Talk:Sexual intercourse/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Views

See Scientology and sex and Scientology and homosexuality for information about sciento sexual conduct doctrines. In brief, scientology condemns homosexuality illness, encourages celibacy in its religious order, and permits other sexual intercourse. Human-animal bonding. The article's about sexual intercourse involving humans which includes human-to-goat, which will be acknowledged in an appropriate place.

Risk of loss of namus. Coverage will be expanded to reflect loss of social status and danger to physical wellbeing that can happen from incidents of sexual intercourse, particularly when there are elements of homosexuality, adultery, and heedlessness of considerations of family honour— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxycut (talk • contribs) 03:59, 8 September 2012

Don't make a section for each new thing you want to state. Because you did so, I tweaked the original formatting of your comments by placing them in one place. And you need to sign your name using four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~.

And I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to state, but AndyTheGrump's revert of you was because of "WP:OR, off-topic material, and WP:BLP violations." And I made clear my points on your talk page and at the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. And like I stated at that noticeboard, your edits (with the exception of a bit of the zoophilia information) have been original research, poorly-sourced and/or irrelevant. Take the time to read our guidelines and policies like I advised. Clearly, English is not your first language, but you need to try or ask for help in understanding how things work here. Flyer22 (talk) 04:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

In addition to your contributions being ungrammatical and irrelevant, they are original research. Please don't add them again. Rivertorch (talk) 07:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything that makes me think we need additions to this article about any of these things. This is a 'top-level article' per WP:SUMMARY etc, and these are very obscure points. --Nigelj (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I think scientology isolates people and reproduction is the primary purpose of intercourse even if the animal pleasure factor is an inducement in some people of low level and humans should select and choose their partner with eugenics in mind.

Anal acts do not form part of normal sexual intercourse and are an abnormal practice conducted by young women who want to preserve physical virginity but by absolute or stricter Christian standards are not virgins mental virginity being more important then physical virginity according to Old Catholic norms, masturbation is regarded as a sin but the virgins remain virgins. They are also linked to sexual abuse. Fingering may form part of sexual intercourse but does not constitute sexual intercourse, but can form part of the sexual act. Do not let anyone con you that fingering is sexual intercourse, but it can form part of sexual abuse. Sexual intercourse means coitus. "Sex" used to be a colloquialism but now has become a ubiquitous term which banalizes a basically negative act which appears to embody bodily transgression, moral crime, but is essential to current and probably to all human existence. As homosexuality also is latent but can appear, and it can appear in confined canines, it would be interesting to know whether originally parthenogenesis had been a to Christians sacred norm in procreation, and there might have been a further link in reproduction to some primitive rituals, both arising from the primordial conditions, which need to be studied as to real temperature mass etc. There is the Scriptural prohibition "Thou shalt not spill thy seed on the ground", there is the Greek likening of woman to "furrow". 93.108.67.25 (talk) 14:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The use of sexual accessories such as a strap-on dildo as mentioned in the article is a sexual perversion, designed to compensate for lack of a male partner, or for his momentary impotency or incapacity and undesirable, lesbianism is essentially an aberration, which would risk to render all adult individuals sexual to one another. 93.108.67.25 (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sexual intercourse article. It is not a forum for general discussion of the subject matter. Unless you have specific suggestions regarding improvements to the article - and can provide the required citations from published reliable sources - please find somewhere else to express your opinions. Off-topic material may be deleted from article talk pages. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 September 2012

223.232.221.142 (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC) begin request

 Not done You did not specify what change you would like to be made to the article. Electric Catfish² 22:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Risks

Considering the info and stats on Pregnancy#Complications, I really think that the risks section of this article should include a note on pregnancy. pregnancy carries significant risk of harmful complication, very much changes your life for 9 months, and can be thought of as a 'risk' in and of itself - and that's before you get into the social or economic consequences of an unwanted pregnancy. These count as risks for a substantial proportion of human beings engaging in sexual intercourse. --176.250.178.62 (talk) 09:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a very good point, IP. Since such risks, including abortion risks, aren't mentioned in the Reproduction, reproductive methods and pregnancy section, this information should be placed in the article somewhere. And the Risks subsection of the Health effects section is the better place for those risks, along with the other health risks it already mentions, of course. I still haven't gotten around to implementing some things with regard to this article, but will definitely be implementing what you suggest when I do (not sure about adding the social or economic factors there as well yet, though; if I add that, it'll go in the Social effects subsection). If someone else doesn't beat me to it first. Flyer22 (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Adolescents

The phrase " and add to the conflict between contemporary social values" needs work. This use of the word between requires two objects. Perhaps it could be changed to something like " and add to the conflict between modern contemporary social values" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.58.23 (talk) 07:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Reproduction information

Rogr101 removed most of the detail about reproduction. I restored it because sexual intercourse, at least when commonly defined as penile-vaginal sex, has a lot to do with reproduction. The section is titled Reproduction, reproductive methods and pregnancy, and it only makes sense to have a paragraph about how these biological processes happen. Flyer22 (talk) 09:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

In Private.

Why doesn't this article mention anything about the fact that humans are the only animals who have sex in private? Pass a Method talk 14:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles, and articles outside of Wikipedia, aren't always going to mention every aspect of a topic, not everyone gets around to adding a certain aspect to an article, and it's not like the aspect you are querying is a primary aspect. Furthermore, sources are conflicting on this information; there are sources that seem to be saying that humans are the only animals/species to engage in sexual activity in private (although, despite stating that humans are unique for engaging in sexual activity in private, the wording "as is the case with other animals" may be acknowledging that other animals do as well), and there are sources (this one by Jared Diamond) that state that almost all other animal species other than humans engage in sexual activity in private. Just like there is conflicting information about whether or not human females are the only female species to undergo menopause, as those two sources show when compared to each other and when compared to the In other animals section of the Menopause article. This is why it's not good to just go by one source on anything without checking over a variety of other sources about the same topic. Flyer22 (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Adding "fucking" and "sleeping together" to the lead?

Editor Tdadamemd wants this wording in the lead of the article, for us to mention that sexual intercourse is "more typically referred to with a vulgar term like fucking or through a euphemism like sleeping together." He was first reverted by AndyTheGrump, then by Yobol, and then by me, being reverted twice by all three of us before finally being blocked 48 hours for WP:Edit warring. During the edit warring and block, Tdadamemd expressed that the word "fuck" should be in the lead of this article because "sexual intercourse" is in the lead of the Fuck article (which he thinks would make the articles symmetrical with each other), and that he felt that we were WP:CENSORING the article. AndyTheGrump spoke with him before and during the block, and I spoke with him during the block. See this link. Since I suggested to Tdadamemd that it's time to discuss his addition, he suggested that I start the discussion about it here on this talk page while he's blocked. He'll weigh in on it when he's unblocked.

Here is the part of my comment to Tdadamemd that is relevant here. I told him: "As you know, in this edit summary, I told you that your addition doesn't belong in the lead, that you should see Wikipedia:Alternative titles#Treatment of alternative names. I stated that your addition should go in the Definitions and stimulation factors section, if included at all. In this edit summary, I told you that this is not about WP:CENSORSHIP. It's about the fact that you are inserting slang terms into the lead as though they are significant alternative titles that should be in the lead. They shouldn't be. And here's why: There are a lot of terms for sexual intercourse. It doesn't mean that they should all be in the lead. Wikipedia:Alternative titles#Treatment of alternative names makes this clear. The Fuck article mentions sexual intercourse in its lead because it is especially relevant to the topic. However, the term 'fuck' is not especially relevant to the topic of sexual intercourse. We don't have to design an article so that it is 'symmetrical' with another article."

So now the article talk page discussion about this begins. Flyer22 (talk) 04:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, if Tdadamemd wants to argue for the change, he/she can do it when no longer blocked. If I remember correctly, it is actually against policy to post material 'on behalf of' a blocked user - and I'm certainly not going to argue against someone else's interpretation of what a blocked user is trying to say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello again, everyone. I need to clarify my position on this. I have no burning need to see anything in particular stated in the lede. If the word 'fuck' was mentioned a single time somewhere else in the article, I probably never would have initiated my edit. I don't have all that much interest in this article, some might be surprised to hear. But I do have a lot of interest in regards to the process that is used at Wikipedia in order to maximize the quality of all articles. And thanks again, Flyer22, for starting this. It was very refreshing to see this willingness to discuss this topic in what I see to be the most appropriate forum for this discussion.

I'll suggest that a review of the archives for people who had previously made the point I was making to examine the rationale that was used back then that led to having this very long article on sex, but not mentioning what is perhaps the most common word used for it.

Flyer22, regarding your objection that my change had inserted slang into the lede, I have a very simple rebuttal: The word 'fuck' is not slang. You'll see this clearly in references like dictionary.com and even our own Wiktionary. THAT was the reply to you that I had withheld so that I could say that to you here. It is listed as "vulgar" and "colloquial", but not slang. I saw my edit to be perfectly reasonable. But if the consensus would rather have it added in a separate section in the body, I would be totally ok with that too.

