Talk:Sexual intercourse/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions about Sexual intercourse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

→

Duration of sexual intercourse

Vaginal sexual intercourse typically consists of a period of foreplay, followed by intromission and ejaculation, followed by a period of cuddling. According to a Kinsey study, just under half of men reported a time to ejaculation from intromission of five minutes or less. About a fifth claimed that coitus lasted 10 minutes or longer. Others may have taken over one hour. Many have reported that sex feels like heaven to them, so they keep doing it. However, if you insert the penis into the woman's vagina for too long, it may turn absolute pleasure into pain. Most couples cuddle after sex, or masturbate others body parts.

 How long should sex last? A survey conducted by Maxim (July 2004) showed the following:

Women:
- Ten minutes: 6%
- Thirty minutes: 17%
- Until I orgasm: 32%
- As long as possible: 44%

Men:
- Five minutes: 1%
- Ten minutes: 5%
- Twenty to thirty minutes: 26%
- Forever: 28%
- Until she comes: 34%
- Until she goes: 4%

Many men suffer from premature ejaculation.^[1] Since most men, unlike women, cannot have multiple orgasms,^{[citation needed]} intercourse normally ends when the man has ejaculated.^{[citation needed]} Thus the woman might not have time to have an orgasm.^{[citation needed]}

There is a wide range of techniques men can use to overcome premature ejaculation: examples include, slowing down the rate of movement or stopping the stroking for a short pause to let the excitement subside just a bit, adjusting the position of one person or both to make it slightly less stimulating, and adding a lot of lubricant so that the vaginal friction is less intense.^{[citation needed]}

Women tend to warm up slower than men and are often disappointed that before they are fully warmed up their partner has already finished, unless her partner is aware of her needs. "As a rule, women would like to devote as much time to foreplay and the sex act as men would like to devote to foreplay, the sex act, and building a garage."^[2]

References

External links

age

merged mating

Merged article mating from this version . Both articles are in B class, mating and sexual intercourse are one and the same. Otherwise you will have to move this article to "Sexual intercourse in Humans" and move that article(mating) to "mating in animals other than humans". To do:

Redirecting the article mating has yet to be done.
Lead section here has to be trimmed down.
Little cleanup.

Lara bran 12:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to elaborate human sexual intercourse please do it here: human sexual behavior and Human sexuality. Thanks. Lara bran 13:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Im done. Merging is completed. Archived long talk page. Somebody leave a thanks to me right here. Lara bran 04:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted your changes. A merge of this size should be discussed first. In my opinion, mating and sexual intercourse are not one and the same. This is a very general overview, but mating is what animals do to produce offspring. Human beings engage often (if not usually) engage in sexual intercourse purely for pleasure, and often take steps to ensure that conception does NOT occur as a result of sexual intercourse. (Yes, I realize that some animals also engage in various forms of sexual stimulation for pleasure.) Joie de Vivre ° 15:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Please know the difference between a dictionary and encyclopedia. Its headline should match with content. In this state this article should be renamed to "Sexual intercourse in humans" and that article should be renamed to "mating in animals (except humans)", humans also animals. Users did not post here did not mean they opposed it, "older version is consensus" is wrong idea, reverted back, i wont revert only if someone else other than User:Joie de Vivre (who is still learning, see here how this is minor edit?) revert my changes. Lara bran 03:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Still learning? Of course, we all are still learning. I have learned that it is important to seek consensus for large moves. If a large move seems reasonable and you WP:BOLDly go ahead with it, if other community members object, it's appropriate to seek consensus through discussion. Reverting and making personally directed comments is not very productive.

In my opinion, you have not demonstrated that sexual intercourse and mating are one and the same, or that the two articles should be merged. Joie de Vivre ° 04:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Man i seriously dont have time, otherwise i know this community etc. Dont take personally, also i need not demonstrate, dividing article into "humans" and "non-human animals"(that too without mentioning that in heading) is clearly against common sense. There are 2 different articles on humans i quoted above. Seek a third opinion and dont revert yourself Lara bran 04:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I have already done so. I hope you will reconsider your approach, it is not at all conducive to forming consensus. Joie de Vivre ° 04:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

From your comment there, i see your confusion: term sexual intercourse is not limited to humans, see dictionary. Lara bran 04:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you would stop framing the discussion in terms of a purported deficit of understanding on my part. I would also appreciate it if you would state in clear, concise terms why Mating should be merged to Sexual intercourse. I have stated why they should not. Joie de Vivre ° 04:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. if not merged, current article Sexual intercourse should be moved to Sexual intercourse in humans as term "sexual intercourse" is not limited to humans(but Sexual intercourse in humans already has article named Human sexual behavior). Hence they should be merged. Me leaving, please let other users revert the article. Lara bran 04:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Since you seem ambivalent about what should happen, and you're not interested to stay and discuss, I am reverting the merge, recreating the Mating article and the previous version of the Sexual intercourse article. Joie de Vivre ° 05:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You are clearly demonstrating how a community should NOT be. Very sad, to see you not wait for at least 3rd user. Wikipedia will remain same(stagnant) for next 10years only because of you like users, your community etiquette is not at all right, sorry. very sorry. Lara bran 05:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

Lara bran was right to make a bold edit, and Joie de Vivre was right, disputing the edit, to revert. The next step in the bold, revert, discuss cycle is to discuss, not to revert back and demand that a different editor revert... As noted though, we're all still learning.

I agree with Lara bran that the titles of articles and their contents should match. There are various ways to make this happen, and now that one has been suggested, and reverted by somebody else, that's our cue to open a large discussion, because this question is fundamental to how our articles about human and animal sexuality are organized. It doesn't really matter in what state the articles are while the talking goes on - the winner of the edit war is the first one not to revert, and to help get the discussion rolling. At this point, Lara's ahead, because Joie just reverted.

There must be good places to advertise what's being discussed - looking to the top of this talk page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality suggests itself as a starting point. If we're to decide what to do with the content of Mating and Sexual intercourse, are there other articles we need to be thinking about as well?

My initial thoughts on the topic are that we should have one general article on sexual intercourse that covers all species (pointing to more specific articles for details), and gives an overview of sexual activity in nature, including humans. This would include mating, as well as such natural but non-procreative sexual practices as oral sex, homosexual behavior, and interspecies sex, none of which is limited to humans.

Another general article would cover procreative sex in a species-neutral way (with links to human- and animal-specific articles), and give an overview of the various ways in which sexually reproducing creatures get their gametes to meet.

Those two articles aren't precisely what Sexual intercourse and Mating were, but those could be the titles of them. The aspects of human sexuality that are unrelated to procreation would presumably be accessible from the top-level article about sexual intercourse, while articles about human fertility and pregnancy would be accessible from the top-level article on mating.

How does that sound? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I dont agree with Human sexual intercourse(recreative or otherwise) should be excluded, as that is a subset. ~~(To User:Joie de Vivre, please dont revert 4th time, you will be blocked even if you did in good faith. This way wikipedia forces you to leave reverting to a third party, dont mistake.)~~ Lara bran 05:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Did I say human sexual intercourse should be excluded? I believe I did not. I was trying to suggest top-level articles that include humans as well as other species, and then more specific articles getting into details specific to humans, mammals, fish, Lesser Black-backed Gulls, etc.

Oh, and Lara, your reverts are just as wrong as Joie de Vivre's. In fact, you may both consider this an official warning - please stop reverting each other until after extensive dialogue has taken place. I don't like using blocks to stop edit wars, but I'll do it to prevent back-and-forth edits. Mating is on my watchlist now. If either of you reverts again, before putting some serious work into the discussion, you may be blocked, by myself or another admin, to stop you; if the other takes advantage of the situation to revert back, they may be blocked as well, to stop the edit warring.

Discuss thoroughly; then edit, only when you can do so with a clear and present consensus. There is currently no consensus version, only two wrong versions. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I exploited rule 3rr, never mind, i sincerely requested him to leave reverting to third party but he did not. Also i wont revert back if any third user reverts my edits, thank you. I been very nice in etiquette, i dont deserve your warning, as far as i could analyze.

But you did say that sex for recreation should be avoided, i objected that. i donno why that should be excluded, so i cant comment any more. Lara bran 06:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Lara, it doesn't matter whose edit you revert, what matters is that you don't revert repeatedly without discussing. The best thing to do is to leave it in the version you don't like while rounding up an active discussion. That shows you're working towards consensus, and it encourages others to refrain from edit warring as well.

