Talk:Sexual intercourse/Archive 6

In Animals, In Humans

Hi. The section titles "In animals" and "In humans" seems inaccurate. Humans, of course, are animals, and more power to us, but the section title's seem to deny that fact. How about "In other animals" and "In humans" (I would personally say "In the human Great Ape" but that might be too accurate for some people, . . .but maybe not. How about that one?) Thanks, Aleister Wilson (talk) 01:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I get your point. It's rather that a lot of people object to being called animals, as seen with the back and forth of a heading on the Orgasm article. Also, if we put "In other animals," I feel that the "In humans" part should go first. But, really, if we are going to make a point of humans also being animals in this article, we should remain consistent; this consistency I speak of is when we note "humans and animals," we should note "humans and other animals" throughout. I feel that doing that, though, may prove too tiring to keep up with in the future. Flyer22 (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The clinical term is bestiality. PiCo (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean, PiCo. We were not speaking of bestiality. Flyer22 (talk) 08:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Mating

Shouldn't the mating article redirect to here? FunkMonk (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No. Because the Mating article is more about non-human animals/creatures engaging in sexual intercourse or some other kind of reproductive act. Non-human mating is not typically called sexual intercourse. Additionally, that article is more about reproduction resulting from mating. Flyer22 (talk) 06:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be much clearer if the article concentrated on human sexual intercourse, and let the article on Mating relate to animal copulation. There is a lot of other tangential material in this article, which should also be pruned, such as paragraph on non-penetrative sex.Ewawer (talk) 08:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

In Biology, mating does not refer to sexual intercourse in animals, but to the pairing of opposite-sex or hermaphroditic organisms for copulation. Sexual intercourse is the established term for all copulation. The article mating is not solely about the sexual act itself. Hence, content concerning animals should stay on the article. Thanks for discontinuing the edit war. Claritas (talk) 08:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I still think it would be better for the article to concentrate on human sexual intercourse, which is the main topic covered. What do religious, moral and legal aspects and health risks etc have to do with animal sexual intercourse? Ewawer (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you want to propose merging Mating into this page, and create Sexual intercourse in Humans as an independent article, mentioned in a subsection on this article ? I'm in agreement with you about this, the article isn't really concentrating on one topic. Claritas (talk) 13:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

No I'm actually proposing a split. Human sexual intercourse involves a lot of related issues which should not be diverted by side issues. Besides, properly treated, animal sexual matters is a very large topic in itself. Ewawer (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Until a split is made, information on mating/sexual intercourse between non-human animals should stay in this article. I also feel that this article should either continue being mostly about humans or it should be solely about humans. The term "sexual intercourse" most often refers to humans. The thing is...some non-human animals use sexual intimacy in the same way that human beings do, and then this is referred to as sexual intercourse in the animal kingdom as well.

As for non-penetrative sex, it is important that also be covered in the lead, since it is also regarded as sexual intercourse by some, but not by others. Regardless of no penetration, it is a type of intercourse and should also be covered in the lead, especially since it is noted in the article. Per WP:LEAD, all important aspects of a topic should be mentioned/summarized in the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I think we should turn mating into a dab were we can link too all the specific subpages. We have the page on Human sexuality already were human sexual intercourse can be dealt with more fully.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure about that, Doc James. I feel that there would need to be a bigger discussion about that, but at the Mating article talk page. And are you suggesting that most of the information on human sexual intercourse in this article be transported to the Human sexuality article? If so, I must say that I prefer not to do that. The term "sexual intercourse" is more popular and I feel that a good amount of human-related detail should be in this article (about the amount that is currently here). Flyer22 (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems that people interested in this article for some reason can't let go of the excess text. For example, what is the relevance of a discussion that "outercourse" is a misnomer? Or that snails are hermaphroditic? Still, I've got better things to do. Ewawer (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes this is a frequent problem. In English we have many overlapping or similar terms for the same things. Thus we can end up with many cotracts with repetitive coverage. Human sexuality is basically mating behavior in people. Sexual intercourse is a type of mating behavior along with courtship. May be things are fine just the way they are. Mating is a broader term than sexual intercourse and thus I do not think it should be redirected here.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ewawer, it is not excess text. Everything in the lead has been thoroughly discussed before. What is the relevance of a discussion that "outercourse" is a misnomer? Well, because most people seem to think that the term "intercourse" is referring to being inside of the body (penetrative). And while it commonly refers to that, it most definitely seems relevant, in a paragraph about outercourse, where we point out that the term "intercourse" can also refer to non-penetrative acts, to stress the actual meaning of "inter" in "intercourse" -- which is between two people or beings (just as the lead of the Non-penetrative sex article states). What is so wrong with tackling all the most relevant important aspects of a topic in the lead? That is how our leads should be. As for the snails bit, there is no need to mention them, but it is relevant to mention that "The two entities may be of opposite sexes, or they may be hermaphroditic." Where we say "as is the case with snails," it is simply giving an example. Examples are useful. But I could do without the mention of snails. And, yes, I have better things to do as well, off Wikipedia.

Doc, by "mating" being a broader term than "sexual intercourse," do you mean that it includes mention of all animals more readily than the term "sexual intercourse" does? Because, looking at the lead of the Mating article, mating refers to the pairing of opposite-sex or hermaphroditic organisms for copulation, and sexual intercourse is an established term for all sexual activity, as Claritas stated above. (I said "sexual activity" instead of "copulation," because "copulation is the union of the sex organs of two sexually reproducing animals for insemination and subsequent internal fertilization.") It usually means the insertion of the penis into the vagina. So does "sexual intercourse" usually mean that, but you get the point (I think). Flyer22 (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Large quantities of chocolate

A popular "fact" going around on the internet states that sexual intercourse is biochemically no different from eating large quantities of chocolate. Is this true? 72.209.42.92 (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Considering these acts are very different, what does your brain tell you? LonelyMarble (talk) 01:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

video

i think we shud have a video on here explaining how sex works.. there are a lot of people who dont know exactly what it looks like while its happening; it could be informative for them. at least have a .gif of people fucking. amirite?

I would say that it is not needed, and would come off as pornographic. People can get a clear idea of what it looks like just from looking at the main picture and reading this article. Flyer22 (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

i disagree with you, flyer22. if a there is a vid or .gif of two people having sex, then it wouldn't be considered pornographic because it could be considered educational. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7399me (talk • contribs) 23:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Disagree all you want, but I assure you that it would be considered pornographic. Plenty of sexual images on Wikipedia, especially of real-life people, have been considered pornographic (by both Wikipedia editors and random drive-by commentators at Wikipedia). Check out Talk:Non-penetrative sex, for example. You honestly think that a moving image would not incite the same reaction (except with more extreme criticism)? While Wikipedia is not censored, per WP:NOTCENSORED, there are certain things we must ask ourselves about the media we display here. For one, is a video of people having sex needed for people to get the idea of what people having sex looks like? I would say, "Most definitely no." Flyer22 (talk) 15:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That's only because we know what sex looks like by viewing other sources or experiencing it first hand. If one were forced to try to deduce what the act of sexual intercourse looks like in their imagination purely from a few still-frame images (or in this case, paintings) and some text, one would probably find it to be difficult. Just like many other sexually-related topics on Wikipedia that do not shy away from posting controversial imagery, I think this page would benefit from having an actual video of a couple having sexual intercourse. Who knows? Maybe it could serve as a means to instruct people on how it should be done properly, just like a video of tying one's shoes or a tie is a thousand times more informative than having those actions transcribed through words and 18th century paintings :). Since Wikipedia is not censored and should be focused on providing the best means to educate the public, a video should definitely be put in.24.150.131.48 (talk) 23:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

People need a video to see what sexual intercourse looks like if they've never witnessed it? C'omn now; plenty of people -- virgins -- can imagine what sex looks like after just reading about it; plenty have. I'm still not seeing how a video is needed. But if we were to use one, for arguments sake, where would we get one that wouldn't merely be seen as pornographic? If an editor volunteered to create a video, it would still be deemed porn. Flyer22 (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDoQFcQEpOQ Oh, no. That would be a copyvio. Sorry. --Nigelj (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

LOL! Flyer22 (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Flyer22: I am not saying there should or should not be a video or a link to a video, but you are wrong when you think that everyone automatically knows about SI. Before I was married, I really didn't know (in spite of sex ed and a birds and bees talk from a parent).211.225.32.232 (talk) 02:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I apologize to you then. I just can't see how any typical person could not envision it from simple description. Every act was easy enough for me to envision from simple description. Anyway, I appreciate your input. Flyer22 (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Navbox

What we need is a Navbox like the one found here. [1] Will make one when I have time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. Flyer22 (talk) 19:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

External Review Comments

The following comments are from an external reviewer BSW-RMH as part of the new joint Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Google Project.

Hello Sexual Intercourse article writers and editors, This article currently has 'B' status and is a priority article for the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Google Project. The article has a broader scope in some areas than is necessary for an article concerning the act of sexual intercourse, while in other areas it could use expansion. Overall the organization could be improved as well. Specific suggestions by section are as follows:

BSW-RMH (talk) 00:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

"Traditionally, intercourse has been viewed as the natural endpoint of all sexual contact between a man and a woman."

By endpoint, I think the writer meant 'purpose' or 'goal'. Also it is not clear what the perspective is. Who's view is this referring to? Scientists, society at large, religious leaders, lawmakers? Maybe this could be reworded to say, "Biologically, intercourse is viewed as the natural purpose of all sexual contact between a man and a woman for the purpose of sexual reproduction" or "Traditionally, society has viewed intercourse as the natural endpoint of all sexual contact between and man and a woman" (which I don't think is accurate). Whatever the message is, that sentences requires rewriting to get it across as intended.

I agree with previous issues that were raised concerning the semantics of the term 'outercourse', which I think does not belong in this article, especially not in the introduction. Perhaps it can be discussed in masturbation, non-penetrative sex, or human sexuality "Though the meaning of the word sex, in the context of sexual intimacy, is often restricted to vaginal intercourse."

This seems both out of place and inaccurate. Sex generally has a broader meaning ranging from biological classification of male/female/etc. to inclusive of many different sexual acts. (ref: your favorite dictionary, ENTREZ PUBMED search for 'sex')

BSW-RMH (talk) 00:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I would say the first line you brought up should be reworded to "Traditionally, society has viewed intercourse as the natural endpoint of all sexual contact between and man and a woman." How is that not accurate? "Real sex" has been defined as penis-vagina sex for years, as even witnessed by "technical virginity." Flyer22 (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll bring up a few questions that went through my mind when reading that sentence and trying to figure out the meaning of 'endpoint of all sexual contact"-What is sexual contact? Is kissing sexual contact? If so, I don't think traditonally or otherwise that sexual intercourse is the natural endpoint of kissing. Is outer-course sexual contact? Again, the endpoint of this is sexual gratification but not intercourse. If one were to define 'sexual contact' according to the legal definition of Title 18 of the US code of law, "SEXUAL CONTACT: the intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person. 18 USC" then does this sentence still make sense? What about some of the rites on Tantric sex? Those are traditional practices and involve sexual contact without the endpoint being sexual intercourse. That was some of my thinking. BSW-RMH (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Good points. I'll remove it. I might add in something about how some definitions still restrict "sexual intercourse" to mean vaginal sex, though. Flyer22 (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

How does mention of outercourse not belong in the lead or this article at all? I feel that I explained my case well above about why it does. Also, the Outercourse article is the Non-penetrative sex article. Flyer22 (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Because this article is on intercourse, not outercourse-and the lead should be about intercourse. Mention it might be ok-but a discourse on it is out of place-just link to the article BSW-RMH (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

But, BSW-RMH, as I stated above to another editor, "outercourse" can also be considered "intercourse," which is backed up by an acceptable source (two, if you count the other). True, not by all, but by enough. For example, plenty of gay men who hate anal sex consider frotting to be their sexual intercourse, and enough lesbians consider tribadism to be sexual intercourse. It seems most people think the term "intercourse" is referring to being inside of the body (penetrative). As I stated to the other editor, while it commonly refers to that, it most definitely seems relevant to point out what "inter" in "intercourse" really means and that it can also refer to non-penetrative sex acts. Plenty of people do not consider oral sex to be sexual intercourse (what they call "real sex"), for instance; they often use the word "intercourse" to refer to vaginal sex, and the terms "anal sex" and "oral sex" to describe those two particular sex acts. People don't generally say, "I had vaginal sex." But we still mention in the lead that anal and oral sex can also be defined as sexual intercourse. The word "sex" should also be taken into consideration. This article is covering that term, in the context of sexual intimacy, as well. And that term means different things to different people. I shortened its (the outercourse) mention in the lead the other day anyway, though, as the paragraph/sentence below in this section shows. Flyer22 (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

An alternative place to put it would be in the 'types:other' section if you end up deciding to add it. That would be a good place to talk about other types of intercourse that might not first be the most common definitions, but are used by some people. Just a thought. BSW-RMH (talk) 02:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand that. I am just trying to be as neutral as I can, while also not getting carried away with "fringe" definitions of intercourse. I got accused of prejudice three years ago regarding the lead, because it did not acknowledge outercourse as sexual intercourse and also seemed biased toward coitus/copulation (aka vaginal sex). However, it was only "biased" because vaginal sex is the most common definition of sexual intercourse. It is true, though, that I did not consider non-penetrative sex to be sexual intercourse. At the time, I also had not heard any of my gay and lesbian friends or acquaintances refer to their sex acts as sexual intercourse. That changed about a year later, but I changed the lead of the article way before that. In order to compromise with the complaining editor, I redesigned the lead to please him or her and others who may read it and become offended, seeing as the editor who accused me of bias seemed to identify as gay or lesbian. I knew that I still had to start the lead off with its most common definition first, though -- vaginal sex -- and then expand it with how the sexual intercourse definition has expanded over the years, including outercourse. But if you notice, I feel that the lead is pretty clear that "outercourse" is not typically regarded as intercourse. The main reason outercourse is in the lead is because I feel mention of it is important there, and that it also better summarizes the article, per WP:LEAD. Flyer22 (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

As for other line? Not exactly out of place, though it could be reworded. The wording was changed in the first place because an editor altered it. I altered it after that. We are not using the word sex in the sense of biological classification of male and female, which is why it says "in the context of sexual intimacy." That line should probably be reworded back similar to how it was before, but people often consider "real sex" to mean penis-vagina sex; either that, or penetrative acts only, as the rest of that line says. Flyer22 (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I altered it to this. Flyer22 (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

In Humans

I suggest renaming to 'human sexual intercourse'. This section could benefit from an brief intro mentioning some statistics such as 48% of US high school students have had sexual intercourse, more than 80% of US young adults report having had their first sexual intercourse experience by the age of 21, or the average age of first intercourse in the US is 17 years. (refs below) There may be similar statistics available for other parts of the world from the WHO.

• American Sexual Behavior : Demographics of Sexual Activity, Fertility, and Childbearing . Ithaca, N.Y New Strategist Publications, Inc., 2006. ISBN 9781933588094
• http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss5806.pdf
• http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/yrbs/pdf/yrbs07_us_sexual_behaviors_trend.pdf
• http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/yrbs/pdf/yrbs07_us_overview.pdf

I recommend following this with a subsection on types of sexual intercourse with three paragraphs: vaginal sexual intercourse, anal sexual intercourse, and oral sexual intercourse describing very generally what they are. Oral and anal intercourse are discussed in great detail in other Wikipedia articles. Much of the info is already in the intro for this section.