The part that I do not understand is how 'fuck' isn't mentioned at all. Maybe someone will provide an explanation for that which I will come to see the wisdom of. But as it stands, I find it just odd. Actually, more than odd. I see the article as broken.--Tdadamemd (talk) 03:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Tdadamemd, you seem now to be saying that you don't actually care about whether we use the word 'fucking' in the lede - after making repeated claims that you were being 'censored' because it was deleted when you added it. Are you now accepting that it wasn't censorship to exclude it from the lede? If that is indeed the case, then I suggest you find another arena for your soapboxing. On the other hand, if you do wish it to be included in the lede (or anywhere else), please provide an explanation as to why you think it would benefit the article to include it. I'm not interested in playing games, and you appear to be more concerned with making some abstract point about something or other that has nothing in particular to do with this article. That is not the purpose of this talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Above I did my best to state my position on this. If any of the reverts had moved the colloquial terms down into the body of the article, I would have been fine with that. If anyone had simply reverted while opening a discussion here on this forum, I would have been fine with that too.

This is not a game. I take the quality of Wikipedia very seriously.

As for how to proceed for everyone who wishes to improve the article and address the title of this subsection Flyer22 posted, then I have already suggested how we go about doing that. I have already searched the archives, and I've communicated that I found extremely little. As for why I saw my edit to have benefited the article, I've already explained that, several times. I will do it one more time just to be perfectly clear:

'Fuck' is an extremely common word used to describe sexual intercourse. This article is grossly incomplete by not mentioning that anywhere.

As I posted before, *broken*. I don't see what isn't clear about what I've been repeatedly stating. There's absolutely nothing abstract about that. For whatever reason my efforts to communicate that have not been received clearly. Maybe it would help if I put it into equation form:

Sexual intercourse = Fuck

That's as clear as I can be. A while back I made the point that the Fuck article linked directly here. In the very first sentence of the lede. This article has no symmetry to reflect that link. There is no excuse by saying that 'fuck' is slang, because the point made clear above is that it is not slang. It is a common, everyday meaning of the word 'fuck'. Until such time that some indication of that gets added to the article - anywhere to the article - I will continue to see this as a broken article. The alternative outcome I have indicated is that someone presents a reason as to why this article might have a higher quality by not including the stuff I had added. If anyone persuades me of that, then I will no longer see this article as broken for being "fuckless".--Tdadamemd (talk) 05:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's a cut&paste of the very first sentence of the fuck article:

Fuck in its literal meaning refers to the act of sexual intercourse.

I hope this clarifies what I've been saying, for anyone who may not have been clear on that.--Tdadamemd (talk) 05:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello again, Tdadamemd. Getting right to your comment about slang, I don't understand your stating that "fuck" is not slang, or your linking to dictionary.com as proof that it is not. The word "fuck," while vulgar, is also slang; the dictionary.com source you cited even states so. It makes it clear that it can be slang for a variety of things, including sexual intercourse/other sexual activity. It lists 13 numbered examples regarding what "fuck" can mean. As for Wiktionary, I don't refer to sources like that. And, yes, I am fine with mentioning "fuck" (or "fucking") and the euphemism "sleeping together" lower in the article, in the the Definitions and stimulation factors section, as alternative words for sexual intercourse/sexual activity. But again, there are a lot of terms for sexual intercourse, most of them slang. That these terms exist doesn't mean that all of them should be in this article. In fact, most times when there are many alternative terms for a word, especially if those terms are slang, we don't include all of them. As you know, this is an encyclopedia and not a dictionary.

If WP:CONSENSUS is achieved for including your proposal, I'll add it by briefly summarizing that there are various vulgar and/or slang terms and euphemisms for sexual intercourse/other sexual activity...such as "fuck" and "sleeping together" (the wording won't be exactly like that, of course). And, really, because there are so many terms for sexual intercourse, and "fuck" is not especially relevant to the topic of sexual intercourse (by that, I mean that most people and sources are not discussing the word "fuck" when discussing sexual intercourse), that is probably why "fuck" isn't currently in this article. Someone who is aware of your having repeatedly added it to the lead expressed to me via email that "fuck" is also U.S.-centric; so that's also something to think about, though the term is also used outside of the United States.

Also, sexual intercourse does not = fuck. It's that fuck = sexual intercourse; in its literal sense anyway, since when people use the term...they are usually using it as profanity. That is also why I told you "The Fuck article mentions sexual intercourse in its lead because it is especially relevant to the topic. However, the term 'fuck' is not especially relevant to the topic of sexual intercourse."

I cannot see how this article is broken simply because it doesn't currently include "fuck." But, like I stated, I don't mind adding it to the article. I'd rather see what others have to state on that matter first, however. Flyer22 (talk) 05:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Tdadamemd, you have already wasted a great deal of people's time over what could have been a minor debate, and seem intent on wasting more with irrelevances. Your 'symmetry' argument has no basis in policy, and you offer no actual reason as to why such 'symmetry' should be needed. As for the more general point, it is true enough that 'fucking' is a common term for sexual intercourse in the English language. It is not however the only one - and 'I see this as a broken article' isn't a reason for inclusion. Per the Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy, I can see nothing to justify inclusion of either 'fucking' in particular, nor a long list of terms for sexual intercourse in general in the article. In any case, it isn't down to us to present arguments why it shouldn't be included, it is for you to provide the necessary arguments for its inclusion. As of now, you have not done so, except in the vaguest of terms. What particular text are you proposing? Where do you want it added? What source (if any) are you citing to justify its inclusion? The article isn't about 'words used to describe sexual intercourse', it is about the act itself. Why exactly is the fact that a particular word is sometimes used by English-speakers to denote it of any encyclopaedic significance? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:54, 30 January 2013‎

I was just about to reply with NOTDICTIONARY, but I see Andy has beaten me to it (although with three tildes as a signature!). The simplest way to understand this issue consists of two points: (a) NOTCENSORED is totally irrelevant (and the five edit summaries in one day that mention censorship are totally misguided)—what matters is whether an addition adds encyclopedic value; (b) the fact that there is a bad word that relates to the topic of this article is not useful encyclopedic information for the topic of this article. This article is about the act—it is not about the word. Furthermore, the probablity that anyone capable of reading this article does not know what "fuck" means is almost zero (and is exactly zero if we assume the reader has access to Google). Also, the word "fuck" has a lot of baggage (with meanings that vary drastically depending on circumstances, mood, body language and more), and it would be totally misleading to suggest that the terms are interchangeable. Johnuniq (talk) 06:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I will give a reply to all three here:

Let us set aside, for the moment, the specifics of which article or articles we are discussing.

Now consider the general structure of Wikipedia. There's one article, and it links to many other related articles. You go to one of those other articles, and it points back to the article that you came from, through a link. This is what I was referring to by "symmetry". It may not be specified in any Wikipedia policy, but it is the basic geometry of the website.

This symmetry is broken in the one main article we are discussing.

It has nothing to do with anyone trying to turn Wikipedia into a dictionary. It has nothing to do with whether or not a word is slang. It has nothing to do with whether or not one particular editor is seen to be on some kind of mission to waste everyone else's time.

Maybe there are a hundred different words that are used as substitutes. But 99 of those don't have valid Wikipedia articles written about them.

Well I just took a first step toward restoring the broken symmetry. There is now a link in the 'See also' section.--Tdadamemd (talk) 07:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:ONEWAY (in a different context) is specifically about article A mentioning B, while B does not mention A. That principle is applied in other contexts, such as that it might be reasonable to have an article on a book attacking a politician with a link to the politician, but there will not necessarily be a mention of the book on the politician's article. There is no "broken symmetry" that needs to be fixed in this case, either. Johnuniq (talk) 09:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Johnuniq, what your post has shown me is that symmetry is indeed an established integral aspect of Wikipedia - so much so that they have to state a policy that says when it is appropriate to break that symmetry ("One Way"). And the justification for doing that is when the linked article in question is a Fringe Theory. You are saying that there are other cases when breaking the symmetry is justified. But neither fringe nor politician attacking applies in any way shape or form to 'Fuck'/'sexual intercourse'. It was established early on in this section that the word fuck, when used for this meaning, is not even a slang term. The word is not fringe. It is not like a politician attack. The meaning is ubiquitous. Your reply has absolutely confirmed everything I was saying in my previous post.--Tdadamemd (talk) 10:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote. Here are some pointers: "in a different context...", "That principle is applied in other contexts...", "... in this case, either". There is no golden page of rules that covers things like whether an article on sexual intercourse should mention fucking (although one clue might be that the article managed to exist for a long time without such a mention). My point was simply that there is no symmetry rule, so nothing was broken. It's great to get advice, so thanks, but given that you were totally wrong about NOTCENSORED, and totally wrong about edit warring, it might be an idea to slow down. Johnuniq (talk) 10:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

You may have seen that I did a major edit on my reply to you.

