Revision as of 02:34, 31 December 2005

Template:FL

Requests/Questions

Merge project

I am not sure where to ask this, but should we merge Categories:Sex positions into here? There are some nice articles on missionary and side entry missionary, then lots of stubs. --Maxweber 21:48, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Illustrations

Does anybody know who did the illustrations?

I did. Rama 09:49, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

They are very nice. Do you do them from imagination, pictures, or models? Maxweber 18:17, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sexual positions

Genital sex positions

Male-male genital sex positions

It would be nice if someone would go over this and add some positions unique to gay or lesbian sex, now i can imagine some but i dont know if they are physically possible or their names.

Since i dont have the "right" sexual preference to try it myself this is a call for aid from fellow wikipedians --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 17:05, 2004 Apr 7 (UTC)

With the exception of what goes where, there is no position a hetereosexed couple can get into that a same-sex couple can't. For male-male couplings, there is obviously no vagina for penetration, so any male-female position performed for anal penetration works. For female-female couplings desiring penile-vaginal or penile-anal intercourse, the use of a strap-on can allow all of the male-female positions possible. - UtherSRG 17:23, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes of course, however those may have specific other than the straight-ones, and there may also be some other exotic ones, thats that i was talking about. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:24, 2004 Apr 9 (UTC)

All or nearly all other non-penetrative penis- or vagina- manipulation activities are independent of the sex of the other person, with the possible exception of female tribadism and male face-to-face "frot". Still, ignorance does not imply noexistence, so does anyone know of any exotic homosexual-only positions that I have left out here? -- Karada 10:37, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if this would be considered frot or mutual masturbation, but one man can masturbate himself and a partner (or partners) simultaneously with one hand, I've heard it called "double JO"; also a man can slide his forskin over the glans of his partner, this is called docking. Also there's nothing inherently gay or lesbian about anal use of double ended dildos I'm going to remove that and put some stuff that's been discussed up

one typically homosexual thing is the "dark room party", where naked people dance and rub each other in the dark. Could be done by lesbians or gay (and bisexual of course), but I have heard it was rather a male thing. Can anybody confirm ? (if this is true, we will absolutely have to get a picture ! ;) ) Rama 19:27, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I had just asked this question at Talk:Missionary position wondering the same thing about homosexual positions. I eventually made my way here trying to find out more information. If homosexual couples can engage in the same positions as heterosexuals, then aren't all of the sex position pages from the heterosexual point of view? I was certain that I have heard and used the names missionary and doggy style in reference to the homosexual variants of the positions. I don't think we should change all the pictures or anything as they give the general idea for either type The changing of the use of "man" and "woman" to other articles would be difficult but I just thought I'd ask the question anyway. :) --Sketchee 11:18, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Tori and Uke, like in judo ? :) Rama 11:06, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How about penetrating and receiving partner? In fact, I'll do that now. --Dmlandfair 7 July 2005 02:42 (UTC)

Anal sex positions

Okay, does anyone have any specific anal sex positions? I can think that most vaginal positions can be adapted anally, although some with difficulty (different angle of rectal vs. vaginal entry) -- Karada 17:58 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Group sex positions

Miscellaneous Comments

Discussion

I'm not sure if Backdoor entrance should qualify as a sex position, it's more of a type of intercourse isn't it? - Camster342

Does the 69 sex position and anal intercourse really qualify as "not widely known"? Also, I feel that "they are not the ordinary acts done between people" seems a little politically loaded to me. I'm going to go ahead and do a couple of verbiage tweaks there. I've also moved the "cybersex" and "phone sex" links to the "See also" section, since those don't really strike me as sexual positions. Justin Bacon

Maybe in the same sense as in "political positions," "moral positions," etc. --Calieber 03:09, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Can we expect a discussion of cultural ways of clasifying sex positions? eg Karma Sutra, Joy of Sex etc, a sort of history of lists of sex positions?

I'm also concerned that this page seems to have a Western POV. For example, the "missionary position" is described as being the most common. I am under the impression that although this position is most common in the Western world due to Christian influence, it had to be taught by the missionaries to indigenous peoples in the rest of the world, implying their cultural preference was other than the missionary position, and hence the name of the position. --zandperl 16:16, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The missionary position is BY FAR most common world-wide because it gives the best chance for pregnancy. This is noted because in the animal world "doggy style" is the most common. -Iopq 00:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

A lot of the newest definitions seem to have been taken from http://www.condoms.au.com/positions/positions.html -- I'm taking them out as possible copyvios. -- 217.158.106.228 23:20, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

User:Karada seems to think that the names of the positions on this list aren't genuine, and are in fact copyvios. Any thoughts? See User Talk:Karada. Vancouverguy 23:45, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

These are not in conformity with regular practice of sex.

