the ones of the lions and the flys doing it is a better example? Maybe the anal version is original research and that's against the wikipedia codes?
  ThisMunkey (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  It is purely disrespect to depict natures own version as either a creature feature or an anal perversion and nothing else.
  ThisMunkey (talk) 09:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite get what you're saying. And we aren't depicting nature's own version as either a creature feature or an anal perversion. The first image in this article is of traditional sexual intercourse, between a man and a woman. And the second shows two lions, as to demonstrate animal copulation. And an anal sex image (of two human males) is placed in the appropriate area. Flyer22 (talk) 21:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well thats appropriation for you.
ThisMunkey (talk) 12:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Still don't know what you mean. Flyer22 (talk) 04:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Typo under a caption

Sorry, I don't know proper etiquette for making new discussions on the talk page, but I couldn't change the page myself. Anyway:

There is a typo under the caption of Hadrian. It says "Avri" where it should read "Avril" as under the other caption.

I suppose this instance of "Édouard-Henri Avril" should also be linked to Paul Avril, as in the above caption.

Once again, if this isn't protocol for pointing out changes like this, I apologize.

Once again, if this isn't protocol for pointing out changes like this, I apologize.

No need to apologize. You did fine. Well, except for signing your user name, or in your case, your IP address by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. Anyway, I took care of the problem you pointed out. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Flyer22 (talk) 05:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Something fishy

There's something strange going on with this page. When you view logged in everything is fine. However, if you view the page while not logged in the entire article is replaced with "lulz". The URL is exactly the same, I can't figure out what's going on. Maybe somebody who knows more about the way these things work can try it and see if they get the same results as I did.BlearySpecs (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Ok.. in case no one's already noticed, the entire article's been deleted, to be replaced with 'lulz'. I'm afraid I've got no idea how to restore it, but could someone do so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.38.216 (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

"For most non-human animals, sexual intercourse is used only for reproduction"

I can't make head or tale of this statement. First of all, it's not clearly defined; what does "for" mean. Perhaps the intention is to personify evolution, and to claim that the for most non-human animals, the only evolutionary advantage conferred by sexual intercourse is procreative, and that in humans and the other examples it has some secondary function. If so, the statement urgently needs to be reworded so as not to imply that evolution is some kind of person, who is capable of having intentions. Otherwise, is the statement meant to refer to the participants own intention? If so, it the sentence seems to hold that most non human animals are rationally aware of the connection between sexual intercourse and childbirth, and make a conscious decision to mate out of a desire to have offspring, which seems highly dubious. Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but I am under the impression that few animals understand that connection. It seems more likely to be accurate that sexual intercourse is "used [if used means intentionally used] for reproduction" only in the cited humans, bonobos, dolphins, and chimpanzees. I hear this "fact" cited all the time, and it has never made any sense to me. If anyone would explain just what is meant, I would be most thankful. If not, perhaps the statement should be removed (it already has a citation needed tag). 24.21.101.33 (talk) 06:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The intention of the sentence is to contrast intercourse for reproduction (ie at fertile periods only, such as estrus) with sex for other purposes (eg recreation). If intercourse was occurring for purposes other than reproduction it would likely occur independent of fertility cycles, however for most species mating only occurs during fertile periods. No degree of intention is implied by the sentence, it is simply a behavioral observation. I agree, however, that this fact should be referenced and the 'citation needed' tag therefore seems appropriate. Debate (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well said, Debate. Saved me from having to explain. Hopefully, I'll have the time soon to add a citation to that. Flyer22 (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

the statement in question is patently false as is proven by repeated citation of qualified professional opinion in Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity (ISBN-10: 0312192398). that it appears in wikipedia is an embarrassment and an example of wikipedia propagating unqualified popular pseudo-knowledge as fact. that it can't be simply edited out and i'm forced to just mention it here is another embarrassment. that claim needs to be erased from the entry as does all other content that reflects it. given the article's 'protected' status, i'm dubious the gatekeeper(s) will correct it. but i've done my part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.174.112 (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what's so embarrassing, especially since the statement is not patently false. As Debate said, for most species...mating only occurs during fertile periods. That is true, as cited in Helena Curtis's book Biology, which states, "Females of almost all species except man will mate only during their fertile period, which is known as estrus, or heat." We see this time and time again in various species, such as cows, horses, etc. I know that book by Curtis was published in 1975, but what she says there doesn't seemed to have changed all that much, given other valid sources that back up the same statement or point to estrus as largely defining mating among non-human mammal species, or saying something along those lines. I haven't read any part of the book you cite yet, but unless it says that most mammal species do not mate only when the female is in estrus, then all it is really pointing out is that other animals, besides humans, like primemates, are able to and do mate while the female is not in estrus. That is something this article already notes. If the book you cite specifically says that most species mating has nothing to do with the female estrus cycle, then it seems we have a divide in "the qualified professional opinion". Perhaps stating "For most non-human animals, sexual intercourse is used only for reproduction" seems too much as though were saying that those animals aren't also using that time for pleasure and we should instead say "For most species mating only occurs during fertile periods", but it doesn't stop the fact that we're mainly pointing to estrus as largely defining mating among mammal species, which is true. And that statement is now cited with two of the references I provided in this section. Flyer22 (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Dogs are also known to engage in homosexual behaviors. I've seen it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.210.177.242 (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and this article is not saying that they do not. The lead (intro) of this article, after stating that bonobos, dolphins, and chimpanzees are known to engage in sexual intercourse even when the female is not in estrus, simply notes that these animals also engage in sex acts with same-sex partners. It does not state that other animals do not engage sex acts with same-sex partners. In fact, the Functions of sex beyond reproduction section notes that these animals and others display homosexual behaviors. Flyer22 (talk) 06:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The word "only" scares me. When I know that bulls/horses and in fact most animals also do it as a way to assert leadership. Meaning they don't just have sex with a female because he wants to reproduce, but does it to assert his position as alpha male. Sometimes the cub is a side effect of the behavior. The lion for example doesn't think, "I want to have kids", the lion barely cares about his cubs, can fight with it, and in rare cases eat it. In fact I'd go so far as to say that in nature, reproduction is often a coincidence or side effect from a natural animalist behavior. Animals can go in heat for example. The animals isn't trying to reproduce, it's trying to remove the feeling they get from heat. Animals and humans are alot alike. They can, just like a man, feel "horny" or tense, it's a natural biological reaction our bodies have in order to have us WANT to have sex. And then the woman gets pregnant as a side effect. All of nature works in a way that our bodies have all these urges, needs, side effects from withdrawls, and such to make us want to have sex as much as possible. The quote is almost the opposite, it should be more like

"Humans are one of the only animals that have sex purely for the intention of having a child"

or

"For most non-human animals, reproduction is a side effect from instinctual sexual intercourse"

A biology teacher 24.91.140.27 (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The lead (intro) of this article does not use the word "only" anymore (I got rid of that months ago)... It instead uses the word "mainly"... It says, "For most non-human animals, sexual intercourse is used mainly for reproduction, at the point of estrus"...

The section Functions of sex beyond reproduction, says, "Humans, bonobos, chimpanzees and dolphins are the only species known to engage in heterosexual behaviors even when the female is not in estrus, which is a point in her reproductive cycle suitable for successful impregnation."

It is not disputing that non-human animals also do it to assert leadership; it is rather getting across that for whatever other reason these animals are engaging in sexual intercourse, it is always happening at the point of estrus, except in the cases of humans, bonobos, chimpanzees and dolphins. That's what the references say.

If you mean that most non-human animals do not mainly have sexual intercourse while the female is in estrus, then you definitely need to provide references for that. I suppose it's fine, though, to change the lead from "For most non-human animals, sexual intercourse is used mainly for reproduction, at the point of estrus" to "For most non-human animals, sexual intercourse happens, at the point of estrus" (and so on).

I wouldn't call reproduction a coincidence or side effect, but I thank you for stating your feelings on this matter.

I'm definitely willing to work with you on what you feel needs tweaking in regards to this article. We should not change anything to state something like "For most non-human animals, reproduction is a side effect from instinctual sexual intercourse" without reference, though. Flyer22 (talk) 02:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand and agree with most of your points. And I wouldn't change anything in such a basic and key article without first finding sources. It's just that the ""For most non-human animals, sexual intercourse is used mainly for reproduction, at the point of estrus" implies foreknowledge and higher thinking. The animal is not thinking "I will have sexual intercourse so that I will have children". It's a compulsory habit. An animalistic behavior that is purely physical, not intellectual. It's a basic need and way of living. I wont say "lower thinking" because animal intelligence is debatable even if people don't think it is. It should read something like:

"For most non-human animals, sexual intercourse is used mainly to satisfy primal needs, usually at the point of estrus, and often results in pregnancy" or something to that point.

