Talk:Anal sex/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2018

83.120.131.184 (talk) 17:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I do not see any justification presented at all for this request. Perhaps it was made by accident? --- FULBERT (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 20:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Supposed WP:WEASEL violation

Openlydialectic, regarding this, no, it is not a WP:WEASEL violation. Firstly, the portion you removed (and I reverted you on) doesn't even use the words "some people" or "most people." And it doesn't because, like I stated with this edit I made earlier this month, I "try to avoid 'many people' and 'some people' unless needed; this is because even when sourced and when the source obviously is not talking about anyone notable but rather people in general, we might get an editor adding a Template:Who tag for WP:Weasel words, despite Template:Who's guidance. Yes, such an editor can be reverted, but still." WP:WEASEL states that examples like "some people" and "most people" "are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution. Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if they accurately represent the opinions of the source. Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but for editors to do so would violate the no original research or neutral point of view policies." And Template:Who states, "Use good judgment when deciding whether greater specificity is actually in the best interests of the article. Words like 'some' or 'most' are not banned and can be useful and appropriate. If greater specificity would result in a tedious laundry list of items with no real importance, then Wikipedia should remain concise, even if it means being vague. If the reliable sources are not specific—if the reliable sources say only 'Some people...'—then Wikipedia must remain vague."

In this case, we are summarizing the article, just like the WP:WEASEL says is fine to do, and the sources discuss how people feel about anal sex. We are allowed to describe how people feel about anal sex. Since the sources are not about anyone notable, the only WP:In-text attribution needed in this case is "people." It is also odd to only have the lead note that people feel negatively about anal sex and not also that people feel positively about it, which is what your edit did. Sure, the negative feelings are attributed to cultures and countries. But what are cultures and countries made up of? People. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll note that the removed/reverted phrase "...people also regard anal sex as a natural and valid form of sexual activity..." does seem to imply more acceptance than anal sex is typically perceived to have. I haven't read the first cited reference (Taylor & Francis) but the second one (Discovery.com) does say "many people...regard it as a legitimate form of sexual expression". I agree that the phrase in question is not WP:WEASEL at all, but it might appear to be if we include the word "many" as it is used in the source. In any case, it could stand a slight edit. But I don't know exactly what that should be. HalJor (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, per what I've stated above, I've avoided "some people" and "many people" for that paragraph (and for the lead in general)...although using "many people" would be allowed in the case of the "people also regard" line per what WP:WEASEL and Template:Who state about using a source's wording and being vague if a source is vague. "Many" was recently added, and I reverted it. As for other options... It's not appropriate to state "According to Discovery.com" (or "According to Discovery Health Channel" or similar) in this case, considering that it's not only Discovery.com that states what it states about anal sex. So using "According to Discovery.com" would be misleading in-text attribution; it would imply that this is only Discovery.com's view. I've also noticed that the source states "Copyright 2002 Sinclair Intimacy Institute." Anyway, WP:In-text attribution addresses using in-text attribution in a misleading way. Also, the lead is for summarizing anyway and in-text attribution is commonly avoided in the lead, which is why WP:WEASEL notes validly using "some people" and "most people" in the lead. As for the acceptance of anal sex, as we know, anal sex is commonly perceived negatively. The lead is already clear about that. The point is that anal sex is also viewed positively, and that sources addresses this. For the lead, that anal sex also viewed positively is addressed with the "people also regard" aspect. It gets the point across without needing to use "some people also regard" or "many people also regard." And given that the paragraph notes negative views on anal sex, it's more than clear that we don't mean "all people regard anal sex as a natural and valid form of sexual activity." And I don't feel that we need to use "may" so that the line reads as "people may also regard." The word may is already used enough for the "By contrast" piece (and elsewhere in the lead), and the positivity aspect (just like the negativity aspect) is a "people do feel this way" matter anyway. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I see now I was wrong then. My apologies. Openlydialectic (talk) 02:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Tom Boellstorff

I've removed mention of Tom Boellstorff's opinions on lesbian anal sex: he seems to be explicitly saying that he actually does not have any evidence regarding this. Absence of evidence, particularly from a writer who states that they are simply speculating on the matter, is not evidence of anything at all, one way or the other. I would imagine Boellstorff's opinion, that such activity does occur, is probably correct, but in his own comments he effectively rules himself out from being a reliable source on this particular aspect. -- The Anome (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The Boellstorff bit was WP:Undue; I should have removed it years ago as I improved as an editor. And there's no need for Felice Newman's statement either. It's clear from the section that lesbians/WSW engage in anal sex. Like the female-on-male combination, it's just that they don't engage in it as often as other couple combinations. So removed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits

Tealshelf, regarding this and this, it is unclear why you added Template:Neutrality disputed to the "notion that it might resonate with gay men with the same emotional significance that vaginal sex resonates with heterosexuals has also been considered" line. See WP:Drive-by tagging. As I've stated a number of times, being neutral in common discourse does not mean what being neutral means on Wikipedia. Read WP:Neutral. In what way does the line in question violate the WP:Neutral policy? Your argument was that "We wouldn't allow this kind of language in heterosexual sections." The reason it's not in the heterosexual sections is because it's more relevant to the "Male to male" section. The sentence is not meant to come across as heteronormative or as offensive in any way. It's essentially stating that just like vaginal sex is vanilla sex for heterosexuals, anal sex is vanilla sex for many gay men and other men who have sex with men. Many gay men see anal sex as their go-to sexual activity, which has been compared to the fact that most heterosexual couples engage in vaginal intercourse nearly every sexual encounter. If the "it might resonate with" source was worded in the way I worded the matter with regard to vanilla sex, I would use that wording. That stated, I can look for a source that uses that alternative wording or similar and replace the current wording with the alternative wording instead. You also objected to the "Some lesbians do not like anal sex" line and replaced it with "As with all types of sex, some lesbians do not like anal sex." Your argument was that "Once again, neutrality is heavily questionable. Of course some lesbians don't like anal sex, but we wouldn't write that after every sexual position." But we are clear in the "Male to female," "Male to male" and "Female to male" sections that some people of those couple combinations do not like anal sex. I don't see why we shouldn't also be clear about that in the "Female to female" section, especially considering that the latter group engages in anal sex (not just anilingus) significantly less than the other couple combinations (except perhaps for the "female on male" combination). Adding "As with all types of sex" on to that piece, like you did, is WP:Editorializing; the source doesn't say that. That stated, "some lesbians do not like anal sex" is bland and unneeded, given the data presented in the section. And it's more accurate to state "many" anyway. So I've removed it.

Paulinho28, regarding this, I can see why you would think that the "enjoy the activity" and "reach orgasm during it" parts aren't needed. But stating "Direct stimulation of the clitoris, a G-spot area, or both, while engaging in anal sex can help some women reach orgasm." comes across as stating that some women need to do all of that to orgasm. That's not what the text is stating. It's stating that some women need to do all of that to have a chance at reaching orgasm during anal sex. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Supposed natural lubrication

Elvis cr, regarding this, per WP:Synthesis, WP:MEDRS and WP:External links, do not re-add it. That is not called lubrication and nor is it intended to lubricate the anus for anal sex; so we should not be implying that it is for that or act like it is sufficient in place of a personal lubricant. It is not, which is why health sources/health authorities strongly recommend a personal lubricant when engaging in anal sex. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The first source (which is focused on "rectal mucosal secretions in gay men") that was there when I showed up after your addition even states that "very little research addresses this topic" and "Although the mucus eases penetration and repeated thrusting, it by no means protects either partner from cuts and abrasions that can increase the risk of HIV transmission, which is why proper lubrication and condom use is necessary. In fact, the mucus may be far more infectious than any other fluids either partner might be exposed to. The study suggests that men who have insertive unprotected anal sex and encounter this mucus are at far higher risk of HIV infection than had been previously thought." Your addition, with its WP:Editorializing "however" piece, made it seem like this "natural lubrication" is sufficient. Clearly, it's not. And either way, the source is not WP:MEDRS-compliant. And, per WP:Lead, it doesn't belong in the lead if not covered lower in the article first anyway. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Illustration description

Hello. This is rather or more precisely "A close-up depiction of human anal-genital places during anal intercourse". 37.47.35.33 (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Which illustration are you referring to? That technical description could apply to many of the images really. It's not necessary to be so clinical in the descriptions unless it's a technically oriented article. Curved Space (talk) 11:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Expression between men, prevalence, and history material

Regarding this, Rafe87, why are you making these edits? We've already been over this, as seen at Talk:Anal sex/Archive 9#Gay anal sex as an expression of romantic feelings between queer men and Talk:Anal sex/Archive 9#Prevalence sections. I suggest you review what was stated back then. I'm not repeating all of that.

