Talk:Tribadism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Greek source for the word "tribadism"

I've been thinking, in the article it says that "tribadism" derives from the Greek "tribo" which is "to rub". As I understand it, though, there is no reason for any rubbing to be associated with tribadism in Ancient Greece, as "tribadism" was used in to indicate women who wore strap-ons. I also doubt that the ancient greek word for "to rub" is "tribo" ("tribo" does have that meaning in modern greek, but modern greek is quite different from ancient greek), even though I could be wrong. In any case, I think there is another possibility we might have missed: "tribadism" can also mean "walking with three legs" (from "tria" which means "three" and "badin" which means "to walk"). Wouldn't that make more sense? The third leg could be the strap-on. Any thoughts? 87.203.109.78 23:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all there definitely is a verb τρίβω in Ancient. Greek[1] It does seem like a strange etymology for τριβάς, and I'm not sure I believe it, but it's the only one I've ever seen. Well, other than yours. I'm sorry to say, but yours seems a bit far-fetched. Also, I'm pretty sure that if you were correct, the paradigm would be *τρίβας *τρίβαντος, rather than the attested τριβάς, τριβάδος. --Iustinus 00:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I just stumbled on this page. Very interesting. If Tertullian really refers to tribades as frictrices then the association with τρίβειν must have already been current by his time! --Iustinus 00:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you mention "τρίβας" as it is a different word from "τριβαδισμός" (or, in english, "tribadism"). First means "one who walks with three legs" and the other "walking on three legs", and I'm pretty sure that the latter is correct (let's see it another way: how else would you say "walking on three legs" in ancient greek?). Anyway, since the article doesn't mention any source as to the word "tribadism" deriving from "tribo" I think that we should at least put a "citation needed" tag on it, right? Cause I honestly can't see "tribadism" deriving from "tribo". But then again, ancient greek is full of many absurd exceptions, so I'm not really sure. 87.203.109.78 05:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Um... let's see if I can answer your points one by one:

• I'm not sure why you mention "τρίβας" as it is a different word from "τριβαδισμός" (or, in english, "tribadism").

Because τριβαδισμός "tribadism" is almost certainly derived from τριβάς (note accent!) "tribade," and not the other way around. This seems like common sense to me, but if you need further evidence, note that the word τριβάς is attested in Classical Greek, whereas τριβαδισμός is not (according to the L&S Dictionary, and the TLG)—it is not unlikely that the ancients used that word, but it never shows up in ancient texts (admittedly τριβάς itself is fairly rare). Even were that not the case, I don't see what's odd about mentioning τριβάς: they are only different words in the sense that "lesbian" and "lesbianism" are in English. That doesn't make the one irrelevant to the other.

• First means "one who walks with three legs" and the other "walking on three legs", and I'm pretty sure that the latter is correct (let's see it another way: how else would you say "walking on three legs" in ancient greek?).

Well... I guess τρισί ποσίν πατοῦσα? Heck, maybe even just τρίπους, like in the riddle of the sphinx (which Apollodorus gives as " τί ἐστιν ὃ μίαν ἔχον φωνὴν τετράπουν καὶ δίπουν καὶ τρίπουν γίνεται;")? I would gloss *τρίβας as meaning "tripple-goer" or something like that, but note that even if we accept your gloss, and explanation of the semantic shift to "sexually penetrative female," there are still problems. I'm assuming that the roots you're using here are τρι- "three" and -βας "going" (which is of course the aorist participle of βαίνω). But the forms don't match up:

1. Why is the genitive of τριβάς not *τρίβαντος but τριβάδος?
2. Given that this word would formally be a participle, and it is grammatically feminine, why is the form not *τριβᾶσα? Remember, the fact that a tribade has a phallus does not change the grammatical gender of the word.
3. Why is it accented on the last syllable, τριβάς, and not on the first, τρίβας (cf. διάβας)? (Obviously this one rests on the shakiest ground, given the history of accentuation)

I suppose you could be instead deriving τριβαδισμός from *τρι-βαδίζω, but then you still have to explain why the attested agent form is τριβάς and not *τριβαδίσᾱσα or something.