The way it's constructed now, would be like in the article for a lion teaching the cub how to hunt it have the phrase, "The lioness teaches the cub how to hunt so that she can know that he will be able to properly fend for himself". Until we can understand animal language we can't instill "thought" or "intent" on most animal actions to such a higher degree. The lioness doesn't "worry" about the cub, or worry that he will be a good hunter or wants to "know" that he is. She teaches him so that he can hunt, and that's as far as we can measure. maybe:

"For most non-human animals, sexual intercourse occurs at the point of estrus, often resulting in reproduction"

Or something to that extent. The "used" in that sentence implies intention of action. English isn't my first language so I don't know if I'm being clear. And I know it's extremely picky. But it's sort of like how some people today say recreational sex is a sin and we should only have it for reproduction, and one of the reasons some people are against birth control. And having the animal somehow think, "I want to have an offspring now so I will mate" somehow permeates the stigma against sex. That it's only meant for that and should only be used for that. I just wanted to make sure that when an article is mentioning non-human animals it kept it at an animal level, without the higher reasoning and thinking. An animal doesn't think, "I haven't eaten for some time, I should get food so that I will have energy". It's hungry, so it finds food. No critical thinking or deep thought, it's more like "I'm hungry, I need food". The basic brain works with wants and needs. An animal thinks at best, "I need sex, I will mate", or "She is in estrus, we need to mate". Maybe the best way would be:

"For most non-human animals, sexual intercourse happens at the point of estrus, and leads to reproduction"

So that it doesn't need the "used". So that it's an observation without bias. Most male animals couldn't care less to what happens to the offspring. In fact when Estrus is over they totally forget about the female most of the time. So they have sexual intercourse because of the heat, and the urges, not because they have a need for reproduction, or want offspring. A dog doesn't try to penetrate a pillow to have offspring. Sexual intercourse leads to reproduction, but it's not _used for_ reproduction. Thank you for being so kind and patient when I know my english is probably horrible. I look forward to a response. 24.91.140.27 (talk) 06:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I changed it to "For most non-human animals, sexual intercourse occurs at the point of estrus (the most fertile period of time in the female's reproductive cycle), which increases the chances of successful impregnation."

I must say that you should sign up here as a Wikipedian editor; we need people like you here. I would say that maybe you are already signed up here, but if that were the case, I'm sure that you would have used your Wikipedia user name in this discussion by now (unless you left Wikipedia and do not wish to come back in full form). But, in any case, you seem somewhat familiar with how Wikipedia works, and I thank you for helping out around here. Flyer22 (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

And, oh, your English is not horrible at all, at least not in the written form, LOL.

I'll see you around (hopefully). Flyer22 (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

One more thing regarding this topic -- I will say that the thing about sexual intercourse in most non-human animals is that it is no coincidence that it happens at the point of estrus. Obviously, nature is looking to get offspring out of sexual intercourse. Just like with pubescent or post-pubescent non-human animals or humans who engage in sexual intercourse even when the female is not at her most fertile, nature is still looking to reproduce in those instances. The body, during or after puberty, is always going through the actions of trying to reproduce during sexual intercourse or what it perceives to be sexual intercourse. That is why I cannot look at reproduction as soley a side note.

That said, you have brought up valid points, of course, and should definitely think about "officially" joining the Wikipedia community. Flyer22 (talk) 05:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

There I created an account. =) And I agree and support the idea that it is no coincidence that intercourse happens mostly during Estrus. But it is just like it is no coincidence that we burn less fat if we eat too little. If you believe in evolution it would mean that having those urges coinciding with estrus is an evolutionary advantage. It is in a species' best interest to induce intercourse during the time that pregnancy is most likely to occur. If you don't believe in evolution it's still a natural and logical advantage. I just think that the trait, or overall logical/intelligent design of intercourse has no bearing on the animal itself. You don't choose to be born with a higher IQ, or with sharper fangs. So the way an animal has evolved (or umm, poofed into existence), shouldn't imply intent from the animals' part. Sexual intercourse itself is a natural action, or rather reaction, to a number of stimuli. The connection between intercourse and pregnancy is something else. If we're talking about 'sexual intercourse' alone, we need to say what induces it, how it works, and then show what it _can_ lead to, not what it _should_ lead to. The way you phrased it is as perfect as I can think to say it. And I only sort of know how Wiki works because I used to go to a Star Trek wiki site =) And thanks... English is harder than people think! I hope I'm getting better and better! – Saphseraph (talk) 10:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I believe in evolution (I honestly cannot see how anyone cannot, even if religious).

It's good that you created an account. Any help you need on this site, do not hesitate at all to stop by my talk page or e-mail me. Flyer22 (talk) 11:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

"engage in sex acts with same-sex partners" needs a [CITE] after it. Without a citation it may as well be original work and is controversial. Cite an expert or two and it isn't original or controversial. (no, I can't do it, I don't have an account and it is semi-protected.) 70.216.227.85 (talk) 04:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

A citation for that is already in the Functions of sex beyond reproduction section. And the lead (intro) of Wikipedia articles do not have to be cited if the information it is summarizing is cited in the body of the article. Besides that, I would think that most people know that some non-human animals engage in same-sex sex acts, though some people would probably want to know if that goes for the animals the lead mentions as well. In any case, I went ahead and added the same citation from the Functions of sex beyond reproduction section to that. Flyer22 (talk) 06:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Picture Part 2

File:Penetración realizada con peservativo.jpg

Why isn't there a real life picture of a man and a woman having sex (I'm not volunteering)? Bsrboy (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Artistic renderings in this case enable the article to depict the subject with a degree of clarity that isn't necessarily easy to do in real life without convoluted camera angles and artificial poses that simply end up looking pornographic and not educational. Nonetheless, if you can find or produce a suitable photo that's in the public domain there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to add it. Debate (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

How do I find a picture that's in the public domain or how would I know if it's in the public domain? Bsrboy (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Simple search "sex" on google. You'll get like 20,000,000 hits. ACDCPres 04:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have responded to this question on Bsrboy's talk page. Debate (talk) 10:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

hey sex is fun! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.165.230 (talk) 12:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you volunteering yourself? Bsrboy (talk) 12:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Another thing about pictures, even ignoring that it shows cartoons, why is it missionary position in both cases? Why is only this form of sex depicted? Tyciol (talk) 00:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Is the only reason why there isn't a real-life picture at the moment that that there have been no volunteers, would it be deleted were someone to add a GNU licensed picture? --BiT (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I really do not see why a real-life picture is needed. I cannot imagine it not coming off as pornish-looking. It is not like having real-life pictures of the penis and vagina in those articles of the same name, where those images really do serve a great purpose. Flyer22 (talk) 03:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I think if added, I won't have a problem with it. But I would rather it not be added for the reason Flyer22 gave. It would be far too erotic. I would much rather prefer those profile drawings of the penis entering the vagina like the ones we get in sex ed. It would be more educational, and less controversial. – Saphseraph (talk) 21:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure, not against it's addition, though I can't say it is needed though it is odd that there is no picture of penetration photo or otherwise. I choose not to add it myself on the main page but I encourage someone to do so with either this image or a drawing illustrating the same essential thing. Aether22 (talk) 07:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I put it up anyway in a tiny thumb form to generate discussion. Aether22 (talk) 12:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

An editor removed it, and I agree with that editor. I thus removed your image from this talk page. Just as I knew it would be, it looks porn-ish. I still do not see why an image demonstrating actual penis to vagina sex or any sexual penetration or not is necessary. It's not like people do not get the idea of sexual intercourse and other sex acts. If it was a drawing of the act, I would be more for it than a real-life picture. Regardless of Wikipedia being about uncensored subjects/images, a real-life image such as that still looks like a porn picture. That's just how it comes off, no matter what. I feel that it takes away from any professionalism this article may have and distracts readers whether they find the image pleasant or not.