I didn't mean to say that "sex for recreation should be excluded." In fact, I believe I explicitly suggested an article that would include non-procreative sex, and a separate article for procreation. I think you may be misreading my meaning. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I am under no obligation to comply with your demand that I refrain from editing this article. Joie de Vivre ° 06:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no interest in attempting to reason with a fledgling editor who joined one month ago, just long enough to learn enough of the rules to engage in mean-spirited one-upsmanship, or with a heavy-handed administrator who sees my attempts to reinstate a version that, I don't know, has the page title and the article title as the same phrase, perhaps, as petty bickering. You two hash it out. My requests for clarification have been met with insults from Lara and multiple reverts. My time is worth more than this; I'm done here. Joie de Vivre ° 06:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Joie de Vivre, I did not, will not, and would not accuse you of petty bickering. I do now and always suggest that the best way to handle a content dispute, whether with a tendentious newbie or with Jimbo Wales, is to leave the article in the Wrong Version while exemplifying best practices by rounding up a discussion. I don't make the same edit more than once, because I know it's not a productive way to get things done. Less harm is done by leaving it wrong for a few hours than by setting an example that multiple reverts are okay as long as you're sure you're right. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

(See my comment bolded above). Now, my version with cleanup by moving some parts specific to humans to article Human sexual behaviour would be proposed consensus. But moving takes time or even rm takes time hence we leave cleanup tag and leave it. Lara bran 07:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed consensus sounds great. Now let's not make the edit until it becomes actual consensus, as evidenced by many Wikipedians agreeing with it. That can only happen when more people are involved. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, GTBacchus. What you said about the WV is sound advice. Lara bran, in this diff, you referred to the article as "stabilized". It seems clear that there is an active disagreement. I would appreciate it if we could keep it to the Talk page while we hash it out. Joie de Vivre ° 15:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

No discussion on matter is done, only discussion about how a discussion should be done is focused since this post which was reply to my this post , where Joie turned discussion into an unconstructive way. And there is no single post which clearly opposes the merger(sorry, opposed but without reason), only throwing mud is being done by posting my edit's diffs. Lara bran 05:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I dont join complaining legue. Now, kindly substantiate why this merger should not be done(other than that consensus is not reached yet)? Lara bran 05:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

To throw in my tuppence into this discussion: mating is not limited to animals, but also occurs in plants and fungi. For obvious reasons (see pollination and mating type) these taxonomic groups cannot engage in the same kind of activity that is commonly described as sexual intercourse in animals. Merging Mating and Sexual intercourse would therefore be inappropriate. I've included the additional info on mating in plants and animals into the "Mating" entry. In its previous version, the article suggested that "mating" is limited only to animals--unfortunately the picture gallery emphasizes this too strongly, and this may have also encouraged the notion that the two articles should be merged. Malljaja 13:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

What distinguishes Mating from Sexual reproduction? The word "mating" sounds strange to me when applied to plants. I agree that the merge is inappropriate, but I would expect mating to apply to the behavior of animals (including humans) that leads to reproduction. Sexual intercourse would be more generally about sexual interactions (procreative or not) that animals (including humans) take part in. Sexual reproduction is where I would expect to find general information about plants and animals that reproduce sexually. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I admit it's tricky, and it doesn't help that in biology the term mating has somewhat taken on a life on its own (my trusted OED defines mate solely in the context of animals, and this definition is certainly outdated in the context of biological sciences). However, as you can see from the opening sentence here , mating in the scientific literature is also applied to plants. It is used by researchers (especially geneticists) to describe experimental or natural crosses within or between species. Strictly speaking, mating doesn't equal sexual reproduction, as plants or fungi belonging to different species may be able to mate (i.e., exhibit successful fertilization of the ovule in case of plants, or plasmogamy in case of fungi) and even form seeds or sexual spores, but these may be barren due to genetic or other incompatibilities. So sexual intercourse is always the process of mating, but mating isn't confined to sexual intercourse or sexual reproduction. Simply lumping them together therefore would entail a loss of the complexity surrounding these distinct biological processes. I hope I could sufficiently illuminate and clarify those differences. Malljaja 21:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Was plant reproduction terminology already included in the Mating article (I really don't want to go and look at all the diffs, a yes or no answer is fine)? If it wasn't then I suggest a quick redirection at the top of the header would suffice. If it was then I suggest that the information be split off (I am assuming that the merge will - happen) to Plant reproduction (or whatever) and a redirect created. I believe that mating is generally considered to be a term applicable to animals only, and Wikipedia is not a scientific forum only. LessHeard vanU 22:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Malljaja: "sexual intercourse is always the process of mating, but mating isn't confined to sexual intercourse...". I think even the first part is problematic; consider homosexual intercourse. Still, I would agree that in the common parlance, "mating" is understood as applying to animals. It's worth mentioning in the article that biologists apply the term to plants as well, with a link to plant sexuality. All of these upper-level reproduction articles might need some organization... -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Wiktionary defines sexual intercourse, in part, as "Sexual contact or interaction between two or more people...", and mating (via "mate"), amongst others, "A sexual partner, especially of a breeding animal." Reproductive activity appears to be a part, albeit important, of sexual intercourse whereas mating is specifically sexual reproduction orientated. I would think that Malljaja's comment has it the wrong way round. I would say "mating always involves sexual intercourse, but sexual intercourse is not confined to mating." LessHeard vanU 11:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

In my view the discussion about mating and sexual intercourse is focused too much on animals. In response to LessHeard vanU comments, Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia that ought to cover a topic comprehensively, and many of its articles have set good precedence for that. If the scope of the Mating entry were limited to mating in animals, then indeed Mating and Sexual intercourse should be merged. The view I'm trying to share here is angled also towards inclusion (in Mating) of other biological kingdoms, ie. plants and fungi, both of which have large entries in Wikipedia. Individuals in these groups mate (see eg., Wikipedia entry Mating of yeast, yet they do not have sexual intercourse. Hence, if viewed as a hierarchy, sexual intercourse is subordinate to mating, that is, all sexual intercourse (be it reproductive or not) is mating, but not all mating involves sexual intercourse. Malljaja 14:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why non-procreative sexual intercourse is mating. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

One of us seems to be caught in semantics, and I hope it's not me ;). To cite one example from Wikipedia (taken from Swan): "Swans usually mate for life, though "divorce" does sometimes occur, particularly following nesting failure." This sentence sums it up well--it employs a vernacular that dislodges mating from sexual intercourse and indicates that two individuals may mate (embark on a partnership with sexual union implied), but procreation is by no means assured. A further example a little closer to home is given here highlighting the fact that mating does not always correlate with reproductive success. Malljaja 16:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I see what you mean. I don't think I was trying to tie "mating" to reproductive success, more to the attempting. However, one doesn't want to apply purposive language to plants and animals, so I guess we have to apply the word "mating" to every form of copulation. Per the swans example, would "mating" also include pair bonding? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Pair bonding and mating appear to be closely related in the example you gave, so I'd say that mating is part of pair bonding. If one were to replace "mate" with "bond" in the sentence from Swan ""Swans usually bond for life, though "divorce" does sometimes occur, particularly following nesting failure", this would work as well (I'm not suggesting a change here though!), so it seems that both are near synonyms, with bond perhaps signifying a closer association. Malljaja 09:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that an encyclopedia (and especially this one with its resources) should cover a topic comprehensively. My position is that it may be best served by doing so over a number of articles, and that by including all subtleties within one article may be a cause of a loss of focus within that piece. While we are entrusted with adding all available content relating to a topic we can provide we must also consider who we are writing it for. There is nothing wrong in noting that sexual intercourse is also a term used by scientists relating to plant reproduction within the main article, but I would then only supply a link to that specific article. We must understand that the majority of readers would look up "sexual intercourse" will do so as a specifically human activity.

I take your point regarding swans. Perhaps both our statements do not suffice. LessHeard vanU 18:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree. I think this discussion went a little off tangent, and I'm partly to blame for that. The main point I'm trying to make is that in my opinion Mating and Sexual intercourse should remain separate entries, and believe that you're also advocating that. Just to clean up one slight misunderstanding, I didn't mean to say that plants have sexual intercourse--they engage in sexual reproduction, and this is referred to as mating. So plants (and fungi) do not belong in this article here, but need to be included under Mating, which I've done recently. Malljaja 19:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)It does seem to be the nature of sex (being distracted, that is). Happy editing. LessHeard vanU 20:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Merging dropped

We drop merging of mating, as told by Malljaja. But as sexual intercourse is not limited to humans it also includes animals we can expand this article. So borrowing animal part from mating wont be bad idea. Im dropping merging of mating by readding article mating to wikiproject in its talkpage. But this article in its current state is not at all accepable, expansion is must. So i first seek consensus for expansion, that is revert to my version, i beleive nobody should have any issues there for this intermediate arrangement.

As per my understanding "sexual intercourse for reproduction" = "mating". Lara bran 05:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

If I understand what Malljaja is saying above, sexual intercourse is one type of mating, distinguished from plant mating, for example. Also, I think that sexual intercourse might count as "mating" whether or not we can say it's done "for reproduction".