So in all, it is much easier to say that the derivation is τριβ- plus -άς as in μονάς "monad, unity, unit." If we want to quibble with this one, there are some obscure glossa in Hesychius like βαδάς "pathic", or βάδομαι which means "love" in the Aeolic (and hence Lesbian) Greek.

• Anyway, since the article doesn't mention any source as to the word "tribadism" deriving from "tribo" I think that we should at least put a "citation needed" tag on it, right?

Fair enough. Go ahead and add that tag. I'll see what I can do about sources. Remember, I don't necessarily believe that the etymology makes sense, but it's the only one I've ever seen seriously suggested. Furthermore, given that Tertullian translates the word as frictrix "rubber," clearly the derivation from τρίβω, right or wrong, was accepted by the ancients. --Iustinus 01:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Neither τριβαδισμός nor τρι-βαδίζω were actual words in Ancient Greek, or at least they are not attested, according to LSJ. Therefore it is incorrect to say, "Originally ancient Greeks used the term "tribadism" (τριβαδισμός) with a different meaning," since they didn't actually use the term with any meaning at all, as far as we know. τριβάς from τρίβω seems quite logical to me. What exactly sounds "unlikely" or "strange" about it? If tribadism is a pseudogreek term from English, when did it appear? Also, the reference to heterosexual "pegging" probably is irrelevant in this etymology. Is there an actual reference to an ancient author using the term τριβάς this way? If not, this section is extremely misleading. How about _pathikos_ as someone who gets pegged by women? Any classical reference here? Greeks weren't shy about talking about this stuff, so if there are any references, they shouldn't be hard to find. It sounds a bit as if some feminist is trying to impose this parallel between pathics and tribades on the etymology. What we need here are some sources. Ocanter 12:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Need etymology statement

Please add some statement as to the etymology to the page. Jidanni (talk) 05:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

monkey bumpin'

I have not only heard these terms plenty of times, I have seen film footage of it, accompanied by 2 out of the three terms being used. They are in regular use. I will admit I havn't heard the donut bumpin' one, but then I never heard of Tribadism either, before reading the article. In fact I question it's placement as the article title. Monkey bumpin seems a reasonable option. Perhaps we should review google hits. Sam Spade 20:16, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

an example of "donut bumping" being used Sam Spade 20:26, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Doesn't bumping uglies refer to sexual friction between the genitals of two people, without regard to gender? I have certainly heard it used for penivaginal sex. Shorne 06:58, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

sure, but how about Monkey bumpin as the article title? Sam [Spade] 11:36, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Merge?

Why not merge this with Frotteurism? cution 03:14, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, it would seem to have different implications. To quote that article, "Frotteurism carries a connotation of "anonymous and discreet rubbing" in a public place—like on a crowded train." --FOo 06:12, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

train spotting?

maybe I'm just naive, but... why is it called "train spotting"? --Smooth Henry 03:41, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

I second the question! Tualha (Talk) 12:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I've a really, really dirty mind, and I'm still drawing a blank. [unsigned]

It's a tunnel thing, you guys. Captain, my captain (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe given that this could be vandalism we should take it out. Trainspotting at the very least reffers to a number of unrelated things, so it would be hard to determine if it reffers to tribadism at all. Lotusduck 16:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Remember one term may relate to multiple definitions. Unless there is a redirect from the 'trainspotting' page, I would suggest leaving the term up until proven otherwise. Donwilson 04:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It was already removed. A good Google which returns only 120 hits finds no genuine usages AFAICS, just Urban Dictionary - not a definitive source. UD does add 'polishing mirrors'.

Googling that finds - Chinese refer to the act as "polishing mirrors" - so maybe "train spotting" was a localised usage ? I did think it might have referred to frustration ?