If more editors weigh in on this, in favor of what you propose, then you should add your picture back on this talk page to see if they are for your picture. Flyer22 (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

3 above seemed to be for it and you are the only one against it I think. I do feel that it should remain on the talk page, how else are people to weigh in? I also feel that the condom reduces the pornographic quality somewhat. I have replaced it here but with reduced size.Aether22 (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

3 above are not for it. Only one actually seemed/seems to be. Oh, and you. Not to mention...the editor who reverted it is another editor against it. I'll let your picture stay up for a bit. I've already stated my feelings on the matter. Read above, clearly. No one above is for a porn-ish-looking picture in this article. And, yes, yours does look that way. You should have also made it clear that it is your picture, like I did, instead of having it look like it belongs to the person who started this section. Flyer22 (talk) 04:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

And, oh, the condom does not make it look any less pornographic, LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

When you said "your picture" I was confused for a few moments, until I realized you did not mean that it is one I uploaded/took/stared in. I thought it was clear it was me who added the photo to the talk page, I just didn't like how it added to the bottom of the segment a big white space so I put it at the top. anyway let's see who has the best argument, mine is that it seems odd that there is no photo or image illustrating the subject. Now I am not convinced that this image should be on the page not by a long way but even if a diagram there should seemingly be something for a subject of such importance, so far there are many example of images with few details on the subject. I also wonder if human sexual intercourse might deserve it's own article.Aether22 (talk) 10:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

As I stated on the Urination talk page regarding another one of your images, the Anal sex article, for example, serves just fine without a real-life picture of the act. And I do feel that a real-life picture of anal sex in that article would add a pornographic feel to it, no matter what.

As for human sexual intercourse, I would hold off on making that article if I were you, splitting this article and having one on animals. Sexual intercourse is more so recognized as being between humans, anyway. This article was specifically about humans, until a few editors decided to add non-human animals to it. Non-human animals having sexual intercourse is more so referred to as breeding or mating (as I'm sure you know), which, as linked, have their own articles here. I mean, when do we ever hear someone referring to non-human animal copulation as sexual intercourse? Not much, if at all. But sexual intercourse is also about more than just reproduction in some cases; this not only relates to humans but to some non-human animals as well, thus the reason for including non-human animals in this article. I really don't believe that, at Wikipedia, there should be an article titled Human sexual intercourse, and one titled Non-human sexual intercourse, or something like that; I don't believe that those would survive long here enough without eventually being merged, especially if this article still exists (even if much shorter after the split). Flyer22 (talk) 10:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Back to the picture subject, I am all for a picture in this article demonstrating up-close human penetration; I just do not feel that it should be a picture of real-life penetration...for the reasons I stated above. Flyer22 (talk) 10:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I added a notice to the top of this page to point out that as we should all know WP is not censored. Now I am glad we agree an image should be present but as there is no image that I can find besides this one, and since a quick play in a image program using various art effects didn't turn it into art then should the article best go without in image or with one that some may find objectionable, I know what the policy says. perhaps put it up, agree to it staying until there is a suitable art work showing realistic penetration. Aether22 (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I feel that this article already has sufficient images at the moment and that there is no rush to add an image of up close penetration. Just like, as I stated before, the Anal sex article has done fine getting the imagery/idea of anal sex across without an up close image of it. Though the first painting in this article, as well as the one in the Anal sex article, does show these acts clearly when you click on the images. Flyer22 (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW I very much agree with you on the issue of animal mating not being sexual intercourse, it simply is not a term EVER used for animals, I believe it should go back to just being about humans. I disagree that the image shows anything clearly, yes a penis can be seen but we do not see it enter her as it is hidden by her leg, and indeed I question the placement of both the penis and the assumed position of the vagina in the painting. (the penis looks too low and the vagina too high) Maybe a straw poll should be carried out? Also the image could be black and white (or desaturated somewhat) and the thumbnail could be shrunken. So cast your votes, mine is for yes. Aether22 (talk) 03:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Aether, I was not truly saying that sexual intercourse is never, ever used to refer to non-human animals. I was merely pointing out how rare using that term for non-human animals is. I'm thinking that the editors who edited this article to include non-human animals were going on references like this one and the fact that some researchers have referred to non-human mating as sexual intercourse. I'll have to go into the archives of this article listed above on this talk page to see exactly what went down on that matter.

If enough editors here agree to divorce non-human animals from this article, then I will agree with that decision. Flyer22 (talk) 05:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I'm not in any way convinced that the picture isn't copyvio. The uploader has four uploads to their credit, three in a similar vein. Both the male and female in the photo are shaved, which is far more typical of a pornographic image than anything scientific or amateur. Regardless, in my view, both the shaving and condom significantly detract from any scientific value the image might have otherwise had. Debate 木 11:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about the copyvio crap, but...in what way does the depiction of condom usage detract from scientific value? That just escapes me. In an article about sexual intercourse (at least the parts focusing on humans), would it not be wise to include depictions of condom usage, given the fact that such contraceptive means are an important part of everyday life for a good percentage of those who are sexually active? And the opinion that shaven genitalia automatically means "porn" is just that - an opinion. "Natural" is not dictated by whether one has an afro springing out of their nether regions. It ticks me off to hear people say crap like "eww u have ur g/f shave her pubes that's unnatural so it means u liek little gurlz u pedo!!!1" and then turn around and call long-haired men weird for not keeping their hair the "standard" male length (if it's unnatural to shave your pubes, so should it be to cut your hair or shave your legs). Bottom line, condom usage and absence of pubic hair don't make the picture any less relevant to the purpose of the article. So unless the pic does in fact violate a copyright standard, I see no reason why it shouldn't be used. Mikhajlovich (talk) 09:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Would this picture work?

173.64.67.219 (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion below, called Picture Part 3, is about that picture (of course). Flyer22 (talk) 06:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated information

The passage right above the Contents box that talks about the functions of sexual intercourse is disputable. It needs the attention of an expert. First, it could be incorrect. Second, it is overly simplistic. The claim that most animals have sex for reproductive purposes is misleading. A distinction should be made between more social and less social species. Regarding social species, the article claims that a small number of species engage in non-reproductive and homosexual sexual activity to strengthen social bonds. This claim is only partially accurate; first, more species than that have been studied and shown to have such behavior; second, the functions of these behaviors have not been established completely, and the scientific theories at present "presume" that sexual behavior can serve other functions as well, so "social bonds" is an oversimplification. Overall, this passage reads like one taken from a children's encyclopedia, where everything is oversimplified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blagov (talk • contribs) 13:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Everything in that lead is correct. How do you assume that no one working on this article isn't an expert in this field? Sure, this article isn't GA (Good Article) or FA (Featured Article) status yet, but a lot of us are busy and have lives outside of Wikipedia, of course. The lead of Wikipedia articles are meant to represent the article as a whole, not elaborate on every little detail of the subject. Thus, the lead does not read like a children's book, it's just not overly complicated. The body of the article (excluding the lead) is for going into all the detail you mentioned. Feel free, of course, to go in depth within the article about what you've stated here on its talk page. You stated, "The claim that most animals have sex for reproductive purposes is misleading." Well, as I just mentioned above, it is true that most animals (non-human) have sexual intercourse when the female is in estrus. But I will tweak that lead to make it tie-in more to that, so that it doesn't seem so much as though we're saying these animals aren't also having fun while in the act. You also stated, "A distinction should be made between more social and less social species." The lead does note animals that have sex not solely to do with the estrus cycle, but I'm not sure we should go into detail about distinction between more social and less social species, not in the lead. That should be expanded in the body of the article. And the article doesn't really say that a small number of species engage in homosexual sexual activity. Flyer22 (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Age of consent in Canada

At the bottom of the article, under the heading "Sexual ethics and legality", the minimum age of consent across Canada is given as 14. This is no longer true. The age of consent is now 16. 124.209.40.119 (talk) 05:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Stuff like this you just update, you don't complain about it on the talk page. Tyciol (talk) 00:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Expect that the article is semi-protected - as an an IP he/she doesn't have editing rights. Debate 木 06:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Adults having sex with children

I reacted to this: "Adults having sex with children (also called child sexual abuse)." While all other sexual preferences list their "scientifical name", this is the only one not doing it. Shouldn't it be "also called Pedophilia"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.224.213.114 (talk) 13:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