I'm finding the terminology somewhat confusing; it would be good to sort it all out before moving or merging any articles. I suppose we're comfortable with some amount of overlap among these articles. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

~~;Move proposal mating-->copulation~~(withdrawn.03:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)):

Mating: animals+plants ~~(move to copulation)~~
Sexual intercourse: humans+animals
~~Human sexual intercourse~~(by mistake, it should be Human sexual behaviour03:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)): human sexual intercourse + other behaviours

Lara bran 08:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I think a little judicious copying and pasting between articles would likely improve all concerned, but leaving them separate is best. Not everyone wanting to read "mating" will want to trudge through all the boring bits about sexual intercourse that doesn't specifically involve reproduction orientated activity.... (what the hell am I typing on about? ;~D) LessHeard vanU 11:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

What are all the articles we're talking about here, anyway? I'm counting mating, sexual intercourse, sexual reproduction, copulation... plant sexuality... any others Human sexual behavior? Can we figure out how these topics relate to each other, and then work from there? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me sort again and correct mistakes

Mating: animals+plants (copulation redirects here(fine)~~, leave link to Main:Plant sexuality. Done~~ )
Sexual intercourse: humans+animals (This is "process/physical job", differs from "mating".)
Human sexual behaviour: human sexual intercourse + other human behaviours

So only work left for us is to cleanup of Sexual intercourse article. Lara bran 03:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

How does sexual reproduction fit into that? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"Mating" comes fully under sexual reproduction, "sexual intercourse" and "human sexual behaviour" come under reproduction but recreation part of these 2 articles come outside reproduction's limit. (actually action changed here when Malljaja introduced plants into picture.)Lara bran 04:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

lead section

instinct

except intelligent and social animals instinct to have sex is very important. Even humans who born and brought up in isolation, instinct is the thing. I donno why sentence is removed. And instinct of male is more imp over instinct of female. Do you people need ref to support this? Lara_bran 05:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

male instinct is a taboo in humans. Lara_bran 10:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed this sentence twice (and will remove one more time before 3RR kicks in for me) because (a) it is poorly worded and in incorrect English, and (b) it is not adequately supported or cited. Instinct is "the thing?" Is that a quote from somewhere, or are you doing some original research here? Please rephrase this sentence and add a citation if you plan on adding it again. Regards, Rahzel 07:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If poorly worded, then rephrase it, dont revert. If you need more ref, tell me in advance. Thanks. Lara_bran 07:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

If you need help re-phrasing your statement, I'd be happy to help you. However, I'm no expert on the subject so I'd like to see an academic reference supporting this statement before I help you re-phrase this statement. Regards, Rahzel 17:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Lead section badly demanding expansion. I agree we cant put wrong info for sake of expansion, but some common sense can be inserted without reference. Lara_bran 05:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I agree with most of this, but for a piece of information to become "common sense", it has to, at some point through the course of history, be rooted in some sort of fact. I think that the information you'd like to add to the article still warrants a reference of some kind--I'm sure many people would agree with the sentiment of the original statement, but many may not, also. This would be true of almost any hypothesis regarding the nature of any human feelings (which is by no means yet fully understood). Even if it seems relatively obvious to you, IMO it still warrants a reference of some kind to be included in the article, especially in the lead section. Regards, Rahzel 07:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

My addition was not limited to humans, rather its about non-intelligent animals. But source i quoted said "instinct of female is to have children", which is wrong, but i added it for sake of reference. Instinct of male is to have sex with fertile female, and instinct of female is to have sex while it is fertile(mating period). True this demands ref, me will make a comeback, will flood you with references, but not so soon :) Lara_bran 04:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Copulation

Regarding the multitude of sperm cells

Ethics

Why can't this article be improved

Many readers feel that this article is EXTREMELY Gender Bias and is from a radical male Christian fundamentalist, right-winged point of view. We try to imporve this article but whenever any one does we are attacked and have threats made agaist us that we will be blocked from editing... There are MANY scientific views that this article does not encompass and this article's neutrality is non-existant. Reading Wikipedia's welcome page just now it suggests that readers should have courage and be bold in their editing but when we try to edit/improve this page we get attacked and the article is reverted to its opinionated and non-neutral original position. this is unfair to all! We cannot even put a tag on the article wito ut being attacked and then of course the article is reverted back to its original and VERY BADLY written form! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.42.67 (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

A few comments. One, I just removed a few questionable points concerning women's ability to orgasm during intercourse. Hopefully that section is a bit better now. Two, tagging an article as biased in any way should usually be accompanied by a discussion on the talk page, especially for an article as highly viewed as this one. I recently removed such a tag for that reason, even though I happen to agree with some of your poits. Three, I am not sure to what scientific views you are referring, but if there are scholarly articles that are written that could be used as sources in this article, by all means add it to the article. I doubt that the WP readership will object to that, I know I won't. :) Thanks, Rahzel 23:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Aparantly Rahzel is personally in charge of this article... This article should be tagged for "Neutrality" as it is not neutral (I would actually challenge some of the factual accuracy to!); it should also be tagged as "Gender Bias" because it is! This article is degrading to women, homosexuals and non-human primates who engage in sex for pleasure as well as dolphins and other animals that scientists have developed certain theories on. Tagging the article would let readers know that certain people feel that this article needs improvement and that would open up the opportunity and resonsibility to make a less offensive and a more neutral article on WP as opposed to this rather insulting one! This article is clearly written by a Male-chauvinist Christian Fundamentalist who has never taken a science class from an accredited institution in his life! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.42.67 (talk) 00:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I dislike male chauvinist Christian Fundamentalists probably as much as you do. I'm decidedly in the liberal camp on most social issues. You are welcome to contribute to the article, and if you feel that adding the neutrality and gender biased tags is your contribution, then that's great. However, you've got to give a better reason for saying that the article is biased than simply saying, "because it is!" Which part, specifically, of the article, is biased? Why is it biased? How would you recommend changing it? I'm not asking these questions rhetorically, either, I'd be happy to see the article undergo some re-thinking. All I'm saying is that unsubstantiated changes will most likely be reverted by me, or someone else who has this article on their watch list. Regards, Rahzel 05:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Adding of insects and bug parts in article, including many unnecessary pictures.

Why would the animal section come before the human section in the article? And the picture of two ladybeetles mating as the article's main picture? Replacing the perfectly fine picture by Leonardo da Vinci, that is certainly the most illustrative, as we're mainly thinking of humans copulating in an article of sexual intercourse, not animals mating. That's just illogical. And all those pictures of insects mating are unnecessary. This should be removed from the article, or at least merged into an animal copulation article. Wikiburger 18:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm tempted to agree with all of your points. the Leonardo da Vinci would make a fine lead picture. I agree that most people would come to this article wanting information about human sexual intercourse, but just to be neutral and all, I don't think we should ignore other species' forms of sexual intercourse altogether. Perhaps a re-ordering of the sections would in fact be appropriate, as well as a significant de-emphasis of all the insect/bug mating stuff too. Good points, Rahzel 23:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The current situation is due to one editor, User:Lara bran. The consensus had been to deal with only human behavior in this article and confine animal sex to the other article, Mating. The way, the truth, and the light 00:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I think I removed most of the animal stuff in my most recent edit, and made the lead image the Da Vinci pic. Let me know what you think, Rahzel 03:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You need to change its title to "sexual intercourse in humans", if this is the article.. im reverting back. Otherwise you have to rename article. See discussion above. Thanks. Lara_bran 03:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

No, the title doesn't need to be changed. This is an encyclopedia for humans, after all! The way, the truth, and the light 03:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

See consensus in Talk:Sexual_intercourse#Merging_dropped, where complete merger dropped, but animals details are included. Go through talk page before making such changes singlehandedly. Thanks. Lara_bran 03:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see any consensus there. The way, the truth, and the light 03:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you see it here in #Third_opinion? Thanks for note here. Lara_bran 04:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This section has comments by 5 users, you are singlehandedly reverting, please go through talk page before doing such things, thanks. Lara_bran 04:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Its not due to one editor count no. of editors in section #Third_opinion. Wikipedia is not majority vote, please read discussion rather than counting heads. If you confine it to humans, title should be changed to "sexual intercourse in humans" or "human sexual intercourse", otherwise animals should be included. Very sad to see you revert without comment, thanks. Lara_bran 04:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Lara, it seems that currently you are the only user who is campaigning to have sexual intercourse include animal mating practices. If there are other users who share your viewpoint, then they should chime into this discussion. However, it seems that the current consensus (the talk pages you linked to do not clearly show any sort of consensus) is in favor of confining animal mating rituals to mating. Until then, I believe that the article should stay the way it currently is, talking only about human mating rituals. Regards, Rahzel 04:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

So shall we move current article to "Human sexual intercourse"? Thanks. Lara_bran 04:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Also your Da vinci lead image connects lower genitals with breasts with some pipe, which is completely wrong and misguiding. It may be old but wrong. Thanks. Lara_bran 04:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see Britannica entry of sexual intercourse, which clearly says it includes animals. Higher animals include not just humans. Thanks. Lara_bran 05:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It is just "intercourse", not limited to humans, i have reverted back to include animals, conforming with previous consensus in section #Third_opinion. Sources for this is quoted above. Thanks, Lara_bran 03:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Picture

I think the drawings of sex are not detailed enough and bare little respeblence to sex. We need a photograph of a couple having sex, so I will take a photo of me and my girlfriend having sex and post it on here. That it will be better off. 75.109.98.208 12:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that. And I believe that the image of sex in this article already captures sex enough that it's known that it's sex. I'm not saying that I'm necessarily against additional images of sex being added within this article, but I also don't feel that it's needed. There are sub-topics of this article as well, as I'm sure that you know, in which the more-pictures issue or more-detailed picture issue is taken care and may be taken care of. Flyer22 18:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well we need a real shot so I voulenter to photograph me and my girlfriend having sex for the article. Im 18 and shes 15 so were old enough. Ill take the photo tonight and post it in the morning 75.109.98.208 05:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not indened for this to be trolling i am willing to do this to better the article 75.109.98.208 05:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You are right buddy, not just you are not trolling, we need a nice pic. Artistic impression is wrong and misleading. But you should release image for GFDL or public domain. Thanks. Lara_bran 05:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I also agree a picture is far better than simple drawings. But you being 18 and her being 15 makes you both too young for a picture. We need one of concenting adults doing it and a clear and not too pornographic in nature. Just one that gives the image of sexual intercourse as we know it. So any suggestions of sits to look for this picture? Nevilledad 05:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Most common "missionary position" would be appropriate. Thanks. Lara_bran 05:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I just want to point out that 18 is the age of consent in the US. It would be illegal in my country to have a picture of a 15 year old engaged in intercourse, it would not be illegal to have a picture of an 18-year-old. I don't know what the highest minimum age on earth is, by any given country's laws, but if we want to make this as accessible as possible we should go by that - the highest "minimum". Photouploaded 15:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

75.109.98.208 is a definite troll. At Talk:Rape#Survivor_of_Rape he is a survivor of rape. Another time, we have the return of "Salverland", a little piece of "imagination" being added to wikipedia here and there, under 75.109.101.139.