What does this mean? Does it mean the listed positions are weird, i.e., there's something wrong with them (or some NPOV version of that sentiment) or that they're unusual, i.e., the sentence merely recapitulates the preceding two? "Not in conformity" gives the whole thing a strange, Orwellian tone. --Calieber

I find the mere concept idea of "regular practice of sex" frightening for the society (without mentioning sexuality as well). Some things are legal and other are not, but nothing is "regular". I certainly agree with Calieber, this formulation leaves room for huge improvements. Rama 09:56, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See http://masamania.com/masha/101-150/118/index.htm where they claim to have invented a new position, the helicopter fuck. (Warning: explicit picture content). -- Karada 10:28, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

404 :(

Not a how-to

I am not going to watch this article. But I remind you that Misplaced Pages is not a how-to guide. Tom Haws 07:20, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Please remove links

It seems as though many of the articles about obscure individual sex positions just get created as vandalism. Many are blanked and protected. Someone needs to go through and remove links to the esoteric positions as they are already defined here. Some sexual positions are popular enough that articles CAN and have been written about them, such as the missionary position and 69. CryptoDerk 03:56, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

• This is an issue again. Bagging the bunny and Cleaning the spoon have both been put up as separate articles. The text of the articles is just a copy of the text from the list here. How best to manage this situation?--Gaff talk 02:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• The language used to describe these positions is a bit on the colloquial side. Also, the "bagging the bunny" section describes a practice rather than a position. The reference to "bunny fuck" might be obscure to some readers. (I admit I had to call upon the vast resources of the Internet to fully understand the concept.) I found no explanation in the Misplaced Pages for either "bagging the bunny" or "bunny fuck". These practices should probably be documented in Human sexual behavior#Sex_acts_and_practices rather than here.
  

--GraemeMcRae 04:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Is this vandalism? The article says at the beginning: "In fact, some of these positions are also found among bonobos." Even if it were true, it wouldn't be at the beginning of the articles. — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Suggested move to Wikibooks

I suggest that this article be moved to Wikibooks (specifically, to the Wikibooks:how-tos bookshelf) for the following reasons:

1. The article seems non-encyclopedic, because the article seems to encourage people to put into practice what they read on the article.
2. It looks more like a how-to guide than an encyclopedia article, despite the message inside the article that tells that Misplaced Pages is not a how-to guide. The message itself suggests that the article looks like a how-to guide.
3. Editors of this article seem to know a lot about what they write. On the Wikibooks site, they can expand the article/book even more. With the information found on the separate articles in Misplaced Pages, a whole book could be expanded with details.
4. This is not a typical Misplaced Pages list. It is way too expanded in comparison to other lists. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 19:03, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Slightly disagree (conditional). If a good trimming of the article can be done... eg., with all content going to wikibooks, a synopsis bere, and a list positon names so the individual articles can be made/found ... I'd support it. A gutting of the article I would oppose.
  1. The article is encyclopedic, because the article describes the topic and then gives a brief summuary of each entry (the entries have thier own articles).
  2. It's an encyclopedia article, which necessarily needs to describe the entries / content of the article (which is a list).
  3. I would support a expanded article/book, if the synopsis is kept here (with the individual articles linked and listed in this article}.
  4. Typical Misplaced Pages list? It's probably one of the better list that wikipedia has. The other lists need to be expanded.

I do think that, with a careful edit here, an expanded book (multiple time this article size) could be written. With the information found on the separate articles in Misplaced Pages and more contribution from knowledgeable editors, a codex could be expanded with high detail (which isn't here in wikipedia).

19:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• I'm also against a move to Wikibooks, but I don't have anything against a duplicate or a link in Wikibooks. The article is encyclopedic beacause a good Encycopedia needs an overview of one of the most frequent activities of mankind (besides war). The Preface in fact does warn you not to try any of these activities without proper medical advice.
  1. Consensus has not been reached (several times) whether How-To-Guides should or shoud not be removed from Misplaced Pages. So for now lists and How-Tos cannot be removed with this argument.
  2. Featuered articles are something we can be proud of and they shoudn't be removed because they are so complete. --Leopard 14:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. None of the arguments stated for the move stand examination. A duplicate, or perhaps expanded duplicate, is of course welcome on Wikibooks, but I have yet to see a reason to remove this list from wikipedia. Rama 16:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Double vaginal double anal

Having this helps any reader who has heard about the position or logically extrapolates it from the others, and might conclude that it was left out by accident. How does it hurt anything? --Prosfilaes 21:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The problem with DVDA is that it's physically impossible. Perhaps if a quartet of severed penises suddenly found themselves able to thrust of their own accord...but in a realistic situation, the bodies of those taking part would be in the way of any and all action.

likely

I disagree with Shawnc's edit. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the adverb, likely means: in all probability : PROBABLY <a popular dance hall was more likely her choice than his -- Valentine Williams>

In the original sentence, before Shawnc's edit (There is no evidence that this act has ever occurred and it is likely physically impossible.) the word likely can be replaced by probably without altering the meaning of the sentence.
--GraemeMcRae 22:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, by grammar I meant changing it for stylistic purposes (it had a slight sound of cacophony to me). Shawnc 17:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

It would appear that this page has been vandalised (not for the first time, I should imagine). I'm not a regular Wikipedian, so I'm afraid I don't know how to fix it myself, nor could I find any pages on which to bring it to the urgent attention of those who do. Kris Hansen 04:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Just go back to the last page in the history that's not vandalism, and edit it from there. You might want to check your cache, though; as far as I can tell, I made the last edit and elimated the vandalisation.--Prosfilaes 05:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The dirty sanchez link contains information on abusive scenarios akin to rape.