While the scientific name should be used (Pedagogary?), it isn't pedophilia; pedophilia describes the condition of sexual attraction to children by adults. Therefore it is a psychological condition which does not need the physical act to be apparent. However, the legal term for sexual conduct between adults and children and other minors is (child) sexual abuse. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'children and other minors'? Legally aren't the terms considered synonymous and interchangable? I think 'infant' is too, oddly enough. This is one of the major problems, different nations have different legal semantics (often translated from other languages) which confuse issues like this. Inherantly, the term 'abuse' is certainly a legal label. Tyciol (talk) 00:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Terminology can differ greatly between different legal jurisdicitons. Many jurisdictions make a distinction between children, teenagers/adolescents and adults. Teenagers are not Children in many places. Teenagers in many places can legally have sexual activity with others within their age group, even though they are not legal adults, for instance. In many places in the U.S. a 15 year old and 19 year old could choose to be intimate, and that would not break the law even though one would be considered a minor, and one an adult in that jurisdiction. In many places a 16 year old can choose to have an intimate relationships with someone older of any age, as they have reached the age of consent (in those places where age 16 is the age of consent -- most of the U.S. -- and that person is not a relative or a person in a position of authority over them (like a priest or teacher.) As was previously said, there is a distinction between someone who is sexually attracted to children (a pedophile)-- but does nothing illegal, and someone who does something illegal (sexual abuse, or sexual assault) with a child (but is not a pedophile). Atom (talk) 01:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

And while the terms children and minors are considered synonymous and interchangable at times, I believe that most people think of teenagers when they use the word minors. Otherwise, they normally say children. Flyer22 (talk) 22:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"Swyve"

Oh, that's a Middle English word for sexual intercourse, meaning "to have sex", and apparently Geoffrey Chaucer used it. Darth Anne Jaclyn Sincoff (talk) 05:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Condom failure rate

The article says "if one is wearing a condom, the sperm will almost never reach the egg," but the condom article says the pregnancy rate with typical use of condoms is 10-18% and still as high as 2% for perfect use. Percentage points per year are a far cry from almost never. Should the former statement be removed (all I have time for) or patched up to be informative and correct? —Christian Campbell 22:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd support removing it. IMHO, references to contraception are best left to more comprehensive articles elsewhere. Debate (talk) 01:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. —Christian Campbell 06:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Definitions

So, where has this bizarre definition of sexual intercourse come from? What of anal or vaginal penetration by a sex toy (or, indeed, the clitoris of a transman)? Exploding Boy (talk) 00:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think most transmen call it a penis. I'm think you are right about penetration with a sex toy. Atom (talk) 01:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

What "bizarre" definition of sexual intercourse are you talking about? The lead is correct in its definition of sexual intercourse, and how the word has expanded. If you want penetration of sex toys added to the lead, that can be done. But you act as though sexual intercourse is typically defined by penetration of sex toys.

As for the clitoris of transmen, I do not see how that differs from the the definition of sexual intercourse -- some transmen have the clitoris enlarged to use as a penis, and engage in the type of sex acts the lead notes. Flyer22 (talk) 01:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

That said, it is not really a matter of adding something to the lead about sex toys or transmen. Transmen have sexual intercourse; I am sure people know that. This article would benefit, however, if we had a section about the use of sex toys and other aspects of sexual intimacy, such as transgender sexuality, not just focusing on transmen, Exploding Boy. It might be better to have a section about sex toys split from a section about transgender sexuality. But then again, there is that wording "transgender sexuality"; I wonder if having a section focusing on transgender is sort of singling them out as though they have "special sex"... I mean, although some transgender individuals do not get sexual reassignment surgery, others do, and some of them might be offended if it is implied that they are not just like any other man or woman having sex. Even the ones who have not gotten the surgery, of course. Flyer22 (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

In regards to adding in the use of sex toys...I believe it could do with a brief mention, but other than that, it should direct to the page on masturbation, as use of a dildo to stimulate oneself is not intercourse. In regards to your last couple sentences...well, have you ever seen a picture of a transman's so-called penis? A picture from an actual, reliable source, I mean, such as an anatomy textbook? It looks more like a water balloon that's only a tiny bit filled with water. Doesn't look like a true penis, and more than likely probably doesn't even feel like a penis, thus making sex with a regular woman (or "a person born biologically female", if the term "regular" offends transgender/transsexual people) awkward at best. I can't say transwoman's vagina looks any more natural; it really looks like the penis was chopped off and a hole was literally drilled into the crotch. So I don't think having a section on them would be "singling them out" per se. It would just be informative...for those like me who would want to know what to avoid so that we don't actually end up sleeping with a transperson without knowing it. Mikhajlovich (talk) 09:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Mikhajlovich. Welcome to Wikipedia. Yeah, I have seen a picture of a transman's penis before. I would not say that it looks like a balloon, but I know what it typically looks like. As for mention of sex toys, that is now mentioned in the section called Social and other behaviors. I believe that what Exploding Boy was talking about in regards to sex toys, though, was people using them for penetration on each other (not an individual person using sex toys for masturbation). Flyer22 (talk) 08:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

If we do include a section about sex toys, which should probably be titled Other sexual behavior (I'm trying to think of how to resemble how the Anal sex article used to include a section like that, although it has now been cut down to a very tiny section about pegging), I wonder if it should be that long. After all, the Anal sex article has kept its section about that small for some time now, both times. A section about sex toys in this article, though, should definitely be longer than the small one about pegging in the Anal sex article. Flyer22 (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a particular axe to grind about transmen. I was only bringing that up as an example of how limited the article's current definition of sexual intercourse is, ie: penis-in-vagina or penis-in-anus penetration. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. If you could expand this article on some of the things mentioned above in this section, though, as I stated, it would benefit this article. I really do feel that it needs a section about sex toys, for instance, and how that factors into sexual intimacy. Flyer22 (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

And the reason that the section about Oral and anal sex has not been expanded I am sure is because they have their own articles. But, again, this article could use a little expansion in a few other areas, especially regarding the sections already in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone please fix ref. 15

I don't have an account here, but I was interested in the reference for sex with spinal cord injuries. The proper link is: http://www.intimaterider.com/images/Enjoyiing%20the%20Ride.pdf

This is, however, a product review, so someone might want to edit statements in the article proper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.103.64 (talk) 14:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I fixed that reference. I did not, however, state that it is a product review. I have not read that article yet, and what this article states about sexual intercourse is true, I do not doubt. Flyer22 (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

That reference certainly does not look like a reliable source to me. In fact, the "article" very much has the appearance of an advertorial. It's actually archived on the product's website, and doesn't even clearly attribute the source to "Ottawa 24 hours", making its providence (and accuracy) unclear. Regardless, there's no reason why an article of this high a profile should be relying on free commuter newspapers as a source given the thousands of significantly more rigorous alternatives. Debate 木 00:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Remove it. I just looked over some of it. Eh, you wanna get a better reference? Or should I? Flyer22 (talk) 00:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL, snap. I'll do some digging. I must remember to stop making comments that involve potential work. :) Debate 木 00:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Laughing out loud. Well, you are right indeed that we need to get this article up to par. Flyer22 (talk) 01:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Typo

In the sentence "While the development of the Pill and other highly effective forms of contraception in the mid- and late 20th century increased peoples' ability to segregate these three functions,...", "peoples'" should be "people's", since "people" is plural and thus is like "children" and "men", which both add apostrophe-s to form their possessives. 63.215.29.233 (talk) 08:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Taken care of. Flyer22 (talk) 23:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Homosexuality in biology

Having read the opening paragraph to the article, I have a question: Does biology really not recognise sexual intercourse between participants of the same sex as "sexual intercourse"? If so, what is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.41.49 (talk) 12:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Biologically, I would imagine it amounts to nothing more than mutual masturbation, however I am not a biologist --UltraMagnus (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

By biological, it means coitus/copulation; its sexual reproductive purpose, which is why it says referred to as copulation or coitus in other reference. Flyer22 (talk) 03:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sexual intercourse on a Sunday.

My father grew up in a very small town in Wales and it was a very strict environment in which the Chapel played a large part. The Vicar was adamant that sexual intercourse should never be indulged in on a Sunday. For years this was the case, but apparently, my father was so bright forward thinking and persuasive that he managed to change the attitude of the Vicar. Now, apparently, in this small town in Wales, sexual intercourse is to be allowed on a Sunday with this stipulation..... that the participants must not enjoy it. Technut (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.189.42 (talk) 11:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sex increases self-esteem?

Under the "Functions of sex beyond reproduction" section, there was a line that read "sex increases self-esteem". I haven't seen any data to back that claim up, and searching on the web, all I could find were articles that linked low self-esteem to promiscuity. Is there factual basis for the claim that sex increases self-esteem? It seems like a generalization at best, true in some cases but not enough to make a blanket claim that all sex increases a person's self-esteem. Does it increase the self-esteem of both partners? What about prostitution or rape? Does all consentual sex result in an increase in self-esteem? There's too many unanswered questions to make such a statement without backing it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.40.218 (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The source this article is using to back up the statement that sex increases self esteem is this source. An editor had just added that paragraph not too long before you commented about it. I will add the in-depth findings about this subject that this source speaks of, as well as for the other mentions in that paragraph (which will be more than a paragraph when I'm done).

