| Revision as of 09:49, 20 December 2005 editLocke Cole (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers18,892 edits →Image again: picture should be out← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 13:51, 24 December 2024 edit undoWizmut (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,756 edits adjust bot settings. archive old posts |
| (183 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
there's a redirect from ] to here. Please explain on the page what this alternate name is. Also, if that's the technical name, the article should go live there. -- ] 10:09 May 12, 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{Censor}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|vital=yes|1= |
|
: I think the Misplaced Pages convention is to use whatever term is most familiar to speakers of the English language. Somehow I doubt that it's "coitus more ferarum". ;) -- ] 10:23 May 12, 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=high}} |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
Hmmm... latin name isn't ideal, but many people find the name "Doggy position" a little crude. It's fine in the pages of '']'', but I don't think it's brilliant for a serious encyclopedia. Like the difference between "arse", "bottom", and the latin medical term which I can't think of. Misplaced Pages should use "bottom" -- ] 11:40 May 12, 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|algo = old(365d) |
|
|
|
|
|
|archive = Talk:Doggy style/Archive %(counter)d |
|
::'']''? '']''? '']''? ] 12:52 21 May 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|counter = 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 50K |
|
: It is a little crude, yes, but at least people will know what they're getting before they come here. If they see a link to a Latin phrase, they might follow it expecting to get an article on some obscure legal procedure or some such thing, and they might get a bit of a shock... -- ] 00:12 May 13, 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|archiveheader = {{Talk header}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
Quite. We need the middle ground, I think -- ] |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
==doggy style== |
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe we can move to ] since afaik it's the most commonly used expression for this position? Anybody agree or disagree?--] 00:12, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Wendi and Dave G == |
|
|
|
|
|
I'd like some significant historical evidence that these two individuals actually existed. A google search yields no results when conducted as follows: "Wendi and Dave G". I'm almost certain that they're allusory to private citizens whose lives needn't be published in a legitimate source such as Misplaced Pages. I'm only willing to give the author the benefit of the doubt until such time as someone can verify my suspicions (by finding that these two truly are irrelevant). Thank you. ] 08:29, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I've never heard of sexual aficionados known as "Wendi and Dave G" throughout my eight-year quest in the pornographic realm. Therefore, I am 95% positive that the two aforementioned names are probably fabricated characters or the unsuspecting victims of some rudimentary adult joke. If so, please delete that reference immediately. If not, please enlighten the rest of us on the remarkable achievements of these two doggie experts. Danke, ] 08:40, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I've removed the disputed tag as the problem has been mitigated. I appreciate the efforts of whichever editor corrected this concern, and am generally pleased by the new version of the article. ] 18:44, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== same image with leapfrog although it's clearly mentioned that they differ == |
|
|
|
|
|
see subject ;) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Union of the Cow == |
|
|
|
|
|
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but didn't the different animal-titled Unions in the Kama Sutra have to do with relative sizes of genitalia? Ie., large penis in snug vagina was considered a "higher" union while smaller penis in a looser vagina was "lower"? |
|
|
What does position have to do with it? |
|
|
|
|
|
::Nope, while many of the Kama Sutra's headings denote "This is best suited for a man with a long penis, whose partner can become a human pretzel" (paraphrase), those are simply guidelines related to the ease and anatomical preference of the suggested position. As an exaggeration, "To try the ''Standing on opposite sides of the room like a Wolf and Sheep Position'', it is best if the man is at least 14' long" :P |
|
|
|
|
|
== Not so neutral. == |
|
|
|
|
|
This line is in one way advocating anal sex:- |
|
|
|
|
|
Many people do not regard this position as demeaning in any way for either partner, and enjoy the position for its own merits |
|
|
|
|
|
Does anyone have any statistics to back up this statement? |
|
|
|
|
|
== Image == |
|
|
|
|
|
Image shows clearly better than line drawing. I refer to Autofellatio, there they also say "Image better than line drawing, clearly". This is common opinion. It has been discuss before. Shall we do again? |
|
|
*<small>This message was by ].</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
:Actually, I ''don't'' think the image shows anything better than the line drawings. Autofellatio needs the picture to prove it's anatomically possible, if improbable. The same does not apply here.--] 01:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:I agree with SarekOfVulcan that the photograph just doesn't illustrate the position any better than the line drawings. ] - ] 01:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Line drawings are not showing the appropriate proportions. They are not accurate in showing the real procedure. They also are more "obscene" if such exists, as they are showing drawing of parts not in photo. Photo is showing very well what it is, is showing real couple doing so showing it is not demeaning but good as was suggested, and is showing very well that is done by people. Photo is also showing better than drawing because photo is real and is less "obscene" if such exists. <small>This message was by ] |
|
|
|
|
|
::How is a photo less obscene than a line drawing? I have no interest in this topic, article-wise, but I know that anyone with even a little intellect can tell what doggy style is from the illustrations. A photo isn't necessary. If it's not needed, then it's not got much need to be there. I don't think a photo is needed to show it is "done by real people". That's obvious. ] 01:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Is less "obscene" if such exists because is not showing breast in photo is more tasteful. Photo against illustration, by this maybe we need replace Orange with Orange line drawing. "but I know that anyone with even a little intellect can tell what *ORANGE* is from the illustrations". Also applies. So your logic is bad, no wrong meaning towards you (you seem have good intelect), but if applies here also applies Orange, and Penis and Vagina, and others that are the same but a little different. <small>This message was by ] |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Nobody has ever been offended by an orange, but many are offended by sexual photos. And the breast being "more tasteful" doesn't mean it's better than an illustrating. It's not meant to be illustrating the breast, nor is it meant to be tasteful at all. It's meant to illustrate doggy style. That's done by the illustration. There's no need for the photo. The photo also has no copyright tag and I assume it's a copyvio. If you think you're right, you can add the photo back, but I expect it will be removed again. You've reverted three times already, meaning that adding it back will violate ], as I told you earlier. ] 01:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