I believe in japan its quite common to have sexual relations in stuffed trains, or trains in general, if my vast viewing memory of japanese explicits serves me correctly. Well, I guess that would make it a popular fantasy. Edit: Yup here it is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frotteurism#Groping_in_Japan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.58.209 (talk) 06:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 09:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Velcro

I heard many people refering to this sexual practice as "Velcro". I understand this is a coloquial (and probably vulgar) way to reffer to it (well, the whole conception can be perceived as vulgar anyway depending on how open-minded one is). Anyway, perhaps is worth mentioning. --Pinnecco 15:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

This article is already a list of terms for the act (which seems to be fiarly well described!). It looks like all that is really known about tribadism is the vulgar terms for it! I'm not sure its useful to enumerate terms ad nauseum...but if so may I suggest a list? An An 22:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Possible copyvio

According to this page, this text comes from Webster's. I looked and was told it was in the unabridged, which requires subscription. If anyone has a subscription, would you please check? Thanks, Tualha (Talk) 12:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

"Webster's" isn't a specific work; it's a generic term for any published English dictionary. I doubt that any of the well-known dictionaries using that name include the phrase "donut bumping". So I suggest that the page you link to above didn't copy its text from any "Webster's" ... but rather from Wikipedia, from this very article. --FOo 17:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I suppose that makes sense. I would never use language so imprecisely and I forget that other people do. Thanks, Tualha (Talk) 09:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Webster's is a specific dictionary (in many printings, editions, etc.) and I guess that person forgot to specify which one. Anyone calling ANY American dictionary a 'Webster' is I'm guessing not American and at the very least not very into dictionaries/being specific.

Useless Tripe

There's some tripe in this article. If it were possible, I would be inclined to think this article should resolve to a more common name for the act, for starters. The current one may have its roots in history, and such roots should surely be given their due in the article on the act, but I'm inclined to think that the whole diggerydo could do better. The useless tripe re: bands whose names reference the act surely must be given it's due, but I would throw a dollar in the tip cup of any effort that put that mention off to the side in some significant way. Mention, perhaps, but mention in the primary blurb-of-words? I dunno about that. -Ozzyslovechild 04:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with moving it. Is there any other name for it, that is acceptable in American, Canadian, British, South African, Australian, and Indian forms of English? The article offers three different colloquial terms, leading me to wonder whether there's a dominant term even in just the US. Even if there is, is it going to be well known in a decade? English, unlike French, has no middle register between clinical (tribadism) and slang (scissoring) for sex, but given those choices, for an encyclopedia, especially an international encyclopedia, I'd go for the clinical. Making redirects from the slang names might be a good idea, though. --Prosfilaes 06:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Or that. Indeed. -:)Ozzyslovechild 03:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

minor edit

minor edit - - tribadism appears in most medium and large size Webster dictionaries (Fourth College 2000 for sure) so I removed the (all?) part from the opening section. [unsigned]

Is this position actually pleasurable?

Yeah, I'm just wondering. Eztli 06:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

If it wasn't, it wouldn't be done, so I guess it must be pleasurable for at least some women

an old girlfriend used to have sex with one of her girlfriends this way. my girlfriend wasn't into it much herself, but her female partner preferred it.

Look at the girl in the drawing. She's obviously enjoying herself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.100.91 (talk • contribs)

As we all know, pictures always accurately describe said emotional states. Donwilson 04:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

its actually incredibly pleasurable. i've had lots of 'lesbian' sex and straight sex, and this position is my favorite. <random dyke just passing thru 4/08>

i agree, it's my favorite position too. something more dominant than what is shown though. my girlfriend likes to be on top and ride me like she would ride a guy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.189.191.130 (talk) 05:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Comming from a straight man: Yes it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.146.37 (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It falls firmly into the category of "infinitely more trouble than it's worth" for me and every other dyke I know. The only girls I know who do it are porn stars, and they're faking it. Artdyke (talk) 12:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Artdyke and everyone else. Per WP:NOT A FORUM, we aren't supposed to use the talk pages of Wikipedia articles as forums to discuss our personal views or experiences concerning a topic. This talk page, like other Wikipedia article talk pages, is for improving the article, though personal feelings about a topic are sometimes expressed on Wikipedia article talk pages while discussing improvements to the articles. But just to respond to Artdyke... Considering that, with the exception of mentioning that tribadism can refer to rubbing the vulva against a body part in a sexual way in general or "to a masturbation technique in which a woman rubs her vulva against an inanimate object such as a bolster, in an effort to achieve orgasm," and the bit about how the term was historically used, this article only used to cover the scissoring position at the time of the other above comments in this section, I'm certain that the people above were talking about the scissoring position (though IP 12.189.191.130 also mentions a different form of tribadism); the scissoring position is what I've read and heard some lesbians describe as being "more trouble than it's worth" and also as only something seen in porn. It's because of this that I covered those aspects about the scissoring position in this article. As this article now shows, however, there are other tribadism positions, such as the missionary position. Unlike the scissoring position, I've generally read and heard lesbians describe the missionary position of tribadism as pleasurable and often stating that it's something they never had a name for until they were informed that it has a name (tribadism). Most of them have also engaged in the thigh-to-vulva type of tribadism, or have ground their vulvas against other parts of their sexual partners' bodies. It's best to remember that any form of a woman grinding her vulva against the body part of another woman in a sexual way is tribadism (except for maybe the mouth against the vulva, which is oral sex; or fingers between the vulva, which is more commonly considered a handjob of the female genitalia/fingering). Those aspects of tribadism, as WP:Reliable sources in the article show, are common among lesbians and other women who have sex with women. Flyer22 (talk) 14:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