As for rape, well, I highly doubt that that source/those experts also mean rape, just as other sections in this article are not referring to rape, with the exception that sexual intercourse and pregnancy also happens in rape. I highly doubt that we need to specify anything in this article as consentual sex; but if others feel that I should, I will. Prostitution is another matter, and I do not feel that that source/those experts are referring to that either, but, like I said, I will add more in-depth information about this topic. Flyer22 (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

child sexual abuse/paedophilia

In regards to "Adults having sex with children (also called...)" there is some debate here. Abuse is defined as "Abuse refers to the use or treatment of something (a person, item, substance, concept, or vocabulary) that is harmful." But how would one define sex with children (defined as roughly the age of 18 in most places) as harmful? It could very well be consensual as in an 18 or 19 year old and a 17 year old. Child sexual abuse says "Child sexual abuse is a form of child abuse in which a child is abused for the sexual gratification of an adult or older adolescent." This has 2 problems. 1. it comes to defining abuse, and 2. it doesn't ask by who. Accordingly, child sexual abuse could very well be by a child as well. (you can cite the next sentence on the page, but that is prefaced by "in addition"). As paedophilia says the "term pedophilia or paedophilia has a range of definitions as found in psychology, law enforcement, and the popular vernacular. As a medical diagnosis, it is defined as a psychological disorder in which an adult experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children;" Flyer22 would be, then, right to say it is a cognitive disorder.

However, the crux of the issue, as I am arguing, is that it can't, generically, be called "abuse." While it may very well be abuse sometimes, or even most times, Lolita is an example of where the child consents to sex. (p133 + p148 --> on where it wasn't frowned upon). Furthermore, in many places the definition of a child does not disbar sex with the child. This goes in countries with child marriages where consummation occurs before adulthood. (and obviously, wikipedia is a global eneyclopedia as pertaining to the "globalize" tag)

See this (http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm). Pakistan's Age of consent is marriage, yes the Age of majority is 18/16. And while the Marriageable Age in Pakistan is legally in line with this, see Child marriage. Likewise in Yemen where there is no current legal marriagable age. Lihaas (talk) 07:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently all debated out and do not feel that well these days. I will state that I do not believe for one second that anyone believes that we mean 18-year-olds having sex with 16-year-olds, when we say adults having sex with children. As for "Accordingly, child sexual abuse could very well be by a child as well"...we clearly state "Adults having sex with children"...which, of course, means we are not talking about child-on-child sexual abuse.

And while teenagers are sometimes called children, people are quite aware of age of consent laws. The fact that engaging in child sexual abuse with youth of very young ages is okay in some countries but not others does not stop us from having a Child sexual abuse article, which is not objective in those matters as looking as it as anything other than child sexual abuse, unless it is a mid to late teenager, where the age of consent being set at those ages is quite common.

We cannot leave it as "Adults having sex with children" and state nothing else, seeing as that seems like we are labeling it as child sexual abusers and pedophiles would. Quite frankly, it is non-neutral wording.

You need to either mention both child sexual abuse and pedophilia, as in sometimes it ("Adults having sex with children") is called that, or remove the statement "Adults having sex with children" altogether. Flyer22 (talk) 09:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I changed it to...Adults having sex with children (depending on the country and its laws, also called child sexual abuse)

I did so because that is reasonable and it makes no sense not to have its legal name listed, which is what it is considered in most countries, just because a few contries allow that sort of thing. We say that adults having sex with children is also called child sexual abuse; we do not say that it is always called child sexual abuse. And if we are going to have the line Sexual intercourse during a woman's menstrual period, as in Islam and Judaism, when there is hardly any sexual ethic or legality factor for a man (or woman, for that matter) having sex with a woman, then we can certianly state child sexual abuse in parentheses beside the line Adults having sex with children. Furthermore, a paragraph below these listings talks about age of consent laws, though it is dealing with typical age of consent laws, not with certain countries feeling it is okay to for adults to engage in sex with children 13 and lower and or marry them. But information about that could always be added. Flyer22 (talk) 16:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That paragraph does state, though, Religions may also set differing ages for consent, with Islam setting the age at puberty, which can vary from around 10 to 14. Thus, that actually does partly tackle the information that certain countries feel that it is okay for adults to engage in sex with children 13 and lower (it just speaks nothing of marriage). Flyer22 (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

In any case, an editor has rightfully added an additional references tag to that section. Flyer22 (talk) 17:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

"Sexual Content" redirect.

I found that kinda funny that Sexual Content redirects to Sexual intercourse but I think one with creativity and resources could make "Sexual Content" an article of its own wouldn't you think? JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 02:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a comprehensive article titled Sexual content could definitely be made...and worth making. Flyer22 (talk) 23:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Intromission

Should "intromission" really redirect here? It may have other meanings. Ambil (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

If someone is willing to make a good article about it, distinct of this one, then it does not have to redirect here. Flyer22 (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Pleasure

Why is sexual pleasure not talked about in here? If this is supposed to be a complete article on sexual intercourse, shouldn't sexual pleasure get at least an entry in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grenada4fun (talk • contribs) 12:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Pleasure is mentioned 5 times within the article. Chrisch^Talk 12:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Missing information.

In the Wikipedia searchbox the term Sleeping together redirects to Sexual intercourse but there is no information about that. If anyone has any knowlage of that area please reply to this entry on the discussion page.(Tk420 (talk) 10:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC))

Sleeping together redirects here because it is the same thing as sexual intercourse when we are speaking of sexual intimacy, a lot of the times even when the two people did not literally sleep together in the same bed afterward. This article does talk about that. In the subsection Social and other behaviors of the Functions of sex beyond reproduction section it definitely does. Flyer22 (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Tk420 makes a valid point. If the euphemism 'sleeping together' redirects here then relationship between that phrase and sexual intercourse should really be made explicit and not implicit. Debate 木 11:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

grammatical error at line 5: (oral sex may or not be penetrative),[3][4][5][6]

(oral sex may or not be penetrative),[3][4][5][6] is not grammatically correct the proper way to say this is: (oral sex may or may not be penetrative). Apparently, the original writer and/or editors have forgotten to put the word may in the sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.88.135 (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

(img removed) ~ Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 ~

LOL. I'll take care of that. I'm sure that that editor won't object to my fixing that. Flyer22 (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Error - Age of consent in Canada is no longer 14.

In Canada, the age of consent was raised from 14 to 16 on 1 May 2008, (in 1890 it was raised from 12 to 14). The initiative also maintains a temporary exception for already existing marriages of 14 and 15 year olds, but forbids new marriages like these in the future.

BigHairyNScary (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I fixed that error. It likely was not an error when it was added, though, since this change by Canada did not happen until May 2008. Flyer22 (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of Wwallacee's second changes to article

As I stated to Wwallacee on his or her talk page, while I am not hugely against these changes, I am against some of them, and big changes like this should be discussed on the article's talk page first before acted upon. The lead was carefully written by myself and Tallard due to wanting it to flow well, as well as wanting it to be neutral and as honest as it can be about some things (such as the history of sexual intercourse and its common/original definition followed by how the definition has expanded). I do not mind Wwallacee's first tweaks to the lead...and have left those in. But Wwallacee's second change to the lead and other parts of the article is what I feel needs discussion, such as adding a third image to the lead.

The other changes? Well, I also take issue with Wwallacee's dividing up the Health benefits section into all these small or tiny subsections. I do not feel that such division is needed. If this article were edited often, especially by experienced editors adding in well-sourced material, I would be more positive about it, since I would feel that it would be filled in soon enough (as opposed to remaining in small or tiny subsections for a very long time).

