Wikipedia:Peer review/Missionary position/archive1

Missionary position

A few questions:

• Are there any more subjects that need to be covered in order for this article to be considered comprehensive?
• Is there a better scheme of organization that could be used?
• Are any additional images needed? What do you think of the ones we have?
• Do all of these variants really count as a subset of the missionary position, or are some of them different enough that they should be considered completely separate positions? (The full discussion has been centralized to Talk:Missionary position/Votes on inclusion as missionary)
  • For instance, at one point, side entry was listed as a missionary variant but I removed it because I consider that to be an entirely different position.
  • What about gay sex and anal sex? I removed those variants because I consider missionary position to be a sexual position in which a man is on top of the woman inserting his penis into her vagina.
  • Does sex in which the woman is sitting on a raised surface (such as bed or table) and the man is standing up count as missionary position? I removed it because he's not really on top of her in that position per se.
  • What about sex in which the man is kneeling?
• Are there any other variants that should be covered?
• Do you have any other suggestions?

Thanks,

Sarsaparilla (talk) 03:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review by Wafulz

• General.

• The article is pretty short (26kb). I think it could use some expansion, especially considering its prevalence. {{sexpositions}} should be added. "Basic position" needs to be near the beginning of the article and expanded into prose form.

• Lead section.

• The lead is weak, and the definition isn't very accurate. The missionary position is a male-superior coitus position (ie "man on top") where the partners face each other. It's also a bit jumpy and improperly organized. I think it needs three separate paragraphs: one to introduce the position, define it, and to mention its variants. The next paragraph should cover history and significance- stuff like etymology of "missionary" and religious/cultural stances (I believe that non-missionary sex is technically sodomy by some definitions). The last paragraph should cover the benefits and drawbacks and the popularity. It may be a good idea to include something about a small backlash against the position because some see it as subordinating women.

• Commonness

• This section should be retitled "popularity" or "frequency." It needs expansion and historical context - mention that other cultures had never seen it before. As much as I appreciate Kinsey's work, it shouldn't be the only source.

• Perceived advantages/disadvantages

• These two should be merged into one section. The writing is a bit weak but I'm just doing a general overview.

• Basic position.

• This section should be merged with "implements" and be renamed to "Description". From there it can flow better into "variants". This sentence is really odd and I don't think it merits inclusion: November also notes the possibility of smearing a small amount of lubricant on one's stomach and chest for a result she describes as a "really fun slip and slide effect." While it sounds like fun, the article shouldn't be a sex manual.

Overall I'd say the article is about halfway to featured article status. It'll also need a decent copyedit after this review. This would be a great candidate for the first sex position FA.-Wafulz (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think a lot of information can be found about the history of missionary and the frequency and perspectives on it within different cultures. Combined with some of the other information you mentioned (e.g. more studies in addition to Kinsey), and possibly some more positions, we should be able to double the size of this article. By the way, I don't think that positions other than missionary are classified as sodomy anywhere. I looked for info about feminists deriding the missionary position but couldn't find a whole lot...I think most women actually like missionary. The feminist objections I've seen tend to be more against penetration in general (sometimes with the position of clitoris on the female anatomy used as justification that penetration isn't natural) or against men who insist on ONLY doing missionary. Sarsaparilla (talk) 05:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah the feminist objections may have just been to "male superior" positions in general and were probably more related to the notion that the man had to be on top. This source on the sodomy bit cites a History Channel TV show.This JSTOR link gives the following abstract: "Many states have laws which prohibit every sexual act except sexual intercourse, in the missionary position, between husband and wife. These laws have been used to repress alternative life styles because such modes of living often do not conform with the rules of traditional marital monogamy. However, recent court decisions make most private relationships between consenting adults outside the realm of the law. The effect on sex laws is seen in an increasing liberalization of these statutes."-Wafulz (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Wow, I would be amazed if a state law mandates the missionary position. If that's so, it should definitely go in the article. Some people on the internet claim that Washington, DC law requires missionary, but I couldn't find it in the DC code. See http://government.westlaw.com/linkedslice/default.asp?SP=DCC-1000 Sarsaparilla (talk) 01:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• I got full access to the article, but it doesn't elaborate on what states held the laws. However, it discusses sodomy laws that were changed in the early 1970s, so maybe they're in some archive somewhere? I'm also getting frequent mentions of Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It states: (emphasis mine)

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

• Apparently this has been interpreted as "missionary only" according to iffy sources. I'm trying to find more concrete sources discussing this.-Wafulz (talk) 05:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Actually I found a mirror of a source here:

There is a statute prohibiting sodomy in the military: Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). (46) Article 125 is a very broadly written statute from the 1950s. The drafters of the UCMJ essentially took the Maryland and Washington, D.C. sodomy statutes and put it into the military code. In the military, anything that is not missionary position is sodomy. In the military, unlike in the civilian world, straight people are actually prosecuted for sodomy regularly. A survey of the appellate cases in the military criminal courts where there was a conviction for consensual sodomy found eighty-six cases in a three- year period. All but three involved heterosexual men convicted of conduct with a woman. One was a woman for conduct with a man, and two were for conduct between two men.-Wafulz (talk) 05:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm also a bit skeptical about the statements that Aquinas forbade non-missionary position sex, although there are a lot of books that mentioned it. I would feel more comfortable about having that in the article if I could find one of his actual writings that mentioned it. I couldn't find it in the summa theologica. Sarsaparilla (talk) 01:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 06:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)