He's been here before, one year ago, when he was 20 and his gf was 14 (now they're 18 and 15).

Mdbrownmsw 15:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

well i think that we really need a picture of two people having sex cause it give u a more indetail about what sex is all about.

Whether or not 75.109.98.208 is a troll or not we need a picture of two people engaging in sex because that drawing is stupid looking and dont cover this at all. Other aticles have pictures so this one needs it too. if anyone is uncomfortable about a photo then we should get a good paining of a couple engaging in sex. I see that a drawing has been added which is much better detail than that stupid sketch but still we need something better like in color. A painting or a acutal photograph Nevilledad 03:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You are right, we need a proper copyright image. I removed that artistic impression, which is clearly misleading with wrong details. This is a high traffic article, badly needs an image for wikipedia's reputation ;) Thanks. Lara_bran 03:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

How about using one of the Paul Avril paintings, as on Anal sex? This one appears to be suitable. The way, the truth, and the light 03:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I like that Paul Avril painting. That would make a good lead image. The drawing that is on the page now is fine, as well. (Perhaps the Paul Avril one is better? Consensus?)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahzel (talk • contribs)

You see more paintings in wikipedia because their copyrights are expired after 70 years. Actually current images are preferred. Thanks. Lara_bran 03:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

even me, commons image is the one i vote for. Lara_bran 03:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I like the more scientific image of sexual intercourse that was up there for the main image than the one that's up there now. I was hoping that we would keep the more scientific one, which shows sexual intercourse a lot better, I feel, for the main image and use any additional images further in the article. We could even have two images for the lead — the more scientific one and the missionary-position one that's up there now. Flyer22 04:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Other users please give your opinion for inclusion of "summary style" inclusion of animal intercourse in section above. I changed image which is better, within available choices. Thanks. Lara_bran 04:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Lara that picture you put is exactly what i was looking for. Thanks that looks so much better than that dumb drawing that looked more like swiggly lines than sex. So wander how long before someone loges on and starts whining about it. LOL. But I love it. So much better than tham that drawing. Nevilledad 04:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Here in wikipedia drawing and arts rocks, since all are copyright expired :) Let someone upload their own intercourse image, till then, we're done. Lara_bran 04:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

And credits to User:The way, the truth, and the light for suggesting this image. Thanks Lara_bran 04:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I see that the main image has changed again. I still prefer the more scientific one and feel that it should still be within the article, if not at the lead as well, but this image that's put up there as the main image depicts sexual intercourse clearer than the one that was up there just minutes ago, of course. Flyer22 05:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that the so called 'Schematic' image, is totally irrelevant, and quite possibly a joke. As of this point, I am removing it. If someone can make a good argument as to why it should be on here, please do so. Philcluff (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The redirect fucking is being discussed.

Pleasure Vs instinct

Summary

A merge of Sexual intercourse and mating has been discussed and there was no consensus for it. Since mating covers the aspects of sex in animals, this article should not have a long section about sex in animals, as Lara bran has been repeatedly adding. The way, the truth, and the light 02:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Merging was dropped because term "mating" covers plants also, which came to light later(no place for plants here). But there was consensus that sexual intercourse includes animals also. If you consider literal meaning of "intercourse", it is obvious that it is just an activity. Please go through above #Third opinion. You can shorten summary, but please dont remove it. Thanks, Lara_bran 03:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

For others, see discussion above #Adding_of_insects_and_bug_parts_in_article.2C_including_many_unnecessary_pictures.. Lara_bran 03:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe that both of us have misinterpreted consensus in that discussion. There simply wasn't one. The set of articles needs more discussion to work out the structure; if there is to be an article covering human coitus only, it should be called Sexual intercourse.

I did add your summary back in; I'm not sure whether this article should mention animal sex at all, but if it does, something like that isn't unreasonable.

Immediately after I did that, User:Ohnoitsjamie (inappropriately) reverted the rest of my edits, which should have been uncontroversial (except maybe the lion picture). The way, the truth, and the light 03:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

That reversion was appropriate, and is lead section mention of "sex beyond reproduction", which has separate section below. In contrast to your argunment - if there is to be an article covering human coitus only, it should be called Human sexual intercourse. You can create separate article, since that is notable, but i dont see a point in removing animal summary from this article, since that disambiguation is very much necessary. Thanks. Lara_bran 03:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If you mean the current second paragraph of the intro, it's mostly redundant with the section 'Functions of sex beyond reproduction'. I can't see why that should be in the intro either, isn't it giving undue wright to non-reproductive sex? - especially if we're including animals.

The 'disambiguation' would exist in any case - a hatnote is an accepted way of disambiguating on Wikipedia, if there is a clear primary topic. In the case of Sexual intercourse, it's clear that the term's primary use is for the human activity. The way, the truth, and the light 04:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It is an encyclopedia written by humans, then it need not have bias for humans. See WP:BIAS. Content should conform with title, with due weightage. Mentioning in about pleasure in lead is certainly not undue weightage, it has weight of one full section in the article. Thanks. Lara_bran 04:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If you notice, even article sex does mention animals. Lara_bran 04:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with TWTTATL on this one. Sexual intercourse is what humans do. Animals generally mate, a few species engage in different forms of sexual activity for pleasure, but sexual intercourse, as I understand it, describes a human activity. I tried (perhaps unwisely) to search for "animals sexual intercourse", and got a very high percentage of news reports and legal documents on bestiality. This tells me that when a person has sex with an animal, it commits a human act (sexual intercourse) upon the animal. Photouploaded 11:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Merriam-Webster does not specify that sexual intercourse is only between humans. . OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Britannica entry of sexual intercourse says term is common for all "higher animals", that are all animals except fish and backbone-less-animals(for those who know biological classification). Lara_bran 07:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

"Sodomy"

Scope

What's this article about? What's sexual intercourse? Is it sex? Is sex between two women sexual intercourse? Do oral sex and anal sex and hand jobs qualify as sexual intercourse? If not, why? A.Z. 02:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No, oral sex and anal sex would not qualify as sexual intercourse in its original definition. However, they are sometimes called sexual intercourse as well. Why, you ask aren't they usually considered sexual intercourse? Because sexual intercourse is coitus, the male sex organ being inserted into the female sex organ. Scientists and researchers define sexual intercourse in its sexual reproductive essence. In law, the term sexual intercourse is used to refer to sex of that nature also, while anal sex and oral sex are more specific, which specifics do happen in the court of law, of course. I cannot believe that you asked if a hand job qualfies as sexual intercourse, considering that that is rather the contact of a hand to the sex organ, rather than the two sex organs engaging; that's like a mimic of the real thing, and a lot would say that the mimic doesn't even come close to the real thing. Flyer22 03:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Anal sex is the contact of a penis with the rectum, which scientists and lawyers, according to you, don't consider a sex organ any more than the hand. Yet, anal sex is called "sexual intercourse" sometimes. I propose that this article be moved to "vaginal sex". A.Z. 03:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to get snipey. And, no, the anus is not a sex organ, though it is used as one. By sex organ, I mean the context of sexual reproduction, where the term sex organ is shortened to. The anus is not called a sex organ by scientists, doctors, and researchers, though some researchers note how the anus is used as a sex organ. What I cited was not according to me, but rather what is truth in (original) definition. And I'm not trying to sound condescending. The mouth and hand are not considered a sex organ either, of course. If I sounded a little stand-offish when you pondered if a hand to a sex organ could be considered sexual intercourse, it was only because I was shocked by that question, not because I was trying to be rude. I mean, jeez, a man may use the breasts of a woman as a sex organ as in contact with his penis, but that does not make breasts a sex organ. Human beings use breasts in a sexual way, yes. You asked a question, and I gave you the answer/reason, not a reason soley based on "what's according to me", A.Z., jeez. Flyer22 03:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

And when I stated that oral sex and anal sex are sometimes called sexual intercourse, I meant how they are sometimes also colloquially referred to as sexual intercourse. Sort of how some adults past age 25 who engaged in sex with a 16-year-old or a 17-year-old, and got in trouble for it, are colloquially called pedophiles, when that isn't truly what they are. Flyer22 04:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to be rude. I think I was sort of offended when I was expecting to read an article about sex and suddenly I saw an article about penis-vagina penetration, though with a title that I considered to mean the same as "sexual activity involving touching". Do you have a source for the assertion that the phrase sexual intercourse refers scientifically just to penis-vagina penetration? I think the phrase penis-vagina penetration would be way better to refer to penis-vagina penetration. I can't imagine why a scientist would use a term apparently so broad as "sexual intercourse" (which normal people use to refer to sexual activity in general) to refer specifically to penis-vagina penetration. It seems like a silly choice of words... A.Z. 04:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's silly. I explained above why. However, I can see why you were offended, A.Z., truly. Some of my lesbian friends are offended when a man says that a lesbian is still a virgin, if she hasn't engaged in "true" sexual intercourse with a man. Although, I also have lesbian friends who say that they see the point of the men who have said that to them. The truth is, A.Z., many people don't use the phrase sexual intercourse to refer to oral sex, and certainly not for a hand job. As for anal sex, yes, as I stated before, sometimes sexual intercourse is used to colloquially refer to anal sex, more so than referring to oral sex.