And as for the history material? I agree with Crossroads that history is already well covered below. We don't need a tangent on this. We employ WP:Summary style.

I ask that you don't revert to your material again without discussion. No WP:Edit warring. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Rafe87, I was also going to revert your changes (and was beat to it) because of the problems in your history addition. It constitutes original research (which is not allowed), has sourcing issues, and is WP:UNDUE.

Your addition started off saying, In Greek and Roman literature, anal sex is described for the most part as an act between males and, when there is reference to anal sex between men and women, this can be accomplished with allusions to homosexuality, so strong was the association between anal sex and sex between men. This is a clear cut case of synthesis, a type of original research.

Your representation of sources is also a problem. The first and only source I checked so far was misused; it was for this statement: heterosexual anal sex is often presented as being, from the perspective of the male partner, an inferior substitute for sex with a more desired male lover in Greek and Roman epigram... But the source is about one poem by Roman writer Martial. You can't at all get "often" and "Greek and Roman" in general from this.

This article should be WP:MEDRS compliant. While that is somewhat relaxed for 'society and culture' sections, excessive length or other statements in such a section should not give undue weight to historical ideas or certain historians' ideas when we need to keep focus on modern medical science. As it is, the cultural views section is too long, so no more should be added.

I also would have reverted your other changes. You changed sourced content, but never gave any indication of having looked at the sources. Between that and the way you treated your new sources, I don't see a reason to think that the changes were improvements.

I also agree that you should discuss your proposed changes here, instead of restoring them, per WP:BRD. -Crossroads- (talk) 02:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC) addendum -Crossroads- (talk) 03:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Additional comment: And regarding this and this version, there is no valid reason that the "Male to male" section should include a perfume bottle image while the other sections include clear, explicit illustrations of the act. There is no valid reason that the "Male to male" section should have two anal sex images while the other couple combination sections have one. And with regard to images, all of these couple combination sections, which are not that big, need is one image. And, again, we've been over primary sources and adding too much content focused on the United States or treating the United States as if they represent the world in general. As seen at Talk:Anal sex/Archive 9#Prevalence sections, I only agreed to include the 2012 NSSHB material as a compromise with you, but if you are going to insist that, because it's in the section, we add more primary study material (the material I recently reverted you on), I am more than fine with removing the 2012 NSSHB study material; it will not be used as an excuse to add more primary source material. I don't see the "Other cultural views" section as too long. I think it mostly goes over what it should go over in the "General" and "Ancient and non-Western cultures" sections. And its other subsections are small, pointing to their respective main articles for further detail. But I agree with Crossroads's analysis of the material you added. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Nothing that I added constitutes Original Research. But alright, have the articles for yourselves.Rafe87 (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

fact check: does the rectum expand, or does it "lack elasticity"?

Under "Anatomy and Stimulation," first paragraph at the end is the statement, "the rectum is a curved tube about eight or nine inches long and has the capacity, like the anus, to expand." (from "Human Sexuality: An Encyclopedia) But then under "Health Risks/ Physical damage and cancer" first paragraph is the statement, "Because of the rectum's lack of elasticity..." Which is it? Can the rectum expand, or does it lack elasticity?50.111.90.186 (talk) 19:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Does it expand? Yes. Does it stretch as much as, say, a vaginal canal? No. I believe that's the comparison being made. Damage can still be done to the anus and rectum, even though they do have capacity to expand. Rewording may be in order, but is it truly confusing to the layperson? TheSavageNorwegian 20:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Caption on lead image

I think that the addition of the term "A man having anal sex with a woman" is a valid change to the caption. A claim of it being heteronormative is weak - rather it is a clarification of the image content. Both the other Seedfeeder images specify the gender of the participants and a quick scan through the article supports clarifying gender in other images as well, so it is reasonable to do the same here? Curved Space (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

"An illustration of anal sex" is concise. It's five words. No one's getting confused by the caption. That's my main reason I think it should stay as-is. This is the lead; we're looking for an image that is a general depiction for the article. Also, "an illustration" is perfect for the tone of this article: clinical. I know the potential change isn't smut or anything, but this caption sets the tone that this is a detached and dry description of human sexual practices. (I'm not married to one description or the other though.) TheSavageNorwegian 19:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