I recommend adding a subsection entitled motivations for engaging in sexual intercourse that discusses the three major motivations: 1) reproduction: biological and desire for creating a family, 2) emotional and physical gratification/fullfillment: love, intimacy, desire (touched on in first paragraph), 3)aggression/anger/urge to dominate, see also motivation for rape. Useful section in this ref:

• Benagiano G, Carrara S, Filippi V. Sex and reproduction: an evolving relationship. Hum Reprod Update. (2010);16(1):96-107.PMID: 19729373

The section on coitus difficulties should be expanded, perhaps with a list of dysfunctions/issue affecting the performance of sexual intercourse. They will not require detailed descriptions unless they do not have independent articles within Wikipedia. Issues to add:

• Female sexual dysfunction (FSD) (Allahdadi KJ, Tostes RC, Webb RC. Female sexual dysfunction: therapeutic options and experimental challenges. Cardiovasc Hematol Agents Med Chem. (2009);7(4):260-9. PMID: 19538161
• update Dyspareunia (Steege JF, Zolnoun DA. Evaluation and treatment of dyspareunia. Obstet Gynecol. (2009);113(5):1124-36.PMID: 19384129
• Peyronie's disease (Hellstrom WJ. Medical management of Peyronie's disease. J Androl. (2009);30(4):397-405. PMID: 18974422
• Obesity (Esposito K, Giugliano F, Ciotola M, De Sio M, D'Armiento M, Giugliano D. Obesity and sexual dysfunction, male and female. Int J Impot Res. (2008);20(4):358-65. PMID: 18401349
• and others (Mimoun S, Wylie K. Female sexual dysfunctions: definitions and classification. Maturitas. (2009);63(2):116-8. PMID: 19477089, Hatzimouratidis K. Epidemiology of male sexual dysfunction. Am J Mens Health. (2007);1(2):103-25.

BSW-RMH (talk) 01:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to rename the section to Human sexual intercourse. Wikipedia formatting typically goes against using the topic name in a heading. For example, for the Cancer article, we should not have a section titled "Signs and symptoms of cancer." It should just be "Signs and symptoms." I agree with starting off with statistics information, though.

I would be against a Types of sexual intercourse section. For one, if you are saying to cover each type with just one paragraph, that could never be the case, as this article covers different types throughout, with the exception of the Coitus difficulties section. It would be "off" to have a section addressing each of these types, as if, for example, the "Vaginal sexual intercourse" section is the only place where vagainal sex is covered in this article. Secondly, vaginal sex redirects here, which is why so much of it is covered here. Oral and anal intercourse are not discussed in great detail here because they have their own Wikipedia articles. Third, as I mentioned above, "sexual intercourse" does not only refer to penetrative acts, though that is the most common use for that term.

Your Motivational section sounds good. Flyer22 (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll clarify the types section I recommended because I think it is important-this article in about sexual intercourse and I think it is critical to mention the main types of sexual intercourse in this section, which are the most common meanings- and not in detail for oral or anal because they have their own articles so that is not necessary-just define them for the reader. BSW-RMH (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay. While I feel that it is unnecessary (for example, creating small subsections regarding the anal and oral parts), I am willing to listen and consider. After all, we did have an oral and anal subsection before. Flyer22 (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Another alternative: maybe it could be organized as a subsection on vaginal followed by a subsection on 'other' where oral and anal are just mentioned, and then anything else that can be considered as 'intercourse; is discussed as well? BSW-RMH (talk) 02:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. It would still be a little "off" to me, since vaginal, anal and oral sex would not only be covered in the sections that specifically deal with them, but that type of thing is done with many Wikipedia articles. People should know that just because we have a section titled Vaginal, for example, along with its subsection Coitus difficulties, it does not mean that is the only place we cover vaginal sex; it is just the specific information. I might be okay with these types of subsections now, BSW, after now having had more thought about it. Flyer22 (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Health effects

Almost all of the discussed 'health benefits' are not supported by references. They are sometimes correlated at best, and sometimes in only one study, which is insufficient to make a claim of health benefit. This requires corroborating support from multiple independent studies before a consensus is reached in the medical and scientific communities that an actual correlation, or cause and effect relationship exists for two factors. I have removed the most inaccurate claims, added to the list of linked benefits, and added reliable references when available. Oxytocin was retained because there was ample evidence to support this benefit.

BSW-RMH (talk) 02:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The risks subsection has unreliable sources-primarily news articles. These should be replaced with references directly to the CDC reports and primary or secondary resources. See the CDC and WHO websites for the prevalence or STDs worldwide, and statistics on condom use (http://www.cdc.gov/std/) (http://www.who.int/topics/sexually_transmitted_infections/en/). Some refs that will be useful here are:

• American Sexual Behavior : Demographics of Sexual Activity, Fertility, and Childbearing . Ithaca, N.Y New Strategist Publications, Inc., 2006. ISBN 9781933588094
• http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss5806.pdf
• http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/yrbs/pdf/yrbs07_us_sexual_behaviors_trend.pdf
• http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/yrbs/pdf/yrbs07_us_overview.pdf

BSW-RMH (talk) 03:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I mostly agree, but I suggest adding more of this information back to the Benefits section (which is coming from a reliable source). Even if from one study, we can report it. The Benefits section was supported by this reference and others. While the section probably should not have been as big as it was, I am not seeing how it was mostly unsupported. Flyer22 (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I just want to say that even though I went ahead and asked for more thoughts on this at the project, I trust that you are acting in the best interest for this article. Flyer22 (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

To address your concerns: I am an extrenally contracted editor being paid by Google as a collaboration with Wikipedia to provide my opinion on the content of this article based on my qualifications as a professional scientist and biomedical editor. I have no personal motivation to make changes to this article. All the changes I have suggested are to improve the quality of the article. You are free to use this review however you choose, to ignore or incorporate as you wish, and that decision should be made as a consensus by the community involved in writing and editing this article.

I removed any 'benefits' for which there was no primary or secondary research support available in PubMed. In the absence of a second source, there is only that one article quoting the opinion of one person (no supporting research). That is not reliable. BSW-RMH (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I was not concerned about any personal motivation you might have for editing this article. I am for keeping my personal opinion out of Wikipedia articles. Simply put, I try my best to always work here without bias. I was only concerned with the removal of so much content, which came from the reliable WebMD source; I was not going off of one person's opinion, but rather the reported studies. But this has been addressed well at the project. I appreciate that and your suggestions. Flyer22 (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I recommend removing the section social effects. I think this belongs in human sexuality. It is poorly referenced and it is unclear what point the section is trying to make about sexual intercourse and society. Is it meant to discuss the feelings of intimacy and bonding associated with intercourse being beneficial for maintaining partner-based child-rearing, which benefits reproduction of a species? If this is the theme, it should be expanded, made clearer, and reliable references added.

BSW-RMH (talk) 03:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to say I object to removing the Social effects section. As much as it belongs in the Human sexuality article, it belongs in this one. It should just be cleaned up. Flyer22 (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Ethics and legality

I suggest retitling to Ethical, moral, and legal issues. This section is extremely detailed, yet is curiously focused on the Christian viewpoint regarding human sexuality. It overlaps with the sexual ethics and religion and sexuality articles.

Given there is already a detailed article on religion and sexuality from which this section draws heavily but selectively, I would suggest a complete rewrite of this section focusing on how the following subtopics affect consent/legality of sexual intercourse-how this is defined worldwide based on ethical/moral differences, and discussion of related law:

• age
• mental capacity
• consent
• marital status
• sexual orientation and gender

BSW-RMH (talk) 03:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Flyer22 (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Update

References and statistics have been updated by direct edit from the introduction through Health Effects. Primary and secondary sources were added where needed. BSW-RMH (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

In order to address the Refimprove tag issues with the section of ethics, legality, and religion I was thinking of replacing this section with the outline described above (retaining any pertinent infor already in the article section). Future editors/writers can then expand it. However, this will lead to deletion of a large amount of text (primarily overlapping with the religion and sexuality article). Are there any objections me to doing this? BSW-RMH (talk) 15:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Awesome, awesome work, BSW-RMH. It feels really good to have significant help with this article. I have often put off fixing certain areas, due to being busy, lost of interest in editing Wikipedia, or just plain laziness. So I thank you a lot, especially for your expertise. Yes, I am all for you redesigning the Ethical, moral, and legal issues section. Flyer22 (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Great! I am so glad you are happy with the revisions and I'll keep working on it :) BSW-RMH (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

LOL, how could I not be happy with the revisions? You updated and tweaked things with better sources. Flyer22 (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Question

In the health benefits section, several medical journal articles are cited, but it also says, "however, there is insufficient research to support these claims." That seems a little incongruous. Does it mean that those journal articles are suspect, or their claims are, or they are inconclusive, or something else? Also, some of the references are formatted oddly, and the source http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/features/10-surprising-health-benefits-of-sex -- which was apparently reviewed by an M.D. -- is used to support only one of its 10 claims; the rest seem to have been removed from the article. Why was that? Selery (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Selery. This was addressed above, and can also be seen in this link. That linked discussion is still on that talk page, and you can still weigh in there. Flyer22 (talk) 01:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't find the answer to those questions above or at that link. If we have medical journal articles and an M.D.-reviewed article making these claims, why is there "insufficient research to support" them? Selery (talk) 02:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Selery, that link does not have all the comments, which is why I pointed you to that section on that talk page as well (to read the rest of its comments and possibly comment there), but I feel that it does answer your questions. I had a lot of benefits listed through WebMD, but editors said things like this:

"As for the content, some of the sources were kind of weak ('10 Surprising Health Benefits of Sex' is not exactly a scholarly source). Importantly (to me; others might disagree), most of the supposed benefits they claimed were supported by weak evidence: self-reports, artificial experiments (e.g., the effects of a hug in a lab is extrapolated to sexual intercourse), and correlations without any evidence to support causation. Overall, it felt like a laundry list of every possible benefit for which a science-y sounding source could be found to support it, rather than documentation of any well-established benefits. Additionally, by filling a lot of space with 'benefits' that are barely past the speculation stage, I think that it misrepresented the state of knowledge to readers, by making it seem that the (currently known) medical benefits were approximately the same 'size' as the well-established medical risks. The current version might be a bit on the brief side, but I think it is a net improvement."

"I removed the 'benefits' that were unverifiable, ie. I could not verify with searches for peer-reviewed primary or secondary articles on the subject in Pubmed (and Google Scholar as a back up-because sometimes it can pick up things PubMed misses-even with trying various permutations of search keywords in PubMed)."

"I think that describing 'benefits' for which the evidence is weak or tangential, and the sources all primary (in the classic academic definition, not the muddled Wikipedia notion), is WP:UNDUE. If high-quality secondary sources supported a given connection, then I'd certainly reconsider.... One reason for my caution is the difficulty in getting from correlation to causation: People who are physically and mentally healthy have more sex than people who are currently sick or disabled, but that does not mean that having sex makes them healthy."

That's basically the reason they gave for not listing all those studies from the WebMD source -- insufficient research to support them. You would have to ask them at that section on that talk page, for further answers. Flyer22 (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 70.54.133.149, 29 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The most common form of contraception for females is the pill. It prevents pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STI). 70.54.133.149 (talk) 00:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —fetch·comms 01:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

NB: it dont protect from STI's. My source - school. Sophie ^(Talk) 00:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Really? I would think that this is common knowledge. EVERY commercial for "the pill" states explicitly that it does NOT protect against HIV or STDs. This is additionally stated on the information included with the pill itself. But if that's not good enough reason to remove this erroneous information, then how about the WP article on the pill? Nowhere does it list prevention of STI's as a benefit. Furthermore, the CDC website does NOT list the oral contraceptive pill as protection against STD's http://www.cdc.gov/std/treatment/2006/clinical.htm these sites explicitely states that the pill does not protect against STD's http://www.americanpregnancy.org/preventingpregnancy/birthcontrolpills.html http://www.contracept.org/stds.php http://www.std-questions.com/do-birth-control-pills-prevent-std-s and this site which quotes the change in contraceptive labeling that the FDA put in place in 1993 to state that they do not protect against STDs http://www.virushunters.net/showabstract.php?pmid=12287402 Is that enough evidence to get this erroneous information removed???? Prtwhitley (talk) 09:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Prtwhitley, that information is not in this article. It is erroneous information indeed, which is why it was not added. The above IP was asking to include such information, and was denied. You may have been confused by Sophie's response, which was in the IP's request. I just now moved it out of the request. Flyer22 (talk) 15:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is what caused my confusion. Thanks for clearing that up. Prtwhitley (talk) 01:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Flyer22 (talk) 02:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Dyslexia? Further design of article.

The article seems a bit dyslexic or dysfunctional with regard to its subject matter. For one, its conceptualized as superordered above both human sexuality and animal sexual behaviour, but its largely focused on the human. It likewise draws certain thread through both types of sexuality as a collective concept of "animal sex," but fails to properly distinguish or note such basic concepts as "love" and emotional bonding (which would make a good section topic, and would span both human and animal types of bonding).

The topic is overrun by a fixation on the mechanicals. For example the human section starts with the plain "Vaginal sexual intercourse, also called coitus, is the human form of copulation", which in addition to being a rather good example of a circular definition, misses again the essential ingredient that distinguishes human "sexuality" from animal "sexual behavior" (ie. love, bonding, mating, reproduction, family, (culture)). If the article purports to be supertopical, and incorporate scientific ideas and syllogisms, it needs to also state the human sexual concepts - some of which are actual virtues, and not just gratuitous or mechanical stimulations andor impulses. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 05:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Stevertigo. Your help with this article is appreciated. I assure you that I am not dyslexic, LOL. The design of this article is partly my design, yes, but others, such as yourself, have recently designed it as well. A current discussion about its design, as you can see, is going on a little above. With regard to the article covering humans and other animals... The article is largely focused on human beings, but the term "sexual intercourse" is usually restricted to human sexual interaction. Would you rather no mention of other animals be in this article? It has been discussed before; way above is one example. But I also note again that the term is not only restricted to human beings.

As for the other stuff, the In Humans section already distinguishes human sexual behavior from non-human sexual behavior. After the "Vaginal sexual intercourse, also called coitus, is the human form of copulation" line, it says:

While its natural purpose and result is reproduction, it is often performed entirely for pleasure and/or as an expression of love and emotional intimacy. Sexual intercourse typically plays a powerful bonding role; in many societies, it is normal for couples to have frequent intercourse while using birth control, sharing pleasure and strengthening their emotional bond through sex even though they are deliberately avoiding pregnancy.