Even if you type in the word coitus or link to coitus here at Wikipedia, it will refer back to this article. And coitus means penis-vagina sex. I mean, the fact that we don't have an article on vaginal sex, instead it refers back to this article, and the fact that people often distinguish what type of sex they had by stating oral sex or anal sex, while sexual intercourse usually knowingly means penis-vagina sex, I feel proves what is usually considered sexual intercourse. I mean, in law, the terms are often separated for a reason, as to specify. When it's oral sex that took place in a matter of sex, that will usually be made known in the court of law, rather than saying sexual intercourse. I mean, if you look at the article Virginity, you will see that it even mentions technical virginity, as many people consider a woman having had penis-vagina sex with a man to mean the real/true loss of her virginity, as opposed to a man carrying out anal sex on the woman.

As for references about the scientists, you can pretty much google sexual intercourse and see that it's mostly used in the context of penis-vagina sex. I mean, I don't feel that I have to bring back references to this discussion, when that's the case. As for the lead of this article, I feel that the wording is fine, but I will most likely go bring back references for it. Flyer22 05:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for seeing so well why I'm offended. I just don't know why you don't consider it to be a silly term. I have googled sexual intercourse. Britannica says that sexual intercourse is the "reproductive act in which the male reproductive organ (in humans and other higher animals) enters the female reproductive tract." If this article is about a reproductive act, then it shouldn't be about sex for pleasure without the reproduction involved, I think. It should be just about reproductive sex. A.Z. 06:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I certainly don't feel that this article should be just about sexual reproduction, seeing as sexual intercourse is also for pleasure. Plus, we already have an article on that. It just so happens that the (original) definition of the term sexual intercourse is about penis-vagina sex. I don't know how else to state to you why I don't consider it silly other than what I cited above. I mean, you never hear a person say, "I had vaginal sex last night." Because it's widely accepted that vaginal sex just means sex, as in sexual intercourse. And oral sex and anal sex, while, yes, it is sex, is distinguished often times when talking about sex. I mean, it's one of the reasons that Bill Clinton stated, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" when the Monica Lewinsky scandal was going on, and all because he didn't/doesn't consider oral sex to be sexual intercourse. That, and he didn't want to fess up that it was sexual relations with THAT woman, regardless.

Basically, I see how the terms sexual intercourse, anal sex, and oral sex help to distinguish sexual acts...and considering how much less the phrase vaginal sex is used when a person is talking about having had sex this night or that night, it's just not off to me, A.Z., that's mainly why. Flyer22 07:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Just came back to this section to clarify (for anyone who may just now be reading this section) that this issue has been taken care of (it was taken care of a week ago), that now this article mentions in its lead how sometimes the term sexual intercourse also colloquially includes anal sex and oral sex (though that can be observed from just looking at the lead of this article anyway). Flyer22 19:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Need to remove this page

Very sexual and demeaning. Hearsay and unsopported claims —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.208.224.161 (talk) 02:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

What?! Sexual intercourse exists. To remove this "page" (rather article) would be to ignore that, oh, well, sexual intercourse is a big notable part of human life, as well as non-human life (though non-human sexual intercourse is usually called mating). This article may have some unsupported claims (though I wouldn't call them claims), but it also has supported statements. I could see removing this article...if sexual intercourse was this rare instance or topic without notability, especially with unverified claims, but your demand to "remove this page" is to act as though there is no such thing as sexual intercourse at all. Flyer22 02:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Now, now, Flyer, it isn't as though the article is in any danger of being deleted without community consensus; your reaction is a bit strident for the circumstances. WP:BITE?
206.208.224.161, what do you think we could do to improve the article? Any specific statements you found problematic? An overall tone that doesn't sound right? Please elaborate. Photouploaded 04:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes. I didn't mean to sound as though I was biting the newbie. I was only a bit taken aback by 206.208.224.161's comment that we "need to remove this page" and not even a suggestion as to improve it, but to rather remove this article altogether. I don't really bite the newbies, and, 206.208.224.161, if I came across as snapping at you, I apologize. Flyer22 04:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This is nothing but written pornography and this whole page should be deleted ASAP. I am voting for its deletion now

all votes here

Delete a page on sex has no place on a christian website —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.53.51 (talk) 02:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you the same person who started this topic? No, you do not get my vote to delete. Flyer22 02:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

who says this is a christian website dont go into it if ya dont wanna see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.18.47 (talk) at 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This page is far too sex related to remain on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.53.51 (talk) 23:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

State some specific concerns, other than this article being too much about sex, so that we may help to address them. We simply cannot just remove this article because you feel that it is too sex-related. I mean, it is an article about sexual intercourse, thus it is expected to cover sexual intercourse as extensively as it can, as well as note on other aspects of sexual pleasure. One editor above was also correct that this is not a Christian-specific site. But even if it was, I must state that I have Christian friends and that they discuss sex. It is not as though Christianity preaches against it or thorough discussion of it. Flyer22 00:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It is obvious to anyone this article is going to be very sex related as were discussing sexual intercourse, which is sex. Even working from a standpoint that it is a Christian website, which is false to begin with, Christian's are still pro sexual intercourse, just within the boundaries of marriage.Coldpower27 01:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Lesbians have sex too, even if they dont have a penis

It is nonsensical to define 'sexual intercourse' to mean that lesbians cant have sex ... because they dont have penis. In deed, lesbians have 'sex'. It is a 'normal' use of language. --Haldrik (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The editor Flyer22 has exceeded the 3-revert rule and violates Wikipedia policy. Moreover, with extreme POV he suggests Lesbians dont have sexual intercourse, "considering frottage and any other outercourse is not sexual intercourse".

To the contrary, lesbians dont have "outercourse", they have "sexual intercourse" in the larger human sense, and for who "innercourse" is irrelevant.

This page must cover human sexuality accurately and comprehensively, with minimal heterosexual POV.--Haldrik (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I have not violated the three-revert rule. And no one is saying that lesbians cannot have sex too. You are way off to act as though I am biased (Me? No way) against lesbians or homosexuals in general...WAY OFF.

The definition of sexual intercourse in its original form is coitus. As you will see, coitus and vaginal sex redirects here. The word Sex is used to define any type of sex, sure, but when it comes to sexual intercourse...it applying to other sexual acts is more due to common usage. This article clarifies that the term sexual intercourse also includes oral sex and anal sex. But your wanting to redefine the lead of this article in a way that suggests that frottage and tribadism is often called sexual intercourse is quite off. It should not be implied whatsoever that frottage or tribadism is sexual intercourse, when it is actually sexual outercourse. That's why those two terms have their own articles. Flyer22 (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

"I am biased (Me? No way)". Im not implying it, Im stating it outright. You systematically erase homosexuals from existence. Not only is it misleading to catagorize samesex intercourse as subset of irrelevant "outercourse", but it is a form of hate to systematically marginalize homosexual intercourse. It is overt heterosexist POV.

By contrast, Lesbians dont have "outercourse", they have sex and sexual intercourse, like other humans do. The term "outercourse" is by definition heterosexist, and makes no sense outside of a heterosexual context.

Lesbians are a significant aspect of human sexuality, which this page must cover adequately, and a significant aspect of sexual intercourse, which is more complex among humans than among other animals. Sexologists include lesbians, when referring to 'sexual intercourse'. --Haldrik (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

First off, you are assuming what my sexuality is. Second, you dare have the gall to say that "Im not implying it, Im stating it outright." State it outright all you want to say that I'm biased against homosexuals, but the Supercouple article's talk page and plenty of editors who know me, is proof that I am not. Nor is there any way that I could be (laughs). What you state is outright ridiculous! I do not and did not systematically erase homosexuals from existence with my edits, as this article was already as it was (and with no bias) before you showed up trying to redefine the article. I am about giving accuracy. It is not "a form of hate that systematically marginalizes homosexual intercourse." It is not overt heterosexist POV. There is nothing intercourse about frottage and tribadism. That's like defining a handjob as sexual intercourse, which it is not. There's a reason that people use the words sexual intercourse, anal sex, oral sex and...handjob, when decribing sexual acts...because they have specific meaning. No one hardly ever says vaginal sex when referring to sex, because it is understood that that is sexual intercourse. In the law, when they are talking about anal sex, they specifically state that. These terms are not all bunched up together like you are doing, and they do not all mean sexual intercourse.