But it doesn't match the other image captions. It is not consistent with the rest of the article. None of the other seedfeeder images include the term "illustration" in them -- indeed out of the 9 illustrations in the article only one other (Ottoman) includes the term "illustration". It seems superfluous to the article and focuses attention on the style of the image, rather than what should be the focus -- the content, which is a man having anal sex with a woman. I'm happy for the terminology to be tweaked, "a man and a woman having anal sex" etc, but you haven't offered a reason as to why the genders should not be included -- especially when other similar images do make the clarification. WP:OTHERSTUFF cannot be applied to content within the same article, rather consistency should be applied for image descriptions -- certainly if you want to keep a dry clinical tone.

Disregarding the existing caption -- what is wrong with the suggested change? Can you bring up anything inherently wrong or inaccurate with it? The suggested alternative is seven words long, hardly verbose or non-concise, nor could it possibly be construed as confusing. I'm just not seeing any reason not to make the change. The change is an improvement in that it more accurately describes the image content. Curved Space (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted the caption specifying "heterosexual" or "male-to-female" as well. See, for example, here. Not only is using "heterosexual", "male-to-female" or "man and woman" unnecessary for the lead caption because the participants are obviously male and female (gender identity aspects aside, although Seedfeeder clearly didn't intend for the illustration to be of anything other than a man and a woman), it could contribute to editors arguing over the heterosexual aspect even though the illustration being of a man and a woman is not meant to be the focus of that image with regard to its use in the lead. The lead image is meant to be a straightforward image of anal sex (a penis in an anus, the significantly most common definition of the topic) without focus on the gender or sexual orientation of the participants. We have already had two invalid complaints (one in 2016 and one in 2017) about the article being homophobic: Talk:Anal sex/Archive 8#The picture and Talk:Anal sex/Archive 9#Article is homophobic. In the 2016 discussion, a new account stated, "I find it almost homophobic that it's a straight couple representing anal sex when it's been gays who have been persecuted for the act in past centuries." In the 2017 discussion, an IP made it seem that that "only heterosexual oriented images are shown" when that clearly is not the case. And then there is the argument that having two men as the lead image would be homophobic; see the 2017 discussion (although that comment may have been more about having the article only show same-sex interactions). It would certainly be stereotypical, since, as the lead notes, "anal sex is commonly associated with male homosexuality." There are still so many people today who think that anal sex is the only sexual activity gay men engage in or is their primary sexual activity, or is something mostly only gay men engage in. When editors argue over which two genders to display for the lead image, it's never good (except for explaining matters and/or coming to an understanding). And I do not like the idea of two lead images. If the lead had both a male-to-female image and male-to-male image, someone would eventually argue about excluding a female-to-male image and a female-to-female image even though anal sex occurs significantly less among the latter two couple combinations. So, yes, I prefer the caption stating, "An illustration of anal sex." The other sections specify (even though they also don't need to except for images in the "Other cultural views" section where gender isn't clear) because they are specifically placed in sections about "male to female", "male to male", "female to male", and "female to female" anal sex. And then there is the "Other cultural views" section, which is primarily about anal sex between men because that's what society has more so focused on.

I don't agree that the lead image caption not documenting the gender of the participants is an inconsistency issue. Exceptions are commonly made for the leads of articles (and that includes lead images). The article also notes artists in captions, but, after this discussion, there was agreement to not note Seedfeeder in the caption. This can also be argued as inconsistency. But it's not an issue. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

If the genders are so obvious, where is the harm or problem in stating them in the caption? A caption should accurately describe the image contents, especially so for the lead. I'm fully aware of the seedfeeder credits discussion, having initiated it myself, and (with all due respect) you're misrepresenting the discussion -- the discussion and conclusion was whether seedfeeder was notable enough to be mentioned in the article and consensus was that he was not. As per Bilorv's comment: "the artist has to be independently notable" which is supported by MOS:CREDITS. The other credited artists in this particular article are all independently notable and have their own articles.