In the Social effects and In animals sections, the article also notes the difference of sexual intercourse and acts betwen humans/certain other animals. Because of this, I am not seeing the need for a section titled Bonding and affection; the information you added could be incorporated into the In humans section. But it could also go there as a subsection, with what is already there about love and bonding being added to it. Would you be okay with that? I'll go ahead and try that now. If you don't like it, just revert or tweak it, and talk it over on the talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 19:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, here's the edit. How do you feel about it? Flyer22 (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

However, now I am not sure about the Social effects section; it is dealing with the same thing as the Bonding and affection section, and those two sections should definitely be merged. Do we keep the Bonding and affection section, and merge the Social effects section into that? Or do we keep the Social effects section, and merge the Bonding and affection section into it? My opinion? I would say we should go with the second option, since the social effects information is a part of the Health effects section, and social effects are a big part of health in regards to humans. Flyer22 (talk) 19:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Nah... After looking at them again, I say we keep both sections. The Social effects section can and should deal with more than just bonding and affection, and already does a bit (such as children). Flyer22 (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I moved half of the Social effects information up to the Bonding and affection section, though. That information seems more relevant there at the moment. In the Social effects section, since the bonding and affection aspects are now covered higher, we can briefly touch on how bonding through sexual interaction is, but then go into other social effects of sexual intercourse...such as a bit on adolescent sexuality, rape, etc. Flyer22 (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Just getting caught up with this here. I appreciate the comments, and like the way things are developing. Your point about how "intercourse" itself is reserved for humans is well made. Its interesting how the distinction between human and animal concepts gets blurred by 1) the differences among the animals (from pure reproduction to mating/bonding) and 2) the similarities between humans and higher animals, such that humans are considered "animals" with virtually indistinct features from "other animals." Fortunately, "love" draws certain distinctions which are guiding. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 20:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Well said, Stevertigo. I am glad you approve of my attempts to tackle your concerns. I also now feel that your addition of the Bonding and affection section is needed. It certainly fits well in the In humans section, being the starting point and all. I am open to any further tweaks you want to make or feel are needed. Flyer22 (talk) 21:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Appreciated. I'll take a look again tonight and think about it for a bit. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 00:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

As an idea, could we think about refactoring the lede, in accordance with the basic conceptualization for this article, which is simply an overview of sexual intercourse itself. The thing that would help here is simply to use a topic box to cover template:sexual behaviour. I'll see if there is one and put it in. We should to keep the distinctly human or animal aspects down to their most general, and migrate any excess material off to other articles. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 06:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

For the lead, I'm not sure what you mean, Stevertigo. Keep in mind that it has been carefully designed, per WP:LEAD, and per objections to not including certain information before. The lead should start off with the most common definition of sexual intercourse, which is vaginal sex (coitus/copulation), and then lead into how the definition has expanded. This includes anal sex and oral sex, though some people still do not consider those two acts to be sexual intercourse or what they call "real sex," which is why "technical virginity" exists. Penetration by non-sexual organs may also at times be regarded as intercourse, such as in the case of some definitions of rape. We probably should add a bit of the emotional aspect of human sexual intercourse somewhere in the lead, though, in the first paragraph (I'll do that now). From what I see, a bit about the health risks should also be in the lead. I'll have to take care of that while making sure the lead does not exceed four paragraphs, per WP:LEAD.

After the penetration definitions, we lead into non-penetrative sex, because it is also intercourse to some people and there was objection to it not being referred to as intercourse in the lead before (as I explained above). This paragraph also notes that there are strict definitions of sex, and makes it clear that some definitions of sexual intercourse do not include these acts.

We go into mating after that, per WP:LEAD, because this article also notes sexual intercourse in non-human animals.

Finally, we go into religion, per WP:LEAD, because this article significantly notes sexual intercourse in religion. Flyer22 (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I believe I have made a better lead. It now mentions human bonding in sexual intercourse, and I moved it to the start of what was the non-penetrative sex paragraph. Now, that paragraph is more about introducing other aspects of human sexual intercourse/sexual activities, while tackling strict definitions of sex. Flyer22 (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, again. An even better lead. It now mentions health risks (added on to the paragraph dealing with human bonding and other aspects of human sexual intercourse/sexual activities), and the religion paragraph is now third (per the redesign of this article, as the In other animals section was recently put last). Flyer22 (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"Sexual intercourse typically plays a powerful role in human bonding, often being used solely for pleasure and leading to stronger emotional bonds." - Nice. Note though that when you say "often..," the reader expects a contrast conjunction ("but") not connecting one ("and"). ;) -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 00:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Secks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secks redirects here, but there is no mention of the word "secks" in the entire article. Of course it is a silly internet term and not even found in a proper dictionary, but if there's going to be a redirect I'd think it would warrant at least a mention? Dr. Cheis (talk) 02:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Even though the "secks" spelling has colloquial usage elsewhere, that meaning is too trivial to mention in the article. But its not necessarily improper as a redirect. Redirects sometimes are purely substitutional, for example with mispellings. "Secks" and "seks," if not ambiguous with other meanings are good examples of misspellings that we correct through redirection. Note also that "x" has a /ks/ sound only in certain language orthographies, and has wide variance in other languages (see X#Usage), including IPA, which renders clusters as digraphs (/ks/,/d͡ʒ/,/t͡ʃ/ for ex, jump , and itch), so in phonetic transcription, /ks/ is actually the accurate spelling. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 03:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not against mentioning somewhere in the article that "secks" can refer to "sex" (as long as it's not in the lead), but it is very trivial. And besides...if we mention that, why not mention the other "terms" for sexual intercourse, fuck being one example? We could have a section for alternate names, but I do not feel that is needed. Flyer22 (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Pokemon1234321, 8 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected} Some of the spelling is off and some details about sexual intercouse is wrong

Pokemon1234321 (talk) 11:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? As for the details, everything in this article is sourced to reliable sources...except for some basic stuff. I'm not saying that reliable sources are never wrong, but I don't see any information that is wrong. Flyer22 (talk) 16:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Sheep and sexual intercourse

I believe that the quoted sections contain misleading and/or unverified information; I also consider using the term "ram" incorrect in this context ("Humans, bonobos, dolphins, rams, and chimpanzees are all intelligent social animals" - this is nonsense).

"However, bonobos,[14] dolphins,[15] rams,[16] and chimpanzees are known to engage in sexual intercourse even when the female is not in estrus, and to engage in sex acts with same-sex partners.[15][17] Like humans engaging in sex primarily for pleasure,[3] this behavior in the above mentioned animals is also presumed to be for pleasure,[18] and a contributing factor to strengthening their social bonds.[3]"

The study referenced by cite note #16 doesn't verify that "rams, (...) are known to engage in sexual intercourse even when the female is not in estrus.". Not only wikipedia's articles about sheep and ovine reproduction fail to mention such behavior, it is explicitly stated that ewes "(...) enter in to estrus cycles about every 17 days, which last for approximately 30 hours.[1] In addition to emitting a scent, they indicate readiness through physical displays towards rams." and "Their reproductive strategy is very similar to other domestic herd animals. A flock of ewes is generally mated by a single ram, which has either been chosen by a farmer or has established dominance through physical contest with other rams (in feral populations).[1] Most sheep have a breeding season (tupping) in the autumn, though some are able to breed year-round."

The same study is referred to again later, supposedly also verifying the following claim:

"Humans, bonobos, dolphins, rams, and chimpanzees are all intelligent social animals, whose cooperative behavior proves far more successful than that of any individual alone. In these animals, the use of sex has evolved beyond reproduction, to apparently serve additional social functions.[14][15][16][17] Sex reinforces intimate social bonds between individuals to form larger social structures. The resulting cooperation encourages collective tasks that promote the survival of each member of the group.[3]"

Neither the document in question nor any of the ovine-related pages on wikipedia support the inclusion of rams (or sheep) among these species. Sheep also have a markedly lower encephalization quotient than humans, dolphins or other great apes. The study is centered around the role of various agents in adjusting sexual preference in utero, sheep have been used as a model organism only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.132.187.179 (talk) 01:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, IP. The rams bit was added by BSW-RMH. I'll inform that editor of this discussion. You have brought up great points on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I went ahead and removed rams. BSW-RMH may object, but can make a case as to why it should be readded. BSW-RMH having been absent this month so far, I am not sure when you will get that reply. Flyer22 (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The text seems to have changed many times over the last couple of months. The reference was added to support inclusion of rams as a species that exhibits same-sex partner behavior. Anything else that this reference has been used for by others is not supported. Reference in question: Roselli CE, Stormshak F. Prenatal programming of sexual partner preference: the ram model. J Neuroendocrinol. (2009);21(4):359-64. PMID: 19207819. BSW-RMH (talk) 03:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, BSW-RMH. And good to see you again. Flyer22 (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to point out that the lead's text was the same as displayed by the IP above, BSW-RMH, when you made this edit. As for that being duplicated lower, that was done by me...because of your edit. Flyer22 (talk) 21:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I did not add rams there to signify that they are as intelligent as the other animals. I added it there because of the "even when the female is not in estrus, and to engage in sex acts with same-sex partners" part; I should have been more careful, as it was an overlook. I also take your add as overlook regarding the estrus part; it's okay, mistakes happen of course. Flyer22 (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Humans and undue weight

How come there is only paintings depicting human intercourse, but photographic images depicting other animal intercourses? what's the problem in depicting actual human intercourse, or what's so special about human intercourse preventing the insertion of a photography of it?

Also, "3 Ethical, moral, and legal issues" seems like more a sub-category of "in humans". (I think it is an undue weight to focus that much on humans, misappropriating otherwise generic section names). And the pictures there seems more appropriate to some heading like "Intercourse in human culture" or just "In human culture". (In fact, 3 could be renamed to a broader name like "Cultural aspects" or "In human culture", since religion, ethics, etc. are integral part of human culture)

In fact, to think about it, "health effects" are totally human-oriented also, without being explicit about it! I mean, there are health effects of for all animals (of course!), but the majority of topics in the section are written concerning humans only (such as, statistics detailing humans, social effects on humans, benefits to humans, ..). It should be merged with "In humans", or else be renamed "Health effects in humans" or "In human health".)

Sincerely, an Anonymous. --187.40.225.6 (talk) 06:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no photographic image depicting human intercourse because most people who have discussed the images on this talk page feel that it is not needed and would appear pornographic. I tend to agree. Do we really need to see a picture of a man's penis being inserted into someone? The same goes for the Anal sex article, which is why there are only paintings there as well. What is wrong with paintings? Yes, I believe in WP:NOTCENSORED, but I also believe in not using things we don't need...especially when those things will only aggravate most people.

As for the titles, I also felt that it was "off" by having an In humans section but having other stuff pertaining only to humans outside of that section. I did not initiate the redesign. But the reason the titles are not all combined under In humans is because it's quite obvious that ethical, moral, and legal issues relate only to humans. But I may go ahead and apply your suggestion of "In human culture" for those other headings anyway, including "Health effects." I'm also not sure that health effects regarding non-human sexual intercourse has been as extensively studied. I'll come up with some titles I think you'll approve of.

Just to touch on this article mainly focusing on humans, though, that's because the term "sexual intercourse" is usually reserved for humans. Flyer22 (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I simply changed it all to this. I believe that will suffice. Flyer22 (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I have edited many medical pages. Most disease that occur in human also occur in animals. But we are human and therefore care about human stuff most. We do not need to state in humans because this is assumed unless stated otherwise. The last section than says "in other animals" per WP:MEDMOS. Thus per WP:DUE we do not need to state the obvious. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with James, and stated as much on his talk page about this. Flyer22 (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Introduction is confusing -- oral sex

I realize caveats are needed, but the current introductory material is confusing and incomplete. For example, the discussion of nonstandard SI talks about oral sex without penetration. 1) penetration by what? Is putting a finger in someone's mouth SI? Who about Frnech kisses? 2)What is oral sex without penetration--kissing? genital organ touching lips? Also, why is the word "penetration" used instead of, say, entry? 211.225.32.232 (talk) 02:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it's confusing or incomplete. It says "oral sex may or may not be penetrative." I'm sure people can grasp that we mean penetration of the mouth, vagina, or anus. And the Oral sex article clarifies what oral sex is, for those who would be confused in the way you cite. But I don't believe that anyone is going to think that putting a finger in someone's mouth constitutes oral sex. What is oral sex without penetration? Well, people can give oral sex to a woman without penetration of her vagina; for example, action on the clitoris. Unless we are going to say that is penetrative because it is within the woman's folds. Also check out the Cunnilingus article. "Penetration" is used just because; it is more common than "entry" when referring to sexual activity.

Anyway, how would you suggest the wording about non-penetrative oral sex go? Flyer22 (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, does this edit make the oral sex part clearer to you? And is the oral sex part the only part you find/found confusing? Flyer22 (talk) 19:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Name change

I would support a name change to Coitus, rather than the current title. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 20:10 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Coitus is the heterosexual union involving the insertion of the penis into the vagina. That title does not cover all aspects of sexual intercourse. That word is also not as commonly used as "sexual intercourse" and "intercourse" are. What problem do you have with the title Sexual intercourse? Flyer22 (talk) 04:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I feel it's a little, well, explicit. Coitus is the scientific termanology for SI and normally it is written as it scieintific name. And when i typed in Coitus, it redirected me to here. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 11:00 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Due to what coitus means -- vaginal intercourse/heterosexual sex, it's just not the best term to represent this entire article. "Coitus" is the scientific term for vaginal sex between males and females, but it does not cover all this article tackles. Coitus interruptus, for example, is also about vaginal sex between men and women, not any other type of sex. "Sexual intercourse" or "intercourse" is what most researchers say or refer to in their articles/notes when referring to penetrative sexual intercourse between human beings and sometimes other animals (as this article even shows), therefore it is just as scientific. Wikipedia also uses this term far more than "coitus." And, as I stated before, with "sexual intercourse" being more commonly used than "coitus" when referring to penetrative sexual intercourse between human beings, I feel that Wikipedia's common name policy is the best route to go in this case. One might say "sex" is a more common term than "sexual intercourse" when referring to such intimacy (and one did, in a past discussion), but the Sex article, documenting biology, seems best suited for that title...especially since "sexual intercourse" usually means penetration and "sex" when referring to physical intimacy usually means any type of sex (non-penetrative sex, for example). In either regard, a title seeming a little explicit to an editor is not reason enough to change the title. Though I sort of understand your reasoning. I have no problem with you requesting more thoughts on this matter, such as through an RfC, if you want. Flyer22 (talk) 16:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sexual intercourse is a specific type of intercourse[2], though its usage dates to 15th century Middle English, usage outside of the term sexual intercourse has nearly completely died out. In the film Reversal of Fortune Claus von Bülow complains that he wants to have more intercourse with the world. By intentionally using such archaic English the character has also made a double entendre. Sexual intercourse is widely used in clinical terminology, as well as, popular culture e.g. the Beavis and Butthead episode No Laughing. I oppose any name change.--Wlmg (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I object per WP:COMMONNAME. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)ob

"Inter" in "intercourse" meaning between two beings

KarlM, how is this bit nonsensical? It was brought up by an editor before that the "inter" in intercourse means between two beings rather than being inside or outside of the body, and that it's simply today's society that takes the "inter" to literally mean "enter." That editor also cited a source for this (though I may be wrong about that), and added the same information to the Non-penetrative sex article. I felt it was an interesting little thing to mention, and have done my best to integrate it into the lead of the Sexual intercourse article. I didn't revert you, however, because I feel that you may have valid reason for removing it, and the lead looks a lot cleaner without it. Flyer22 (talk) 13:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

As can be seen from this link, "inter" does indeed mean "between" and "among." Thus...it certainly isn't nonsensical to mention. Whether or not to put it in the lead may be up for debate, but it can certainly be mentioned in this article. If there are no objections, or valid reasons put forth for why it shouldn't go in the lead, I may return it...with the source; I just want a better flow if I do. Flyer22 (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Inter is a Latin preposition meaning either between or among depending on context. It entered into English as a prefix with the same meaning. "it's simply today's society that takes the "inter" to literally mean "enter." I've never heard that one before. Thanks Flyer that's either my daily laugh or cry, I don't know which yet. If it weren't against wikipedia's talk page guidelines, I'd start a side discussion on rational eugenics you know forbid reproductive coitus between stupid people and shit like that. :-X --Wlmg (talk) 03:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I take that back. I did once see a handwritten sign in a NYC gov't building that said, "Enter Views Here".

"Penis is evil! The Penis shoots Seeds, and makes new Life to poison the Earth with a plague of men, as once it was. But the Gun shoots Death and purifies the Earth of the filth of Brutals. Go forth, and kill! Zardoz has spoken"[3]--Wlmg (talk) 04:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL. And you're welcome... So do you feel KarlM's removal is for the best? Since "inter" does mean "between," is it nonsensical to make this clear when contrasting it to outercourse? For example, the Non-penetrative sex article currently states:

The term "outercourse" is something of a misnomer, as it contrasts "outer" with "inter" but the "inter" in "intercourse" means "between two people" and the appropriate term to contrast "outer" is "inner". Thus, "inter" does not describe being inside the body.