Now how was I "wrong" about my point that "Wikipedia is not censored"? That is a direct quote from Wikipedia policy. You don't think that censorship has any factor with regards to the reason why the word 'fuck' does not appear a single time in the article? Just look at what has gotten posted here in this Talk section. You have at least one editor (you) overtly expressing the view that fuck is a "bad word". If you want the exact quote, it is, "the fact that there is a bad word that relates to the topic of this article".

If I wanted to really prove my point to you, I would go back through the revision history of this article and find all of the hundreds of times (my estimate) that various editors had added the word 'fuck', and links to the article 'fuck', and then they got STEAMROLLED in the very same way that I experienced getting steamrolled here, all because a vocal minority (again, my estimation) believe that they own this article, and that this article must "maintain the maturity" (my words) of not having any "bad words" (not my words).

So who is really "wrong" here? Would anyone like me to go back through the rev history and look? I will do it. Or maybe I won't. There is the possibility that I do dive into that and find not a single instance of anyone ever trying to add 'fuck'. THAT would fit with your explanation as to why "the article managed to exist for a long time without such a mention".

Or maybe you already know the answer without having to look, because YOU are one of the editors who has done dozens of 'fuck reverts'. I don't know. I haven't looked. Yet.

If I ever do decide to look, and if I do find evidence of steamrolling, then I will know that I was not "wrong" in my steadfast decision to stand firm in front of the steamroller. While the result of my opposition was having that steamroller roll right over me, that in itself does not necessarily make me "wrong".

Is there any possibility that you, and other editors here, are the ones in the "wrong"? I will submit as evidence to you the very policy you have cited in reply to me. I stood up to make a point that Wikipedia articles have symmetry. Your reply to me is, in effect, "No they don't and here is a policy that proves they don't". You and I read that policy in exactly the opposite way. You read that policy and conclude, "there is no symmetry rule". I read the very same words of that policy and it is completely obvious to me that the symmetry quality is so fundamental to Wikipedia that they have to create policies to tell us when it is ok to break symmetry. Well I'm repeating a point I made previously - a point you obviously choose to reject. Perhaps some other person here will jump in to help you to see my perspective in reading that policy. Or perhaps absolutely no one else will, and I will be the lone person standing up against whatever it is that has been happening here.

I don't know for sure what exactly it is. I have suggested that it is censorship. I have also suggested that there is some kind of a group ownership pattern of collective editing (the steamroller). Perhaps someone will persuade me that it is none of those. But there must be some explanation as to why this article is broken.

Now I am not here on any crusade to fix the article. I have made a strong individual effort to do so, and again, I got steamrolled. I could choose to continue to persist in a stand. Or I could simply leave this Talk section as documenting that "Kilroy was here." ...and far more importantly that "Kilroy did not like what Kilroy found here."

On that note, I really don't have much of anything else to add here, or to the article. I've made my points. If the totality of everything I've stated is worth nothing to you, then fine. At least all of this may serve as some explanation to some other Kilroy who comes along and wonders why they've stumbled upon a broken article. This is not the first broken article in Wikipedia. It certainly won't be the last.

I see my work here to be done, for the time being. I don't need an answer for any of the comments I have presented. I have my own answer already. I will check back, though, to see if anyone does post a response that might persuade me that my assessments have been mistaken. And if anyone would like further clarification from me or answers from me, I'd be glad to provide them. But aside from that, I have nothing more to add so I plan on leaving. Maybe some time in the future I will check back on this article and see how it has progressed.--Tdadamemd (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I did neglect to give a direct reply to one comment in particular (far above) from Flyer22:
"...I don't understand your stating that "fuck" is not slang, or your linking to dictionary.com as proof that it is not. The word "fuck," while vulgar, is also slang; the dictionary.com source you cited even states so. It makes it clear that it can be slang for a variety of things, including sexual intercourse/other sexual activity."

That was in response to me having stated: "The word 'fuck' is not slang. You'll see this clearly in references like dictionary.com".

I will now do a direct cut&paste from that reference:

---

fuck
/fʌk/ Show Spelled [fuhk] Show IPA Vulgar.
verb (used with object)
1. to have sexual intercourse with.

---

How is it that I can read that and plain as day see that 'fuck', used in this context, is not slang. Yet someone else here can be shown that and they persist that it is slang to use 'fuck' as a word meaning 'sexual intercourse'?

There is a HUGE disconnect in simple logic going on here. Again, I don't need anyone's answer to that. I have my own answer. I'm just documenting, because people persist in seeing me as wrong, when I see things here very differently.--Tdadamemd (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Since Tdadamemd is no longer arguing for the inclusion of the word 'fuck' in the article, I think that we can now treat this thread as closed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Once again, we have here another instance of a huge disconnect in logic (and/or reading comprehension). I state, as clearly as I know how, my view that this article is broken - and won't be seen as fixed - until such time that the word 'fuck' is included into the article (linked).

...and this forum draws the immediate conclusion that this issue is closed. Absolutely not. It is totally unresolved. At least, that is my position.--Tdadamemd (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Tdadamemd, you stated that the word "fuck" is not slang. You did not originally state that it is not slang when specifically referring to sexual intercourse. I stated to you that the dictionary.com source you cite does mention that it is slang. It can be vulgar and/or slang, including when referring to sexual intercourse. Example #10 clearly states:

Verb phrases

fuck around, Slang.

• a.

to behave in a frivolous or meddlesome way.

• b.

to engage in promiscuous sex.

See the word "slang" beside the phrase "fuck around"? See the definition examples given for it, including sexual activity? So again, I do not understand why you stated that "fuck" is not slang...and used dictionary.com to prove it.

Also, I have been at this article for years and can assure you that there have not been a lot of attempts to add "fuck" to this article, at least not in all those years (going on six) that I have been observing this article. I can't even remember one attempt, except yours, which is also why this has not been discussed on this talk page until now. The word "fuck" used to be in the See also section before you added it there, however, I'm sure. But words in the See also section were drastically cut down by an editor or editors, especially regarding terms already found higher in the article. And again, my having objected to your addition to the lead has nothing to do with WP:CENSOR or WP:OWNERSHIP. I won't speak for the others on this matter, but Andy, for example, has repeatedly told you that his objecting to your addition to the lead was not about that either. And Johnuniqi is not a regular editor/watcher of this article, at least I think that he's not a regular watcher. He hasn't yet made an edit to this article, I think. And I don't remember ever seeing him at this talk page until now. He may stick around this article after this, I don't know. And I still don't believe that this article is broken simply because it currently doesn't include "fuck" and/or any other vulgar and/or slang term or euphemism for sexual intercourse/other sexual activity higher in its text (above the See also section).

All that aside, the "fuck" matter is resolved at this article, as no one except me has yet supported the inclusion of "fuck" and/or any other vulgar and/or slang term or euphemism for sexual intercourse/other sexual activity in the lead or lower body of this article (though, as stated before, I only support adding a summary about the topic of vulgar and/or slang terms or euphemisms for sexual intercourse/other sexual activity to the lower body of the article), and since you linked to the Fuck article in the See also section...with no one objecting to that addition...and since you stated that you are not interested in this article beyond that and will be moving on. Flyer22 (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea why you are posting the slang definitions of 'fuck'. That is a total non-sequitur. I have not seen anyone here assert that there aren't any ways of using 'fuck' that are slang. The point was, and remains, that the standard use of the word 'fuck' as both a noun and a verb - the only ways that this word has been used in this entire discussion throughout this entire week up until your latest post - has been the standard definition that is widely understood and accepted as a normal word that is nowhere near slang.

You used this non-sequitur as your basis for reversion. And to this day you are persisting in it. Yet again another example of a huge logic disconnect that permeates this entire exchange.

As for the meta-discussion (the discussion about the discussion), Andy's revert was based upon his assessment that the issue needed to be discussed before such a change could be accepted. And where did he choose to raise that discussion? Over on my User Talk page. That is the most inappropriate place to have such a discussion. I suggested to him that the discussion be moved here. Instead he moved it to an Admin page where he called for me to be blocked. Is that the action of anyone who wants rational discussion? (This too are questions that I do not need anyone's answer to.)

As for your opinion that this issue is now resolved, I never shared any such view. I added the 'See also' link as a step in the right direction. Not as a cure. I can't have stated that more clearly that I STILL see the article as broken. My decision to leave here, for the time being, is because I see a critical mass of editors who are bent on keeping it broken (my opinion / my view). It's fine if we agree to disagree, but that doesn't mean that the problem has magically gone away.--Tdadamemd (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, I will highlight one more example of logical disconnect...