first picture

I'm taking out the first picture, because it's exactly the same as the second, just harder to see. Lotusduck 16:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous comment

The following comment was originally inserted directly into the article by LakisD

A different opinion by a Greek here : Trib (tribadism) comes from the ancient Greek verb "tribo" (τρίβω) which means "to rub". Tribadism was the way for two women to make love rubbing their genitals together. There were not dildos or strap on dildos in Ancient Greece. The women who prefered to make love that way were called tribades.

Something more: Tribadism is the most common way (but not the only one) for two women to have a sexfight (see sexfight). That's why sexfight sometimes it is called "competitive trib". That's why sexfight is also called "p2p fight" or "pfight" where "p" is the known word which is used for a woman's genitals.

See: http://www.tribgirls.com/ 68.112.218.188 20:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I cannot speak to the sexfighting information, though it might be worth mentioning in the article. But I can speak to dildos. The ancient Greeks definitely had them. Aristophanes refers to them repeatedly, both by their proper Ancient Greek name (ὄλισβος), and by euphemisms. The term τρίβας does not show up until the first century AD, which is much later than most people mean when they say "Ancient Greece", but it certainly qualifies as ancient. --Iustinus 03:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous, you removed your IP address from this section. But we need some way to identify you, so if you don't want us to use your IP address, please create an account. If you are concerned about your privacy (and this seems to me like the only reason y ou would remove your IP from this page), please keep in mind that any edit you make anonymously is automatically logged on the history page with your IP address anyway. If you get an account, it will actually protect your anonymity more. --Iustinus 00:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Now i have an account (LakisD). Sorry i did not know how things work here. Is it possible to remove my IP address now ? Thanks.

I have changed your IP address to your new user ID on this page. To my knowledge, there is no way to remove your IP address from the history pages / change logs, or from older editions of this page. Sorry.

By the way, when you post a comment to a talk page, you can "sign" it automatically by typing --~~~~ at the end of your comment. This will automatically show up as your user name and the date and time, and most Wikipedians will insist that you do this when leaving a comment. Of course you shoudl only do this on talk pages, and other pages designated for discussion. In articles, you should never sign.

Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you have a good time! --Iustinus 17:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Content

I just noticed that this page doesn't have any actual content in it. There's a bare introduction, a large section on linguistics and a short section on bonobos. Can anyone add some information about the humans actually doing this? --Strait 23:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

great minds think alike... Mathmo ^Talk 03:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we just copy & paste the Bonobo section, but then replace the word "Bonobo" with "Human" in all instances. I mean, how different are we from Bonobos? I think that might work. --Kevin 04:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

This is indeed one of the most unintentionally hilarious articles on Wikipedia. I added the long etymology because so many people were tossing around ridiculous ideas about the word's derivation, and trying to make deductions about sexuality in different cultures based on their folk etymologies. I admit that it dominates the article, but in this case, I think that's OK. I came to the page looking for a definition and etymology for the word, so I assume that some other people are going to be looking for the same thing. As for the lack of "actual content," I think that's OK too, at least in this particular article, because the actual act is so self-explanatory. For that, the picture of two ladies going at it suffices. It's interesting, though, that in the picture at the top of the page, the two ladies are obviously not rubbing their vulvas together directly. Each is rubbing her vulva on the butt and thigh of the other. I'm sure that is also a ton of fun, but the caption is then inconsistent with our definition. Personally, I think the other sections need a lot of work, but I limited myself to the etymology because that is what I know. Ocanter 18:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's quite as self-explanatory as you make it out to be. In the same way, the page on oral sex could just say "it is when one person puts their mouth on another person's genitals". It should also include, y'know, what percentage of lesbians practice it, its health risks/benefits, how it is perceived culturally, and so forth. --Strait 19:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