What the editor who originally added the above blockquote piece meant...is that the term "outercourse" came about all because "intercourse" is usually taken to mean penetration -- entering someone. The editor was making a point about sexual intercourse encompassing all forms of sexual intimacy because "inter" means "between." I'm not going to lie, I always related the "inter" in "intercourse" to penetration as well. And that is because sexual penetration is usually how sexual intercourse is defined. Flyer22 (talk) 04:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll probably just take it to RfC. This is one of those things where I wonder if it's more beneficial to have something like this in the lead. If anything, it touches on the origin of "inter" and opens up people's eyes to the fact that "intercourse" was most likely not named such due to the fact of one entering the other. So far, I'm just not seeing how it's nonsensical to include. And if not in the lead, it can be included lower. Flyer22 (talk) 17:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The part that doesn't make sense was the statement "Inter- is often contrasted with outer-". "Outercourse" is a neologism that may be relevant to mention because it's become widely used (I've never heard it myself), but as mentioned above, it's based on improper derivation; there's nowhere else that inter- and outer- are opposites. The intro implied that it's common usage in other contexts, which it's not, and my intention was just to fix the wording. Feel free to alter it if you think that can be accomplished in a different way. KarlM (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks, KarlM. Your explanation helps greatly. No, I have no idea yet how to properly re-add this information. No need to take it to RfC now either. Your change is fine, of course. I was just wondering about the usefulness of this information. If I come up with something, I'll re-add it. Flyer22 (talk) 01:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Anal sex benefits

Lately there has been alot of talk about the benifits of anal sex. Some of the benifits are are improved orgasims, improved circulation, reduced headaches, and had been known to relieve pressure in the jaw. This survey was based on an expierment with 1000 female patients, and with an 88% success rate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 890black (talk • contribs) 03:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of no such benefits of anal sex reported by reliable sources. See WP:Reliable sources. Most health reports on anal sex have been negative. But if you come up with anything positive along the lines of what you described, this should be taken to the Anal sex article's talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 16:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

homosexuals?

the intro to this entry seems to infer that homosexual sex is not included in this definition. could someone more familiar with this article please correct this? 173.50.193.23 (talk) 08:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done AV3000 (talk) 12:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The lead already made clear that "homosexual sex" is also sexual intercourse when it says "In recent years, penetration of non-sexual organs (oral intercourse, anal intercourse) or by non-sexual organs (fingering, fisting) are also sometimes included in this definition." The lead starts out with the traditional/most common definition, like most articles do, then goes into how the definition has expanded. Flyer22 (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I applaud your efforts to relegate homosexuality to a lesser rung. Heterosexism wins yet again. --160.39.193.189 (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, and the lead has long since been changed from that particular line anyway. It may still state penis-vagina sex first, but that is how sexual intercourse is typically first defined. Also, before thinking of any of us as homophobic, remember that you don't know any of our sexualities...unless we state it. Flyer22 (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You're assuming that being gay means you can't be homophobic, when this is obviously untrue. Indeed, one need only look at individuals such as Ted Haggard to see otherwise. Sometimes, the worst perpetrators of homophobia are indeed homosexuals themselves. A sad truth, but true nonetheless. The problem I have with the current wording of the article is that not only is gay sex included later in the article -- it's not mentioned until the last sentence of the introductory paragraph, and then relegated to mention with other "nonsexual organs". Thus, the article states that sexual intercourse is between a man and a woman -- it does *not* state that sexual intercourse has been, in the past, defined as such. To historically trace the definition is one thing. To state that it is solely between a man and a woman is another thing. --160.39.193.189 (talk) 16:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not assuming anything. You are the one assuming the way the lead was or is crafted has anything to do with homophobia; it doesn't. I'm not homophobic in the least. If I were, I certainly would not have spent as much time as I have editing/creating gay and lesbian fictional character articles, and I'm quite certain that neither is AV3000. The lead is crafted the way it is due to everything that has been stated about it. It does not state that sexual intercourse is between a man and a woman only; it says that sexual intercourse "commonly refers to the act in which the male reproductive organ enters the female reproductive tract"....which is true. That is the way sexual intercourse is usually first defined. And the lead makes clear that this is no longer the way the term is solely defined, by saying, "Over time, the definition expanded and may now include..." And the "nonsexual organs" part was only meant to be technical, similar to what the Sexual organ article states. For example, the mouth is technically not a sex organ; just because some people use it as one...does not make it one. But I am willing to consider any suggestion you have for making the lead more pleasing to you. I have strived time and time again to not offend anyone with the lead, which is why I fought so hard to include non-penetrative sex in the lead, seeing as some people regard it as their sexual intercourse. Flyer22 (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It is patently wrong to assume that the penis penetrating the vagina is what is commonly meant by the term sexual intercourse. Ask almost anyone and they will say that they think that anal sex still counts as sexual intercourse. To say or even imply that a majority of people do not consider anal sex to be sexual intercourse is fundamentally incorrect on even a solely factual basis. So instead of saying that "Sexual intercourse, also known as copulation or coitus, commonly refers to the act in which the male reproductive organ enters the female reproductive tract," one might MORE ACCURATELY say , "Sexual intercourse, also known as copulation or coitus, most often refers to a penetrative act involving the male phallus," or "Sexual intercourse, also known as copulation or coitus, commonly refers to the act in which the male reproductive organ enters either the anus or reproductive tract of his sexual partner." --71.245.115.139 (talk) 04:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Patently wrong? Not according to these sources -- [4][5] -- and many others, including many found in the Rape article. If all sexual penetration commonly meant "sexual intercourse," then people would not have to specify anal sex or oral sex; they would just say "intercourse." There also would not be such a thing as "technical virginity." You don't see people saying, "I had vaginal sex last night." They just say "sex." I do not feel that the lead says or implies that a majority of people do not consider anal sex to be sexual intercourse, and neither have I come across a majority of people who do consider it to be sexual intercourse. Some of my gay male friends do, but others feel that froting counts as intercourse. But as for making the lead start out saying "vaginal or anal," what to make of oral then? Oral would then be getting the cold shaft (no pun intended). This is why I feel that it is best to stick to what many sources commonly define as sexual intercourse first -- which is penis-vagina sex. Also, look up copulation and coitus. Copulation is the union of the sex organs of two sexually reproducing animals for insemination and subsequent internal fertilization. Coitus is the heterosexual union involving the insertion of the penis into the vagina. But I will go ahead and tweak the part of the lead regarding penetrative sex acts between same-sex couples once again. Flyer22 (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I changed the lead to this...[6][7]. And if it is felt that "non-sexual organs" is offensive, I will remove that as well. Flyer22 (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I am curious as to why the change with regard to "non-sexual organs" has not been made. At the very least it should be elucidated that homosexuality is distinct from heterosexual anal/oral fetishism -- a pathetically common misconception. --160.39.193.189 (talk) 07:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)--160.39.193.189 (talk) 07:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It was not removed because no one had requested that. I don't mind removing it if you feel that it shouldn't be there. Flyer22 (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

While the change is certainly an improvement over the old, I would like to specify a few things. First, I have very rarely heard ANYONE specify the kind of sex they had when they say they had sex. Generally this can be easily inferred by the orientation of the individual. For example, if one of my male gay friends were to say to me, "I had sex last night," anyone would be able to infer from that the fact that he had anal sex. Likewise, if one of my heterosexual friends were to state the same, anyone would be able to infer from that the fact that he or she had vaginal sex. Additionally, it should be noted that a number of states, including (for example) the state of Connecticut include in the definition of sexual intercourse "vaginal intercourse, anal intercourse, fellatio or cunnilingus between persons regardless of sex." [1]

I am glad that you approve of the changes I made to the lead. As for the "vaginal sex" line I made, this is what I meant: For example, when having "sex talk," plenty of my heterosexual friends will specify anal sex or oral sex if they had it, as to be clear that they don't mean vaginal sex. Likewise, some of my gay male friends will specify oral or anal...or even frot. It's not as though vaginal sex is the only type of sex heterosexuals engage in. And anal sex is not the only type of sex gay men engage in. But, yeah, I was more so speaking of sex being specified when it is anything other than vaginal sex...such as when a woman is raped. It is usually assumed to be vaginally, unless she specifies. As for your link, that's a good source to use. I know that some sources include all of those acts as sexual intercourse. My point is that some sources don't, and the majority I have come across specify vaginal sex first. Flyer22 (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that it is fair to extrapolate your experiences into a general rule however. For example, if I'm talking to one of my gay friends, and he says he had "sex", I would logically infer that he meant anal sex, not oral sex or frotting. Likewise, if I'm talking to one of my straight friends, and he says he had "sex", I would logically infer that he meant vaginal sex. So, obviously, "most people" will specify if they engaged in something other than vaginal sex, but that phenomenon is only the product of the vast majority of the population being heterosexual. My point is that whereas vaginal sex is the rule for heterosexuals, anal sex is the rule for gay men -- and deviations from that rule are specified. For a straight man or woman to specify vaginal sex would be as odd as a gay man specifying anal sex. Thus, I can't really see why you would exclude anal sex from the definition of sexual intercourse. Furthermore, as someone who has done a relatively significant amount of academic research on sexual intercourse and behavior, I can tell you that the vast majority of contemporary scholarship uses the terms "sexual intercourse" and "sex" to refer to anal as well as vaginal intercourse (ex., via JSTOR [1 ]) --71.245.115.139 (talk) 01:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The way the lead is designed has nothing to do with my experiences. You discussed yours; I discussed mine. The point is that sexual intercourse is usually first and foremost defined as vaginal sex, as various sources show. And if the vast majority of the population is heterosexual, how is vaginal sex not the more common definition of sexual intercourse? And what is wrong with putting it first? It's no different than it coming first in another encyclopedia or dictionary, or the Reproduction and sexual practices section of this article. We must also remember that the term "sexual intercourse" extends to non-human animals as well, and most of them engage in mating behavior when the female is in estrus; this is why the lead starts off saying "Sexual intercourse, also known as copulation or coitus, commonly refers to the act in which the male reproductive organ enters the female reproductive tract." It stresses copulation and coitus, and does not name humans; instead, it simply states "male" and "female." I haven't excluded anal sex from the definition of sexual intercourse; it simply comes second, as it does in many sources. I don't see that as something to find offensive, especially when, as you said, the vast majority of the population is heterosexual, and when even rape is handled differently depending on their definition of sexual intercourse. For example, penetration of the vagina by the penis is always regarded as sexual intercourse. But sometimes the other penetrative sex acts are not, and therefore may be defined as something other than the accurate term "rape." That is what I mean about sexual intercourse commonly referring to penis-vagina sex. It's also one of the reasons that the term Vaginal sex redirects here. It's not to say that anal sex is not common, and I believe the lead now shows that it is. As can even be seen from the Anal sex article, anal sex is common enough among heterosexuals...so much in fact that it is thought that they have anal sex more than gay men. I appreciate that you have done a relatively significant amount of academic research on sexual intercourse and behavior, and I trust your word; I have as well. My designing of the lead has never been about homophobia; that's what I mostly wanted to make clear. Flyer22 (talk) 03:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and altered it to this way, though. Flyer22 (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I came in here to agree with your previous comment but quibble about just how clear it was, and instead I get to thank you for improving my edit. Regards, AV3000 (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I changed it again, to this. Is this okay with you also? It seems best to tackle penetrative sex first, then non-penetrative sex, as we did before. The previous way also seemed redundant, with the anal and oral text. This way could be seen as redundant as well, but it uses the same-sex mention as an example, to make it clear that oral sex/anal sex is not only regarded as sexual intercourse when it is between a man and a woman. Saying "For example" also makes clear not to imply that oral sex/anal sex only takes place between same-sex couples. Flyer22 (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Even better flow. Just one grammatical change needed - "are also regarded" AV3000 (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. And if there is any other help you can provide for this article, such as with other discussions, that would also be appreciated. Flyer22 (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I made one more change. As I stated in my edit summary, I added back "sometimes" for now, due to how certain definitions still define sexual intercourse, such as with Rape. If that is not good enough, I could simply revert that back, and instead add on something after the line "Traditionally, intercourse has been viewed as the natural endpoint of all sexual contact between a man and a woman," about how the definition of sexual intercourse is still often restricted to vaginal sex; that is already noted in the non-penetrative sex paragraph, but I could just move it higher. Either way, let me know if you object to any of these changes. Flyer22 (talk) 14:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries, it's still fine - the significant aspects are all spelled out clearly. AV3000 (talk) 21:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Marital status in religion - limit to major faiths?

Although the information listed for Wiccans, Unitarian Universalists, and Shakers is accurate and technically relevant to the subject matter this section should be limited to major faiths. Wiccans in particular have more text than the other listed religions, and although it may indeed be a unique view (and that could be the reason for it being there) that seems excessive given the size of that particular faith. Similarly, the Shakers viewpoint is extreme which is most likely why it is included. But given the very small number of Shakers it seems like an odd inclusion. Why not mention defunct religions in that case?```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryal-oh (talk • contribs) 20:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Good points. I don't mind either way, though. Let's see if any other editors have anything to state on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Artificial insemination also comsidered (medically) Intercourse?

Article explained the animal biological intrecourse well. But would artificial insemination be considered a form of intercourse as well?TheStrikingsword (talk) 10:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I would state no. Flyer22 (talk) 11:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is not a form of intercourse (it is a form of reproduction) BSW-RMH (talk) 23:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I dont think so Ludjer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC).