Your edit to this article is the one that is biased and POV. And I will change it back to its original form later. For you to come here and change the lead and many other things in this article without consensus because of the POV you want to push is not what Wikipedia is about. It is not what truth is about. Flyer22 (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It is POV to catagorize lesbians as a SUBSET of peripheral heterosexual "outercourse". It is literally heterocentric and literally marginalizes homosexuals. Lesbians dont have "outercourse". The word "outercourse" is irrelevant in female-female sex. --Haldrik (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Um... nobody's categorizing "lesbians" as a subset of "outercourse". Lesbians are human beings, and outercourse is an activity. Maybe it sounds like I'm being pedantic, and "know what you mean", but no I don't, and if you're going to argue about the way people use language, I'd think you'd want to use language carefully while doing it.

It's certainly true that lesbians have sex. I would agree that it's fair to use the term "sexual intercourse" to describe what any two consenting adults feel to be "sexual intercourse".

Wikipedia, of course, is not about what's fair, but about what sources say. I would ask whether the term "sexual intercourse" is used solely to refer to penile penetration in our sources. That is the relevant question, and not how we "should" define it, according to our own moral feelings about it. We're supposed to reflect sources, not correct them. Activism is best directed at the non-Wikipedia world; we'll reflect it when it changes. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, in the word 'intercourse', the prefix 'inter-' means 'mutual'. For example, 'interdisciplinary' means separate fields of study mutually influence each other. A word like 'interpenetration' would mean each entity mutually penetrates the other, such as sex between snails.

American Heritage Dictionary (et al): inter- Between; among: international. Mutual; mutually: interrelate. Reciprocal; reciprocally: intermingle.

The word 'intercourse' can be, and often is, understood more widely than 'inner'course. It means both partners give and both partners take, in a mutual activity. It doesnt necessarily mean the male 'gives' and the female 'takes'. The term 'intercourse' applies just as well to homosexual sex as heterosexual. Again, when sexologists refer to 'sexual intercourse' among humans, they include sexual intercourse among samesex partners. --Haldrik (talk) 02:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL! In the same way, the term 'social intercourse' DOESNT mean monologue. It means the opposite of a monologue. A two-way conversation. Both speak, and both listen. --Haldrik (talk) 02:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that you've taken the time to talk with me on this matter. Instead of basically calling me a bigot. There is no way that I am prejudiced against homosexuals. I hope now that you can see that from that link above and maybe from any future edits I make on other topics. I don't feel that the way that this article was worded was POV that catagorized lesbians as a SUBSET of peripheral heterosexual "outercourse". It merely stated the original meaning of the term first and then went into how it is also used. Sort of how the article Virginity tries to get across the different ways that the term virginity is used, though it originally means a woman. I am very much about accuracy. Non-penetrative sex is not sexual intercourse, and I don't want our readers to be misled. A handjob, for instance, while mutual, is not sexual intercourse. I'm always in the gay community and I never hear frottage or tribadism defined as sexual intercourse, and certainly not by sexologists, a field that I have a lot of knowledge in. Anal sex and oral sex is a different story, however, and this article was not excluding lesbians, as it mentions oral sex, and mentions other sexual acts later in this article. I will make a few edits to your version and see what you think. It's not a revert...at least not yet. I'm waiting for more editors to comment on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 03:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I assume all editors contribute in good faith. Wikipedia strives to integrate various POVs. The following claim is inaccurate: "Non-penetrative sex is not sexual intercourse". When sexology (the science of human sexuality) uses the word 'sexual intercourse', they usually include socalled "non-penetrative" sex, especially in the context of samesex couples. Moreover, in normal speech, people usually use the term 'sexual intercourse' and 'sex' in the wider sense. For example, when Clinton famously claimed, 'I did not have sexual intercourse with that woman', he was widely perceived as fraudulent or humorous. The dissonance between the normally accepted wider meaning versus the unusual narrow meaning, was shocking. --Haldrik (talk) 03:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you source this claim: "When sexology (the science of human sexuality) uses the word 'sexual intercourse', they usually include socalled "non-penetrative" sex"? How could I verify it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

In a private conversation, a prominent sexologist has assured me, the term 'sexual intercourse' is almost always used the inclusive sense. (She said, the only exception to this rule is when sexologists analyze legal texts where terminology tends to be archaic.) Anyway, she also pointed out this as an easy to access citable source.

The American Heritage Dictionary: sexual intercourse noun. 1. Coitus between humans. 2. Sexual union between humans involving genital contact other than vaginal penetration by the penis.

Notice, neither definition is identified as 'coloquial'. In the human context, sexual intercourse is more complex. --Haldrik (talk) 04:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The private conversation is useless for us here, but the citation is all you ever needed. Anyone opposing the more inclusive definition had better provide a source to back up the more restrictive one, and then we can talk about the sources, and relative weights and all that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not a more restrictive one. It is rather its original definition. This article cites it as copulation (coitus) in the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 05:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not it's original, it's more restrictive than a more inclusive definition. That's what the word "restrictive" means. All definitions are restrictive, and that's not a value judgment. If they weren't restrictive, they wouldn't be definitions. You'd be better off citing sources than arguing semantics. Which source says that "sexual intercourse" only means coitus, and why is it a better source than the one cited above?

Remember, it's all about sources, and not about what any of us thinks. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The first source in this article is one that states coitus, but I mentioned that already. I'll further elaborate on this topic below. Flyer22 (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be equally misleading if Wiki invented a nomenclature that defined heterosexuals as 'sub-homosexual', and used terms like 'para-sexual' to mean that heterosexuals were peripheral to, or even inferior to homosexuals, and that heterosexuals cant participate in 'true' sex. Only homosexual sex is 'true' sex. Heterosexual sex isnt 'true' sex. The anti-heterosexual POV would likewise be inappropriate (and offend me). --Haldrik (talk) 04:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Haldrik, it did not seem, at first, that you assumed I was contributing in good faith. But as for this article's lead:

It is not incorrect to state that non-penetrative sex is not sexual intercourse, even when a sexologist uses the word sexual intercourse to include non-penetrative sex. Sexual intercourse, in its original definition means coitus. It is defined that way by many scientists. And that is its original definition. That is a fact, not a biased slant of the term, or else the articles coitus and vaginal sex would not redirect here. How come vaginal sex doesn't have its own article? There would not be terms to define other sex acts if all of it was just sexual intercourse. As for Clinton, he actually stated "I did not have sexual relations with that woman", not "I did not have sexual intercourse with that woman", and from what I remember, while a lot of people suspected he was lying about not having sexual relations with that woman, they saw how Clinton could disregard oral sex. And with concerning other sexual acts, there's a reason a great deal of the world, yes, gays and lesbians too, don't consider handjobs to be sexual intercourse. Even the article on non-penetrative sex, which I just got an email from a friend (who is gay) informing me that he wrote a great deal of that article, mentions that it is not sexual intercourse, but a form of human sexuality. He does consider anal sex sexual intercourse, but also stated my sentiments about the lead of this article defining its original term...copulation/coitus...first, while noting on the term's scope. It is not stating that heterosexual sex is true sex to have this article define sexual intercourse in its original sense first. This article makes clear that definition, as it is originally defined, while also going into mention on how the term sex, when used to describe sexual intimacy, is wide-spread for other sexual acts. I see no problem with the lead of this article as it is now. To have this article state that every form of sex is sexual intercourse is what would be misleading...and off. There would be no need for those other articles on different sex acts. To me, it is no different than saying that the term coitus is biased because it does not mean anal sex and oral sex. Plenty of dictionaries have more than one definition for a word, but usually state the original definition first, as does the dictionary definition you cited above. Given how the term sexual intercourse is used to refer to other sex acts at times, I would expect nothing less from a dictionary to define other ways in which the term is used, but that does not stop the fact that defining all sex acts as sexual intercourse is incorrect.

On another note, Haldrik, and, no, I'm not trying to change the subject, your help is needed on the Virginity article. We need a section on how the lesbian community or even the gay and lesbian community views virginity. See the talk page there, and you'll see what I'm talking about on that, of course. I would love to work with you on that front. Flyer22 (talk) 05:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

"Original definition" is not our criterion for how we define terms. In its original definition, "hysteria" meant "disorder of the uterus". The question is, have we got sources claiming that "sexual intercourse" only refers to penile penetration? Have we got sources claiming that the term refers to more general activities? What are the relative weights of these two types of sources? These are the questions we have to ask. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course.

As I stated before, if one looks at the Non-penetrative sex article, it makes clear the differences in the varying sex acts, and that it is not sexual intercourse.

Especially this source from that article, which states Great sex without intercourse, and gives a complete guide as to this topic. It is not biased or heterosexist, but simply stating the facts.

And then there are these links:...and many more like them.