There is a lot of discussion above over the content of the image -- what the genders should be and how that affects the aspect & representation of the article, and I see that has always been an issue, but nobody is saying (apart from Flyer who simply thinks it obvious and so unnecessary) why the caption should not match the content as it does for the rest of the article regardless of the genders. Curved Space (talk) 10:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

My explanation for why I am against including "heterosexual," "male-to-female" or similar for the lead image caption goes beyond stating that it's unnecessary because it's obvious that the participants are obviously male and female. But regardless, your argument is based on the notion that the lead image caption must or should follow the lower image captions by mentioning gender. But that's an opinion. It's not like it's based on some policy or guideline. Editors in this discussion are offering their opinion on what is or isn't an improvement. I don't think it's an improvement to have the lead image caption focus on gender and/or sexual orientation, which distracts from what the purpose of the lead image is, which is simply to show a penis in an anus. The purpose of the lead image is to represent the topic. The topic is not anal sex between a man and a woman. And, indeed, when Seedfeeder uploaded the image, his image description was simply: "An illustration depicting anal sex, in which the penis is inserted into the anus of his sexual partner." With the exception of "his", it's not focused on gender. The lead is not about any one particular gender or sexual orientation (although it mentions same-sex and heterosexual couples). The "male to female", "male to male", "female to male", and "female to female" sections are about particular genders and sexual orientations. And, above, I already addressed the "Other cultural views" image matter. The lead image is not used in the lead to present anal sex between a man and a woman (although, as seen in the above linked archived discussions, I and others have argued that it's better to use it than to use an image of two men). It's in the lead to present a penis inside of an anus. Throughout Wikipedia (and this is a valid WP:OTHER argument), there are lead image captions that are kept basic, simple or generic, while the captions lower in the article aren't. And looking at WP:CAPTION, I can't see any reason that the lead image caption should focus on the gender of the participants. If this article were solely or primarily about anal between men and women, that would be different. But it's not. It's a general article about anal sex. As for the Seedfeeder discussion, I didn't misrepresent it. I pointed to it so that others could see what it was about and noted that not crediting Seedfeeder -- another artist -- can be argued as inconsistency as well (no matter the MOS:CREDITS guideline), but just like not stating "heterosexual" or "male-to-female" in the lead image caption is not a problem, it's also not a problem to not mention Seedfeeder. Either way, I'm sure that there will come a point when another editor wants to credit Seedfeeder in the captions. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The current caption ("An illustration of anal sex") is fine. Clarity is best—this article is about anal sex and the image illustrates that, and that's what the caption should focus on. Spelling out male/female at the top of the article puts a slant on it that invites confusion (would male/male anal sex be fundamentally different?), and unduly focuses on gender when the article is not about that. Johnuniq (talk) 05:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Drive-by observations

1. At first glance this article is entirely focused on humans, without the title or lede introducing it as such. It thereby omits Non-reproductive sexual behavior in animals.

2. There seems to be inaccuracy in this lede sentence: "While anal sex is commonly associated with male homosexuality, research shows that not all gay males engage in anal sex and that it is not uncommon in heterosexual relationships" . Aside from 'not uncommon' is a double negative better rendered for style as 'common', for several years now it seems 'not uncommon' has an understatement as anal sex is generally seen as part of heterosexual lifestyle too https://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/news/a36431/everyone-having-anal-without-me/

3. The illustrations seem gratuitous. Children use this encyclopedia - are they in any way protected by Wikipedia in the same way that laws on pornography and television watersheds do?

-Applefall (talk) 05:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

The article could have an "Other animals" section with a link pointing to the Non-reproductive sexual behavior in animals article at the top of the section. But anal sex is overwhelmingly discussed in the context of humans, which is why the article is overwhelmingly about humans. And the anal sex cases in other animals are infrequent. As seen here, there wouldn't be much to cover and the focus would be on non-human primates.