It's a form of reproduction, like BSW-RMH stated, which is why we tackle it in the Reproduction and sexual practices section, and is why I'll be adding same-sex couple methods of reproduction there as well. Flyer22 (talk) 13:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

doggy style

Is it really need to publish the real close up photo of doggy style penetration. dear friends we can replace with drawings or some other forms. That picture may create a bad idea about the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nowaron (talk • contribs) 14:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree. This pornographical image is offensive, unnecessary and unwarranted. It is a very new image, too, and I highly doubt the copyright information is legal and valid. I will remove it now, unless anyone else can make a strong claim in favor of keeping it. Tbmurray 17:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Such real-life images have often been seen as pornographic here at this and other Wikipedia sexuality articles, but Wikipedia is not censored. That, the fact that it is a version of vaginal intercourse (instead of the typical anal sex suggestion), and is only one image, is the reason I did not object to such an image this time. I have been against such images in the past, however (above, for example)....because I do not see why they are needed and how the human brain cannot picture it all on their own. Most suggestions for the real-life images have been nothing but a desire to have pornographic material in the articles. Flyer22 (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between pornographic material and educational diagrams or charts. While Wikipedia is not censored, it is important to realize that people of all ages use Wikipedia. While this is an article about sexual intercourse, it needs to be an article, not a peep show. Rocketfoxjonsi (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

There was no need to remove the image from this talk page. It's best to see the image that is in discussion, despite all ages using Wikipedia. Most people who visit Wikipedia articles do not check the talk pages of those articles anyway. If you want the image removed from the article, as it seems you do, you can continue to make an argument for that here...but this talk page is not too active and so that is not the best route to take. It would be better if you brought this up on one or all of the relevant WikiProjects (see the WikiProject banners at the top of this talk page) or took it to WP:RfC. Flyer22 (talk) 17:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The image is pornographic, needlessly "close up", offensive -- and, worst of all, suggests pedophila (possibly of both subjects; notice absence of pubic hairs). As a close up, it is unlike any of the other images. It needs to be removed. Retaining it is tantamount to saying "because of this image's educational value, we would also gladly publish needlessly close up shots of likely young subjects engaged in 1. oral (heterosexual & homosexual), 2. anal (ditto), and 3. vaginal sexual intercourse (maybe even real doggy style with a range of animals). Indeed, we solicit submissions of such, so we can fulfill our educational mission." That is not a standard concerning censorship, it is a license for transmission of pornography. A line needs to be drawn somewhere. This image transgresses well beyond that line.108.67.89.178 (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)THeller

Whoa, I wouldn't say it suggests pedophilia. Plenty of normal men prefer the vulva to be clean-shaven. And in the Vulva article, we have a picture of a natural vulva and a clean-shaven vulva. I have to say that I consider the doggy style image unneeded too, and certainly see why it is viewed as a pornographic. But as for other animals doing it doggy style, we do have the image of the lions copulating in the In other animals section. Flyer22 (talk) 02:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The image depicts the position well enough. It does assist in the reader's understanding of the prose. To bypass any personality right concerns (essentially non-existent since the people are not identifiable), pedophilia concerns (also non-existent even with the pubic-hair test being applied), concerns related to pornography (not actually applicable since Wikipedia is not censored), and cries of it being "offensive" (not that it matters since Wikipedia is not censored): I suggest File:Wiki-dstyle.png as an alternative. Other options are available at commons: Category:Doggy style positionsCptnono (talk) 02:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

My main complaint with the image is that it is too much of a close-up to show the position fully. It could be any rear entry position. I agree with Cptnono that File:Wiki-dstyle.png would be a better alternative.   Will Beback  talk  02:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Cptnono and Will Beback. I take it you found this discussion through Herostratus's talk page? I don't particularly view the image as needed, no. Not only is the text not discussing doggy style (though it does mention different sex positions at the very end), I don't feel it is needed to help people understand the act of sexual intercourse. And even with Wikipedia not being censored (as I already pointed out above), there are still images that can be viewed as "simply pornographic" here at Wikipedia. Plenty have been removed on that reasoning alone, as well as being viewed as unneeded. Or both. In any case, one editor (The Founders Intent) insists on keeping that image, so I'm not sure he'll be open to a different one -- especially maybe not a drawing that doesn't even show which orifice the man is penetrating. Personally, I don't have much of a problem with the image being in this article; it's just about what I stated above. Flyer22 (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

And as for "any rear entry position," it's pretty clear to me that it is vaginal penetration. Flyer22 (talk) 03:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I meant that they could be standing, kneeling, etc.   Will Beback  talk  22:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Oopsy, LOL. The wording "any rear entry position" did sound a tiny bit odd, but I simply thought you meant "any" as in "either" -- either vaginal or anal. Thanks for the clarification. Flyer22 (talk) 22:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course, we could add many more images to this article and maybe it is time that we did. The reader's understanding is actually impaired by not seeing the different acts involved. And if people are going to start disputing any images (even drawn ones) then I am going to start pushing to keep the one shown up above. This article is about sex A penis and vagina is exactly hat should be shown. I withdraw my previous suggestion and fully support keeping that image since it is the the clearest media currently used tin the article. And yes, of course that is how I got here.Cptnono (talk) 03:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel that the article needs "many more images," or where other such images would be relevant. We only have one section discussing sexual practices, and I don't feel that we need an even bigger section on that, discussing and showing various sex positions. We have the Sex positions article that goes over, and shows, the various sex positions. If people don't know what a penis or vagina looks like, we have the Penis, Human penis and Vagina articles. And on that note, I believe readers can quite clearly imagine what vaginal sex looks like. The same goes for oral sex and anal sex. It is not as though we can have images of every sex position in this article. And if we did, the article would be needlessly cluttered with images. No one is disputing "any images." I stated that The Founders Intent is intent on keeping the real-life doggy style image, and may not want it substituted for a drawing that does not even show penetration. Flyer22 (talk) 03:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not a question of pornography and offending our readers. Though the image does not appear to violate Wikipedia policy (e.g. WP:IUP, WP:IMAGES), it does not add any encyclopedic value to the article (see WP:MOS). That, and the concern that the image itself may not comply with copyright policy WP:COPYRIGHT are sufficient reasons to remove the image. Following the guideline of being bold, the image has been removed from the article. Truthanado (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The copyright issue is nonsense, but if the consensus is the image is offensive to your sensibilities, then by all means change it, but please also remove the ejaculation video, the erection images, and the oral sex cartoon, because someone could be offended; and replace with more words or less offensive images. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 21:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

In Christianity

The view that sex is for procreation only, is not universal, and needs more sourcing. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 14:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, The Founders. You are definitely right on that. I haven't messed with the sections on religion much, and left others to fix that up. But just to point out something, it says "Christianity commonly views sex in marriage as holy and for the purpose of reproduction." It says "commonly," not "only." Flyer22 (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see the scriptural support for even commonly. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 19:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand. Certainly not disputing your reason for doubt regarding the line. Flyer22 (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not understanding this edit by Rursus. From what I know, sexual intercourse between husband and wife is viewed as spiritual in Christianity. In any case, I removed mention of Christianity from the lead until all this is worked out. Flyer22 (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hehmm, the New Testament doesn't mention sexual intercourse: it tells us about marriage and possibly lust, and while the natural interpretation would be to extend "marriage" to the sexual act, this is historically not the case in Christianity. The "holyness" applies to marriage as far as I know, not to sex within the marriage. Also: the Roman Catholic Church proscribes abstaining or if that doesn't work coitus interruptus instead of artificial contraception, which clearly implies that RCC vindicates that sex is for procreation only. I get the impression that most other churches doesn't speak very much about the sexual intercourse itself within the marriage. (The Old Testament is full of anecdotes and stories of lying down with ones wife and others, but more like mention of facts, not like morals, and normally the Old Testament is to be regarded as a background material, not the primary religious source). Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 05:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for weighing in/explaining, Rursus. With Christianity, I'm just so used to parents telling their kids that premarital sex is wrong and is something that should be done when you're married. I guess others will continue to weigh in on this over time. I'm no expert on religion. The debated line above, about Christianity commonly viewing sex in marriage as holy and for the purpose of reproduction, is sourced in the Ethical, moral, and legal issues section. But maybe it was interpreted in a certain way by the editor who added it, or even by the writers of the books. I'll check out the Christianity and Religion and sexuality articles later to see what they have to say on all this (sources and stuff). If interested, here are the most recent past discussions about religion and sexuality, before this article was further fixed up. Talk:Sexual intercourse/Archive 5#NPOV, Talk:Sexual intercourse/Archive 5#John Paul II -- too much info for this article, and Talk:Sexual intercourse/Archive 5#Conjugal rights? No. "Rites" Flyer22 (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for those links. The answers you got in Talk:Sexual intercourse/Archive 5#NPOV were extremely POV and were actually not very reliable. There is not just sin that is evil in this world, that statement is just ludicruously idiotic considering natural catastrophes. The rest had some truth in them. The image of Christianity is very varied, and I have studied the attitude towards sex and marriage within priesthood of various branches, because of me, myself being Christian, having a real hard time to accept the dysfunctional and contraproductive process of pruning all spirituality out of humanity by the method of prohibiting all spiritual individuals from procreation. The general Christian attitude towards marriage and priests is the following: Roman Catholicism prohibits most hierarchy from procreation, the Oriental orthodox may elect priests that are married, but they aren't eligible to bishops, the Eastern orthodox do approximately the same (details unknown for me), and Protestants both elect already married to be priests/bishops, and allow priests/bishops to marry. Some current denominations may inofficially regard sex within marriage to be "sacred" or "holy", but that is a late invention, which is not founded in the primary Christianity, where chastity is a 'virtue', not an immoral means of creating sexual frustration. The later attitude can be found among protestant reformers (I'm a Lutheran fan of Luther, so I'm not very POV in this), but the reformers partially change the original message, and protestantism is a just a large minority within Christianity. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 20:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, you are clearing up a lot of stuff. Thank you again. Your help with mentioning Christianity in the lead and tweaking its mention in the Ethical, moral, and legal issues section would definitely be appreciated...if you're interested. I feel that Christianity should be mentioned in the lead, but am not sure what to state on it. Flyer22 (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The following link is original research, but it gives you an idea about how the Bible has been abused by the advocates of chastity and of no sex before marriage: http://members.home.nl/tgeorgescu/sexual.html A more scholarly approach, by a respected academic (editor of The New Oxford Annotated Bible): http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2027582,00.html Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Pardon any mistakes in my addition to the discussion here, relatively new to wikipedia edits (haven't done many). Anyways, I have to disagree to some extent with Rursus. He appears to mostly be discussing the RCC and not Christianity as a whole. Part of the problem is it seems we are arguing two things here: on one hand, arguing about what church history has held regarding marriage and sexual intercourse; on the other hand, arguing what the Bible seems to say regarding marriage and sexual intercourse.

The Bible does talk about it; for example, I Corinthians 7. This is a confusing passage due to how Paul talks about marriage in some ways; however, the first few verses certainly appear to clearly talk about sexual intercourse without reference to procreation: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%207&version=ESV

3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. (ESV)

(Note that Paul was battling sexual immorality in the Corinthian church, hence referencing temptation due to lack of self-control).

The Bible places a high responsibility and high value on raising children, I won't argue that. Saying that both church history and the Bible teach that sexual intercourse should be for marriage only, however, is not correct. The RCC may hold to that and they have the whole celibacy thing - which I cannot find in the Bible, though Paul makes some somewhat confusing remarks regarding not marrying but certainly does not forbid it and has some extremely high comments about marriage, such as it being a picture of Christ and the Church! - but the RCC has held many positions now and in the past that are not even necessarily held to by all those in the RCC, let alone the rest of those who claim to be "Christian." 129.42.184.35 (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your informative reply. So it seems the best way to tackle this is to address how sexual intercourse is viewed in different sections of Christianity. No one source can speak for all of Christianity on this, it seems, which was also mentioned at Talk:Christianity#Sexuality Flyer22 (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I added the Christianity information to the lead and tweaked the bit about it lower this way. That should suffice for now, until information is added in that lower section on how branches other than Catholicism view sexual intercourse. If I got the Catholicism bit wrong, by making it seem that all Catholics view sexual intercourse that way, let me know. Flyer22 (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

About the Hebrew Bible: there is no prohibition of premarital or extramarital sex for men, except adultery, i.e. sleeping with the wife of another man, according to http://www.summitstonehill.com/opinion/5-questions-with-professor-michael-d-coogan-1.1716380 . Coogan says therein that premarital sex for women was "discouraged", but the Bible has a word for the sons of unmarried women, i.e. they were allowed to give birth to such sons, although they were relegated to an inferior social status. Paul condemned extramarital sex out of apocalyptic fears (he though the world was going to end soon). Jesus does not say anything about this, except regulating divorce between a man and one of his wives, stance which bears no implication on premarital and extramarital sex. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Rampant Heteronormativity

Much of the article seems to assume that sexual intercourse takes place only between heterosexual couples -- for example, the phrases "the woman" and "the man" appear a number of times, implying that at least one woman or one man are required for "proper" sexual intercourse. This is obviously untrue. Moreover, while there are pictures (multiple) of sexual intercourse between heterosexual couples, no such depictions appear of same-sex couples despite the fact that relevant free images abound. And again it may be noted that same-sex sexual intercourse appears in the third sentence, after the inclusion of "hermaphroditic" couples ("as with snails"). Shouldn't the second sentence include same-sex couples? As it reads now the first paragraph appears to exclude the possibility of "real" sexual intercourse for same-sex couples (who may, apparently, only use "non-sexual" organs). In addition, a search for "vaginal intercourse" redirects to this page, whereas a search for "anal intercourse" or "gay sex" will direct one elsewhere. This is problematic as it sends the message that only vaginal intercourse, in which a penis penetrates a vagina, is an acceptable form of intercourse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.193.189 (talk) 07:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It should also be noted that this business about providing only heterosexual pictures is common to pretty much every article on sex or sexuality -- see cum shot, coitus reservatus, masturbation (see: Mutual Masturbation), fingering (sexual act), handjob, oral sex, tea bag (sexual act), deep-throating (sexual act), facesitting, physical intimacy, human sexuality, etc. -- except in those instances in which the topic is unavoidably homosexual (see anal sex, though even here the number of heterosexual couples are about even with the number of homosexual couples depicted, and frot.) There are some instances of same-sex couples but they are without exception lesbian couples (presumably because they are "less controversial" as they appeal to sexually frustrated heterosexual men -- see anal-oral sex. For more heteronormativity in pictures see love, intimate relationship, marriage (the only same-sex couple may be found under the same-sex marriage subheading), engagement, monogamy, dating (seriously, how many pictures of heterosexual couples do you need?), etc. --160.39.193.189 (talk) 07:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and add reasonable stuff, but don't make this an agenda. The OP has already gone in that direction, and it needs to stay focused. Homosexuality is a minority, not a majority, so we're going to allow WP:UNDUE. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 11:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Why would you assume that I am "mak[ing] this an agenda"? What would constitute that? Yes, gay people are a minority, but that's absolutely no reason for them to be entirely invisible except when it's unavoidable. Look at the sexual positions article -- all of the images and positions are for heterosexual couples. This invisibility of gay people is problematic because it mirrors a cultural trend of ignoring the existence of homosexuality and bisexuality -- in film, print, and, sadly, sexual education classes. It is therefore, I would argue, even more vital for the inclusion of information about same-sex couples and homosexuality than heterosexuality, as heterosexuals have a wealth of information available to them, almost all of which is socially acceptable for them to access. I am also disappointed to discover that apparently no one here views this gay erasure as problematic. --209.2.236.152 (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Also I want to elucidate the fact that WP:UNDUE refers only to opinions, not demographic groups. The demographic group exists, and should therefore be represented rather than entirely invisible as it currently is. --Robertbayer (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Just want to state real quick that WP:UNDUE is also often used on Wikipedia in reference to too much weight given to other things too. Such as a lot of factual material on one topic over another. Flyer22 (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the assumption was made in the initial remark, stating that the article assumes something. The tone the remarks then go on to say the article is further implying something because the words 'a woman' and 'a man' are used. Since heterosexuality is predominate, it's not usual to find these words; but that doesn't mean that article is intended to imply or assume one thing. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 18:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You're excused. Intent is irrelevant if the effect is to simply erase an entire segment of the population. Using phrases such as "the man" and "the woman" (distinct from "a man" or "a woman") carries the quite explicit implication that there is only one man and one woman involved in sexual intercourse. This is at best simply inaccurate. My objections are legitimate regardless of the predominance of heterosexuality (which is, in fact, arguable depending on one's definition of bisexuality). In any case, the article does incorrectly assume heterosexuality of everyone. Someone could not intend to be wrong, and yet still be wrong. Maybe the authors were not intending to erase lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals -- but they wound up doing that regardless. --160.39.193.189 (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, IP. I also responded to your question in the section high above. I will remove the "non-sexual organs" part, per your concerns and because it was sort of touched on before. As for the hermaphroditic part about snails in the lead, that is only placed second to give yet another example of penis-vagina sex. It would seem out of place elsewhere in the lead. I feel that the article is clear that sexual intercourse does not only encompass vaginal sex or sex between men and women. Vaginal sex redirects here, however, because sexual intercourse commonly means vaginal sex and no one has yet created a good Vaginal sex article. Furthermore, a lot of what would be in the Vaginal sex article would be a duplication of what is here. And of course anal intercourse is going to redirect to Anal sex. As for pictures, there are only two pictures in this article of human sexual intercourse. And before The Founders recently added back the doggy style image, only one image of human sexual intercourse was in this article. On the topic of the words "man" and "woman," in what areas do you object to their use? In sections like Coitus difficulties, for example, "man" and "woman" are used because coitus, such as coitus interruptus, is about vaginal sex. There is also the fact that "man" and "woman" may be used in some of these instances you speak of because the sources are about heterosexual couples. Flyer22 (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is one quote from the article (not from a source): "Intercourse often ends when the man has ejaculated. Thus the woman might not have time to reach orgasm." This quote clearly indicates that "intercourse" only takes place between one man and one woman. Take a look for yourself -- you might find some heteronormativity elsewhere in the article too. Rather than "the man" and "the woman" it would be more accurate to use "the penetrative partner" and "the receptive partner." I would also contest your assertion that "sex" always means "vaginal intercourse" (see above, the legal definitions of sexual intercourse, the academic inclusion of anal sex in intercourse, etc.). Moreover, with regard to coitus interruptus -- that practice is not necessarily exclusive to heterosexual couples (for example, many gay couples attempted to use it as a method of HIV prevention during the 1970s and 1980s). Lastly, I would point out that if the only sources you have refer to heterosexual couples, that may be problematic in and of itself. --160.39.193.189 (talk) 04:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll tweak that line you just cited, and any similar lines like that...as long as they are not specifically about men and women. Also, I did not state that sex always means vaginal intercourse. Why would I state that when I am trying to be clear that this article is about more than vaginal sex and sex between men and women? I said that sexual intercourse commonly means vaginal sex. Which it does. I've been through various sources, and vaginal sex is usually given as the first definition; sometimes even as the only definition. There are also cases of rape (see the Rape article) where intercourse is only defined as vaginal sex. That's all I meant by that -- sexual intercourse commonly means vaginal sex. Not only means vaginal sex. As for the word "coitus," it means penis-vagina sex only in just about every definition I have come across in regards to it. And we'd need reliable sources that state that the term "coitus interruptus" is not restricted to heterosexuals. In any regard, some of your concerns are valid, and I'll get on tackling that now. Flyer22 (talk) 05:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I made this tweak, but I cannot find any other lines using "men" and "women" that are not specifically about sex between men and women. For example, the Reproduction and sexual practices section starts out with reproduction information, and therefore is going to be about men and women at that part of the section. Unless we include reproduction methods of gay and lesbian couples, which is a good idea actually. And the Coitus difficulties section is about sex between men and women because of the usual definition of "coitus" and the sources being attributed to sex between men and women. I'd love to add some information there on gay male couples, or lesbian couples, if the term also applies to gay and lesbian relationships. But maybe it's best to use a word other than "coitus" in the title of that section if it was expanded in such a way...since "coitus" usually applies to penis-vagina sex. Everything else in the article deals with sex in general. And though the Marital status and relationships in religion section is mostly about heterosexual couples too, that is because the choice of marriage is usually given to heterosexuals. But let's just say I can see how you view this article as being heteronormative. The main thing is to get reliable sources on other types of couples in the same context as some of these issues, such as difficulties during sex. For example, lesbian bed death, another article I fixed up, could be touched on in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 05:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