You just stated "no one except me has yet supported the inclusion". As a minimum, there is you and me. According to my understanding of math, that is a min total of two.--Tdadamemd (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I posted slang definitions of "fuck" because you insisted that "fuck" is not slang, and, specifically, that it is not slang for sexual intercourse/other sexual activity. You are wrong on that, and on most of the other things you have asserted in this discussion, including that I "used this non-sequitur as [my] basis for reversion" and that my logic is off (disconnected). Others, including me, feel that your logic is off -- that it is hugely disconnected from the way that things are done and/or are supposed to be done at this site. And again, I've been open to adding your proposal to this article; just not to the lead.

As for Andy, you know very well why "he moved [the matter] to an Admin page where he called for [you] to be blocked." You were edit warring against the WP:CONSENSUS that is for keeping the material out of the lead, and you were not attempting to achieve WP:CONSENSUS for your addition before readding it after being reverted.

I don't have much more to state to you on this matter. Agree to disagree.

As for stating "no one except me has yet supported the inclusion," I was just about to add "no one else but me" in for "no one except me," but then I had to briefly attend to a matter in my home and a WP:EDITCONFLICT occurred. Either way, it goes without saying that you support the inclusion; it is obvious that, in this case, "no one except me" means "no others besides you and me." It has nothing to do with the "logical disconnect" that you feel that I and others have in this discussion.

Again, I don't have much more to state to you on this matter. If anything else at all. Flyer22 (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Well I would like to thank you again for being a refreshing voice in this exchange for me. Even though we do not see eye to eye on some basic things, I'm ok with that. As a minimum, we have all clarified our positions. I certainly feel like I have a better understanding of everyone here, so thanks to all for that. And the most useful thing I can leave here with is a better understanding of myself.--Tdadamemd (talk) 04:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thank you for being willing to see what others' arguments are and to discuss them. Flyer22 (talk) 04:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and added the "vulgar, slang terms and euphemisms" text (while fixing my typo afterward); I added it because this matter was still not fully resolved, any editor may find the Fuck link in the See also section irrelevant (and then need to be pointed to this discussion for why it's there), and because I added it in a brief, encyclopedic way. So, yeah, the Fuck link is now higher in the article instead of in the See also section. Flyer22 (talk) 03:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Why was the copulation disambiguation page deleted?

Recently, I created a disambiguation page from the copulation redirect page, but my edit was reverted. I wish this disambiguation page hadn't been deleted - it contained some useful information about alternate meanings of the term. (Also, it isn't entirely clear whether animal sexual behavior or sexual intercourse is the primary usage of this term - there are several articles about zoology that link to copulation, and the lead section sexual intercourse article even claims that "copulation" often refers to animals instead of humans. Using it as a disambiguation page, instead of a redirect page, would help to ensure that readers were not directed to the wrong article when following these links). If it were kept as a disambiguation page, it would help to prevent this confusion. Jarble (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I already left a message on Jarble's talk page about this. I don't have much more to state on this topic that has already been extensively discussed. Flyer22 (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

And the more appropriate place to continue this discussion is at Talk:Copulation, where the current WP:CONSENSUS was formed. Flyer22 (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

On that page, the issue of disambiguation hasn't really been discussed. Also, I think it's debatable whether or not copulation should redirect to this article, or to a disambiguation page: many articles about non-human animals (e. g., Arachnid, Polychaete, Spicule, Flatworm) currently contain links that redirect to this page (which could be very misleading to some readers). If Copulation were a disambiguation page instead of a redirect page, it would make it easier for editors to fix these misleading links. The creation of a disambiguation page would also prevent users from being misled into believing that this term referred to humans exclusively. using Dab solver. Jarble (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, it appears that the vast majority of links to copulation refer to non-human animals instead of humans: a full list of links to this page can be found here. Jarble (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

While Talk:Copulation doesn't specifically concern disambiguation pages, the WP:CONSENSUS there is quite clear that the Copulation page should redirect to this article. That's where the "debatable whether or not copulation should redirect to this article" discussion was had. And I repeat that it's that talk page that is most appropriate for this disambiguation discussion. Discussing this there also lets people know there that another aspect of this matter has been discussed. I don't like repeating myself, as I assume most people don't, so this discussion should not be going on at your talk page and this one. But to repeat a very important part I just stated at your talk page: Disambiguation pages are not supposed to exist to point readers to every possible usage of a term. Again, read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Only when there is no primary topic, should the term be the title of a disambiguation page (or should redirect to a disambiguation page on which more than one term is disambiguated)." The term "copulation," as seen by every definition entry about it, clearly has a primary topic. That "sexual intercourse" usually refers to humans makes it no less valid that the Sexual intercourse article, or, at the least, the Mating article, is the primary topic for the term "copulation." And for anyone looking for copulation among non-human animals, the Sexual intercourse article clearly points readers to the Animal sexual behaviour and Mating articles, and discusses sexual intercourse among non-human animals. It's very easy for me to state that most people will not be looking for "copulatory tie" or "copulatory plug" under the title Copulation. Programming is a completely different matter, which clearly has no primary topic. I was going to state that we'll see how the Copulation (disambiguation) page you created goes; and by that, I mean if it lasts or not. I was going to state if it is moved to Copulation, just like Programming (disambiguation) was moved to Programming today, then I will again un-disambiguate the page. But you went ahead and moved it there yourself, and I restored the page as a redirect to this article. Flyer22 (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: Like I just told Jarble, I would be fine with Copulation being redirected to the Mating article, just like the spelling variations of "copulation" redirected to the Mating article:[1][2][3]. But that should be discussed at Talk:Copulation first, especially since redirecting Copulation to the Mating article has been changed back to redirecting it to the Sexual intercourse article more than once. Flyer22 (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I notice that there is already a redirect page for Copulative. Perhaps the disambiguation page that I created should be merged into that one. Jarble (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not so sure since "copulative" refers to linguistics first and foremost, as a Google search shows, and, with your merge, the page would mostly be about sexuality. But I wouldn't revert you on it. However, "copulation" and its spelling variations should obviously not be redirected to that page. Flyer22 (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Undue weight: Legal text with regard to England and Wales, and other matters

I think that most, if not all, of the text below, from the subsection "Consent and sexual offenses" of the section "Ethical, religious, and legal views" doesn't really belong here, because it gives WP:UNDUE to the legal definition of "sexual intercourse" in England and Wales and to other legal definitions and legal cases, most of them in relation to the law in England and Wales. We should avoid focusing on a single jurisdiction like that. Most of it is also only tangential to the issue of consent (which is the title of the subsection). http://www.youtube.com/user/healthandfitnessshow The text is this:

The expression "sexual intercourse" has been used as a term of art in England and Wales and New York State. In England and Wales, from its enactment to its repeal on the 1 May 2004,[170] section 44 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 read:

Where, on the trial of any offence under this Act, it is necessary to prove sexual intercourse (whether natural or unnatural), it shall not be necessary to prove the completion of the intercourse by the emission of seed, but the intercourse shall be deemed complete upon proof of penetration only.

Unnatural

This expression refers to buggery, including both buggery with a person and buggery with an animal.[171] Zoophilia (bestiality) is sexual activity between humans and non-human animals or a preference for or fixation on such practice. People who practice zoophilia are known as zoophiles,[172] zoosexuals, or simply "zoos".[173] Zoophilia may also be known as zoosexuality.[173] Zoophilia is a paraphilia.[174][175][176][177] Sex with animals is not outlawed in some jurisdictions, but, in most countries, it is illegal under animal abuse laws or laws dealing with crimes against nature.

Penetration

According to cases decided on the meaning of the statutory definition of carnal knowledge under the Offences against the Person Act 1828, which was in identical terms to this definition, the slightest penetration was sufficient.[178] The book "Archbold" said that it "submitted" that this continued to be the law under the new enactment.[179]

For most definitions of rape, there is a broad "conceptualization of sex, including many kinds of sexual penetration (e.g., penile-vaginal intercourse, fellatio, cunnilingus, anal intercourse, or penetration of the genitals or rectum by an object)".[169]

Continuing act

See Kaitamaki v R [1985] AC 147, [1984] 3 WLR 137, [1984] 2 All ER 435, 79 Cr App R 251, [1984] Crim LR 564, PC (decided under equivalent legislation in New Zealand).

Section 7(2) of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 contained the following words: "In this Act . . . references to sexual intercourse shall be construed in accordance with section 44 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 so far as it relates to natural intercourse (under which such intercourse is deemed complete on proof of penetration only)". The Act made provision, in relation to rape and related offences, for England and Wales, and for courts-martial elsewhere.

From 3 November 1994 to 1 May 2004, section 1(2)(a) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (as substituted by section 142 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994) referred to "sexual intercourse with a person (whether vaginal or anal)". This section created the offence of rape in England and Wales.