i think the bonobo info is out of place, and it feels sort of insulting to the intimate sexual position that two women can share. there should at least be way more content on the act as it occurs between humans.71.232.108.228 07:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It's notable as part of a body of research countering the position that homosexuality is 'unnatural' ie it could tend to favour homosexuality rather than be insulting. It also suggests an etymology of 'monkey bumping', but that term seems rare outside of Urban Dictionary.--195.137.93.171 (talk) 09:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

explanation for blanking redundancy

I eliminated "possibly to stimulate each other's clitoris to orgasm" from the header. This caused some confusion as to why, and it was immediately reverted. I did this because it was misleading, biased, and did not belong in the header. It was misleading because it implied that the clitoris is the only stimulated part, that we don't know why they do it, but 'maybe they're trying to stimulate each other's clitoris to orgasm, gee I don't know,' and that the only point of doing it is to achieve orgasm, but we're really not sure, maybe they do it because they are bored. It actually made sense before somebody inserted "probably" into the sentence. Even then it was biased and misleading, because it implied that stimulation of the clitoris to orgasm is the only purpose of doing this, that clitoral orgasm is always achieved by doing this, that getting the clit off is the whole point, etc. Such statements would make a good start for a heading on the act itself, which, as some have pointed out, is missing from the article. They don't belong in the header, though, because they imply too much questionable interpretation.

My $.02. It was redundant in that it is obvious that the two clits will come into contact, yet it was confusing in that we defined it as rubbing the whole vulvae together, and we even put up a picture of two girls doing it without putting their clitorises together. So it contradicted our initial definition and the graphic.

This article could be improved dramatically if some of the users, who seem to have interpretations of the purpose and pleasure of this act would develop a section on the act itself.

Ocanter 14:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Spain?

Why on earth would Spain share a tortilla-based-slang-term for this with Central American countries? They don't eat tortillas in Spain any more than they do in Venezuela. Is there some way to check this? In the absence of a reference, can this factoid be deleted? Benami 01:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually they do eat tortillas in Spain, but they're not the same kind of tortillas.81.216.251.71 20:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Scissoring

Everyone and their brother who's seen that South Park episode wants to add "scissoring" to this article. Can we agree that the two references already in the article are enough?-72.91.33.56 22:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Disease

Added a safety blurb that is common in many articles dealing with sexual acts. If the title is redundant feel free to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.217.226.87 (talk) 07:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Though it ought to go without saying. What doesn't, though, is how exactly you'd protect yourself in an act like this. Surely both women wearing latex undergarments would rather defeat the purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 05:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I am posting here that I have created the tag in the Safe Sex section of the article. I have viewed the source, http://www.thebody.com/Forums/AIDS/SafeSex/Q179787.html, for the claim that clitoris-to-clitoris contact is not considered a risk for HIV transmission. Despite what the source says, I firmly believe the entire medical community will dispute such a claim. The claim made by the source is too vague in it's description. Let me provide some graphic arguments why I dispute the claims made by the source. If I'm at the dentist, and while my dentist is working in my mouth, happens to cut himself releasing blood into my mouth, generally speaking, the mouth is not an effective point of transmission for HIV (although a host of other deadly diseases can easily be transferred in this fashion)... unless, my tissue is sufficiently damaged to allow the pathogen to enter my body. Precaution is taken, but the risk can not be totally eliminated.