While that's an improvement, I would prefer if you would use "the penetrative partner" and the "receptive partner," rather than "the man" (which still implies that there is only one man involved). As for your idea of including gay/lesbian reproduction, that would actually be good as it is increasingly possible and common in many societies. Now, with regards to "coitus difficulties," I think that gay and lesbian couples may be rightly included in there (definition of coitus from Dictionary.com: "a coming together, uniting, sexual intercourse"). Based on the definitions of coitus I've seen, and the fact that it's generally used as a synonym for sexual intercourse (but in particular anal or vaginal intercourse), I don't see a problem with including same-sex couples. I think we can also make some changes to the "marital status and relationships" section given the growing number of countries, states, and religious groups that are willing to perform and/or recognize same-sex marriages. --Robertbayer (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You created an account. Nice. Welcome to Wikipedia. I'll add a proper Welcome message to your talk page, to help you become familiarized with how Wikipedia works. Now, moving on... There are going to be some cases where "man" and "woman" have to be used. The line you pointed out above is an example: Intercourse often ends when the man has ejaculated. We have to specify that we are talking about a man in that case. Women, as I'm sure you know, are not designed in the same way men are when it comes to orgasm. Also, if the situations we are describing are specifically between men and women, why shouldn't we use "man" and "woman"? If we used "the penetrative partner" and "the receptive partner" for the Coitus difficulties section, it wouldn't specify that we are talking about men and women in those cases; it could be anybody or any pairing, when, really the information is specifically about men and women. This line is an example: About 15 percent of women report difficulties with orgasm, and as many as 10 percent of women in the United States have never climaxed. Even women who orgasm on a regular basis only climax about 50 to 70 percent of the time. Obviously, we cannot use "receptive partner" there. All of that section is like that -- where who we are talking about needs to be clarified. When we're talking about sex in general, I agree that "the penetrative partner" and "the receptive partner" should be used instead. And as for the "only one man" bit, I at first thought you were speaking in the context of threesomes -- that there may be more than one man involved -- but I quickly realized that you mean in the context of gay men. Again, I agree that "the penetrative partner" and "the receptive partner" should be used where we are speaking of sex in general.

Obviously I don't think that "man" should be replaced by "penetrative partner" and "woman" should be replaced by "receptive partner" in every instance. But in instances such as the one I indicated, it is clear that "the penetrative partner" is going to be male. Saying "the man" in the context of two men having sex, however, is of no help, given that, since both are men, "the man" could be either of them. The only appropriate comprehensive terminology used would be "penetrative" and "receptive" partners. Again, my objections are not to the words "man" or "woman" or "male" or "female" but rather to terminology that implies that only one man and one woman can be involved in sexual intercourse. In any case, I think we are in agreement here.--Robertbayer (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

LOL. I didn't mean to sound silly; was only trying to stress some things and make sure we're clear. And, yes, we are in agreement. On a side note, I was just about to state that splitting up the comments this way is something I've never really liked that much, but then you went ahead and signed your comments, which makes it a lot better; so thank you for that. Flyer22 (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I just wanted to follow up on a couple of these edits: would you be able to make sure that the change to the "duration" section happens (i.e. changing "man" to "penetrative partner;" for the sake of clarity you could change the beginning of the second sentence to, "Thus, his partner...") --Robertbayer (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

About "coitus," even the link you provided starts off saying "sexual intercourse, especially between a man and a woman." And then most of the other definitions restrict it to penis-vagina sex too, such as "physical union of male and female genitalia accompanied by rhythmic movements" and "sexual union between a male and a female involving insertion of the penis into the vagina." So, generally, it means penis-vagina sex, which is what I was talking about earlier. Most dictionaries, encyclopedias and medical sources define it that way. But I wouldn't be opposed to adding some same-sex couple information to the Coitus difficulties section, since "coitus" can refer to sexual intercourse in general. I think we'll need to mention this wider coitus definition somewhere in the Reproduction and sexual practices section if we include same-sex couples in the Coitus difficulties section, though. And I agree about including same-sex couple information in the Marital status and relationships in religion section.

Regardless, even if that is not the case, it would be more appropriate, given that this article's focus is, theoretically, on human sexual practices rather than vaginal intercourse, to change the title of the section, then, to "sexual difficulties." The information on same-sex sexual practices/difficulties is just as important (if not more because of the limited availability of that information to many young people), I would argue, as heterosexual sexual practices/difficulties. Regardless of the semantics, in other words, I feel that content pertinent to same-sex couples is important and ought to be included. There's no need to mention the wider coitus definition if we simply change the title of the section (IMO not a significant change given that the article already starts off equating sex with heterosexual sex). --Robertbayer (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. That is also why I suggested taking "coitus" out of the title. Would you rather that title be changed now? Or should we wait until same-sex couple information is added to it, since without that, the title change will make the section appear even more biased toward presenting one type of couple? Flyer22 (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be best if that specific change is made later. --Robertbayer (talk) 01:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

One thing I want to point out: For most of the topics in this article, we should use medical and simply psychological sources, per WP:MEDRS. Exceptions are social issues, such as marriage, but even for some social issues (impact of sex on teens, for instance) medical/psychological sources should be used or are preferred. And be aware that any drastic changes should be proposed on the talk page first, before being implemented. So many things regarding this article, such as the lead (intro), have already been worked out and therefore have achieved WP:Consensus. Flyer22 (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Some thoughts on the marital status and religion section -- for example, Reform Judaism not only recognizes same-sex marriages, but also actively advocates for the legal recognition of same-sex marriage. Moreover, since the late 1980s Quaker meetings in the United States have sanctified same-sex marriages. Recently, Quakers in the United Kingdom have begun to perform religious marriage ceremonies in possible defiance of the law there. --Robertbayer (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, and agreed that this information should be in the Marital status and relationships in religion section. Nice to have you here balancing things out. Once you are able to edit this article, feel free to add that of course. Flyer22 (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, looking at the "non-sexual organs" part, I am unsure of the best way to remove it and still keep the mention of fingering and tonguing. Any suggestions? Flyer22 (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed the wording of non-sexual organs, and it was easy enough. In being unsure of the best way to remove "non-sexual organs," I got caught up in the "penetration by" wording, as if "penetration by" or "penetration of" are needed. And when I thought to just leave it as "penetrative acts," I wondered if including fingering and tonguing would seem excessive with oral sex and anal sex already mentioned. But of course including fingering is needed as well. I removed tonguing, though, because oral sex covers that. Flyer22 (talk) 14:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Another question, IP, do you want this article designed similarly to how the Anal sex article is designed -- in the way it has a section devoted to each type of couple combination (heterosexuals, gay men/MSM, and lesbians/WSW)? If so, I can understand, but it would take work, of course, and we need to avoid too much duplication. For example, lesbian sexual practices has its own article, but it is not very big; we'd have to make sure that we don't have too small a section on it in this article but also that we don't pretty much state most of what is already in that article. Flyer22 (talk) 04:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I would find that significantly more acceptable. As it stands now, while the existence of homosexuality is at times acknowledged, it is frequently glossed-over or simply ignored (see my comments about "the man" and "the woman"). --160.39.193.189 (talk) 04:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to find good time and a lot of good sources so that sections devoted to couples in this article would not be too much of a duplication of material found in other articles. And I certainly don't want very small sections on each couple, and then a point toward the larger articles on any specific sex act. This article has already been through a drastic redesign, and what you are asking for would take a lot of work. But I asked because I am open to making it happen. Flyer22 (talk) 05:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Great, thank you! I'm a bit on the busy side for the moment but I will soon have more free time, so let me know what I can do to help out. --Robertbayer (talk) 01:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Section break: Gathering information/reliable sources and pondering redesign

Hey, Robert. I'm just letting you know that I decided to gather information on the reproduction methods of same-sex couples first, and will be adding that information to the Reproduction and sexual practices section. I'm not sure when. It may take a week, maybe less.

In regards to splitting up the article in the same way that the Anal sex article is split up couple-by-couple, I'm not sure doing it exactly that way is the best. For example, there cannot be a Male to female or Female to male section in this article. Thus, the split would be Heterosexual without any subsections, unless, we include Coitus difficulties as the subsection, and Homosexual, maybe split into Gay males and Lesbians. But I don't see why the Homosexual section would need to be split into categories either. Here is what I mean in all: We have a Reproduction and sexual practices section because reproduction is a part of sexual practices, at least usually in the case of heterosexuals. I feel that it's best to keep the reproduction material (of both straight and gay couples) combined with the sexual practices material (of both gay and straight couples), so that all that information is tackled collectively (in one spot). My main point is that, unlike anal sex, sexual intercourse encompasses more than primarily one sex act, and these sex acts, with the exception of vaginal sex in the case of gay males, are shared by couples of all sexual orientations. If I were to split the Reproduction section away from the sexual practices information and split the newly-titled Sexual practices section into Heterosexual and Homosexual, both sections would largely overlap with the same thing. Both kinds of couples engage in oral sex, anal sex, mutual masturbation, and a variety of sex positions. I'm not seeing how the sections would be all that distinct, other than being between either straight couples or gay couples. And we'll have the Sexual difficulties section to tackle sexual issues for both types of couples. So my question to you is, "Does not splitting the sections off couple-by-couple, as long as there is equal representation for all couples, work for you?" Flyer22 (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree that we should keep things unified when possible (ex., there is no need to separate the oral sex section, for example). What I am concerned about is that same-sex couples not be overlooked or ignored in those sections. So when discussing oral sex, to re-use the example, it would be best to word things in a gender-neutral way ("giving" and "receiving" partners) so as to not imply that it is limited to certain types of couples. You don't need to split the reproduction section away from the sexual practices section -- just make sure that non-heterosexual couples are included. So in short, my answer to your question is, "Yes." --Robertbayer (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the swift answer. And I agree. Flyer22 (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

And, Robertbayer, I haven't forgotten about this discussion. I still plan on doing what I stated I would do for that section (reproduction methods of same-sex couples). I just got sidetracked, that's all. Flyer22 (talk) 04:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Checking in on the progress of this. --Robertbayer (talk) 06:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for letting me know you're still around. Again, sorry for such the long delay. Will be commenting on your talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 06:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I finally added information about same-sex reproduction methods and gay marriage, Robert.[8] [9] Most of the sources I'd previously gathered were about gay parenting more so than reproductive methods, and so I had to make sure that I'd be adding information about the latter. Flyer22 (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that sex is the natural process. It is the need of the human being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali Yousaf Khan (talk • contribs) 06:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

[Two sentences redacted by User:Herostratus, see immediately below]] The entire discussion in the page reflects a value system specific to our times and to a specific mainstream inculcation, and not necessarily on objective facts or rational discussion. While one might object that the article is "heteronormative", I wonder if that objection in itself is "temporal-normative", i.e. an unchallenged prejudice that the values most loudly espoused in our times are necessarily correct and that the values of people who lived before us or will come after us are necessarily wrong and that "progress" is merely a function of time.79.138.194.169 (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

User:79.138.194.169, I removed the first two sentences of your comment (they are in the page history) as being inflammatory. Herostratus (talk) 04:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Legal term section

This section needs to be blended better. The Ethical, moral, and legal issues section is already initially covering legal aspects of the term. So to have one section titled Legal term, while some legal aspects are already covered higher, is not good formatting. I feel that either the "Legal term" heading should go and that information blended higher or it should be titled Other legal aspects. Flyer22 (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't care where you put this information in the article, but if you remove the heading "legal term" you are going to break the links at Carnal knowledge, Laws regarding rape, Rape in English law and Sexual Offences Act 1956.James500 (talk) 01:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Once I blend it, do you have a problem with using whatever heading the information is under for those links? Having the heading "Legal term" is not needed if I blend it with the other legal information. The individual state headings should be removed too. Per Wikipedia formatting, the information should not be divided into subsections unless it is needed. Since the information is very little and can all be combined into one section without the section becoming too big, the division is not needed. If the sections dealing with states are not going to be significantly expanded, then there is no need for them to be their own section. (Not that I feel this article should list states; I mean that could go on forever, which is why summarizing is best.) My main goal for this article these days is to get it to Good Article (GA) status, and I'm trying to tackle all the things I know the reviewing editor will object to before passing the article to GA (such as the formatting, whether it is section formatting or reference formatting). Flyer22 (talk) 03:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I am unable to comment on the formatting of this article at this time. [Complete aside: I personally think that headers should be done on the basis of "one subject, one heading" regardless of the length of the section in order to facilitate easier navigation of pages (what I have in mind is the busy practioner who likes to have lots of cross headings and doen't have time to read lengthy blocks of text in order to find what he is looking for), but this isn't the place to discuss that.]James500 (talk) 04:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel that it's even a little bit difficult for readers to navigate through the information, if it is clear what the topic is covering. If the topic is titled Legal term, for example, people know to look there to find all the legal information. There is no reason to give New York its own special heading, unless the information needs to be split off, when people can find the information in that section easily enough. Anyway, I blended the information this way. I tried to keep the tile Legal term, but there was no way to do that without it looking silly, since the other sections are covering law/governmental issues too. I tried to split the religious information away from the legal information, but those aspects mingle with each other; with that section's design, the amount of information there, there was/is no good way to have all the legal information away from the religious information. The titles that are already there are also also needed, I feel, as they specify what the sections are about quite well. I did come up with the title Religious and legal aspects for you. Does that work for you as a link? I realize that you'd rather "religious" not be in the title. But like I said, that section is dealing with both aspects. Flyer22 (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I have added the heading "legal definition" instead. I think that that is sufficiently narrow that it couldn't overlap with anything else in the section.James500 (talk) 03:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

All the links I previously mentioned, and one at Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976, point at the new heading or soon will.James500 (talk) 08:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The heading "Legal term" or "Legal definition" is redundant either way, as the sections below it have to do with the legal definition as well, such as rape (sexual intercourse without consent). The section below your text discusses rape, which is why I put your text that heavily relates to sexual offenses/rape there. Now you have added even more information about sexual offenses and rape. There is no reason that information about sexual offenses/rape should be in two places in that section. I am not seeing why you felt/feel your text that has to do with rape does not belong there in the Consent, age and mental capacity section.