The penal code in New York State provides: § 130.00 Sex offenses; definitions of terms: 1. "Sexual intercourse" has its ordinary meaning and occurs upon any penetration, however slight.[180] Skydeepblue (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Skydeepblue. I figured that I'd eventually meet you at this article, considering that we have worked together at times at the Rape article and to a lesser extent at the Puberty article. Not to mention...that you sometimes pop up at articles I have WP:Watchlisted. For how the legal text that you dispute got added to the article, see Talk:Sexual intercourse/Archive 6#Legal term section. I pointed out then that the editor's text does not represent a WP:Worldwide view. He apparently has used headings created in that section to link to that section's text in other articles. I recently got into a disagreement with him at the Murder article talk page about his tendency to lend WP:Undue weight to British legal aspects. So, clearly, I don't mind a lot of the British legal material that you dispute being removed.

On a side note: As for this edit you made to the lead, I had virginity mentioned in the lead because, from what I have studied, it, especially female virginity, is a big aspect with regard to sexual intercourse. And because it is a significant topic that is addressed in the Etymology and definitions section. Because of those factors, I summarized that aspect in the lead...per WP:LEAD. It's also because of this that I added mention of virginity back to the lead, but without specific mention of virginity pledges (since mention of that is significantly less needed and is not discussed lower in the article). Notice that the virginity line you reworded was left mostly supported by sources discussing virginity. I'm not sure what you felt was unsourced in the lead, considering that those matters you reworded are sourced, and, per WP:LEAD, sources don't necessarily need to be in the lead if the lead's material is sourced lower in the article. I've sourced most of the things in the lead because the topic of sexual intercourse can be so contentious. Better sources are needed for parts of the Marriage and relationships section, however, with regard to religion. I also see that you used the wording "many parts of the world." I try to avoid using words such as "some" or "many," especially "some people" and "many people," on Wikipedia as much as possible...per WP:Weasel words. It's often that I use something like "various," "Often, people" or "People commonly" in their places, though using the words "some people" (or a variation of that, such as "some men") is more difficult to stay way from than using the words "many people." If sources support "some," "most," "majority," etc. (especially those exact words), then it's less of a problem to use those words. Going back to references really quick, I know that you often cite sources as bare URLs. But per WP:Bare URL, I hope that you don't mind if I ask that you don't use bare URLs in this article, as WP:Bare URL addresses the problems with doing so and I really do plan to take this article to WP:Good article status (though I have been slowly working toward that since 2011) and bare URLs are not accepted during the WP:Good article process. It's also best that we have a consistent reference style, per WP:CITEVAR. It would be nice getting this article to WP:Good article status with your help, or with the help of others, such as ‎AndyTheGrump...who also watches this article. If you need help with reference formatting, just let me know and I'll help out.

Also, I added on ": Legal text with regard to England and Wales" to the heading of this discussion section so that it's clearer what the section is about; that will also help locate the section once it's archived. Flyer22 (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

(Here due to the new notification system - Flyer22 mentioned me above). I agree with Skydeepblue - the material discussing specific legal definitions of rape etc is undue. I'd suggest removing it entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Per above, no objection from me on removing it. The zoophilia (bestiality) part should be moved elsewhere in the Ethical, religious, and legal views section, though, considering that it is a general matter (and is also mentioned in the lead). With the exception of "buggery with a person and buggery with an animal," that bit wasn't added to that section by the editor who added most of the British law text. It was added by a sockpuppet (you remember him no doubt, Andy), and then I moved it. But if you'd rather we remove the sockpuppet's text, I'm fine with that as well. Flyer22 (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with keeping the part about virginity in the lede. I removed some parts about religion because they were a very rudimentary and mostly unsourced attempt to describe the views of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam and Buddhism. I know that the lede doesn't need to be sourced if it is a summary of other sourced material in the article, but this article lacks in sources when discussing the views of religion. This is a very complex issue, because there isn't one single view for a specific religion - there are huge differences between different sects of the same religion, and different religious authorities have differing views on the role, meaning, purpose etc of sexual intercourse (eg. not all Catholic leaders have the same views and interpretations of religious texts about sexual matters). Also, this is an article about sexual intercourse, not religion - so there isn't any need to detail specific views of each religion in the lede - a brief general mention of religion in the lede is fine.

In regard to zoophilia, a very brief mention is OK, but there is no need for any expanding.

I also think that, in regard to the health section, HIV/AIDS should feature more prominently, because it is a major global issue - detailed discussion on the situation in Sub-Saharan Africa (including prevention strategies) is appropriate, I think.Skydeepblue (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I see what you mean about mention of specific religions being in the lead, and I've never liked the vague "Hinduism and Buddhism views on sexuality have differing interpretations" line that was added in December 2011, but the parts that were there were sourced in the lead or lower in the article. That stated, I didn't add the religious text to the lead (except for when speaking of the fact that religious views can play a role in decisions about sexual intercourse or other sexual activity), though, per WP:LEAD, religious text should be there. I've watched others add religious text to the lead and lower body of the article over the years. I haven't added much about it because not only does religion hardly interest me (I'm athiest; was religious at age 12 and under), I don't know much about religion. That's why I've usually left that material to be expanded by others, and have generally only tweaked it. These days, I felt that I was going to have to clean up and expand religious text in this article myself since I'm usually the only one working on this article. But with you helping out with it, that may no longer be the case. I'll also eventually clean up any reference matters with regard to your additions if needed, per what I stated above about references (I use WP:Citation templates, and have been converting references in this article to that style).

I agree with you about the inclusion of zoophilia.

As for HIV/AIDS, there is an adequate amount of detail about it in the Risks subsection of the Health section. It's made clear there how dangerous HIV/AIDS is and how it has affected people, especially Africans, on a global scale. I'm not sure that it needs its own subsection as part of the Risks subsection, which is what I'm guessing you mean by "feature more prominently." For one, HIV/AIDS is under control a lot better than it used to be (for example, the treatment that exists for it that has made it significantly less likely that a person will die from it). I know that it is still a big problem in some parts of the world, such as Sub-Saharan Africa, but I feel that devoting a section to any one aspect of a certain part of the world with regard to it would be WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. Then again, given the massive problem with HIV/AIDS in Africa, maybe it would not be. But I much rather prefer WP:Summary style for the Health effects section, like we currently do. I agree with having a paragraph about how HIV/AIDS affects Sub-Saharan Africa, but not a whole section dedicated to it.

Oh, and I added "other matters" on to the heading of this discussion section since we are now discussing other aspects that may be due or undue. Flyer22 (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Another problem in the Risks subsection - text on medical issues sourced to the press (The Independent newspaper is not a reliable source for such issues):

The text:

"In 2006, The Independent newspaper reported that the biggest rise in sexually transmitted infections was in syphilis, which rose by more than 20%, while increases were also seen in cases of genital warts and herpes".Skydeepblue (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

In regard to HIV/AIDS - there is no need for a subsection on it, but in the "Risks" section there needs to be much more about it - while it is true that it can now be kept under control a lot better than it used to, millions of people in Africa (and some other places) do not have proper access to medication and proper knowledge about how it is transmitted/prevented; and in some places the situation is completely out of control (eg. prevalence rate for adults aged 15 to 49 is 26% in Swaziland [4]; 23.40% in Botswana [5]; 23.30% in Lesotho. [6] etc. There's also a problem with AIDS orphans. So these issues should be addressed.Skydeepblue (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I obviously agree that The Independent is generally not WP:MEDRS-compliant (I state "generally" because WP:MEDRS does note that use of news sources are occasionally permitted...under certain circumstances), and I have removed it. But at least it was specifically attributed with text to what the The Independent reported. We should find a better and more recent source than it to comment on genital warts and herpes. I don't see any other problem in that section, however, except for anything in there that is not sourced. I also agree with expanding that section with the HIV/AIDS material you mentioned, as long as we don't go overboard with it. A good outline for including HIV/AIDS information is to summarize some of what the lead of the HIV/AIDS article states, but with some extra additions (like the things you mentioned). As seen with the diff-link with regard to The Independent text/source, I also removed the British law text (there was a bit about New York State in there as well, as seen above in this discussion section). Flyer22 (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the legal definition, I think that you are going about this in completely the wrong way. I think that the correct approach is to spin off an article on "Sexual intercourse in English law" or to merge the material to the article "Rape in English law" or to use the material to begin a new article on "Definition of sexual intercourse" to include all jurisdictions and non-legal definitions. WP:UNDUE doesn't normally require you to delete anything. It normally requires you to add more information and to move stuff into daughter articles. That part of WP:UNDUE is a positive principle for inclusion.