In the terms of this article, any chapped/cracked tissue, an open sore, cut/pulled piercing, etc, is sufficient to allow HIV to pass through the damaged area of the skin and infect the body. All sexual activity assumes risk to some degree, and there is no such thing as truly "safe sex." One can only take an active role in reducing the risks, such as keeping skin clean, moisturized (as opposed to dried and cracked), using protective [unfaulty] devises, and having mutual honesty with your partner. To say that HIV transmission by clitoris-to-clitoris tribadism is not considered a risk is false and misleading.
Christopher, Salem, OR (talk) 11:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, DeNoel (Christopher, Salem, OR). That line definitely needs a better source, and I've been thinking that since I added it. Because of that and what you stated, I have removed that part of the line and thebody.com as a source, and added an AIDS.gov source as an additional reference for the safe sex practices information instead. The reason I'd even added thebody.com as a source is because not only was it the only source I could find about the risk of STIs from tribadism, maybe because I didn't look hard enough (although there is less research on female same-sex sexual activity and the ways that STIs could result from it anyway), but because I believe that the source means that HIV transmission from genital-to-genital tribadism is a low risk. For example, see Lesbian sexual practices#Health risks, where the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) says that female-to-female HIV transmission is possible, though less likely. I'm sure that they are talking about the exchange of bodily fluids, since, for example, non genital-to-genital tribadism does not spread STIs unless vaginal fluids are exchanged. Or, in the extremely unlikely case, an open sore of one partner rubs against the open sore of the other partner...or the other partner's vaginal opening. However, AIDS.gov states, "There is a very small risk of getting HIV from fingering your partner if you have cuts or sores on your fingers and your partner has cuts or sores in the rectum or vagina." In the Safer-Sex Activities section of its article, it also states, "These activities carry no risk of HIV transmission: Non-sexual massage. Casual or dry kissing. Masturbation (without your partner's body fluids), and frottage—also known as 'dry humping' or body-to-body rubbing." It's talking about non-penetrative sex that involves no exchange of bodily fluids, which is called the only type of true safe sex. So I wouldn't say that "[a]ll sexual activity assumes risk to some degree." For women who have sex with women, oral sex, sharing of sex toys, fingers covered in vaginal fluid being inserted into the other female's vagina or anus, and genital-to-genital tribadism are risks. I have come across scholarly sources that state "isn't considered a risk" in place of "low risk" or "unlikely risk," and that's what I believe the thebody.com source to be saying. But like I stated, I have removed it. I shouldn't have added it. Having that type of misleading information in this article can be damaging to those who've read it, and I apologize. Flyer22 (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Flyer22, the changes you made are of valuable benefit to the education of AIDS prevention and control. I wasn't trying to rip on you for the disputed statement and I apologize if I have given that impression. I felt that such correction was important, not just for the accuracy of the article, but to provide valuable medical information to others. I sincerely believe that Wikipedia and it's viewers are grateful to you for the corrections you applied - thank you.

Christopher, Salem, OR (talk) 09:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I know that you weren't trying to rip on me. As is clear, your reasons for disputing the text/source were/are valid. Thank you again.

On a side note, despite the AIDS.gov source saying that kissing carries no risk of HIV transmission, there is one known case of it having happened. As Kissing#Disease transmission currently states, "Research indicates that contraction of HIV via kissing is extremely unlikely, although a woman has been infected with HIV by kissing (in 1997). Both the woman and infected man had gum disease, so transmission was through the man's blood, not through saliva." So this is another example of what I mean about having come across sources that state "isn't considered a risk" in place of "low risk" or "unlikely risk." Flyer22 (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Gay man offering to collaborate with lesbian writers on expanding article

Howdy, ladies! I'm an openly gay man and a professional writer/editor, and have also become a sort of amateur activist in raising public awareness of frot, which is the male/male analogue of tribadism/scissoring. (The first half-dozen grafs of the current "Frot" article on Wiki are maybe 75% my own writing and re-writing of previous versions by other people. Frot tends to be a vastly more politicized and heated topic among gay/bi men than scissoring is among gay/bi women, so I did my best to achieve a neutral tone in editing that article, even though I'm kind of a "frot partisan.")

Anyway, I think that this article could be improved in some ways -- for instance, the section on STD risk arguably needs a little more detail, and there should also be some practical educational discussion of techniques. For instance -- What are the advantages and disadvantages to the various positions in which one can do this? How does body size (fat vs. skinny) factor into which positions are most comfortable for an extended scissoring session? What about using artificial lubes such as baby oil or KY jelly?