As for heterosexual couples? We go by academic sources on the prevalence of anal sex, not by observing media sources such as Cosmopolitan columns. For health material (and engaging in anal sex is a health topic), we also don't go by media sources reporting on the research; see WP:MEDPOP. And as made clear in this section of the Wikipedia article, "Because most research on anal intercourse addresses men who have sex with men, little data exists on the prevalence of anal intercourse among heterosexual couples." That remains true. Stating that anal sex is common in heterosexual relationships is something that needs to be based on an academic source. Furthermore, as reported on by Weiten et al. and various other academic sources, we do know that penile-vaginal sex is the most common sexual activity among heterosexual couples, and that anal sex is less popular than oral sex and mutual masturbation among both heterosexual couples and men who have sex with men. I see that there is online debate about use of "not uncommon", including the argument that stating that something is not uncommon is different than saying that something is common and leaves a bit of wiggle room. Wiktionary also currently states that "not uncommon" means "having an abundance situated between common and uncommon." I just now considered rewording the text in question, but I realized that, for the time being, "not uncommon" works best. I could change the text to "heterosexual couples may also engage in anal sex." But "may" can be seen as underplaying the matter. We know that some heterosexual couples do engage in anal sex and that it's more prevalent today than in years past. Also, per WP:Weasel wording, I try to avoid "some people" wording when I can. I could change it to "heterosexual couples also engage in anal sex", but someone might take that as an overstatement...as though heterosexual couples generally engage in it. Also, we have enough "may" and "can" uses in the lead for other wording we have to be careful with. And, yes, the lesbian piece currently states "Types of anal sex can also be a part of lesbian sexual practices.", but that's because the research shows that lesbian couples engage in anal sex significantly less than men who have sex with men and heterosexual couples do. Stating "are also a part of lesbian sexual practices" can be considered an overstatement. Even use of "heterosexual and lesbian couples are also documented as engaging in the practice" makes it sound like heterosexual couples barely engage in it.

Regarding the images? See WP:Not censored, which is tempered by the WP:Offensive material guideline. The WP:Offensive material guideline has a WP:GRATUITOUS section that states, in part, "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." In this case, the illustrations are the equally suitable alternatives. The gratuitous option would be real-life images. Most editors are going to want images in the article; so we've gone with the less offensive option of having drawings and paintings, which is what we generally do for our sexual topic articles if including images. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

"Ass full of knife" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Ass full of knife. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 25#Ass full of knife until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 03:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

'an illustration of anal sex' gives a misleading representation of human bodies

Dear All, Just a short comment to suggest that the main picture used by this article represents human genitalia that is mostly hairless, or trimmed for both the male and female (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wiki-analsex.png ). this kind of body image is very present in recent pornography but might not be representative of anal sex as performed by laypersons. The article could gain from having a main picture that does not evoke contemporary pornography. Kindest regards, Chimerias — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.186.126.72 (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

This image was selected years ago primarily because it is not pornographic as a real photograph can be. It is clear, realistic, and not artistically stylized or historical as so many other images on the page. Adding hair as you suggest would make it more pornographic, not less, and what is considered "contemporary pornography" will not be so in a short period of time. This image is fine. HalJor (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Greek Style

I think that it is also called Greek Style. I suggest to add it at the names. Here is a proposed source: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.255.60.247 (talk) 13:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Not a WP:Reliable source. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Tautonomy

There is a huge repetition of the term "anal sex". I recognize the anal part is inalienable from the concept, to dilute the repetition somewhat, why not substitute the equivalent and equally correct term "anal play" sometimes. It would make reading this article much less boring. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Because that's overly casual as well as being a broader and imprecise term. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. "Anal play" covers a whole range of behaviors, of which anal sex is only one. -- The Anome (talk) 11:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Nature

@Samhu: your recent edit was removed since it was in the lead, that should be a summary of the article's body. On the other hand I'm surprised myself that there's no other mention of this, or of unreproductive sex; it may have previously existed, perhaps. If you extend the body, make sure to use a source that compares it with humans, to avoid WP:SYNTH. A possible place would also be where the "sin against nature" fallacy is mentioned, to put that in context. Any new material should also attempt to avoid the appeal to nature fallacy itself: people don't do it because they see that other animals also do, simply because it's also part of their own nature. —PaleoNeonate – 01:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Righto. Will look into it. Samhu (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Samhu, there have been discussions about this: Talk:Anal sex/Archive 2#Nonhumans, Talk:Anal sex/Archive 8#Anal sex in animals, Talk:Anal sex/Archive 10#Drive-by observations. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 00:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Several recent edits were made: [1], [2], [3], [4]. I chose to give the information a standalone section because I don't think it belongs in any of the sections about humans, especially to begin the section. I think it was a distraction in the male to male section. It's also not about views. I think having it there would also lead people to expect information about anal sex in the other sections about human pairs when there isn't any. Giving the information a standalone section follows articles such as oral sex and masturbation. There isn't a lot of information in the one here about other animals, but neither is there a lot of information about other animals in the oral sex and masturbation articles. I think it's WP:UNDUE in any other section in the article. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 01:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Has moved beyond my pay grade. Please handle. Thanks. Samhu (talk) 02:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Safe search options