As regards your comments above, I thought that most of what you said on Talk:Murder was complete nonsense. James500 (talk) 13:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to start another article, do so. This article is about sexual intercourse. It is not about the legal definitions of rape in different jurisdictions. And yes, WP:UNDUE is perfectly good grounds to delete material of only marginal relevance at best. This is what is known as editorial judgement, and something that Wikipedia contributors are expected to exercise when necessary. Articles are not dumping-grounds for everything vaguely related to the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

James500, as seen above, it was not my idea to remove the text you added. But as for your statements: Considering that you just happened to pop up at this article, either you have been watching this article all this time or you've been keeping track of my Wikipedia contributions. Considering that you are someone who seems to barely understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines, such as WP:UNDUE WEIGHT, someone who doesn't seem to know what creating a WP:Good or WP:Featured article entails, yes, of course, you would think that most of what I stated at the Murder talk page was "complete nonsense." And let me be clear about you bringing your WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior to this article, cut it out. This is not the page to continue our disagreements with regard to what was stated on the Murder talk page.

As for spinout articles, you should read WP:Content forking and WP:SPINOUT. Spinout articles should only be created when needed, and should not be created just to cover material that was rejected in the main article. As definitions of sexual intercourse are very important to understanding the topic of sexual intercourse, they should be in this article (summarized and with due weight, of course), just as definitions of rape are in the Rape article, definitions of virginity are in the Virginity article, definitions of female genital mutilation are in the Female genital mutilation article, definitions of vegetarianism are in the Vegetarianism article, definitions of pedophilia are in the Pedophilia article, definitions of malnutrition are in the Malnutrition article, definitions of assisted reproductive technology are in the Assisted reproductive technology article, and so on. Furthermore, per WP:NOT A DICTIONARY, a Wikipedia article should be more than just definitions; of course, that is challenged when a Wikipedia article is about a word or is about how a matter varies between laws. Either way, the British law text you had in this article should either be summarized in this article, or merged to the Rape in English law or Laws regarding rape article. It's not like your British law text is simply about sexual intercourse; it's about legal matters regarding sexual intercourse, specifically British legal matters regarding sexual intercourse, called rape or sexual assault. And we already have articles, such as Rape, that exist to cover that. Therefore, your text should clearly be merged with the Rape in English law or Laws regarding rape article if it is not to be summarized in the Sexual intercourse article. Or it should be summarized in this article and expanded on in one of the aforementioned existing articles, with a Wikilink directing readers to the article that goes in-depth on that aspect. Flyer22 (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

And yet I see that you needlessly created a spinout article, despite what I stated above about doing so: Sexual intercourse in English law. You having done so is exactly what I mean about you barely understanding Wikipedia policies and guidelines; it's either an example of that or you not wanting to follow something I suggested (no matter that you suggested a merge with the Rape in English law article). Why you feel that things such as rape or sexual intercourse in general need their own Wikipedia articles when it comes to English law is beyond me. But whatever. Flyer22 (talk) 15:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Since I don't have time to respond to the whole of the wall of text that you have written all that I am going to say is that this article is on my watchlist and that the subject matter of the article that I have just created satisfies WP:GNG by a very, very, very wide margin and its creation was absolutely necessary. James500 (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Negating the first paragraph of my response to you above, you calling my explaining to you policies and guidelines in one paragraph "the whole of the wall of text," as well you citing WP:GNG (a.k.a. WP:Notability) and stating that the creation of the Sexual intercourse in English law article was "absolutely necessary," further shows your WP:COMPETENCE issues. Or, more so, your "I just want to oppose Flyer22, possibly piss her off" tendency. Just because a topic is notable does not mean that it should have a Wikipedia article. The content forking and spinout article guidelines I cited above are very clear. There is no valid justification whatsoever for you having created the Sexual intercourse in English law article. All you have done is created yet another destination for readers to travel to, when they could have easily read about that information in one of the aforementioned existing articles that it should have been put in. The fact that you suggested that the text be merged with the Rape in English law article further shows that its article creation was not "absolutely necessary." And since I am not interested in carrying on a debate with you at this article, like I did at the Murder article, consider all of that the response that covers anything else you have to state to me on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I have explained on the talk page of the article that I created that I have come to the conclusion that the merger that I previously suggested will not work and that there are no other suitable targets.

I don't feel that I can respond further to your inordinately long posts.James500 (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Refer to my responses to you above. And your note about supposed differences, clearly minor and/or trivial differences, means nothing when it comes to WP:Content forking and WP:Spinout. In fact, WP:Content forking is very clear about minor and/or trivial, or even major, differences. Generally keep it all in one article. "The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion." Again, it is clear on when splitting content is valid. Your rationale fails that. And as is clear above, there are more than one or two articles you could have validly put that text in. So stop justifying that article creation to me; I've read enough of your rationale, and I don't want see or read any more of it. As for my "inordinately long posts," it is not my problem that your attention span cannot handle one, or two or more hefty paragraphs...despite such communication often taking place and being needed on Wikipedia. Now good day to you. Flyer22 (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no content fork. James500 (talk) 18:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand what a content fork is if you believe that. What you have created very clearly falls under WP:Content forking. You need to read that page; all of it. And your need to get the last word all the time is silly; Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Flyer22 (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The article that I wrote deals with two subjects not one. The other subject is English law. There are many articles whose title is of the form X in English law. The vast majority were created by people other than me. There I a clear precedent. Even if I was wrong about this, see WP:IAR. What you propose would kill this encyclopedia.

As far as I can see, you are the one who is determined to have the last word. I was merely trying to explain my views.James500 (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, refer to my responses to you above. And, no, what I proposed (and the merge you originally proposed) would not kill the encyclopedia. That type of thing has not killed the encyclopedia yet. And if it were capable of doing so, those guidelines would not exist. What you have done by creating these needless spinout articles is no doubt annoy many of our readers; our readers have weighed in many times before about having to travel to multiple articles for information that they could have read about it one article. The main reason that WP:Content forking and WP:Spinout exist is for our readers. As for the last word... No, I have implied that we move on from this discussion more than once; I have even told you "good day." But just like at the Murder talk page, and in other discussions we have had, it is you who just has to have the last word. After all, it is not my post that is last at the Murder talk page with regard to the aforementioned discussion we had there. Flyer22 (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The reason that we have many of our policies and guidelines is because deletionists have nothing better to do with their time because they are not creating content. Not that I agree with your interpretation anyway. The idea of dealing with subjects as big as sexual intercourse on the one hand, and English law on the other, in a single article, is preposterous. And trying to do that all the time would certainly kill the encyclopedia. James500 (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC) I do not believe that most of our readers want to read articles that consist of vague and innaccurate generalisations and which have extensive omissions. I do not believe that most of our editors want to write such articles (hence the condition of articles like Murder). And I think that is what your single article approach is bound to produce. James500 (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Your logic is... Sigh. I'm not surprised that your editing is significantly more about yourself than it is about our readers. And before you state that my editing is significantly more about myself than it is about our readers, as your borrowed comeback line, that assertion would be the opposite of what many editors of this site have stated (especially with regard to my editing sexuality articles). For example, I have no big interest in asexuality. I've worked on the Asexuality article mostly so that readers get accurate information on that topic. Working on the asexuality topic has included me knocking back a mess of a spin-off article. If the existence of that spin-off article were needed, and if it had been well-made, I would not have knocked it back. But it's not even needed because there is currently sparse research on asexuality and therefore the Asexuality article is not big (WP:SIZE). There is not only one article focusing on the topic of sexual intercourse; that's the point. You had legitimate merging options. WP:Ignore all rules is employed only sparingly...and for cases when the rule is clearly preventing the person from "improving or maintaining" Wikipedia. The aforementioned guidelines are clear about when there should and should not be separate articles. Your "Sexual intercourse in English law" matter is not one of those cases; you somehow disagree with that, and believe that validly including that text in one of the aforementioned existing articles is a "vague and inaccurate" generalization and/or somehow has "extensive omissions." I know, I know. As for what our readers think, you can obviously believe what you want. But what they stated, such as now with Wikipedia:Article feedback, is either what they believe or they are lying. This is likely my last reply to you on this matter. Since you want the last word so much, go ahead and have it. If Skydeepblue and I continue the discussion we were having in this section, I will just ignore your latest posts about merging, about me, about deletionists, about the aforementioned guidelines and anything else that has to do with what you and I were discussing above. Flyer22 (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll only take the following point as I can't be bothered to respond to the rest:

you somehow disagree with that, and believe that validly including that text in one of the aforementioned existing articles is a "vague and inaccurate" generalization and/or somehow has "extensive omissions."

That is not what I said to you. That is not even close to what I said to you. What I was suggesting was that an article that is as broad as this one usually ends up consisting of vague and innaccurate generalizations. I was suggesting that the breadth of this article inherently impairs its usefulness because it can't be anything more than a brief introduction to the subject.