I have welcomed Wwallacee's to weigh in here about this and changes he or she would like to this article. Flyer22 (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

My changes to the Health Benefits section involved introducing adequate standards of citation. Fundamentally, the material cited previously in that section does not seem to derive from reputable scientific sources. I defer to Flyer22 on the 'tiny subsections' (which were meant to elicit further contributions). However, I am reverting some of his changes, since the material as it stands is only marginally credible and its factual basis needs to be clearly cited.Wwallacee (talk) 11:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

WebMD is a reputable source and is citing reputable scientific sources. But I must state that I did not notice you added reputable scientific sources into the article; I apologize for reverting that, and thank you for adding them. I understand why you made the tiny subsections, but I explained above why I am against them. Furthermore, "Health risks" is not a function of sexual intercourse beyond reproduction. What I mean by that is that people do not have sex to access health risks or to protect themselves from health risks (unless something is unusual there), of course, even though they often do protect themselves from health risks. And, sure, people do not typically have sex for its health benefits, but health benefits add to the functions of sexual intercourse/sexual intimacy...while health risks are not really functions of the acts (they are more discouraging to the acts). It seems that a section about health risks should rather be integrated into the article until an adequate section on health risks can be made. But, for now, I have separated that section into its own section...with a tag for expansion. Also, I am a "she," and headings here at Wikipedia should not be capitalized all the way through unless the title is completely an official name (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Article titles, headings, and sections. Flyer22 (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I would note Wwallace added the entire abstact for most of his/her additions. While it is sometimes acceptable to add a clarification or even a quote in the citation, I don't think I've ever come across the entire abstract, that raises copyvio and plagiarism issues. If it's necessary to add a clarification, you should generally word it yourself and make it more concise, I have therefore removed the abstracts. Also it is rarely necessary to describe what other stuff the authors of the study have done, so I removed the reference to a book the one of the study authors has written Nil Einne (talk) 14:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Good looking out, Nil Einne. Flyer22 (talk) 08:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Making Love is redirected to "Sexual Intercourse" , Should be an acknowledgment to (at least the debate) of a difference

Making Love was redirected to sexual intercourse. I think it would be completely more accurate and comprehensive if "making love" had its own category or, at the very least, a subcategory under sexual intercourse discussing the debate of the difference.

I mean are those lions making love or having sexual intercourse?

Possibly, for all we know they could be saying "oh baby I love you so much...thanks for that zebra you brought me..."

But if we're talking about the theory of making love as a physical manifestation of emotions, it is different than the bare bones definition of intercourse and procreation.

Phemalepharoe (talk) 05:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I can answer this for you: is the penis in the vagina? Yes, then it is sexual intercourse, not matter what euphemism you wish to apply. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

but making love in victorian times did not actually often mean "having the sex"; to "make love" to someone meant to woo them... 肥胖人 (talk) 12:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Source it, write an article and change the redirect. Seems simple. Ridernyc (talk) 13:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

For woo there is already Courtship and in Wiktionary there is no mention of sex being the same as to woo. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

is that really missionary?

The picture of human intercourse is labeled as showing humans in the missionary position, I always thought the missionary position involved the female laying with her legs straight, potentially slightly spread, but not wrapped around the male at all, could someone please confirm what the position depicted in the picture really is called and adjust the subtitle accordingly, or simply remove any mention of specific names of the position? (I don't see the lions being described as doing it kitty style...) --TiagoTiago (talk) 09:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as the Missionary position article shows, the lead image in this article is the missionary position. The main image in the Missionary position article is not too different in style from the main image in this one, other than the fact that the woman's legs in this one are wrapped tightly around the man's body. I do not understand how you came to the conclusion that a slight variation in placement in this case changes it from the missionary position....but, yes, it is still the missionary position. Flyer22 (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Picture Part 3

File:Sex intercourse.jpg

Bobisbob2 added the above image to the Human section of this article. In the past, editors have objected to a live image of sexual intercourse, for the reasons seen in the Picture Part 2 discussion. Thus, I take this time to properly gather consensus about whether or not the picture Bobisbob2 added should be included. Flyer22 (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

To start the discussion off, I point out that there is no live picture of anal sex in the Anal sex article. That article is somewhat related to this one. If a live picture of the act is not seemingly needed for that one, after all this time, why is one needed for this one? Flyer22 (talk) 02:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

* Sexual intercourse during a woman's menstrual period, as in Judaism.

I don't think "Judaism" is the term for "* Sexual intercourse during a woman's menstrual period, as in Judaism" . I don't know what the term is but Judaism and the link to Judaism dose not seem to fit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StandDev (talk • contribs) 09:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I will check it out. Flyer22 (talk) 23:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I do not believe that the person who added that meant/means that Judaism is the term for sexual intercourse during a woman's menstrual period. Whoever added it simply meant/means that this type of thing takes place in Judaism. I have changed it from "as in Judaism" to "as seen in Judaism." Flyer22 (talk) 00:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Also wrong! In the Judaism it is NOT allowed to intercourse during that period! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.99.93.135 (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, I did recently state below that I am no expert on religions. Any other editors have thoughts on what this IP has just stated? I may look into it. But I suppose that line should simply be removed. Flyer22 (talk) 02:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, never mind. That line in the article is correct; it is relaying that such a thing is forbidden in Judaism. It is rather the way I worded it above that can be seen as incorrect, when not knowing the whole story. When I stated, "Whoever added it simply meant/means that this type of thing takes place in Judaism," I was talking about how it is relayed in that section as forbidden. Flyer22 (talk) 02:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

There is very little discussion on religious and philosophical views. Much imbalance. Suggest summarize Religion and sexuality. Also all religions mentioned in sub-article (except neopaganism) agree that extramarital sex is evil, but main article stresses differences among religions. 4672mtem (talk) 03:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I started to work on the summary [of the Religion and sexuality article] but more should be done. 4672mtem (talk) 04:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I just placed a summary at the lede. 4672mtem (talk) 05:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The piece you added to the lead is nice. Whatever you can do to improve on the section about religious views in this article will be much appreciated by me. But you were only talking about the lead, I gather? This article already has a section with paragraphs about religion and sexuality; it does not go into too much detail because the link to the Religion and sexuality article is right there at the top of that section.

Another question: Do all the religions (except neopaganism) truly believe that extramarital sex is evil? For example, I know that the religion Christianity considers it a sin. But not all sins are necessarily evil. Flyer22 (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Flyer22, Thanks for your nice comments. Very encouraging indeed. :) I was the one who wrote the section with paragraphs about religion and sexuality in this article which summarized the separate article on Religion and sexuality. I also wrote the paragraph on John Paul II's philosophical ideas.

Sorry, but I do not know much really about what all the other religions say about extramarital sex; I really just summarized the other article. But yes, Christianity views it as a sin and it considers sin as moral evil; in fact according to Christianity it is the only real evil. I think I was more careless in writing this discussion page than I was in writing the paragraphs of the article, that is why I used the word evil here as a general term for religions but yes generally they do view it negatively. 4672mtem (talk) 01:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, 4672mtem. So you are the one who wrote most of that section (I say "most" due to any other editor who has contributed there since then). Nice to meet you. It is good to have another editor working on this article again, other than myself. Welcome back. I was originally raised in a Christian household, though I no longer practice any religion. Are you saying that Christianity considers sin the only real evil, or are you saying it considers extramarital sex the only real evil? If you mean sin, then I wonder if lying is considered one element of "the only true evil." If you mean extramarital sex in this case, I am wondering how that could be considered worse than stealing or murder, for example.

But, yeah, I know that this talk page is not a forum, per WP:FORUM; I am only asking what I have asked so that I may better understand this topic within the article. I am familiar with a lot of things, but I admittedly need to "brush up on" my knowledge of religions. Flyer22 (talk) 03:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Glad to meet you too, Flyer22, and glad to know you are the major contributor to this one. Good work! :) Sorry again for my carelessness. The statement should really read: in fact according to Christianity sin is the only real evil. Evil is privation of good. And sin deprives the human being of the supreme, infinite good or goodness itself which is God, while physical evil (e.g, deprivation of a limb or an eye!) is not so bad if one goes to heaven and gets it all back again. Hell in Christian religion deprives one of Goodness (God) eternally. And yes lying is considered sin and thus true evil... Ok, someone might remove this part already as a violation of WP:FORUM! :D You might want to read the link I made to Christopher West's article (I think it is the last footnote). I think we are dealing here with one of the most powerful ideas in history, ie. John Paul's idea on sexuality among humans. For lying check this out. 4672mtem (talk) 06:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did not add most of the stuff in this article; rather just most of the lead and the Health benefits subsection of the Functions of sex beyond reproduction section...along with tweaks to some other parts of the article thus far (I will continue to work on this article for as long as I am active on Wikipedia). Right now, I need to expand the Health risks section. But, yeah, thank you for the insight. And I feel that we are safe from a WP:FORUM violation, since the religion information partly relates to this article and we did not get too off-topic, LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

There is some Shia Islam Sexual perspective in this document, which is indeed wrong and mentioned without any sources! This point is really maligning this Sect and should be removed from the articles. I am also quoting it here: "In Shi'ia Islam, men are allowed to enter into an unlimited number of temporary marriages, which are contracted to last for a period of minutes to multiple years and permit sexual intercourse. Shi'ia women are allowed to enter only one marriage at a time, whether temporary or permanent.''Italic text'"

John Paul II -- too much info for this article

In response to Kleinbell's revision of my deletion of much of the text from JPII... Just putting this here for the record.