I'm a skilled writer and editor, have a B.A. in biology, and unlike some gay men, I'm completely comfortable talking about women-parts and female sexuality (I had some hetero experience in my younger days, and I think that pussies and tits are beautiful in their own way -- albeit one-one-millionth as erotically exciting, at least in my dick's opinion, as hard cocks and hairy chests.)

The thing is, however, that I obviously have no empirical experience with scissoring, and therefore would not dream of trying to expand on the existing article without collaboration from a gay or bi woman who knows exactly how to do it. What I can offer is friendly criticism and feedback from a sympathetic non-lesbian perspective. Just write me back here if that sounds like a helpful offer! Throbert McGee (talk) 04:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Full disclosure -- what's in it for me? Well, as I said, frot is highly politicized and contentious among gay men. It's the subject of angry political rhetoric for a variety of reasons, and admittedly, some of the blame for this (though not all of it) must go to the men in the grassroots "Pro-Frot" movement. But part of why we're angry is that frot and mutual jo have generally been neglected footnotes in gay-male "Safer Sex Education" for the entire run of the AIDS epidemic. Instead, "HIV educators" have tended to put all their eggs in the basket of "Use a condom every time you have anal sex." That's good advice in itself, but the problem is that it fails to remind men that not having anal sex at all, or at least not having anal sex with this guy, tonight, is always an available option.

Obviously, this is a problem that must be solved primarily by the efforts of gay and bi men like myself, but lesbians and sympathetic straights can help in a small way by being aware that the "grassroots frot movement" exists, and by occasionally nagging their gay male brethren about this point. So that's what's "in it for me." Throbert McGee (talk) 05:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Picture

This has just been changed from File:Tribadism colour.svg to File:Tribadism-2.jpg. I have no particular preference between the two. But if it's controversial, please could editors discuss it here rather than just reverting. --Simon Speed (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it should be discussed first. Iamcuriousblue's given reason for changing back to the colorless version is that it is "far clearer." But after looking at both myself, I feel that the color version is more lively and more clearer than its colorless alter ego. I also do not see why it would be controversial, unless people have a problem with the colors of the drawn characters. Flyer22 (talk) 05:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm being undiplomatic, but I think the color version is pretty garish, actually. Its not like it's an original color drawing, but rather the same b&w drawing that's up now, but colored in. As a result, the color version looks like something out of a coloring book, not like a quality color illustration.

Second, just what informational value is added in the color version? I just don't see it. The purpose of an illustration for this article is to provide a quick visual image of what the act of tribidism is. The b&w illustration accomplishes this nicely.

Iamcuriousblue (talk) 00:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I personally am not too much for debating either one. I am close to neutral on both, though I do prefer the color version for the two reasons I stated above. Flyer22 (talk) 07:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I also like the new main image for the article, added by Seedfeeder. Flyer22 (talk) 00:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

French Term?

Many years ago (sometime in the '70s or early '80s, although the original source may have been older), I read a story which had a scene with 2 lesbians doing this activity and one male character watching asked if this was a 'gamahunch' (spelling probably incorrect), which was explained as the French term. I can't remember the original source, I think it was a short story in a Playboy or perhaps an adult novel. Any French speakers have better information? CFLeon (talk) 06:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Gamahuche is Victorian slang, from the French, for cunnilingus: see Wiktionary. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Expansion

I've tweaked the lead again and expanded the article. I'll likely expand it again at a later date; just not sure when. Flyer22 (talk) 11:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I also fixed my minor mistake mistakes seen in that edit. Flyer22 (talk) 12:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Great expansion! I can hardly believe the article barely covered the practice itself before. Siawase (talk) 11:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, I always knew there was much more to say about it than what was there of course. The different positions/practices shown in porn, and not just the ones made by men, display that enough; though I really don't watch porn all that much; it (porn in general) has been more of an educational or humorous experience for me (as in something I've viewed with friends in a joking matter most of the time). I was just lazy getting around to expanding this article before. Flyer22 (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

In popular culture sections and the heading

As the above tag shows, In popular culture sections are discouraged. At least when written like the one in the Tribadism article is currently written. And while these sections are acceptable when properly formatted, the "In popular culture" title has become a red flag for most experienced Wikipedia editors...because most of the In popular culture sections are written in bullet-point trivial fashion. Therefore, most experienced Wikipedia editors, from what I have seen, are quick to axe such sections or tag them. Even when what all the sections have are two sourced sentences that are not in bullet-list format.