And you did seem to be suggesting that there should only be one article on the subject of sexual intercourse. James500 (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Quite a serious issue: Erect

In relation to this undo, I would suggest to take into consideration the retain of the removed content (in the current or in other linguistic form). Justification: how it is possible "insertion and thrusting of a male's penis into a female's vagina" without the prior penis erection? Has someone tried to do such trick? Or maybe is it in the animal world? Let's be honest. --Rewa (talk) 09:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Rewa. No, that is not quite "a serious issue." I undid it because not only was it grammatically awkward (as you suggested someone undo it if it were; it should have been "a male's erect penis" if you were going to add "erect"), but also because "erect" is limiting. The penis is able to be inserted into the vagina without being erect, and some have done that...such as in the case of rape (including women having raped men, usually when the man is asleep or with drugs to make him incapacitated or cause him to sleep). And this article, while mostly about humans because the term sexual intercourse is usually reserved for humans (with copulation or mating used more so for non-human animals) and there is the Animal sexual behaviour article for non-human coitus and other non-human sexual behavior, is not only about humans. Because it makes for a more comprehensive article, a lot of Wikipedia articles, such as Cancer, have at least one section about their topic in non-human animals while pointing readers to a main article for that aspect...if there is one. The first line of this article is about animals in general (including humans), while the fourth paragraph of the lead summarizes the topic with regard to non-human animals. There are non-human animals who engage in coitus before the penis is erect. See the In non-human animals section of the Erection article, for example. Some sources describe coitus, or other forms of sexual penetration that involve the penis, without stating that the penis is erect; others sources do state erect; this can be seen with the sources in the lead.

I don't mind too much using erect for the first sentence, and, if we were to use it for the lead of this article, I'd do the same with regard to the Anal sex article (especially because, due to how tight the anal sphincters are, I don't see how a non-erect penis could be inserted into the anus in the case of human sexual activity), but I do find use of it limiting for the first line of this article for the reasons I mentioned in this section. Most sources on this topic, especially dictionary definitions, simply state "insertion of the penis into the vagina" (or some variation of that) and continue from there. If it's an encyclopedia or other book discussing the matter, such as this one from the lead, then it usually does mention erection. But erection is not always mentioned right from the start. This Encyclopædia Britannica source, which used to be used for the lead, is an example; the specific aspects, including erection, are mentioned lower, which is what this Wikipedia article currently does. The Encyclopædia Britannica source implies that erection is not needed by stating, "Erection changes the normally soft and flaccid organ to one of greater size and rigidity to permit easier penetration into the reproductive tract of the female." Notice "easier." Flyer22 (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, I added on "Erect" to the heading of this discussion section so that it's clearer what the section is about; that will also help locate the section once it's archived. Flyer22 (talk) 14:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind much if "usually when erect" were used, especially in parentheses, so that it read "insertion of a male's penis (usually when erect)." After all, it is usually erect in the case of sexual intercourse...with regard to humans and non-human animals. Flyer22 (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

So in theory only, in practice it may be variously. Thanks for the quick and comprehensive explanation of the matters. I think that in Britannica they still need a little work on the subject... --Rewa (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm responding again just to state that I went ahead and took "usually when erect" out of parentheses because it's actually less distracting without being placed in parentheses. Either way, I'm obviously fine with the addition. And it is indeed more accurate. Flyer22 (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

You're right, actually these parentheses could wrongly imply that this is phrase of a lower rank, the commas are fairly neutral. --Rewa (talk) 07:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Is there a way to change the main picture?

I'm sure the artist is very talented in composition and coloring, but basic anatomy is not his strongest suit. On most women, the vulva is located down between the legs, not on the front of the pubic area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.52.130.99 (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

IP, I think you mean "vagina" instead of "vulva," since the front of the pubic area is a part of the vulva. But, yes, we can change the main picture. I also considered the aforementioned anatomy to be inaccurate when I traded File:Édouard-Henri Avril (13).jpg for the current lead image that you dispute, File:In The Barn.jpg. I still do, of course. As shown in this edit, I traded the images because the now disputed one "more clearly demonstrates the act, even as a thumbnail" and "there are enough Édouard-Henri Avril images in the article." When looking on WP:Commons for images on this topic, seen here, I did not find a better replacement image (for File:Édouard-Henri Avril (13).jpg) that displays the missionary position, and the act of the penis entering the vagina clearly, and that is compliant with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Offensive images and WP:GRATUITOUS. By "compliant" in this case, I mean a drawn or painted image instead of a real-life image; our readers take more offense to real-life images of sex acts than they do to drawn or painted images of sex acts. I saw this missionary position image, currently shown as the lead image in the Missionary position article. But I didn't use that for this article because I didn't want to be redundant by having that image as the lead image in this article as well. Plus, it is another Édouard-Henri Avril image and is not the typical missionary position. One might ask why use a missionary position as the lead image. My answer to that is that the missionary position is the most common human sex position, by far, as supported by two WP:Reliable sources in the caption for the current image. That sourced caption also played a role in my looking for such an image. For the lead image, it doesn't seem right to use a sex position that isn't as widely relatable. Flyer22 (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree the anatomy in File:In The Barn.jpg is unacceptably off, and also that a missionary position image should be used per the prevalence reported in the sourcing. Should be easy to find a better image that meets with guidelines, hopefully? Zad68 03:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I also agree that File:In The Barn.jpg is a poor choice because of the incorrect anatomy. I consider File:Paul Avril - Les Sonnetts Luxurieux (1892) de Pietro Aretino, 2.jpg to be far better. I think that it is well within the range of a "typical" missionary position. I would not oppose a better illustration if one can be found, but feel that a reasonable degree of anatomical accuracy plus a frank encyclopedic depiction of the act is more important than avoiding using "too many" images by a single artist, or avoiding duplication of an image from another article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Cullen328. Did you stumble onto this discussion? Or have you been watching this article for some time? As for "the typical missionary position," see the variations in the Missionary position article. What I meant by "the typical missionary position" is the basic missionary position. I don't doubt that the position where the woman's legs are almost above a man's shoulders is a typical missionary position (by that, I mean "common"); I doubt that it is the typical one (most common). But, yeah, I am fine with using that as the lead image for this article, though I prefer an illustration of the basic position (especially one that clearly shows penile penetration of the vagina). What do you think of this particular matter, Zad? As for "too many" images by a single artist, I was trying to address a similar matter that happened elsewhere on Wikipedia; see here, here, here and here, especially that last diff-link (though, despite what I stated in that third edit summary, it likely is not a misconception that it is more common for lesbians to perform cunnilingus than it is for heterosexual couples to perform it). Flyer22 (talk) 05:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I didn't stumble onto the discussion, Flyer22 and have had the article on my watch list for a long time. I don't say much if anything here because I don't want to be a pest and most of the books I own on the subject are 25 to 30 years old. I consider the article very important, have followed the topic with great interest and enthusiasm for 44 years, and have my own opinions on the article's strengths and weaknesses. I think that overall, you and the other editors who contribute here are doing a good job overall. For some reason, this specific issue motivated me to comment. Thanks for asking. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Glad to have Cullen helping out here! Flyer, I support the proposed image change, File:Paul Avril - Les Sonnetts Luxurieux (1892) de Pietro Aretino, 2.jpg is better than File:In The Barn.jpg. Although the Avril is anatomically better, overall the image itself is not great, and would support looking for something even better as time permits. Zad68 13:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I traded out the images, adding File:Paul Avril - Les Sonnetts Luxurieux (1892) de Pietro Aretino, 2.jpg in place of the one that was there. Again, the reason I'd changed the longstanding image, File:Édouard-Henri Avril (13).jpg, is because I was cutting back on the use of Avril's art in the article so that one artist does not dominate so thoroughly and because it does not show the actual contact between the genitals. Someone wanting to add a real-life sex image could therefore reasonably argue that the image is not the "equally suitable alternative" that WP:GRATUITOUS speaks of. I'm not too opposed to adding it back as the main image, especially since it is the more traditional missionary position, but the more explicit one that is up there now helps satisfy those who would rather that a real-life sex image be added and it is therefore more compliant with WP:GRATUITOUS. Flyer22 (talk) 13:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Flyer for making the image change you did, it's definitely an improvement and stays within the guidelines, as discussed. The amount of use of one particular artist's images is of a far secondary concern. Zad68 14:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem. And agreed. Fixed the name as well. Flyer22 (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Why not go for a sober and modern depiction of the act instead of this rather amusing 19th century artwork.--Avril1975 (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Avril1975, I was just about to comment on your talk page about your tendency to add explicit, real-life sexual images to articles with no regard for Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Offensive images and WP:GRATUITOUS; those guidelines, what I stated above about them, is why we should not go for your image style. And I see nothing amusing about the WP:Consensus lead image artwork or the rest of the ones in the article. I am still in the process of leaving a comment on your talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