JPII and theology of sex I appreciate that JPII wrote on the subject and was concerned with it during his papacy. The references do not confirm that the teaching is the universally accepted, authoritative teaching of even the RCC, however in line it might be with the thought of many of its leaders.

However, the DETAILS of one pope's interest and opinions on the subject do not warrant the comparitively LENGTHY treatment in the article. It reads to me like an intrusion into a rather scientific topic, where only brief mention of religion and philosophy are appropriate, with the details of religions or philosophical viewpoints (especially those of an individual, regardless of how important or influential that individual may be) appropriately going in the related article on sexuality and religion / sexuality and philosophy (in addition to other related articles on Catholic theology, JPII, etc.)

Other topics that are much more important historically and closely linked to the topic are societal/religious views on such related issues as: coitus interruptus, virginity, sexual "rights" within marriage, etc. I'm sure popes have plenty to say on these issues as well.

I am not trying to stifle anyone's creativity or enthusiasm for contributing, but the text is simply misplaced. Please edit it down if you don't want to remove it altogether. I'll revisit it in the future. Thanks.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kleinbell" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robpinion (talk • contribs) 22:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Please remember that John Paul's contribution was added in response to a perceived NPOV imbalance. This imbalance has now been put aright by introduction of religious and philosophical ideas in good proportion to the ethical, scientific, medical. It is precisely the disproportionate focus on natural science that had to be corrected. Please do not remove John Paul II's contribution unilaterally. 4672mtem (talk) 05:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The John Paul II section is written in an unencyclopedic fashion. Several of the lines in it do not being with "he wrote" or "he taught." Rather, they are presented as if they are fact, and universally accepted fact at that. Flyer22 reverted my additions, including those wherein I mentioned the thousands of sexual abuse cases against the Catholic Church and its former priests and bishops, current and former. (Though below he says I "got my way." I think that actions of many priests speak louder than the word of a single pope. And so while John Paul II believed and taught certain things about sexual intercourse, the reality for thousands of Catholic children and adolescents was that they were experiencing sexual relationships -- of course outside of marriage -- with the most significant representatives, to them at least, of the Church. Frank McCourt (in "'Tis") relates a similar encounter with a priest, though he was an older teenager when that happened. If we are going to include a lot of information about what John Paul II thinks about sex, then we should also include a reality check of what has happened in several countries and in a wide-spread way by his brothers, the very ones who supposedly believe the message with the most conviction. I did this, and Flyer22 thinks that I need to discuss it first. So here is the discussion. Robpinion (talk) 00:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I've cut it down already. Let's also take into account that John Paul II's views are not just religious but also philosophical. And that the Catholic religion and philosophy are covered by many universities around the world. 4672mtem (talk) 06:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I am female, by the way. Flyer22 (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Related issues

Robpinion, posting a section about what you object to in an article without discussing it with other editors actively editing that same article and then going about making your changes is not exactly how things are supposed to work here. If enough other editors are editing the article, it should be about WP:Consensus. You have already gotten your way with the section on sex and religion in this article. Why are you trying to take religion out of the lead of this article as well? It belongs there, because the lead should summarize the article. This article partly discusses sex in religion, which is quite notable; therefore, the lead should mention it. We do not need mention of adolescent sexuality in the lead (which is not significantly noted in any way in this article, even with your addition lower in the text). And the line "Traditionally, intercourse has been viewed as the natural endpoint of all sexual contact between a man and a woman" mentions "man and woman" because that is true and is what the source says. We define sexual intercourse in this article how it is traditionally and commonly defined, as well as how it has expanded in definition. Additionally, adding paragraphs, no matter how small, is not a minor edit. Make sure that when you mark things as minor, they are minor. And if you are going to be contributing to this article, mainly do so with reliable sources (not that I feel that everything you added needs sources). Flyer22 (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that per WP:LEDE given that religion is a major section and should be it need to be mentioned in the lead which is intended to summarise the contents of the article. This also means that adding sections to the lead which aren't discussed in the article is inappropriate. However I agree with Robpinion that the Catholicism section is too long. Regardless of the flaws in the article, adding too much info on one issue is not a good way to balance it. Catholicism is a major religion and the section will naturally be longer then for neopagan beliefs. However so is Islam and if we expand that section to at least as long perhaps even somewhat longer and then the Hinduism section nearly as long as well and then the Buddhism section to perhaps at least half the size then with additional explanation of other Christian denominations and some further expansion of Judaism and other religions and beliefs the religion section will definitely be too long and unbalance the article. It is perhaps of relevance that the Religion and sexuality article's section on Catholicism is less then 2x the length of the section here and that naturally covers stuff we don't. Speaking of that last point, one obvious issue here is how much we need to mention stuff like catholic or any religious prohibitions of acts besides coitus considering this article primarily concentrates on coitus given it is the commonly accepted meaning of sexual intercourse. I would note we already say in the ethics section "Within some ideologies, coitus has been considered the only "acceptable" sexual activity". However none of this should be taken as agreement to unilateral removal of content without discussion. Instead there needs to be discussion on how to improve the article with the goal being reaching WP:Consensus. On a final note, I agree that removing the between male and female bit is inappropriate both because we should follow the source and the fact that sexual intercourse is not commonly considered the natural endpoint of all sexual contact between people of the same sex as they can't engage in sexual intercourse by most definitions (this doesn't mean there's anything unnatural or wrong or inferior regarding their sexual activities simply that it isn't sexual intercourse) Nil Einne (talk) 07:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for weighing in on this, Nil Einne. You went over everything brought up in this discussion really well. 4672mtem and Robpinion, I hope you take into consideration everything Nil Einne has stated on this matter; it is right on-point in my opinion. Flyer22 (talk) 08:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for all of your explanations and further information. A couple of responses... The line "Traditionally, intercourse has been viewed as the natural endpoint of all sexual contact between a man and a woman" is dubious, preachy, and arguably adds nothing to the article. It is really just emphasizing "a man and a woman" when the article is about intercourse, not specifically human intercourse, and certainly not specially about tradition. (Just because the article mentions religious views on sexuality elsewhere does not mean the lead paragraph should present a single viewpoint from that section as its "summary.") Intercourse is an "endpoint" insomuch as post-ejaculation, the male human is typically unprone to continue directly into any form of sexual contact, at least temporarily. It could be easily argued that the endpoint of sexual contact between a man and a woman is "traditionally" conception, notwithstanding a referenced article's statement to the contrary. I appreciate that some of you see the potential problem with this article's emphasis on modern religions -- particulary a single one. None of you mentioned the length of the quote by John Paul II, which I think is really very long (as I said above) and does nothing for balance of building consensus. In my opinion, the reason is is included in this article is to make sure a religious viewpoint about sexual intercourse becomes prominent. Most modern humans are religious and most modern humans have sexual intercourse --- that much is true. But a modern pope's writings on such do not warrant prominence within the topic any more so than the carved sexual poses on a Hindu temple in India. I surmise that Bill Clinton's statement about oral sex not being "sexual relations" is much better known and prompted much more discussion and debate about sexual intercourse than any other single modern event or writing. But giving prominence to that moment in history would be just as unencyclopedic. Robpinion (talk) 23:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I've cut it down already. Let's also take into account that John Paul II's views are not just religious but also philosophical. And that the Catholic religion and philosophy are covered by many universities around the world. 4672mtem (talk) 06:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You guys finally came back. Only a day apart, but good. Robpinion, I am not seeing how the line "Traditionally, intercourse has been viewed as the natural endpoint of all sexual contact between a man and a woman" is dubious, preachy, and arguably adds nothing to the article. It is adding the fact about how sexual intercourse has traditionally been viewed; it is only recently that sexual acts between same-sex partners has come to sometimes be viewed as sexual intercourse. Most people still view sexual intercourse as a heterosexual thing, and the law often only defines sexual intercourse as vagina-penis sex. I simply am not seeing the problem with the line. Flyer22 (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

If you read the original source, you will see that it starts with the "Traditionally... " line, which is immediately followed by "However..." The paragraph in our article takes the opposite rhetorical stance, which is consistent with the non-encyclopedic ring to parts of it (especially before the recent edits). I don't like how the reference treats it either. I think the paragraph should start out... "The phrase sexual intercourse has been used at least since 1763 (or whenever) and until the 1950's (or whenever) referred exclusively to vaginal intercourse." The word "traditionally" is not encyclopedic really and does not contribute to the understanding of the subject, particularly because the sentence also includes the odd phrase "natural endpoint" which is also unclear (as I stated earlier). Robpinion (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