To state that all sex acts are sexual intercourse is like stating that a woman who gives a man a handjob is no longer a virgin. I mean, of course, that woman is still a virgin even though she gave that man a handjob. The Non-penetrative sex article also notes virtual sex. Is virtual sex sexual intercourse as well? Of course not. There is even a type of sex act that involves a man rubbing his penis in a person's armpit. Basically, there are plenty of sex acts that can be created, but that does not mean that they are all sexual intercourse. If we have this article state that sexual intercourse is all forms of sex, what are we going to have the Non-penetrative sex article state? That non-penetrative sex is a form of sexual intercourse? What??? Then why is it called outercourse? It's not sexual intercourse. I will say that I'm not too keen on the Non-penetrative sex article listing oral sex as non-penetrative sex, considering that it can be penetrative. But, really, oral sex has always been debated about whether or not it really constitutes as sex. A lot of the times not so much about whether or not it constitutes as sexual intercourse, but rather about even "truly" being sex. We especially saw this with Clinton and the Monica Lewinsky scandal. High schoolers and college students often debate it, and many people in general as well. While there are some virginal women who engage in anal sex because they feel that it's not "true sex" either, anal sex is not as debated about whether or not it is sex, even when it is not considered sexual intercourse.

Plenty of gay men engage in non-penetrative sex because they feel that they are holding off on "real sex" (not just because they feel that non-penetrative sex is safer).

One type of sex is penetrative. The other type of sex is non-penetrative. They cannot both be the same thing. But, specifically concerning oral sex, this article does not downplay that oral sex can be considered sex. The lead now very much points that out. This article does not list different views on what should be considered sex. It rather first states sexual intercourse in its original sense, then elaborates on sexual intimacy in general.

Yes, sex, in the context of sexual intimacy, means all types of sex. But the term sexual intercourse does not.

The lead of this article is not too different from the way Haldrik first edited it or last edited it, except that it does not confuse sexual intercourse with all kinds of sexual acts.

As for the Human sexuality article redirecting here, it does not. There is a merge tag placed on that article, however, about whether or not it should be merged into the Human sexual behavior article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The claim is wrong that "sex means all types of sex, but sexual intercourse does not." To the contrary, the dictionaries explicitly define sexual intercourse as 'Sexual union between humans involving genital contact other than vaginal penetration by the penis'. Its as simple as that. The term 'sexual intercourse' DOES mean 'all types of sex'. --Haldrik (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, you're cited one dictionary that defines it that way. Flyer22 has cited some sources that define it in a more restrictive way. This conversation doesn't need to be about our opinions at all; this conversation should be entirely about which sources say what. Just line up the sources that define "sexual intercourse", and see which ones define it which way. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe people are confused by polite speech? In contexts where people actually mean 'copulation', people may substitute the term 'sexual intercourse' to humanize and personalize the reference, despite the words 'copulation' and 'sexual intercourse' arent identical in meaning. The term sexual 'inter'course refers to 'mutual' activity and connotes partners pleasuring eachother mutually during intimacy, which is why this term is rarely applied to other animals, except perhapse when anthropomorphicizing animals. --Haldrik (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Haldrik, the "claim" that sex means all types of sex, but sexual intercourse does not is not wrong. The many sources, including academic ones and ones from sexologists that I have provided above (I can provide many more), also point that out. Your citation from the American Heritage Dictionary only shows that sexual intercourse can be considered what you cite. Although, the Britannica encyclopedia only cites it as coitus/copulation...and so do many other encyclopedias. Why should the Wikipedia encyclopedia cite sexual intercourse as all forms of sex when it is not mostly defined as that? This article should not be about the etymology problems with the word sexual intercourse. A lot of people don't consider oral sex as sexual intercourse, others do. That does not mean that the lead of this article should state that sexual intercourse is all forms of sex, when, clearly, from the citations I have provided above, it is not. Despite the term sexual intercourse having etymology problems, it is understood that it is not the same thing as outercourse. All the points I have brought up on this matter, such as the Non-penetrative sex article is clear on this. Flyer22 (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

By definition, it means all kinds of sex. Do say it doesnt mean it is wrong. --Haldrik (talk) 02:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia should note both meanings, the sense of 'copulation' in the context of comparisons with other species of animals, and the sense of more complex forms of sex in the human species. --Haldrik (talk) 02:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

By defintion, it does not mean all kinds of sex. Just because its wording is intercourse rather than inner (or enter) course does not stop the fact of how the word is greatly defined, which excludes non-penetrative sex. I and other people (though I'm not specifically talking about any editor here) have noticed its etymology problem before, and how, with how the word is greatly defined, it should be titled sexual inner (or enter) course. But it is not. And that does not stop the fact of what the word has come to be defined as, and that it does not mean all forms of sex.

The term Sexual intercourse applying to all forms of sex is greatly disputed by all of the valid sources that cite outercourse.

The term Sexual intercourse applying to coitus/copulation is not disputed.

No one ever says that vaginal sex is not sexual intercourse. It's important for this article to state the non-disputed definition of sexual intercourse, while stressing that the term Sex, in concerns to sexual intimacy, encompasses all variations of sex. To have a kid leave this article thinking that he or she has engaged in sexual intercourse because he or she acted in virtual sex, for instance, would be greatly misleading. You never hear anyone calling virtual sex sexual intercourse, and it should not be implied here that it is.

The fact that a person can type the words sexual outercourse in a search bar...and have all these websites pop up — medical ones, information from sexologists, links to scholarly books, etc. — displaying that sexual intercourse and sexual outercourse are two different subjects, is all I need to know for an answer on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Haldrik has cited a dictionary that defines "sexual intercourse" in a way that includes non-penetrative sex. There's no point ignoring that source. What we can type into a search bar is irrelevant original research. This discussion should focus on sources, not on what we personally find to be correct. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

And I have provided many sources that cite that sexual intercourse is not the same thing as sexual outercourse. My arguments have and are always mainly about sources here at Wikipedia, not mainly about personal opinion of mine. You asked for sources, and I have provided many. I even called up two doctors to specifically ask them if they include sexual intercourse as the same thing as sexual outercourse, and both vehemently said no. And, yes, I know that I cannot provide you two with those conversations, and you may consider this part of my post irrelevant, but they noted how experts in their field distinguish the two when talking to parents about their adolescent kids engaging in sexual activity or when talking specifically about safer sex topics with adolescents or adults. The above medical links about sexual outercourse also clearly distinguish the two. It's not about the term sexual intercourse being more inclusive; it's about it literally and truly being separate of sexual outercourse. Furthermore, Haldrik's source contradicts itself, which I will point out below.

I also point out that all forms of rape are not force, which is why we have a Rape article and a Statutory rape article (and a Date rape article, though date rape is still, of course, against someone's will). However, there was no way that we were going to let the Rape article state that rape is about coercion in its lead, as someone recently tried and repeatedly tries to keep doing to that article (among other things to it), when rape is not mostly defined as that, and that article elaborates on other aspects of rape, that have their own articles here at Wikipedia, of course. I'm not putting Haldrik on the same level as that person, who is a banned editor. I'm only pointing out the fact that rape and statutory rape are considered two different subjects, even though statutory rape can just be considered rape, and that rape may also be defined as coercion, but it is not mainly defined as coercion in the Rape article, and to do so, would be as if we are downplaying the victims' pain and the fact that it is mainly defined with the word force in it.

Likewise, sexual intercourse and sexual outercourse are two different subjects. To define sexual intercourse as all forms of sex would be neglecting the medical, sexology...and scholarly citations that cite that it is not...and that it is not truly or mainly defined as that. Why else do we have an article on Wikipedia about non-penetrative sex citing it as different from sexual intercourse?

Haldrik used the American Heritage Dictionary. Now let me (since I have several in my home). This is what the American Heritage Dictionary states rape is: 1. The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, esp. sexual intercourse.

It's right there. Even the American Heritage Dictionary does not believe that all sex acts are sexual intercourse.

If sexual intercourse were mainly defined as a mutual act of sex between two people, then there would be no way that you could force someone into sexual intercourse. And you know what? Rape definitions are always stating that rape is forced sexual intercourse, even more proof that the way sexual intercourse is defined has nothing to do with etymology.

The fact that inter means between and mutual has nothing to do with the way that sexual intercourse has become defined as. While, in the sense of etymology, it would make more sense if it were officially titled sexual innercourse, it is not. And etymology has no significant bearing, if any, on its definition.

I have stated mostly all I can state on this matter. And there's hardly any more to state. It's like I've given all of the proof in the world that sexual intercourse and sexual outercourse are two different subjects...and should not be bunched together as if they are the same thing. Medical, sexology...and scholarly citations do not, and we should not do that here. I really don't have much more of anything too different to state on this matter than what I've already stated in this discussion. The lead of this article is more accurate as it is now (right in this moment) than to simply bunch all of the sex acts together, and say, "Yes, all of this is sexual intercourse." Flyer22 (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Flyer22, please don't think that I'm not listening to you, or that I don't realize that you've cited sources. I'm not even disagreeing with you, ok? I see a discussion going round and round, and I see that you guys are bringing up things other than sources, and I'm trying to help refocus the conversation.