How bout that: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wiki-missionary.png--Avril1975 (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The correct link is File:Wiki-missionary.png. Johnuniq (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and that image does not show penetration; this goes back to what I stated in my "13:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)" post above. Of course I have looked over all the images. The one that is up there now, agreed on by three editors thus far, is the best one. Flyer22 (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, that is a good point indeed. Any objections against this particular image?--Avril1975 (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Avril1975 (and don't think I haven't noticed the similarity between your username and the artist Avril mentioned above, LOL), what problem do you have with the lead image, other than it not being a real-life sex image? The lead image that has been agreed upon here is the better lead image, in my opinion, and it is more realistic/anatomical-looking than your latest proposed image (to my right). And I see no need/appropriate place for any more sexual images in the article, especially of an act that is already well illustrated in the article. By "appropriate place," I mean that the article already has images of different sex acts in their relevant (appropriate places), and putting sexual images in the Prevalence, Safe sex and contraception, Health effects or Romantic relationships sections seem out of place (unless it's the picture of a condom or the birth control pill being placed in the Safe sex and contraception section). And the only sexual image I feel that should go in the Reproduction, reproductive methods and pregnancy section is an image of the act of reproduction, the type of image that I explained here. We should not be littering the article with images just because we can, likely creating WP:Sandwiching problems; we should include them where relevant, and I feel that we should not be too redundant. Flyer22 (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean to imply that I have the plan of 'littering the article'? All I did was to make a suggestion of how to make an improvement - by substituting a mediocre picture with a superior one. How is that littering.--Avril1975 (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I was not suggesting that you have an intention to "litt[er] the article with images just because we can, likely creating WP:Sandwiching problems"; I was explaining why I don't see your latest suggestion as a good lead image or needed for any other part of the article; for example, I stated that "I see no need/appropriate place for any more sexual images in the article" and then went on from there, explaining why I feel that way. And I obviously don't see any of your suggestions as superior to the current aforementioned consensus lead image, and I already explained why that is. Flyer22 (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Include that some men experience Postorgasmic Illness Syndrome after ejaculation

I suggest to include the following paragraph in section 1.4 Duration and sexual difficulties:

After ejaculation, some men experience physical and cognitive symptoms characterized as Postorgasmic Illness Syndrome (POIS). Many men who suffer from this condition reduce the frequency of sexual intercourse to a minimum, while some avoid it completely.

KalleVomDach (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

References

Change request

I think that in the first sentence, "sexual pleasure" should be changed to "sexual stimulation". Sexual stimulation is usually for the purpose of pleasure, though, so this is debatable. Mackatackastewart (talk) 13:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Mackatackastewart, I think it's best to use "sexual pleasure" since that's clearer as to what is intended in this case (as also indicated by the sources). If sexual intercourse is not for reproduction, then sexual intercourse is usually for the purpose of sexual pleasure. Reproduction is already addressed in the lead. And as for sexual stimulation, like sexual intercourse, the exceptions to "sexual stimulation is for sexual pleasure" (unless using it as a form of comfort that is not necessarily about the sexual pleasure aspect) are reproduction and rape. Reproduction, like I already implied, is a form of sexual stimulation since the sex organs are sexually stimulated during the act and since sexual pleasure usually accompanies reproduction through sexual intercourse for the male (I stated "for the male," because, like the lower body of the article notes, sexual pleasure from sexual intercourse for females is more complicated). As for rape, it is debated among researchers as to whether or not it is about sexual pleasure or power, or both. Certainly, rapists have cited all of those things (one or more) for their motivation to force sexual intercourse on someone. Rape is also covered lower in the lead. We didn't link "sexual pleasure" because it was a WP:Disambiguation page (and, before that, time and again it redirected to the wrong article and/or to an article that is already linked in the Sexual intercourse article). It should have been redirected to the Sexual stimulation article, since sexual stimulation, at least among humans and some other primates, is usually for the purpose of pleasure. Humans are the WP:Primary topic for sexual stimulation and sexual pleasure, and the Sexual stimulation article has a WP:Hatnote at the top of it to direct readers to the topic of sexual stimulation specifically among non-human animals. So I redirected the Sexual pleasure disambiguation page to the Sexual stimulation article minutes ago, and then WP:Pipelinked it in the lead (the first sentence). Flyer22 (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Flyer22. Request cheerfully withdrawn. Mackatackastewart (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, Mackatackastewart. Flyer22 (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Is Avril showing "missionary"?

I’m having problems with “missionary position”. There is no talk at its article, plenty of refs, none really helped.

Maybe the origin is unclear, but the Pacific islanders were referring to Europeans, correct? Wouldn’t an actual missionary be the strictest example?

Personal knowledge of one culture: in the 1960’s and ‘70’s the missionary position indicated basic sex, no fun, just procreation. Raising her legs would be fun, none of that. That is how many of us used the term. Legs lying flat.

Whatever Kinsey mistook, it was later taken as an insult, only a missionary would have sex that dull when it could be so fun.

I was just wondering why the Avril painting is labeled as “missionary”, to some of us her smile indicates she is having fun. It is an atomically clear (also hot) painting, but why is it labeled as “missionary”? That term, generally an insult, isn’t really needed on the first image of the article, is it? Sammy D III (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Sammy D III, the current lead image is one of Avril's missionary position images. Though I argued in the #Is there a way to change the main picture? section above that it isn't "the typical missionary position," it is one of the various missionary positions, as indicated by the Missionary position article and various WP:Reliable sources; that's why it's labeled missionary position in this and the Missionary position article. Whether Avril meant it as "missionary position," one does not know (unless he described it that way in some document still available to the world), but, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions, we have a certain amount of liberty when it comes to captions. As for "missionary position" being an insult, yes, it is sometimes taken as an insult, but that is mostly when referring to it being the only kind of position a person uses to engage in sexual activity (sometimes referred to as vanilla sex); otherwise, it is the most popular sex position among humans, and is a perfectly fun sex position to many humans and seemingly to some other animals, as indicated by WP:Reliable sources supporting that information. We decided on a missionary position for the first image of this article, per what is stated in the "Is there a way to change the main picture?" discussion; our reasoning is that since this sex position is the most popular sex position among humans, it is therefore a sex position that almost every human culture can relate to. However, like I wondered in that aforementioned discussion, I don't think that the "legs up" variant of the missionary position, which we are currently using, is as popular a missionary position as the "legs down" variations, or the variation where the partner wraps her legs around the other partner's waist (which can be characterized as "legs down" or "legs up"). Still, we decided on the current image because not only is it a missionary position, but it clearly shows the penis penetrating the vagina and therefore better illustrates the topic than the images that don't show it clearly or as clearly. Flyer22 (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I tried to get through that stuff, plus both articles. I personally think the Avril image is great, belongs right there. My only question is should that great sex be labeled “missionary”, with its plain vanilla flat legs connection? Is that “meaning dull sex” thinking obsolete? Even if it is accurate today, should that specific word be used in that one caption? Anyway, I brought it up, thanks for your time. Sammy D III (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

If that's the most common term applied to it, yep, that's the term we will use. If over time the consensus term for the act changes in reliable sources, we will reflect that at that time, but we're not the place such changes will start. Zad68 23:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Sammy D III, like I stated, the missionary position is very popular, the most popular human sex position (even for rape), and has variations; the vast majority of WP:Reliable sources discussing it indicate that it is popular mostly because it is experienced as pleasurable -- the face-to-face, often maximum skin-to-skin contact bonding aspects in addition to the genital pleasure received -- rather than because it is the expected sex position because of some religious belief or something similar. In other words, it's a sex position that is great sex to many people. Whether or not the people in the main image are having great sex, however, can be argued as subjective. That the terms missionary or missionary position sometimes mean "dull sex," more commonly in the Western world than other parts of the world, does not take away from the aforementioned positive aspects. The term missionary position is associated with positivity far more than it is with negativity, especially since it has variations and not just the "legs down" or "legs flat" variation. I don't think it's usual for the partner on the bottom to have his or her legs flat when engaging in the missionary position anyway; not only does that indicate no lower body movement on the part of the bottom partner (unless moving the pelvis while keeping the legs flat), it is not the optimal way to achieve good or great sexual stimulation for the bottom partner. Either way, per what I've stated above in this section, I don't see anything wrong with labeling the image a "missionary position" or using the term missionary position in this article. In fact, given the popularity of this sex position, not only should it be mentioned in this article, I believe it should be mentioned right up there where readers will initially see it. It seemed better to me to mention it in the lead image caption than in the lead, so that's what I did; and I still agree with that decision. Flyer22 (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Sammy D III (talk) 23:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Actual Pictures

There are actual pictures on Wikimedia Commons, so why are there just paintings here? --Sex important cuz it makes babies (talk) 02:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Judging by you signing your username on your "first post" above, with two dashes in front of it as well, I'm sure that you know. You are not new to editing this site. But just in case you want to continue to feign ignorance, see the #Is there a way to change the main picture? discussion above. Flyer22 (talk) 02:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

And editing an Islamic topic, while focused on grammar, and then a sexual topic right afterward is also not new (not that I'm yet 100% sure just what account you edited under before). I know all about WP:Don't bite the newbies, but, again, you are not a WP:Newbie, and it's best to go ahead and get that out of the way right now. Flyer22 (talk) 03:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)