Further, what you have linked in other articles should not determine how this article is formatted. I gave you clear-cut, reasonable reasons why there should not be a Legal term heading, and that such a heading would be removed in GA review anyway (I've been through a few and witnessed enough others to know that redundant/unneeded headings like that are not tolerated). Thus, I am not seeing why you insist on keeping such a heading...other than the links you have in other articles. Flyer22 (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Issues of age, consent and mental capacity have nothing (in respect to the statutory definitions that I have found) to do with the meaning of the expression "sexual intercourse" when it appears in the statute. They are relevant to the question of when sexual intercourse (so defined) becomes unlawful or criminal or constitutes the offence of rape, as the case may be, which is a separate issue. I did not include the 1976 or 1994 Acts because relate to rape. I included them because they each contain a definition (or partial definition) of the expression "sexual intercourse" (which happen to be at odds with each other and the 1956 Act).

I am unable to comment on the policies of the GA review at this time, as I have it in mind possibly to PROD the Manual of Style.James500 (talk) 23:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The text you included seems to mostly deal with sexual offenses. Issues of age, consent and mental capacity have everything to do with defining "valid" sexual intercourse/other sexual acts. That section has to do with sexual offenses, is my point. Thus, I am not seeing how any sexual offenses information you have cannot fit there. We could also change the Consent, age and mental capacity title to Consent and sexual offenses and then your information would fit even better there. But having a subsection titled "Legal term" or "Legal definition" is redundant and misleading, as everything below your text has to do with legal definitions of sexual intercourse (such as the Sexual orientation and gender section). Further, your "Legal term" information is largely about definitions found in England and Wales, and does not represent a worldwide view. Flyer22 (talk) 00:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I could only explain why the material should not go under the heading of "consent, age and mental capacity" by repeating what I have already said. HOWEVER, placing it under the heading "consent and sexual offences" would be fine, since it relates to sexual offences.James500 (talk) 00:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I went ahead and made the tweak. You don't have a problem with your text coming after the consent/rape information, do you? It makes more sense to me to address the consent/rape stuff first, especially with the title being "Consent and sexual offenses" (although, of course, rape is a sexual offense too). Flyer22 (talk) 04:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Since the "Religious and legal aspects" heading is no longer needed, as it was only made as a compromise for you...and we now have a new compromise, I'll remove that too. Flyer22 (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

As for the Manual of Style, I see nothing wrong with it. People get used to it. I know you proposed that external links be allowed in articles in non-reference format and was rejected, and I'm saying that more of that rejection would come. Most people who try to go against the Manual of Style by proposing significant formatting changes are rejected. I don't discourage you from challenging issues you may have with formatting there, though, because you just might win. Flyer22 (talk) 00:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Article is overwhelmingly dominated by human sex

The scope of this article includes all species which reproduce through sexual insemination. Humans represent less than 0.00000002% of the organisms on Earth that have sex (that's an actual estimate, not a made up number). However, over 75% of this article is exclusively devoted to sexual intercourse in humans. In fact, large sections of the article don't even clarify that they are talking only about humans, it's just assumed. I propose that most of the existing "Practice", "Health effects", and "Ethical, moral, and legal issues" sections be moved to Human sexual activity and that a new shorter summary section be created called "Sexual intercourse in humans". The rest of the article should be refactored to not be exclusively focused on humans (or mammals). Kaldari (talk) 18:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This article is far too anthropocentric. Humans (all species) are taxonomically a sub- class in the phylum chordates. Even mammals are just a class. In terms of phylogeny, humans are even more insignificant. Other animals that reproduction sexually by insemination include insects, spiders, annelids (some), flatworms (some), cephalopods and some other molluscs, ctenophores - and that's without any research. If the anthropocentric is not remedied soon, with arthropods and especially insects (1.5M species) at the top and humans a bit part at the bottom, I'll do it but not prettily - just 1-2 sentences about each taxon, with 1-2 impeccable citations. In addition, if the article is nominated for GA or FA, I'll make sure it fails per WP:WIAGA or WP:WIAFA, whichever applies. --Philcha (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The reproduction habits of most species are already listed in their respective articles. e.g. ducks is Ducks#Breeding, dogs is Dogs#Reproduction, and so on. Animal sexual behavior already covers animals in general. Human sexual activity is mainly about cultural aspects. I don't see a good reason for the changes.—Soap— 18:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

If discussion of species-specific sex should be relegated to species articles, then most of the material here should be moved to the article Human. Why are humans automatically the only species whose sex is important enough to discuss here? Most of the sex on Earth is non-human. Also note that Animal sexual behavior and mating are far broader in scope than copulation/sexual intercourse. Kaldari (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a new article should be created specifically for Human sexual intercourse (currently it redirects here). Kaldari (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Kaldari, as you stated at Talk:Copulation, "Even though copulation and sexual intercourse mean virtually the same thing, 'copulation' is rarely used to describe human sexual activity, and 'sexual intercourse' is rarely used to describe non-human sexual activity, but this is purely by convention, not by definition." That is why this article mostly deals with humans. Most texts regarding "sexual intercourse," whether medical or societal, have to do with humans. Suggesting that this article covers non-human animals equally is like suggesting that the Anal sex or Oral sex articles cover non-human animals equally. Plenty of articles on Wikipedia mostly focus on the human aspects of a term and then redirect readers to different articles regarding the same topic for information on non-human animals. The In other animals section can be expanded, but we already have Animal sexual behavior for that. Large sections of this article not even clarifying that they are talking only about humans? Well, I feel that it's pretty obvious they are talking about humans, per Talk:Sexual intercourse/Archive 6#Humans and undue weight. Obviously, as that discussion shows, this topic has been discussed before. Each time it has, it's been decided that the Sexual intercourse article should largely be dedicated to humans. I am against having most of the existing "Practice", "Health effects", and "Ethical, moral, and legal issues" sections be moved to Human sexual activity. People looking for sexual intercourse will be looking for this article, per WP:COMMONNAME, not Human sexual activity, and this article should cover all important aspects of human sexual intercourse. I have been working on this article, not Human sexual activity, and certainly would not appreciate material I have worked on being merged to Human sexual activity. The Human sexual activity article shouldn't even exist as far as I'm concerned, as we already have Sexual intercourse, which directs people to Oral sex, Anal sex, and Non-penetrative sex. This article should be the default article for human sexual activity in my view.

And, Philcha, your bitterness for having Copulation redirected here should not be taken to this article. Threatening my hard work on this article by saying that you will make sure it fails GA if I nominate it for such does not bother me in the least. I'm pretty sure it would not fail, once I am done building it. Only one editor reviews for GA, and they review it depending on the Wikipedia:Good articles criteria. This article is just about there, if not already. You already stated that "sexual intercourse is about humans" and yet now that the Copulation article has been redirected here, you are making a fuss about it not only being about humans. I agree that it's not only about humans, and told you such. But the term "sexual intercourse" largely has to do with humans. And as someone who has researched this topic enough, I should know.

I will bring other editors in on this matter, however. Flyer22 (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem in this case is that Wikipedia has no article about sexual intercourse in non-human animals and the scope of this article is currently defined as including non-human animals (as it should be). (And as I've stated several times now, the scope of the Animal sexual behavior article is not sexual intercourse.) Comparing this article to oral sex is ridiculous. Oral sex is important to humans, but not important to the majority of other animals on the planet. Sex is extremely important to most animals on the planet. Indeed it is extremely important to the planet as a whole. Sex, as a biological function in which humans play a rather insignificant role, needs to be dealt comprehensively on Wikipedia. Currently it is not, which is a pretty big oversight for any encyclopedia, but especially for us. Kaldari (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

And per your argmuent about WP:COMMONNAME, where do you think people looking for information about non-human sex end up? They end up here as this is where every article discussing non-human sex links to. Kaldari (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Animal sexual behavior covers sexual intercourse in non-human animals, regardless of its scope. And I don't feel that comparing this article to oral or anal sex is ridiculous at all, as my point is that these terms usually refer to human sexual activity. Sex, as a biological function in which humans play a rather insignificant role, is dealt with comprehensively on Wikipedia, and in separate articles. You were one of the ones arguing for fewer articles. I'm backing that. And every article discussing non-human sex does not link here. They usually link to Animal sexual behavior, as they should, just like the Homosexuality and Bisexuality articles do. You don't see those articles discussing humans and non-humans equally. And that is because those terms usually refer to humans. Flyer22 (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Animal sexual behavior is a ridiculous title for an article. All sexual behavior is by animals! Also, sexual intercourse is a very specific aspect of sexual behavior that is a huge topic in its own right. You seem to be arguing that it isn't even notable enough to exist as an article (other than just for humans). Kaldari (talk) 21:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and you can take that up at the Animal sexual behavior talk page. Having non-human sexual behavior mostly covered there is just the way things worked out. Likely because the word "animal" is generally used to refer to non-human animals. This is likely why Homosexual behavior in animals has been regulated to non-human animals. And as pointed out by Sexual reproduction, all sexual behavior is not by animals. I am not arguing that sexual behavior is not notable enough to exist as an article. I'm saying that, as a big topic, it already has enough spin-off articles, and all cannot be covered in one article...without it becoming extremely big. I am also arguing that the term "sexual intercourse" is usually reserved for humans, no different than what you argued at Talk:Copulation. Flyer22 (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The scope of an article is not always identical to its title. This is why we have redirects. Arguing that the article must be title "Sexual intercourse" because that is the most common term people associate with human sex, and then saying that the article should focus mostly on human sex because "sexual intercourse" is mostly reserved for humans is circular logic. Kaldari (talk) 22:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Not understanding all of what you are saying on that, but I did not state that this article must mostly cover human sexual intercourse (I stated why it mostly does), and I also replied in greater detail below to your most recent comment. I don't have much more to state on the matter than that. Flyer22 (talk) 23:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Almost every general biology topic, including most anatomy and behavior articles, are grossly anthropocentric, so this is case is not unique. Separate articles (1 general, 1 human-specific) might help because interests will overwhelmingly gravitate towards over-representing humans in any shared article. A human-specific article could easily be a sub-article of the more general parent article. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Kaldari & User:Visionholder got it right. --Philcha (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I feel User:Soap and past discussions got it right. If this needs to be opened up to WP:RfC, then I will do that. But there is no consensus on exactly what to do. If you want this article expanded, you were already suggested to do so at Talk:Copulation. Flyer22 (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

If copulation is going to redirect here, then this article needs to be less human-centric. Very few people say they "copulated" last night. If this article is going to continue to be dominated by human-specific information, then copulation needs to be redirected elsewhere. MeegsC | Talk 20:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The terms are pretty much synonymous, which is why redirecting it here is best. Very few people say, "I had butt sex last night," but that "term" still redirects to Anal sex. Per Wikipedia formatting, alternate terms that are not derogatory are bolded in the lead. Such terms being outdated is not an issue. Flyer22 (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Copulation has redirected here for the past 4 years, with the exception of a brief period this past month. The consensus at the recent RfC was that the redirect should be restored since the terms are basically synonymous. Sadly, it looks like this issue has been thrashed on for many years and is still a total mess. It seems to me that there is a very simple solution: Create an article called Sexual intercourse in humans or Human sexual intercourse. Kaldari (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

And I'm just not seeing a need for that, seeing as the term "sexual intercourse" usually refers to humans. It's unneeded to me in the same way that having articles titled Homosexuality in humans or Bisexuality in humans is unneeded. The articles Heterosexuality, Homosexuality and Bisexuality all mainly focus on humans too, even though these behaviors are clearly demonstrated in other animals. And this is because these terms are usually reserved for humans. We do have Homosexual behavior in animals, but non-human sexual behavior is generally covered at the Animal sexual behavior article. I really am not seeing why more articles are needed. We have enough of them, as you even stated. I'm not seeing why this article should be dissected when the term "sexual intercourse" largely refers to humans in medical/scholarly/and general texts. Flyer22 (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Flyer22, you seem to feel strongly that copulation should redirect here, because some people use it to refer to human sexual intercourse. Might it be a compromise to redirect that term (copulation) to mating, which is more other-animal-centric, since it is a term used far more frequently to refer to the sex act in other species, with a hatnote that ties it to the article on sexual intercourse? MeegsC | Talk 21:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that, MeegsC. But every time it's either been redirected or suggested that it is redirected to Mating, someone has objected...or objected and redirected it back to Sexual intercourse. Flyer22 (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Hi, MeegsC. Mating would be potentially enormous, including finding and selecting mates (incl various senses and locomotion), copulation, cannibalism (I know some gruesome pics), child care (scorpions are devoted mothers of their hatchlings), pair bonding (some birds are much more faithful than us fickle humans), etc. I'd suggest Mating should more like a portal with links to specific aspects and/or taxa. --Philcha (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a problem with the material you want to add going to Mating. And if it becomes enormous, we could worry about it then. Christianity and other such articles are enormous too. Flyer22 (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Redirecting copulation to mating is ridiculous. It makes as much sense as redirecting Christianity to religion. Copulation/sexual intercourse (as it relates to both humans and non-humans) is a notable subject that deserves it's own article. There are countless scientific articles written about non-human sexual intercourse. Saying that this enormous body of knowledge cannot have an article simply because most people only care about human sex is absurd! Kaldari (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Redirecting Copulation to Mating is not ridiculous at all, but I've been over this enough at Talk:Copulation. So...moving on... Where did I state that "this enormous body of knowledge cannot have an article simply because most people only care about human sex"? I stated that "sexual intercourse" and "copulation" pretty much mean the same thing, the same as you stated -- the same that has been ruled time and time again. I stated that human sexual activity and non-human sexual activity have been divided regarding more than just this article, such as with Homosexuality and Homosexual behavior in animals. I also stated that the term "sexual intercourse" is mostly reserved for humans, the same as you stated, which is why this article is naturally going to be mostly about humans, the same as the Anal sex, Oral sex, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Bisexuality articles and more. If someone wants to expand this article with non-human sexual intercourse, then fine. But non-human sexual intercourse is covered elsewhere in greater detail. I'm not sure what more you want me to state on this matter, other than to agree with you. I am not for creating an another article just to cover human sexual intercourse when the term "sexual intercourse" is usually reserved for humans anyway. If people change their minds about the Copulation article existing, then fine. But if the terms "sexual intercourse" and "copulation" were so distinct from each other, most people would not have again leaned toward redirecting "copulation" here, and it would have had its own article for some time by now. It cannot be helped that one is used more for humans and the other is used more for non-humans. That does not mean that they should both exist, when they almost always mean the same thing. And, again, this article and others are covering both. And we have articles covering human and non-human sexual activity together and separately. Similarly to how the Homosexual behavior in animals article is about non-human animals because the Homosexuality article deals with humans, the Sexual intercourse article is mostly about humans because we have other articles covering sexual intercourse in other animals. To say that Animal sexual behavior is not about sexual intercourse in other animals simply because it covers more than sexual intercourse is what is absurd. We have enough articles on sexual reproduction and sexual intercourse/copulation, and all species are covered. Flyer22 (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