This is why I changed the heading to "In the media" months ago and then to "In media" hours ago. It gets across the same point without putting a bad taste in most experienced Wikipedia editors' mouths. And either of those headings are the ones I would prefer when finally expanding and properly formatting that section, making it less trivial. Or at least the heading "Cultural impact." The headings "In the media," "Societal impact," "Cultural impact" are better accepted and have kept such bullet-point lists from being axed or tagged (not all, but some of the time). And these titles are no more "meaningless" than "In popular culture." Yes, "In popular culture" may have been the standard title, and probably still is, but it has long ago started to be phased out because it has gotten a bad reputation -- with so many articles having poor sections under that title. Flyer22 (talk) 10:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The tag does not indicate that popcult sections are "discouraged" (please reread the text carefully) nor does it say anything whatsoeve about the preferred title of those sections. It simply indicates that the content of such a section may have non-notable (i.e. "trivial") information. It gives no reason to prefer "In media" over "In popular culture", and changing the title of a section in no way changes the content one way or the other.

I've contributed to over 17,000 unique pages on Wikipedia, and in my experience the standard name for these sections is "In popular culture". "Media" in "In media" is not only a poor use of the word, it's essentially meaningless. "Media"? Watercolors? The use of "the media" is endemic, but imprecise, wheras "popular culture" is clealry descriptive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The tag indicates why "In popular culture" sections are discouraged and shows other names for them through its links. I don't have to read it or those links again, seeing as I am thoroughly familiar with them. I've seen them enough times. I explained explicitly above why the title is not the best title. It doesn't matter if the content is changed or not. A lot of editors here, when they see that heading, it says "trivial" and "fanboy-ish/fangirl-ish material" to them. I have seen this time and time again. I stated to you on your talk page, from my experience watching and participating in GA and FA processes, it is not the best title. Because of that title, the material is almost always integrated into the article in a way that is considered more encyclopedic or the section is renamed. You talk about "the standard," as though there is some rule or enforced guideline about using this title. There isn't. But while we're on the topic of "standards," most articles dealing with fiction violate WP:PLOT. I have seen that all over Wikipedia. But the fact that this is "standard" does not make it right or better. "In the media" is descriptive enough; the text covers the rest. I'm not seeing how it is "a poor choice" when we use it for featured articles such as Angelina Jolie and others. Brad Pitt's In the media section used to be titled In popular culture, and I was there when it was changed to "In the media" by someone else. And it's not just because these are biographies that the titles were changed. Even featured article Homer Simpson does not use "In popular culture." I think it originally did, but now it says "Cultural influence." No doubt due to what I stated above about the "In popular culture" title.

So all that said, why are you so insistent upon using this title? Simply because you have seen it around the most? That is not a good enough reason, in my opinion, and I honestly cannot understand why you are edit warring over it. It is a title that plenty of experienced Wikipedia editors consider "a poor choice" just as much as you consider "In the media" or some variation of that to be a poor choice. Can you point me to high-quality Wikipedia articles that use "In popular culture"? I know that I saw some before, but most of those have likely had that title changed.

I'm not hard-pressed on changing it back to "In the media" or "In media," though. I am just explaining that I would like a title that is seen as less trivial. I would propose "Cultural impact," but that, to me, also includes the history of the term in this case. So I'm not sure what alternate title would be best as a compromise with you. Like I stated, I am looking to properly format and expand that section. So the content there now won't always be like that anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Update: As seen in this link, the heading is currently In popular culture and other media and the section has been transferred into prose format. Minor tweaks were made to the article by me soon afterward.[2][3][4][5] Flyer22 (talk) 00:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Penis fencing?

Is Penis Fencing between flatworms related enough to be included in the see also section? The article is about a sexual position between humans. Penis Fencing is a mating behavior that only flatworms engage in. HotshotCleaner (talk) 22:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Definitely see your point, and am okay with it being removed. Flyer22 (talk) 07:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Well I think I'll go ahead and remove it. If anyone thinks it should stay, they can make their case here. HotshotCleaner (talk) 00:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe that we should return the penis fencing section as a gentleman and a scholar I find enlightening Manofmyth (talk) 04:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)