Now, we've got one source that defines the term one way, and many sources that define it another way. That's a pretty good argument to go with the many sources over the one. It might be worth a mention that some people (and more citations would be good here - Haldrik?) define the term in a more inclusive way. That's what I meant by "there's no reason to ignore it". We don't have to determine a single "correct" definition. If there are multiple ones in use, we get to point that out, and say who uses which definition. That's NPOV.

I would maintain that, for our purposes here, we can't use private conversations, or etymology (which proves nothing in any case), nor can we use other definitions in the American Heritage Dictionary to make some original claim about the inconsistency of that source. It's clear that their definition of "rape" cites the first definition of "sexual intercourse" and not the second, but that doesn't somehow invalidate the second one. Do you not agree that some people use "sexual intercourse" to mean more than just penile penetration?

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not claiming that you're wrong. I'm not claiming that outercourse is intercourse. I'm not claiming that "intercourse" is primarily defined in a way that includes outercourse. I'm not claiming that our separate article on outercourse is somehow invalid or incorrect. I'm simply pointing out that there is at least one source that defines "sexual intercourse" in a more inclusive way, and I'm suggesting that it wouldn't hurt to talk about whether that deserves a mention - not primacy, just a mention. Is it not ok to discuss that question? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

GTBacchus, I got you. And you have helped me with an issue before, the Gabrielle Solis article, so I know that you are doing your best here. I must admit that it did, for a bit there, seem as though my many citations that cite that sexual intercourse and sexual outercourse are two different things were being overlooked. I'm glad that you spoke up about what's really on your mind concerning this issue. I still feel that the American Hertiage Dictionary contradicts itself, since no matter it relating rape to its first definition of sexual intercourse, it's still pointing out that not all sex is sexual intercourse. I've admitted that sometimes some people consider oral sex sexual intercourse, for instance, and I believed that is part of the reason that the American Hertiage Dictionary has that second definition about sexual intercourse, not to mention due to anal sex. But specifically in terms of sexual intercourse and sexual outercourse, I had to bring up how they are not the same thing. It's like how some people may consider virtual sex as sex, but that does not stop the fact that a lot of people would not consider virtual sex to mean sex. I am mainly pointing out that no matter what the American Heritage Dictionary says, sexual intercourse and sexual outercourse are two different subjects, and it would not make a bit of sense to have this article state that they are the same when we have an article on sexual outercourse citing that they are not...and many medical, sexology, and scholarly citations citing that they are not, for many reasons. There are a lot of reasons why the two are separated from each other...for doctors and sexology experts to point out safer sex options to people, for clarity when talking out penetrative sex and non-penetrative sex, etc. Dictionaries can have errors, just as encyclopedias sometimes have errors. And while some people may consider oral sex, sexual intercourse, for instance, I'm pointing out that if the American Heritage Dictionary is saying that all sex is sexual intercourse, then that is an error. The world does not even define all sex as sexual intercourse. I do understand your feelings on this matter, GTBacchus. And I respect your voice on matters, just as I saw/see you respecting us. Flyer22 (talk) 03:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I also want to add that I took care of Haldrik's original problem with the lead of this article. Haldrik felt that the lead of this article implied that lesbians or rather gay people in general don't have sex. That had to do with the way the lead was worded. It was worded to say that sexual intercourse is sometimes called just sex, and that the term is also sometimes colloquially used at times to include oral sex and anal sex. Haldrik took that to mean that the lead of this article was saying that oral sex and anal sex is not really sex, but only colloquially called sex. The lead was actually, however, more so referring to the term Sexual intercourse, not saying that any other sex is not sex. To the point, I took care of that problem in the lead, which now makes it clear that all forms of sex is sex...at least widely enough. The lead now gets that across, without confusing sexual intercourse with all forms of sex. I also added a source to the lead about the term sex meaning all sex that explains that just because a sexual act between two people is not sexual intercourse does not mean that it is not sex. Flyer22 (talk) 18:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Came back to this section to state that I have now broadened the scope of the term sexual intercourse, which clarifies how it biologically and traditionally means coitus, but has broadened to include anal sex and oral sex (at times, anyway). However, sexual intercourse is still not widely defined as every type of sex, thus that is still made clear in the lead, with my pointing out outercourse. Anyway, the lead should now be satisfactory to all. Flyer22 (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

new image

File:Meandmybf.jpg

What do you all think of adding this image. I feel it would add a great deal to the article. It is a real photograph of two people, it clearly shows the act of penetration with two slides, showing the inserting of a penis into an anus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ah0000000ga (talk • contribs) 06:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks more pornographic than educational. It definitely shouldn't be used for the main image of this article, considering that we already have an article on anal sex and not everyone engages in anal sex. If I were to put that picture anywhere in this article, it would go in the section that specifically discusses anal sex, of course. But, truthfully, no, I don't feel that that image would be a good addition to this article. Flyer22 (talk) 07:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

How does it look more pornographic than educational? Than say images at autofellatio and anal-oral contact? The images already in this article are also "pornographic" but this particular image is a realistic example of penetration, i think its not typical of modern porn since they done use two pane images, from what i have seen, but the fact that it is double paned makes it very illustrative of actual penetration. Maybe not the main image but i think it should be included, in the body perhaps. Someone unfamiliar with the subject can see the before after of the act. Everyone doesn't engage in anal sex is true, but not everyone engages in vaginal or oral sex, or penetrative sex, or any sex at all. But - this article is about penetration not heterosexual nor vaginal penetration.Ah0000000ga (talk) 22:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Haven't we had the discussion already where we say 'Uh, no' to people posting images of themselves having sex? Avruchtalk 23:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah0000000ga, I knew you would bring up "not everyone engages in vaginal or oral sex, or penetrative sex"... However, most have engaged in vaginal sex, even gay men and lesbian women. And most definitely penetrative sex in general. Of course, this article is not mainly about heterosexual or vaginal penetration. All of that is not the point. The point I was making about this image not being used as the main image for this article is that we already have an article on anal sex, and there are a lot more people who have enagaged in vaginal sex (which includes gay men and lesbian women, whether having "come out" as gay or not) and the main image should reflect that, especially since we have articles for other sex topics. We don't even have an article on Vaginal sex, because when people say the word "sexual intercourse"...it's usually taken to mean Vaginal sex, which is why Vaginal sex redirects here. As for your image as a whole, yes, it is pornographic. I don't see the other images in this article as being pornographic, as you say. I mean, when it comes to the main image in the Anal-oral contact article, that is an agreed-upon image, which is obviously seen by those who agreed to using it as educational for an overall presentation of the topic. Using your image for the anal sex section in this article, I feel is not needed, since we already have an image there where a person can get the idea, and then we have an article that the person can click on and get thoroughly informed, with more detail and images. And your image being a two-pane image in the way that it is makes it look even more pornographic. It does not look too different than a pornographic image I saw pop up on someone's computer screen not that long ago. I just disagree with using that image in this article. But if you are that adamant about using it in this article, perhaps we can get more editors to weigh in on this matter. Editor Avruch already has. Flyer22 (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

This image was recently nominated for deletion. The deciding admin opted to keep, despite consensus to delete. Please participate in the discussion by following the link below:

This image was recently nominated for deletion. The deciding admin opted to keep, despite consensus to delete. Please participate in the discussion by following the link below.

This article is currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review, because a recent decision to retain or delete it on Wikipedia has been appealed. You may wish to contribute to the review. While the review is in progress, you are welcome to edit the article, but please do not blank it or remove this notice. For more information, particularly on merging or moving articles under review, please see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion.

Category:Articles on deletion review

Exploding Boy (talk) 04:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Rape

The following paragraph bothers me:

"Another view of the "consent" determinate factor for rape can be applied to a relationship between adults where one party has lied to the other. Because their relationship contract is built on false grounds, the party lied to cannot truly consent, and has been raped if they have sex."

While Wikipedia is not a place to discuss legalities I believe this paragraph is incorrect, and it appears to have been written by somebody with an agenda. Sexual intercourse can be had with out a relationship, and a relationship can be had without sexual intercourse, rape is the act of having sexual intercourse with an unwilling or non-consenting party. Whether or not a person is led into a relationship on false grounds has nothing to do with any sexual intercourse they may partake in during that relationship. If a person willingly consents to sexual intercourse, regardless of what they do or don't know about the other party, it is not rape. Conjecture such as the above paragraph serves only to complicate the mater of defining rape and provides no benefit to victims of actual rape. Allowing such conjecture to become legally significant opens up dangerous opportunities for vindictive (ex-)partners to claim rape as a method of revenge and makes light of the real abuse cases. Since the paragraph has no citation and (as far as I can see) no basis in actual legal opinion I am inclined to simply remove it from the article, however I am curious to know what others think of it. Jaqel (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I actually recall reading in an old episode of Playboy (sorry I don't know which issue, it was a long time ago) about a court case wherein a judge found a man who removed his condom guilty of rape, because the "consent was conditional on the condom." While not exactly what you're talking about here, it seems somewhat related. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 01:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I would say that we remove the entry Jaqel has suggested that we remove...until we find a valid citation for it. Flyer22 (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed the paragraph as I feel it detracts from the quality of the article. Jaqel (talk) 07:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)