Is there a way to require readers to click on the image in order to view it? Even for a so-called 'encyclopedic'illustration this is graphic. Its position on the page also brings it into view instantly. If there is no form of Safe Search or Safe mode on Wikipedia, I propose moving the image to the bottom of the page, as is customary on many other pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ice cave (talk • contribs) 11:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up, I was about to say the same thing. I just typed in "Ana" because I was trying to search for an article on "Anesthesia" and wham I got hit with a pornographic imagine. Imagine how many children doing research for school are going to stumble on this. Knowing how dangerous porn exposure can be for children I am extremely angry. De2nis (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry but attempts to remove the image will not work. Please spell out what you were doing when you got hit with a pornographic image. Were you using a phone/tablet/desktop? Android/Apple? Was it a web browser or the Wikipedia app? If a browser, was it en.wikipedia.org (desktop view) or en.m.wikipedia.org (mobile view)? Johnuniq (talk) 03:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Can we control images shown by Wikipedia app when searching?. Johnuniq (talk) 01:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Also at phab:T306246 which is where developers might see it. Johnuniq (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Inequality of representation

I hate to be one of those people, but anal sex is overwhelmingly performed between gay men, which I feel is not fairly represented, especially in illustrations, which depict entirely men and women. I might be stretching here, but if it's because people would find it "icky", that's both unfair and immature. Mleonard85032 (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken. Anal sex is widely practiced in some parts of the world by non-gay people (e.g., Brazil). EvergreenFir (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Excuse me, there is one extremely vague example Mleonard85032 (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

The images so far look to be balanced appropriately. I find "especially in illustrations, which depict entirely men and women" to be false. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 23:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: By the way, what are some sources that talk about countries where heterosexual anal sex is widespread, or have prevalence/rates by country? What is the source about heterosexual anal sex in Brazil? I’ve researched this a little, and have found studies about it in the US, but had trouble finding rates for many other countries. JoeSmoe2828 (talk) 10:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

"Gaynal" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Gaynal and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 17#Gaynal until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. QueenofBithynia (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

When listing many illnesses names

make each in a separate line, for those who want to skip them, and for those who want to check them out comfortably. RobertoLion1 (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Add "a year"

here, add that it affects 7,060 people "a year".

Most cases of anal cancer are related to infection with the human papilloma virus (HPV). Anal sex alone does not cause anal cancer; the risk of anal cancer through anal sex is attributed to HPV infection, which is often contracted through unprotected anal sex. Anal cancer is relatively rare, and significantly less common than cancer of the colon or rectum (colorectal cancer); the American Cancer Society states that it affects approximately 7,060 people (4,430 in women and 2,630 in men) and results in approximately 880 deaths (550 in women and 330 in men) in the United States, and that, though anal cancer has been on the rise for many years, it is mainly diagnosed in adults, "with an average age being in the early 60s" and it "affects women somewhat more often than men." RobertoLion1 (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Clarified, with updated statistics HalJor (talk) 23:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

This isn't clear

"Likewise, women were believed to only be capable of anal sex or other sex acts with women if they possessed an exceptionally large clitoris or a dildo" RobertoLion1 (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Research: heterosexual anal sex

Dear users, I would like to share some links to research that are about anal sex amoung heterosexuals. Perhaps some of you could integrate it into the page.

It seems like it is relevant to young women more and more since the rise of pornography. Information about anal sex amoung heterosexuals is a bit more rare since they don't report it. This gives a false impression as if heterosexuals aren't so much involved with anal sex as homo- or bisexuals, for example. Because with homosexuals there are many more reports. But the lack of reports amoung heterosexuals of course doesn't mean that it doesn't happen or very little. Below are some links to the topic I descirbed. Hopefully someone can integrate this into the page.

https://www.bmj.com/content/378/bmj.o1975

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1001918504344

https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/23/12668

https://www.gov.uk/research-for-development-outputs/sexual-coercion-and-sexual-desire-ambivalent-meanings-of-heterosexual-anal-sex-in-soweto-south-africa Tomakkermans321 (talk) 12:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Many of these are WP:PRIMARY sources and should be avoided on a medical topic as they may be unreliable among the broader literature. Secondary and tertiary sources are better. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)