Upon looking at this link, I agree with you. While Misplaced Pages is not censored for the protection of minors, there were multiple descriptions on that page that were, quite frankly, abusive and illegal (in an assault and battery sort of way). I have removed the link for this reason. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 01:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag added after blanking/vandalism

Does anyone know why the POV tag was added recently? Generally when someone adds that, the idea is to talk about the problem on the talk page. Soo... what's the problem? Jacqui 04:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, to answer my own question... it was added earlier by User:Exploding Boy, who complained of heterosexist bias. Does anyone have any ideas to change this? There was already some discussion of same-sex positions above. I was under the impression that the issue had been resolved. Jacqui 04:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

This issue was discussed back in July. The final sentiment seemed to be that all references of "man" should be changed to "penetrating partner" while references to "woman" should be changed to "receiving partner." Looking back at the history, these edits were made but then reverted by another user. Not sure if the other editors simply weren't paying attention, or decided it wasn't worth an edit war. Either way, this language can be changed back again, but I think we should get a consensus first. It should also be noted that the intro to the positions reads:

These are the most widely known positions, and are widespread and prevalent during the act of sex. Although these descriptions use the word "man" for the insertive partner, and "woman" for the receptive partner, many of these positions can be used in sex between two men or two women.

Is this adequate, or should all of the references be changed? EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I would think it would be better to use the non man/woman phrases in all cases where "insertive partner" and "receptive partner" wouldn't change or lose any meaning. I will look over the article again, but as of right now I can't recall any instances where that would be the case. I won't do it myself, however, unless/until we agree on it here on the talk page, given the previous rvt. (Was the user who reverted an IP or a username? Perhaps we could ask why he or she did that.) Jacqui 05:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I hope that this course of action is not taken. There isn't any "heterosexist" as it is generally accepted that the position are man/woman ... this isn't to say that it's a natural or moral mode. AND ... the terminology is defined in the beginning of the article (eg., explain what is meant by the terms in order to avoid: (a) causing unnecessary offense, and (b) misleading the reader) ... this is congruent with NPOV policy. Also, Misplaced Pages neutrality policy does not state, or imply, that there must be "equal validity" to minority views. Sincerely, JDR 16:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

(Answers own question again) It was User:P0lyglut who reverted the use of "insertive partner" and "receptive partner". I checked his talk page, and it doesn't seem anyone ever talked to him about it there. I am wondering if it just slipped under the radar after another spate of vandalism. Again, I have not contacted him (yet?); let's talk here first. Jacqui 05:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't want to bother with an edit war. It seems important to me that non-exclusively heterosexual positions shouldn't use exclusively heterosexual terminology. Dave 15:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I think "receiving partner" and "inserting partner" are perhaps a bit dry for an article that is not particularly serious. ("Sorority Fuck?" For fun, I Googled that term, found nothing but this article. Is this encyclopedic? I can see how original research might be particularly tempting for this article, but it somewhat underscores the silliness of some of the entries.) In any case, following PC logic, "receiving" and "inserting" could be said to be phallocentric. For example, why does a man "insert" his penis into a woman, rather than having the woman "envelop" it? (Maybe "pitcher" and "catcher" could be used instead.) I would also add the pics seem mostly to be man/woman. Is that heterosexist? Does someone want to draw other variations? Perhaps mirror articles could be made with the appropriate pics and wording (or sans pics) such that "Male Homosexual Positions" could have its own article, etc. IronDuke 05:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm all for people revolting against phallocentrism, but to me, "receiving" and "inserting" don't necessarily have to do with penises. (This next sentence may be TMI for some, just a warning.) I'm queer, and in some of my relationships with women, we used dildoes. I was both an inserting and a receiving partner, depending on the day, and no penises were involved.

Thanks for your mention of the "sorority fuck" and your work in Googling it. I think that is something we should further discuss, and I agree that it's unencyclopedic. It has nothing to do with the f-word but the fact that the term isn't in modern parlance, at least on the Internet. Jacqui 05:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

A couple of suggestions to choose from:

• Put an asterisk after every position that could be man-man. A double-asterisk for woman-woman.
• Write a section specifically for homosexual males listing the positions doable by them. And another for homosexual females. Bend over 10:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

As I mentioned to Bend over before when I missed the 'featured list' listing. If this does not get sorted soon (and the POV tag removed) the list will end up here Misplaced Pages:Featured list removal candidates. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

RfC

I added this talk page to the Society, Law, and Sex section of Requests for comment. Hopefully this will allow us to get more comments and more points of view for this discussion. People arriving from RfC, please leave your comments below. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 16:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: the neutrality issue, the page as it stands reflects an overall heterosexist bias. Not only are the positions described not limited to opposite-sex partners, but the one doing the penetrating is not always male and the object used is not always a penis. Some simple editing would remove this bias. Exploding Boy 18:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Exploded .... please read the NPOV policy. Misplaced Pages neutrality policy does not state, or imply, that there must be "equal validity" to minority views. There isn't any "heterosexist" as it is generally accepted that the position are man/woman ... this DOES NOT make an assumption that it's a natural or moral mode.

As per NPOV policy ... the terminology is defined in the beginning of the article (eg., explain what is meant by the terms in order to avoid: (a) causing unnecessary offense, and (b) misleading the reader).

Sincerely, JDR 19:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't make that assumption, no, but in an attempt to be enyclopedic we should use the most umbrellaïsh description we can muster unless we're describing something specific. Dave 19:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The generally accepted description is of a man and woman. Unless we're describing something specific between homosexual partners, this should be used. It's not necessary to use the "most umbrellaïsh description". Again, Misplaced Pages's neutrality policy does not state, or imply, that there must be "equal validity" to minority views.

To be enyclopedic is also not the same a being "politically correct". Using the most umbrellaish description is to be PC ... not enyclopedic. Defining what is meant and how the article is composed is sufficient to avoid causing unnecessary offense. Sincerely, JDR 20:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you say that two men can do the same things as a man and a woman at the top, it still says "man and woman" throughout the article, which is fairly contradictory. Beyond that, is it inaccurate to call the man in heterosex the penetrative partner? The woman the receptive partner? Not at all; it means the same thing in regard to straight people and it extends the current description to include a significant number of people who also use these same positions. Dave 06:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I would have to agree with exploding that a brief look through the page shows it to be heterosexist. I think that your argument about NPOV is also wrong in this case. It is not 90% of the population thinks one thing, 10% thinks another and the 90% disagree with the 10% thus forming a majority opinion. It is 90% practices one thing and 10% practices another. This is not a case of reporting the most widely held view, it is a case of reporting the world how it is. I would suspect that in fact 90% of the heterosexuals have most certainly not tried most of the positions, so it would be equally NPOV, by that argument, to only list the top 10, and not mention any others.

That said, I do not think it is in fact necessary for the list to tie itself in knots trying to be gender neutral in every mention. Sandpiper 21:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

There are a number of images of homosexual sex, particularly in oral sex, though. Overall, the list does not leave me with the impression that is tends to censor out homosexuality. Rama 00:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

As much as I understand the desire for NPOV, I think it's important to realise that the topic at hand is highly man/woman oriented. All available pictures display a man and a woman and it's probably safe to assume that the positions were invented in heterosexual vaginal intercourse. There is a nice disclaimer at the top which also points out that some of the positions might not be adaptable to different forms of intercourse. I don't think anyone benefits from removing that distinction. In my opinion the best way to make this article more NPOV is to add sections with specific positions for non-heterosexual vaginal intercourse (if there are any). Jeroen (talk) 17:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Leave it as is. I think its going to make the article too complicated to try to include homosexual info too. Instead, perhaps a second article specifically about homosexual positions? After all the article doesn't include techniques for masturbation, threesomes, use of tools, sex with animals, bondage, etc. You can't include everything in one article.Herostratus 20:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

No. Homosexual and heterosexual sexual positions are equally relevant. The only possible way they could be relegated to another article is if we moved this page to List of heterosexual sex positions. Otherwise, excluding them is violently heterocentric; I won't say "bigoted" because I see no reason not to assume your comparison of homosexual intercourse with "sex with animals" is anything but an innocent faux pas. Masturbation is not necessarily a "sexual position" because it doesn't (directly) involve a partner, though I see absolutely no reason not to have a page for masturbation techniques (if there isn't one already), and to link to it here. Multi-partner ones are necessarily sexual positions, and there are already several positions on the page that require more than one partner. Use of tools rarely involves unusual sexual positions, since tools like strap-ons are typically meant to allow access to normal sexual positions in unusual situations. If there are noteworthy positions that require tools, I see no reason not to include them on this list, however, especially since we have positions on the list that are anatomically impossible or the like. And sex with animals is significantly unusual and noteworthy enough that some mentioning of it may be relevant, but only for well-known sexual positions involving animals (as there are probably few, if any); they can also be mentioned on pages like bestiality. I'd suggest giving something like that its own page, but I doubt it would be very long due to a lack of documentation and writing on the subject, so there's no point yet. Especially since I disagree with you that this page is too long; there's plenty of room to grow! -Silence 20:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Certain posters seem to be confused about what is being discussed here and why it is important.

To begin with, making the assumption that the penetrating partner is necessarily male and the penetrated partner necessarily female, and that the object doing the penetrating is always a penis is inherently false and misleading. This issue continues to be a problem on nearly all the sex position articles.

The position that it is "generally accepted" that the positions listed are only male/female, inserter/insertee is similarly false. That may be what is generally assumed, but our job is not to perpetuate misinformation.

This is not, as User:Reddi (signing himself as JDR), has stated pandering to "minority views"; rather, it is correcting a series of factual inaccuracies and misleading statements. As the page exists now, most references are to man/inserter-woman/insertee, although those positions can be, and frequently are, reversed. Most references throughout the artice refer to "man" and "woman." Having separate sections for male-male and female-female positions only reinforces this misleading view.

This is not about being politically correct either. It is about (for the umpteenth time) correcting factual inaccuracies.

The claim that "it's probably safe to assume that the positions were invented in heterosexual vaginal intercourse" is incredibly bizarre and probably doesn't need demolishing here.

Being inclusive and factually correct does not have to entail "tying oneself in knots" or awkward language. Writing carefully is the aim of every serious scholar and reputable scholarly work.

Exploding Boy 22:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd be very interested in your demolishing, as I don't see what's so bizarre about my statement. Sex, however nice for recreational purposes, is closely related to procreation, which has a tendency to be something involving a man, a woman and some straight sex.

For the record: I would like to see this article rewritten in a neutral manner, but only if it can be done without the knots. Jeroen (talk) 23:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

That'd be fine.. if this was an article about procreation. It's not. It's an article about sexual positions. There's only one sexual position you need for procreation. The fact that the article lists dozens of elaborate and unusual sexual positions shows definitively that this article is not strongly tied to procreation (though that is one small part of it), but to pleasure. Homosexuals and heterosexuals are equally capable of having sex for pleasure, and equally capable of using a variety of sex positions—which is the topic of this list. Noone is benefited by excluding a large, significant group of people from the list through unnecessarily biased wording, so there is no reason to do it. Let's not debate whether or not to make the article neutral, but rather debate the best way to make the article neutral. -Silence 00:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Hear, hear. By the way, an anon IP removed the POV tag. I put it back, because we're still talking here. I am going to assume good faith about the IP -- the person didn't have anything on his or her talk page, and probably just didn't know how these things work on Misplaced Pages. Jacqui 03:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Jacqui, thanks for answering me so frankly. I will only add (as I'm sure you're aware) that phallocentrism is possible even when no men are involved...I think Silence has a good point about finding neutrality, but taking that point up, I'd be wary of sentences like this: "The man/insering partner inserts/allows his penis/her dildo/his/her object to be placed/enveloped in the orifice of the woman/man/receiving partner/enveloper." There is no way to construct such a sentence that can adequately encompass all possible permutations and sensibilities. Thus, I would recommed that the page stay essentially as it is, with the tag "heterosexual" applied to it, and anyone who feels that other groups are being left out can mirror the article with their own illustrations and descriptions. IronDuke 03:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

That's not the way Misplaced Pages works. We don't just force groups that are being left out to mirror the article with their own illustrations and descriptions. That's merely a way to fragment Misplaced Pages.--Prosfilaes 04:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think I said anything about "forcing" anyone to do anything. My point, which I'll repeat, was that satisying every conceivable group would make the article essentially unreadable. Breaking it down into more than one article would make each individual article quite readable. If you have a better idea than mine, by all means, put it forward. IronDuke 04:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

No one has proposed, despite the strawmen, satisfying every conceivable group. The only thing that has been proposed is satisfying the two groups that will most commonly make use of a "list of sex positions": heterosexual and homosexual people. Is your suggestion that listing significant positions of any group outside of heterosexuals, even a group that makes up 10% of the population, would suddenly render the page unreadably flawed and complex? The "receiving/enveloping partner" thing was a joke, and has no real validity, since no group is being excluded and no untruths are being stated by not wording things to that ridiculous extreme. It seems that a few people in this conversation are incapable of distinguishing between political correctness (which I loathe with a passion) and mere accuracy. Also, you don't seem to have accounted for the fact that if we had one article for heterosexual positions and one for homosexual positions, we still would have all male/male and female/female positions in the same article, thus creating the exact same problems we have now, just exiling them to an article you aren't interested in. How convenient. -Silence 04:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, things seem to be getting a bit testy here, so maybe I can put a little graphite rod into this discussion. First, Silence, you're right, I was putting up a bit of a strawman, wasn't I? I was trying (poorly perhaps) to get at the notion that attempting to remove a heterosexist bias in a text where the pictures are quite hetero-oriented is a bit silly. I guess what it boils down to is this: I think it's a bit odd to speak of "accuracy" in the context of an article like this that is more of a how-to with cute illustrations that also contains some bizarre (and more than likely invented) sexual "positions." You may have missed my earlier post above, so I'll repeat it: "Perhaps mirror articles could be made with the appropriate pics and wording (or sans pics) such that "Male Homosexual Positions" could have its own article, etc." To this we could add a female/female page, etc. Perhaps the article could begin with a disambiguation page, and individuals could simply click on the article they wanted. And speaking of strawmen, I have absolutely no desire to "exile" anything to anywhere, nor am I any more or less "interested" in an article on homosexual positions than I am heterosexual ones. I came here because there was an RfC, and I commented in the spirit of trying to make the article as good as it could possibly be. And please note, I haven't touched the article itself in any way, and have no plans to. If I wanted to "exile" gays or "force" groups away from the mainstream, I could have edited the article to accomplish just that. IronDuke 01:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

"I was trying (poorly perhaps) to get at the notion that attempting to remove a heterosexist bias in a text where the pictures are quite hetero-oriented is a bit silly." - Possibly the most confusing argument I've seen in this discussion is "We shouldn't try to make the text of the article more inclusive, because most of the images aren't inclusive!" Um. Isn't that part of the original point? There are dozens of male/female images, one or two female/female ones, and absolutely no male/male ones. That's not a sign that the article's already perfectly balanced, it's a sign that the images are at least as hetero-focused as the text, if not more so. Let's not give our readers the idea that gay men don't have sex positions.

"an article like this that is more of a how-to" - Wrong. This article is a list of common sexual positions, not a how-to guide. If it is a how-to-guide, that's another matter that needs fixing in this article. Misplaced Pages is not a how-to guide.

"with cute illustrations that also contains some bizarre (and more than likely invented) sexual "positions."" - Um. I don't quite catch your drift. Aren't all sexual positions "invented"?

"You may have missed my earlier post above" - No, I saw the suggestion, and ones like it. While it's an interesting possibility, it happens to be inefficient, impractical, and, for those who see this as a matter of NPOV, a violation of the Misplaced Pages:POV fork guideline. Too many sexual positions are used by heterosexuals and homosexuals (male and female) alike. There is absolutely no reason not to simply include it all on one page, and to worry about subdividing or trimming in the future, when it starts to become a problem; it's nowhere near that now, and if we did need to shorten the page, surely the extra images would be the first things to go, not any of the entries or descriptions!

"And speaking of strawmen, I have absolutely no desire to "exile" anything to anywhere, nor am I any more or less "interested" in an article on homosexual positions than I am heterosexual ones." - Sorry. I'm just not a very creative person. That's why I can't imagine what reason there could be for subdividing this list into multiple lists at this point, except to allow people to avoid having to deal with sexual positions they aren't comfortable with or interested in. Since that's apparently not the case, I retract the statement.

"If I wanted to "exile" gays or "force" groups away from the mainstream, I could have edited the article to accomplish just that." - Er, no, because it would have been reverted. Discussing this is the best way to get things done, regardless of what your position is. -Silence 02:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I guess I open myself up for this by coming to a disputed page and putting in my two cents. Silence, I have many disagreements with both the tone of your comments above and their accuracy, but I'll try and leave it alone. If you really want a response from me, maybe we can take it to one of our talk pages. All I'll say is, if it's your heart's desire to confront people with sexual images that make them uncomfortable (which is what it looks like from your comments), it might be more appropriate for you to do so in your own blog. IronDuke 02:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Que? I thought we were done with the strawmen (my desire here is to ensure that the article is accurate and comprehensive in its subject matter, not to confront anyone on their preconceptions), and that we'd just established that you don't subscribe to the belief I criticized above, making it irrelevant to the current conversation at hand. Why the above comment? It doesn't seem to make sense in the conversation's context; almost my entire above post was unrelated to that issue, and what little was related consisted of explaining and retracting my above poorly-thought-out accusations. But OK, if you're not up to discussing this anymore, that's perfectly alright. I apologize if I in any way offended you. If you feel like explaining anytime what you feel is "inaccurate" about my above statements (I can't help what you think their tone is, everyone sees comments as being of a different tone on the Internet), feel free to say so wherever you feel, be it here or in User Talk or wherever you prefer. -Silence 02:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Left response at Silence's talk page, for masochists who want to read it. IronDuke 03:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Goodness. Gracious. Sakes. Y'all. This is all a little crazy, hmm, for a list that is--if we're honest--equal parts for edification and amusement? Now, I'm just jumping in here from the RfC page, but it seems like the easiest fix would be to substitute man/woman/cat/batman with "inserting partner/receiving partner" and he/she/etc with "their." It works without delving into the lovely issues of the purpose of sex (AHEM, Jkruis), the patent rights (AHEM AGAIN, Jkruis), or any of the other debatable issues surrounding the nature of sex. This is a list, everyone. Let's not get nasty, it's supposed to be fun...just like I love the 80's and the 100 Sexiest Moments in Barnyard History. I mean, in Hollywood. I mean...you get my point :) Onesong 20:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Fictional sexual positions?

Should there be a distinct section for fictional, theoretical, or mythical sexual positions, i.e. ones that have never shown to be physically possible? Or some other way to more clearly note the positions that aren't practical "sexual positions", like Double Vaginal Double Anal? -Silence 11:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Regroup and Organize

I put this article up for RfC because I wanted to get many more viewpoints, and I'm happy that this has generated so much discussion. However, since this has the potential to be an emotional argument, I hope everyone will calm down and we can base everything off logical arguments. Since Misplaced Pages Is Not a Paper Encyclopedia, we get to include things that wouldn't be included in other encyclopedias, and we get to have debates that perhaps have never been addressed anywhere else in the past.

This being said, the conversations above are nice to read through but hard to get a clear consensus from. So, I've decided to list the most obvious solutions, and have people give their opinions in an organized list fashion below. This probably should not be considered a vote, but rather an organized way to view what most people think.

1. Keep the page as it is, with the disclaimer already included that the positions are not exclusive to heterosexuals.
2. Change the language of the entire article to something more NPOV than man/woman. If you support this version, please say which terms you would like to be used (e.g.- insertive/receiving partner).
3. Make this multiple pages, perhaps List of Heterosexual Sex Positions and List of Homosexual Sex Positions, or List of Heterosexual Sex Positions, List of Homosexual Sex Positions (male), and List of Homosexual Sex Positions (female). In this solution, the current page would likely stay as a sort of disambiguation page, listing all the relevant pages.
4. Some other solution that I have missed in the discussion above or has not yet been suggested.

Thanks for your cooperation, and please make the number that you support bold so that it will be easier to see if we can get a consensus.

EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• 2 for every situation where the position is regularly used by pairs other than a man and a woman, not for the sake of NPOV, but simply for the sake of accuracy—I view this is a matter of simple correctness, not as a matter of neutral wording or avoiding offending minority groups. Offend whoever you want, just don't be wrong or cause unnecessary confusion with highly misleading terminology. Thus, certainly keep the "man/woman" terminology for every entry that's entirely or almost entirely used by heterosexual couples. On this page, "man" should means male, and "woman" female, and it's just that simple. I don't have a strong preference for the specific terminology we use in their place, as long as it is as clear, simple, and accurate as possible. "Penetrating partner" and "receiving partner" seem fine to me, are already used on a number of pages (like doggy style, probably a good example of neutral wording for us to use as a model), and get 25,000–35,000 hits on Google, so there's no risk that they're unused terms. But if there's some better option, fire away. 3 is a possibility for the distant future (sans the obnoxious over-capitalization), if this article gets too bloated, but is currently completely unnecessary and would just cause a lot of problems because of the sheer number of overlaps there are between sexual positions on all those pages. Vastly more convenient to just have it on one page. -Silence 07:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Looking at doggy style, 2 is not as bad as I had feared. 3 seems wrong to me. Positions could be sorted according to the cavities involved, but I don't think it is relevant whether the owner of said cavity is male or female. Jeroen (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• 3 For reasons stated above. IronDuke 02:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• 2 For reasons stated above, and per Silence. Exploding Boy 18:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• 2. I especially don't support 3 because Gender and sex are not linked. Naming the separate lists "homosexual" and "heterosexual" therefore doesn't make sense. An MTF, FTM, genderqueer or intersexed person will quite possibly be very confused trying to decide which list to look at if they are named that way. Jacqui 02:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Consensus

Since there seems to be a fairly strong consensus and per CambridgeBayWeather's warning above (see the post just above the RfC section), I think we should proceed with this. The consensus is to change all references to "man" to "penetrating partner" and all references to woman to "receiving partner," except in cases where the type of position is very explictly about one gender (e.g.- some of the stuff starting with oral sex and onward). Anyone who has time/effort can make this change, or do it in chunks. If no one gets around to it, I'll try to do it when I have time. We'll also make sure to monitor the page for a while, to make sure no one reverts this change. Please place posts below if you have any questions/comments/opposition.

EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 21:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not a warning just a comment. I will not post it to Misplaced Pages:Featured list removal candidates but someone else might. I would prefer to give the article a chance to be fixed first. See my other comments at User talk:Bend over CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

No worries. I had felt like putting this "consensus" message for a couple of days now, as it seems pretty clear what the best thing to do is. I think once we make those edits, the POV tag will be removed, and we can get back to adding to the list rather than discussing its word usage. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 06:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Just to add a comment, using man/woman for penetrating/receiving isn't just heterosexist, but also ignores the fact that the woman can be the penetrating partner, with a male receptive partner (ie, pegging). Maybe this is an obvious point, but the current introduction mentioning same sex partners doesn't cover this possibility at all. Mdwh 05:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Featured lists

"This is a featured list, so why not let everyone know?"

Because the big box for it is so huge, cluttering, unnecessary, and useless, that if we included it on the main page of this article, list of sex positions would no longer qualify for Featured List status and we'd have to remove it anyway.

"If the featured list template is not supposed to be displayed in an article, please cite the Misplaced Pages policy which states this."

Not a requirement for removing your addition. Misplaced Pages's rules and guidelines cannot possibly account for every conceivable situation, and fortunately, they don't have to; common sense and following consensus are much more important than rules-lawyering anyway.

"Common sense" is adhered to by not adding a template to the article that adds nothing to the article: you ask why we wouldn't want to let everyone know, but I counter by asking why we would want to shove it in everyone's face, so blatantly boast about how awesome an article is? If someone came to an article called list of sex positions, it's because that person wants information on sex positions. Someone who comes to this article for that purpose, thus, is immediately confronted with a totally useless, garish box at the top of the page announcing how awesome the article is. Misplaced Pages does not use templates whenever it can possibly avoid it, and this is certainly a case where we can, and should, avoid it, as the template is no more useful to the article page than if we put a giant, 50-point font message saying "THIS ARTICLE IS AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1" at the top of the page.

"Consensus" is adhered to by noting that every other featured article and list on Misplaced Pages is not marred by a huge "THIS ARTICLE IS FEATURED :D :D :D" box at the top of its main page. If you disagree and think that your version should be the standard, the place to take this up is on the Misplaced Pages:Featured article and Misplaced Pages:Featured list talk pages, not on individual featured pages.

"Thank you."

No, thank you. -Silence 05:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Snowmobiling?

Come on.... --Commo1 02:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

End of RfC- Article Edited

Thanks to everyone for the response to RfC and the discussions. Per our consensus above, I have made the major edit of changing all references to "man" to "penetrating partner" and all references to "woman" to "receiving partner." I have not edited anything below the start of the "Oral Sex" section; if you feel that this should be edited, feel free to do so, though many of those are single-sex specific. Also, feel free to work on the wording; I tried to eliminate some of the cases where it talked about the "penetrating partner penetrating," but couldn't find solutions to all of them. I have also removed this page from the Request for Comment page. If there is anything else that needs to be done regarding this subject, you can post it below this message. Thanks again to everyone for solving the problem! EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

This article has pandered to "minority views". Great. JDR 10:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Minority views? The view that these are only possible with a man and a woman is certainly in the minority. Guanaco 15:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Images

Live images have been reverted a couple times now, and I just wanted to open up a discussion about it. We're currently having a similar discussion over at Talk:Doggy style. The current consensus seems to be that the drawings are plenty descriptive in illustrating sexual phenomena and, because of that, live images are unnecessary. While Misplaced Pages is not censored for the protection of minors, this does not necessarily encourage us to be explicit. Rather, it encourages us to be as explicit as is necessary. Any thoughts or comments, especially if you weren't a part of the other conversation at the Doggy style page? EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 06:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

These are scientific illustrations. If people are looking up an entry on SEXUAL POSITIONS, they have no right to be 'prude'. The censorship irritates and interferes with dissemination of information. If your offended, GO AWAY!!!

Sex censorship KILLS innocent people!

People must be able to discuss sex candidly, in order to know how to avoid serious health risks. This candor is especially necessary for gay males, who must know there are important alternatives to anal sex. This single scientific illustration makes that information crystal clear at a single glance. This picture saves lives.

Haldrik 16:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to comment on "the drawings are plenty descriptive"; this is at least not always true. There are things which are very difficult to convoy convincingly with a drawing, and some sexual positions are among the possible examples (I am thinking of auto-fellatio in particular).

My feeling is that in general, photographs are intrinsically better than drawings for encyclopedic purpose. In the particular case of sexual positions, we run into the very tricky problem of producing photos which do not look like cheap porn (not to mention the difficulty of producing photographs at all). However, I regard the present drawings as temporary solutions which should fade away when appropriate photos become available. Rama 16:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you that the main thing we should worry about is what form of media is the most encyclopedic. We need something that is descriptive, useful, and that one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. Whether this is drawings or photographs for the case of sexual intercourse is a topic that I think should be thoroughly discussed within the Misplaced Pages community before any decision is made. As you said, the major problems with photographs are finding ones that a.) are very descriptive, b.) don't look like cheap porn, and c.) don't violate any copyrights. Assuming we can find such pictures, should we use them on a regular and widespread basis? I hope cooler heads will prevail and that we can have an open, candid discussion about these issues. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 06:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi EWS23. I believe your initial summary of the doggy style debate is lacking. There wasn't consensus in the doggy style discussion. I do concur there was a lot of useful ideas put forward. My reading of the discussion is that possibly slightly more people opted in favour of quality images (including the use of photos) instead of the rather uninformative photograph and rather uninformative line drawings that were originally put forward. This seems to be the gist (theme) here also. I like your suggestions a,b and c. Though (b) is borderline an untenable discussion, as all nudity will be considered cheap by some vocal minority. Your suggestion d-"a cool head" isn't necessarily a good thing when fighting censorship. Sometimes it's better for people to say, "take your thinly veiled moralistic agenda and shove it". Afterall, no-censorship is policy on wikipedia, not some choice that can be put forward for mediation: Misplaced Pages is not censored for the protection of minors. I suggest a way forward is to define our criteria in terms we can all agree on. Such critera that I notice here and with my interpretation are that we source images that are:

• Encyclopedic
• Informative
• Very descriptive
• High quality
• Not degrading
• Uncensored

Do you think if we can workship a list like this we might be able to make some progress on the debate? Peace. Metta Bubble 02:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Cowgirl position variation

There is variation of the cowgirl position not in the article, though I don't have a name for it. If the man's waist is sufficiently slim, the woman (with the man's penis fully inserted and his back arched) can bring her knees under his back, thus providing him support. The man in this position is essentially immobile, and the woman fully controls the intercourse. She brings on the man's orgasm by leaning backwards and pushing against the man. His orgasm triggers her's. In this position, the woman always achieves orgasm and it occurs almost simultaneously with the man's. 159.101.34.74 16:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)