People are offended many times in some places by Penis and Vagina, but still they have photo. As for copytag, Mr. David Johnson already talk to me and we fix issue very much, so is ok. Yes Orange not offend, but Penis yes. <small>This message was by ] |
|
|
* Just because something happens once does not mean that it should happen several times. Penis is best illustrated by the image because the Misplaced Pages community said so. The Misplaced Pages community has not even began to discuss the inclusion of this image here. Until they do, it shouldn't be included on the article. You should let the community speak. If you add the image to the article again, you do so at your own risk, having been warned of the consequences already. ] 01:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I think you sound antagonize. You keep saying "Don't add again" and I do not add again, I make case for my point and against yours. You make sound like I ignore your warning not add again, when I not add again and listen to you warnings. Please clear it up here, I have not add again and I listen to you warnings. Do not make case for straw man against me, this is rude severly. <small>This message was by ] |
|
|
*I know you haven't added it again, which is good. ] 01:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I point out you say I am not consensus, neither are you, so who says who gets place it there. Be bold? Not for me? <small>This message was by ] |
|
|
|
|
|
I reiterate again that I don't think this is a very good image to illustrate the position. I couldn't care less about the "censorship/obscenity" issue that might surround it. The image does not better than the line drawings in showing the concept. In fact, the photo fails to show what is going on. You can't actually tell what the man is doing at all. ] - ] 02:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Also Paeris, can you please sign your comments by adding <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> at the end of them. ] - ] 02:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* Consensus is when most people think the image should be there. I've spoken to a few people who say it adds nothing new to the article. Therefore I don't personally think that it should be there. Reverting each other will get us nowhere - everyone involved needs to discuss it first, and agree on something. Until then, leave it out of the article. ] 02:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Image again == |
|
|
|
|
|
I looked at the image, and noticed the text at the very bottom saying "I am federal worker" by the uploader. I'm guessing he may be dyslexic or english is not his first language, so don't go too hard on him. I corrected the wording so it made more sense and changed the copywrite tag on the image back. Maybe he can just simply change it to "public domain, released by creator of work" though. |
|
|
|
|
|
As for whether the image should be allowed in the article, well. The only argument seems to be so far that it's '''"offensive"''' |
|
|
|
|
|
It's not an offensive picture unless you find the natural act of human sex offensive... |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Read ] and ] before making comment please.''' --] 02:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
* Well, the other argument is that it adds nothing to the article. The text and two illustrations are more than enough to inform the reader what "doggy style" is. So that's two reasons. Reasons for so far? The breast is more tasteful, and the photo is less offensive(?!). I don't think the reasons for are very valid. Also, the image has uncertain copyright - The user marked it as a government image at first. I think it's a copyvio, and I'd like to see some proof of otherwise. The only reason I've left it on the article is because I couldn't care less. I just don't want another debate the size of the Autofellatio one to start. ] 02:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I'm not offended by the image. I have two concerns, though. First, it is unlikely that the uploader owns the copyright to the image. He certainly isn't a federal employee, and even if he was, that only makes the image public domain if it was created as part of his official duties. This is being discussed on ]. Second, it's not a very good photo from an illustrative or artistic standpoint. If the copyright status is OK, then it's fine to keep it around until we get a better photo. ] 02:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
::I'll also at this point note that it or any sex-related photos don't offend me. I'm here to try and prevent the future edit wars more than anything. I agree with what Rhobite is saying aswell, apart from even with copyright being ok, the photo doesn't add to the article. The illustrations make the act of "doggy style" clear. ] 02:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
*It's not a matter of offensiveness, it's a matter of copyright. Copyrighted images may not generally be used on Misplaced Pages. ]]] 03:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The photo is unnecessary, given the presence of the two drawings which illustrate the topic far better. The chances that this image is free of copyright issues is close to nil. ]] 03:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: I perfectly agree with Android79 above. Also, the picture is of unnecessarily graphic nature, and does not belong in the article. I don't see why anybody would want more than a diagram. ] (]) 03:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
That image (assuming it's not ripped from porn of course) is pretty tame really, as it doesn't actually show penetration. But uh, while we do show images of a penis and a vagina on their respective articles, I don't think any article actually shows intercourse (penetration or not). So yeah, while ] protected for minors, also not unencyclopedic. Picture should be out. —] 09:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Protected == |
|
|
|
|
|
I've temporarily protected this page to stop people from edit warring. Please discuss here on the appropriateness of the image (unless, of course, it ends up deleted on copyright grounds). ]]] 03:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
* Good decision, really. I was considering doing it myself, but I'm rather unwillingly involved in this dispute now, so I decided against it. ] 03:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale..svg){kind=small}