For us to put, "The phrase sexual intercourse has been used at least since 1763... until the 1950s to refer exclusively to vaginal intercourse" is a bit of weasel wording and is something we would need a reliable source or two for. I do not see what is unencyclopedic about using the the word "traditionally." It is no more unencyclopedic than the word "originally," which encyclopedias do use. Plenty of good and great Wikipedia articles use both words, and I disagree that it does not contribute to the understanding of the article. It gets the point across quickly and clearly. "Natural endpoint" is unclear, though. I will likely go about rewording this entire line in some way, but the same meaning will be presented about the original/traditional/common definition of the term "sexual intercourse." Flyer22 (talk) 06:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You have a point about the length of the John Paul quote, which I agreed with you about when mentioning this on Nil Einne's talk page, and I feel that Nil Einne was sort of addressing it here on this talk page. What do you think of 4672mtem's recent changes of that section? Flyer22 (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Much better after the changes. I am left wondering if JPII taught that "marital sexual love is the best image of God who is love." Would like to see the actual quote. Robpinion (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

As for saying, "...Bill Clinton's statement about oral sex not being 'sexual relations' is much better known and prompted much more discussion and debate about sexual intercourse than any other single modern event or writing," are you saying sexual intercourse is more of a modern thing? I doubt Clinton prompted discussion of sexual intercourse more than historical writings on the subject. Flyer22 (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Certainly sexual intercourse is not modern. Hence, it's a little odd that more attention to older religious teaching on the subject is not referred to. For example, Catholic priests could marry in the past, and those in the Eastern Catholic rite may now, entitling them to sexual intercourse with their spouse. This was case for the longest period of Catholic history. Robpinion (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I meant to ask, "Are you saying prominent discussion of sexual intercourse is more of a modern thing?," not that other question in its place above. But I get your point on that. Flyer22 (talk) 06:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's the quote, Robpinion: "In this entire world there is not a more perfect, more complete image of God, Unity and Community. There is no other human reality which corresponds more, humanly speaking, to that divine mystery. You can find it here. 4672mtem (talk) 08:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

If that's the quote, then it certainly isn't prefixed by the phrase "Marital sex love..." You quote from a source that gives a date of Dec 30, 1981, but I can't find any address or writing by JPII on that date. I did find a larger quote that matches the words, and you can see from this quote (below) that he is referring to the "human and Christian families" and not just marital sexual intercourse. The assertion sounded bogus (and narrow, given JPII's audience) to me in the first place. Maybe he said it, but the references provided so far don't back it up.Robpinion (talk) 19:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"....Within this immense family Church is every human family, every family community as family on mission." He goes on to say that, "the family is on mission and this mission is fundamental for all peoples. For all humanity it is the mission of love and life. It is the witness to love and to life. Let's pray together," he adds, "for the most fundamental and important thing in the Church's mission, for the spiritual renewal of the family, of the human and Christian families in every nation, especially in our Western world. In this entire world, there is not a more perfect, more complete image of God, unity and community. There is no other human reality which corresponds more to that divine mystery of the Trinity."

Because there's been no response for a week, and I think that it is unlikely that the original "quote" that corresponds to the assertion (that JPII said these things about "marital sexual love" actually exists, I am removing that "quote" from the article.Robpinion (talk) 21:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The lead should state something about Christianity and sexual intercourse, though, since other religions are mentioned there and it is such a big religion. Flyer22 (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It does, because the original writer correctly referred to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, collectively, as the Abrahamic religions. The major thrust in all three of those is to confine sexual intercourse to marriage, though what comprises marriage has, and continues to differ. I don't object to someone mentnioning Christianity, but its majority stance is not significantly different in this regard than Judaism and Islam, with whom it shares a mythological and cultural heritage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robpinion (talk • contribs) 15:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice expansion of the lead there. I suppose we will see what 4672mtem thinks about it. Flyer22 (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Conjugal rights? No. "Rites"

I found myself getting quite fascinated by this article, until I came to a part which claimed that an unwilling partner was, in effect, duty-bound to comply as the other person had "conjugal rights".

Unfortunately, this is a stock phrase which most people accept without thinking, but no such thing really exists, nor is it justifiable. As an accepted phrase it has arisen through no more than a simple miss-spelling, which totally subverts the original meaning.

A man does NOT have any sort of "rights" over his partner's body, although historically male-dominated societies have perpetuated this very convenient myth. The original and correct term is "CONJUGAL RITES" - that is; ceremonies, celebrations or rituals - it is a tribal sort of thing, and understandably so. What is the wedding ceremony, if not a "rite"? As such it is a social declaration made before the other members of the tribe, and forms a "RITE OF PASSAGE" into a new social standing for the participants. There is not a hint of compulsion in this, yet the term continues to be misunderstood and mis-applied.

Let us clarify this point here and draw the distinction between the two spellings and their precise meanings.

AP (PS - Male, I should say!)

81.138.198.13 (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about the Religious and philosophical views section? In that section, I saw where it said "marital rights" and changed it to "conjugal rites." I did not see the word conjugal, but that could be because I am busy right now. Flyer22 (talk) 02:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The term might have originally been "rites" but it is now written "rights" in almost every source I could find. I do not agree to the concept of sexual subjugation either. However, when the phrase "conjugal rights" pertains to the concept of one spouse's having the exclusive rights to have intercourse with his/her spouse, then the right does exist in many jurisdictions. A few years back in North Carolina, a 3rd party (female) was held liable, at least civily, for "alienation of affection" when sued by the adulterous man's wife. It is not that one spouse can now legally (in most first-world countries) subject the spouse to intercourse unwillingly, notwithstanding the prevelance of such behavior, but that the right to such intercourse is exclusively reserved for the spouses. And this is because of the voluntary pledge to enter into such a committed relationship. If they want to change the terms of the relationship, then the laws of most countries allow them to do so. Robpinion (talk) 23:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Am reverting the term to "rights." I read an article in the Times of India just today that used the word, spelled "rights" and most definitely was consistent with the way it was used in my prior posts in this section of the main article. It was the case of a lawsuit by a man against his wife, who was also suing him, and the phrase "rights" was used alongside "marital bed." I think that is consistent with modern usage. That said, if someone would like to add some history of the phrase to this, or a related article, that would be interesting.Robpinion (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed expansion text for Health risks section

"Gay men have appropriated information that has enabled them to sustain safe practices while they have eschewed information that has made maintenance difficult. Risk avoidance strategies adopted by gay men suggest a way forward by turning our attention to the ways in which medicine is taken in(to) their practice." -- PMID 12753812 [1] HarmReduction101 (talk) 19:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the proposal. As stated above in the Discussion of Wwallacee's second changes to article section, I was "iffy" about making the Health risks section into a section by itself because, due to this article not being heavily edited, I knew it would take a long time to do so. Once I get on expanding it, though, I will definitely add in the information you suggested. I would rather take my time to gather other information on health risks first because the section should have more than just information on gay men, of course. Flyer22 (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Coitus difficulties grammar error.

"Even women who orgasm regularly only climax about 50 percent to 70 percent of the time.[18]"

Corrected suggestion:

Even women who orgasm on a regular basis only climax about 50 to 70 percent of the time --GoufR (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Flyer22 (talk) 05:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Citation needed

Under "In Humans" the first paragraph reads: " Sexuality portal Vaginal sexual intercourse, also called coitus, is (totally awesome) the human form of copulation. While a purpose and effect is reproduction, it is often performed exclusively for pleasure and/or as an expression of love and emotional intimacy.

{{{citation needed}}} tag should be added to this line. Rjssockpuppet (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

There are things in this article that need a citation tag, but how is this one of them? Vaginal sexual intercourse (vaginal sex), which is a redirect to this article, being known as coitus/copulation is common knowledge and is sourced as coitus/copulation in the lead (intro), so I take it that you feel the part you bolded needs a citation. But, really, that is common knowledge and is sourced in the lead as well. Human beings use sexual intercourse for pleasure and to express emotions more than they do for reproduction. But since it bothers you that it is not sourced, I will go ahead and source it.

Also, you need to always sign your comments when "talking" on Wikipedia talk pages. To sign your comments, all you have to do is type four tildes (~~~~) beside them. I went ahead and signed your above comment for you. Flyer22 (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)