If I want to get a comprehensive overview of sexual intercourse (as it relates to all animals) where am I supposed to go? Mating, animal sexual behavior, and animal sexuality are all basically the same topic and they all cover a huge number of behaviors. None are appropriate for hosting a comprehensive overview of sexual intercourse/copulation. Kaldari (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, have you seen how long animal sexual behavior is? It's already a novel even without having any section focused specifically on copulation. Kaldari (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Birds do it, bees do it

Even educated fleas do it

Cole Porter knew this in 1928, ... --Philcha (talk)

The "Where am I supposed to go?" question is something that plagues many topics on Wikipedia with spin-off articles. Some people may go to the Anal sex article expecting to find information on anal sex in animals other than humans. For sexuality and other articles mostly dealing with humans, this is why we point readers to where they should go for the information dealing with non-humans. Not all topics are going to be covered or summarized in one large article. Nor do I feel that they should be. But to ponder your question about a comprehensive article dealing with sexual intercourse in all animals, the Animal sexual behavior article is clearly supposed to be that. It just currently covers little on humans, as humans already have the Sexual intercourse, Anal sex, Oral sex and Non-penetrative sex articles. And Animal sexuality actually redirects there to Animal sexual behavior. And, Philcha, that article is mostly about copulation either way you look at it. It specifically touches on the information you have addressed. It can also be better summarized to make room for other material. The point is any information you want to add has more than one place it can go. Flyer22 (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Your answer doesn't work for me. If I want to write about non-behavioral aspects of sexual intercourse (for more than just humans), where would I do that? For example, let's say I want to write about which animals have evolved to use penises for insemination and which animals use other appendages (pedipalps, etc.) and how those appendages differ in use, where does that go? It isn't within the scope of Animal sexual behavior (since it's not about behavior) and it doesn't go in Sexual intercourse#In other animals (since it includes discussion of humans), and it doesn't go in the rest of the Sexual intercourse article since the other sections are about human-specific aspects. Kaldari (talk) 00:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Like I stated already, what more do you want me to state...other than to agree with you? I cannot agree with you or anyone else stating that we need yet another article on sexual intercourse. Whether my answer works for you or not, that is the way Wikipedia has handled and continues to handle sexual topics and many other topics largely focusing on humans. This article is not the place to discuss a drastic redesign of all sexual articles, or the way Wikipedia often works in focusing on humans first and foremost (or mostly) when a topic is about both humans and non-humans, especially since it does not bring in the wider Wikipedia community weighing in on the discussion. If you want to write about non-behavioral aspects of sexual intercourse, then create an article on that. Retitle Animal sexual behavior if you want. But I am not seeing how "which animals have evolved to use penises for insemination and which animals use other appendages" cannot go any either of these articles. Further, saying that the information cannot go in the In other animals section because that section has a bit of information on humans is a weak argument. The little bit of information on humans there does not stop the addition of such information. Not to mention...that information on humans can be removed. I don't understand the argument that there must be a Human sexual intercourse article, other than one editor feeling chagrined that the Copulation article was rightfully redirected here. Like I've already been over, it makes as much sense as having a Homosexuality in humans article. The terms "homosexuality" and "sexual intercourse" are usually reserved for humans, so of course these articles are mostly going to be about humans. There is nothing stopping someone from expanding this article with information about non-human animals. So all in all, I do not see any good reason to have yet another article on sexual intercourse pointing readers to the same articles that several other articles already point them to. There is also no way to keep people from adding as much as they want to another "general article," which would likely mostly be information about humans anyway, making the article just as huge as other articles already covering the same thing. Nothing is going to convince me that another sexual intercourse/sexual activity article is a good idea. Flyer22 (talk) 01:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment, rename this article to human sexual intercourse and start a new article on sexual intercourse that can differentiate practices among different species. I'm assuming only the humans are complaining so this should be an amenable solution. Jnast1 (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I disagree with that, for the reasons I already stated. There is nothing stopping someone from expanding this article with information about non-human animals if they want. Flyer22 (talk) 01:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Would you object to grouping all the sections that are 100% human-specific under a top-level heading "In humans"? At least that way it isn't confusing or misleading. Kaldari (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
      • I tried that at Talk:Sexual intercourse/Archive 6#Humans and undue weight (even though it looked a bit awkward to me), but it was eventually rejected by Doc James on reasonable grounds that I also saw as reasonable (pretty much the same thing he states below about titles). Flyer22 (talk) 06:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:MEDMOS we have a section called "in other animals" at the end. Most disease article do not yet have these section but could. Of course Wikipedia is human centric we are humans. We do not need to move this article as human is assumed. We do not name the article on diabetes "diabetes in human" the obesity article "obesity in humans" that would be silly. We do not need to group anything under a "in humans heading" we do not do this for the other 23,000 articles and are not going to start. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

What Doc James said. Herostratus (talk) 04:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but for most human diseases, very few people care about the disease in non-humans. In cases where people do, the article is either shared between both (rabies) or predominantly focused on the disease in non-human animals (mange). In the case of sex, a whole lot of people have an interest in non-human sex. Some people even devote a significant part of their lives to studying it, especially since it comprises 99.999...% of the sex on the planet. Homosexuality, anal sex, oral sex, etc, are not comparable either since very few people are interested in those subjects except in a human context. At the very least, this article should not be so overwhelmingly lopsided towards human sex. I think at least half the article should be devoted to the other 99.999...% of the planet. Obviously, the article is going to be biased towards humans, but it doesn't have to be so lopsided. Kaldari (talk) 04:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

We have a whole profession called veterinary medicine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Kaldari...if homosexuality, anal sex, oral sex, etc., were not comparable, I would not have mentioned them. A lot of researchers are interested in those aspects of non-human sexuality, which is why we even have the Homosexual behavior in animals article. Just look at how long that article is, covering all three of those aspects. And just to be even clearer, I am all for the Sexual intercourse article being expanded with more non-human animal material. It's just the split/retitling this article thing I am against. After all, researching the term "sexual intercourse" anywhere usually pulls up information about humans...not any and all animals. Flyer22 (talk) 06:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

There is precedent for creating human-specific subarticles. For example brain/human brain, eye/human eye, birth/childbirth. Those are much more analogous to this situation than oral sex, etc. Only a very very small number of people looking up "oral sex" are going to expect to find information on other species. Kaldari (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Only a very, very small number of people looking up "oral sex" are going to expect to find information on other species? The same can be said for "sexual intercourse," since the term is usually reserved for humans. I don't have anything different to state than what I already stated on this topic. I see no need for this article to be titled Human sexual intercourse. No valid reason at all. Flyer22 (talk) 00:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Making the whole of Wikipedia less human-centric is going to be a huge task for Kaldari, Philcha and the others. After the 23,000 disease articles mentioned by Doc James, then there are all the articles on social structures, diet, conflict, accomodation, parenthood... I wonder why they feel it best to start with the sex-related articles? --Nigelj (talk) 09:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Because sex (of the non-human variety) is one of the central topics of biology. You can't say that about any disease, social structure, diet, conflict, accomodation, etc. The fact that Wikipedia doesn't cover one of the central topics of biology in any meaningful sense (other than for humans) is a glaring hole in the project. And the only reason why this is the case is because there is no obvious place to cover this topic on Wikipedia other than here, and this article is already devoted to human sex. This is exactly why articles like human eye, human brain, and childbirth were separated from the more generic articles. There is no need to make the rest of Wikipedia less human-centric. There is however a serious need to have Wikipedia's coverage of sex be less human-centric. Otherwise we are doing a disservice to all of the people who are trying to use Wikipedia to learn about biology. The argument that we can't use "sexual intercourse" to cover sex in general due to WP:COMMONNAME is absurd. The only reason this article is even named "sexual intercourse" is because the true common name, "sex", has to be disambiguated. If it weren't for that quirk of the English language, this wouldn't even be an issue. Kaldari (talk) 02:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

@Flyer22: This article's scope is broader than the term "sexual intercourse" as we've both covered ad nauseum. Kaldari (talk) 03:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Kaldari, there is no reason at all (none at all) that this article should be titled Human sexual intercourse. And this article's scope being broader than the term "sexual intercourse" -- which I don't understand what you mean by that at all, considering that any article titled "sexual intercourse" should be about sexual intercourse (it's about different aspects of the term sexual intercourse) -- doesn't change the fact that there is no need to name this article Human sexual intercourse and to have a "general article" on the subject (not to mention...this article could be more general if someone would just expand it). This is not the same as Eye or Human eye, and all the other examples you gave. It's not the same because the term "sexual intercourse" is usually reserved for humans. How many times must I state that? How many times must we have this same discussion/argument? Do you really think I'm going to reconsider? I'm not. I made that clear already. It's simply false when you state that "Wikipedia doesn't cover one of the central topics of biology in any meaningful sense (other than for humans)" and that "there is no obvious place to cover this topic on Wikipedia other than here." That is not true, as shown above. Just because every animal in the animal kingdom is not covered here...it doesn't mean they don't have an article discussing sexual intercourse in reference to them. They do. They have this one, which can be expanded, and others, as shown above. You act as though just because the other articles discuss other aspects other than sexual intercourse, they aren't suitable enough articles for the other animals. That is what is absurd! Not to mention, those other articles are mostly discussing sexual intercourse anyway. This article doesn't only cover the physical act either; it also covers partnership/societal feelings, etc., etc., and it is perfectly suitable for covering human sexual intercourse. So why then are not the other articles, which only discuss non-humans, not suitable enough to cover non-human sexual intercourse? Your saying because "sexual intercourse extends beyond humans" does not hold up. It doesn't hold up because the term sexual intercourse is mostly used in reference to humans. Most people searching this term are going to be looking for it in reference to humans. Just researching the term "sexual intercourse," it is almost always used in reference to humans. For non-humans, the word "mating" is usually used. It doesn't matter that "mating" covers other things. So does "sexual intercourse." But when people say "mating" or "mating season," they are usually referring to non-humans and sexual intercourse among non-humans. So needless to say, I don't understand your need/argument to have this article titled Human sexual intercourse at all. And I am tired of stating that. You complained that this article is too human-centric. I say that if anyone wants it less human-centric, then they should start adding more to it about other animals. Creating yet another article just to cover Human sexual intercourse is not the answer, especially since this term is usually used for humans anyway. No one said that "we can't use 'sexual intercourse' to cover sex in general due to WP:COMMONNAME." What was said was, "People looking for sexual intercourse will be looking for this article, per WP:COMMONNAME, not Human sexual activity, and this article should cover all important aspects of human sexual intercourse." And, "The terms "homosexuality" and "sexual intercourse" are usually reserved for humans, so of course these articles are mostly going to be about humans." I have also made it more than clear, as I just did with this reply, that there is nothing stopping someone from expanding this article with information about non-human animals. That was the issue, not the title. And so that is what anyone dissatisfied with this article's coverage on non-humans should be focused on. We do not need yet another article on sexual intercourse/copulation/mating, as you originally agreed at Talk:Copulation. Any of the articles we already have are adequate enough. As as for the true common name "sex," you are right about disambiguation there. Having this article titled "Sex" would be an issue because there is no other name for what the Sex article details. There would be a "Sex (biology)" article and a "Sex" or "Sex (sexual intercourse)" article, which is silly, because both have to do with biology (and the latter just looks plain silly). And with "sex," in reference to sexual relations, being more generic than "sexual intercourse," this article would likely be very huge, and there might not even be a Non-penetrative sex article. However, that does not apply to this discussion/issue. Unlike "Sex" and "Sexual intercourse" or "Non-penetrative sex," there is no need for the split of "Sexual intercourse" and "Human sexual intercourse." You don't see the Non-penetrative sex article being titled "Human non-penetrative sex," for example. And, yes, there is plenty of non-penetrative sex among other animals (Frot and Tribadism). I've already made the point about the Anal sex and Oral sex articles. Lots of anal sex goes on in the non-human animal kingdom, and yet that article is currently exclusively devoted to humans (redirecting people elsewhere for non-human anal sex). But like stated, people who want the Sexual intercourse article expanded with non-human material are free to do so. I am all for that. I am not for retitling this article and creating yet another sexual intercourse/copulation/mating article. Flyer22 (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty strongly inclined to agree that as a practical matter "sexual intercourse" may be generally assumed to mean "human sexual intercourse" (although some material on animals, perhaps an overview with links to another more detailed article(s) would be fine). If no such article exists, the material can be added here and when there's enough it can be broken out into a separate article. This article is pretty long as it is. I would say the ball is in the court of the of anyone advocating a title change to instead do this (add the material, and when sufficient material exists break it into a separate article -- "Copulation in animals" or whatever -- if none currently exists). Herostratus (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep, Herostratus. And there are already other articles (as shown above) covering non-human sexual intercourse. Just because such articles discuss not only the act but sexual behavior...it does not make the material any less suitable to be covered there, in the same way that this article is not any less suitable to cover human sexual intercourse because it discusses sexual behavior in addition to the act. This article already has some material on other animals (in addition to mention of them in the lead and in the Bonding and affection section, we have an overview with the In other animals section) with a link to a more detailed article, just like all the other main sex articles. Just like the main sexual orientation articles, such as Bisexuality. I am willing to help add non-human material to this article. Kilobytes-wise, it isn't even that big. I'm just not open to retitling it. Flyer22 (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

reproductive cycle as it pertains to our (human) experiance

(any spelling and or grammatical errors should not detract from the main direction and theory of this article) From the available data that i (and others) have read on this subject (and form my own experience) I feel the need to add my two cents ( no matter how uneducated I come across) (help me if u feel the same way).

Regular theory suggests that during intercourse and especially at climax is that upon male ejaculation the woman's cervix pushes down and in effect sucks up the semen wh9iich results in conception. My take on that is that this is not entirely correct. It is this, when a woman consciously or subconsciously desires to reproduce with the said mate that her cervix positions itself to line up with the penis and even open to some degree in order that upon ejaculation they are both aligned and that the entirety of the ejaculatory erm stuff (i know i suck at the whole scientific wording and even basic grade 3 level of comprehension but do not let this detract form the message trying to be conveyed.)being transferred into the best possible environment to have the desired effect i.e., conception. One of the most compelling reasons i say this is that when i am engaging in coitus with my wife and in foreplay i find that i can reach her cervix with my fingers during cunnilingus and that i can reach her cervix during intercourse even though my finger and penis are drastically different in length. the only way this is possible is that the female reproductive system adjusts according to the innate desire of the specific mate. and the theory of a mans view "any chick will do" and a woman's "i will pick" makes sense. plus, when i am engaging (and more aware of her reactions because of it) in foreplay and cunnilingus that she responds especially more when i twitch my finger at the opening more than when i just erm push back and forth which represents ejaculation response to her subconscious mind is also why i say this.

On another note I have to say this... I am not (if u hadn't guessed already) a doctor or scientist. I also do not wish to convey the message of being a moron that is just spouting rhetoric without substance or thought. I am though trying to put forth my own take on the subject of human and therefore animal reproductive mechanisms in order to further the study and thought on it.) Anyone that has either something educated or otherwise in response to this post please please please do so I will not be offended in any way (except on the inside lol) I only want to 1.further thought on the subject in order to fully clarify it and 2.spur creative thinking into the scientific process. which as far as the latter is concerned is an excellent avenue to further stymied research ( hey! many a leap in thinking has been from such a jolt)

And if I am breaking any rules and or protocols for "legit entries to the knowledge base" then feel free to delete my post. ty and have a great day — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilmaclennan555 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems original research. Tgeorgescu (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC).