Talk:Dry sex

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Reproductive medicine task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Proposed merge with Non-penetrative sex

Bad Idea - nothing to do with dry humping or frottage. 76.186.118.246 (talk) 07:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose As defined in the article this is clearly penetrative and it's not safe sex unless you use a condom. The only link with non-penetrative sex is the latter includes the similarly named but unrelated "dry humping" (rubbing together without penetration). --Simon Speed (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - There is not much overlap or redundancy. Also, a merge like the one proposed tends to cause confusion to people who are not Wikipedia writers (in my opinion). APatcher (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More

More things I don't understand. This should be pretty painful. How can men enjoy it?

Same if you try to rape girl that isn't quite "ready". Can it be done, at all? 217.25.194.150 10:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

what an incredibly *stupid* thing to say. in your opinion, when is a girl (as opposed to a woman) isready for rape (sic.) By ready I mean wet down there, if you insist. 217.25.194.150

This is not meant as a discussion of the topic but a discussion of improving the article. Discussion pages are not the place to preach your man hating feminist bullshit. (Stickethstickley (talk) 11:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Please do not attack other users, this is unacceptable. Nik thestoned 11:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move

although might be originated from africa, today it is becoming popular in the US so using the african culture for the title is wrong and i suggest to remove it . true

Support wholeheartedly. And make the existing dry sex a dab page. –Hajor 18:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been renamed after the result of a move request. Dragons flight 03:41, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

Primary/Secondary Definition

I would suggest that the "alternative" definition of "dry sex" as "outercourse" be made the primary definition, and the African practice of drying the vagina be made secondary. This is the way I always hear it. Foxxygirltamara 18:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, the term "dry sex" as the African practice has become a rather international political terminology & concern regarding the AIDS epidemic. It's a word you hear in this context on CNN and such. 67.5.156.37 04:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Male sources

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL Most focus seems to be on the problem being a dry vagina and resulting vaginal pain. Do some references also discuss dry penises (perhaps due to lack of foreskin) and penis pain? Not sure if the focus here is unbiased. Ranze (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like you stated, most sources focus on females with regard to this matter. The significant majority of sources, in fact. Therefore, WP:Due weight is given to the female aspect; nothing biased about that. Like WP:Due weight makes clear (when scrolling down to the Balancing aspects and Giving "equal validity" subsections), there should not be an attempt to give "equal validity" to things that are not on equal footing with regard to coverage among sources. As for this addition you made to the article (while male pain should be mentioned), the focus should stay on female pain, as pain from dry sex is significantly more prominent among females; I'll take care of that at a later date. Flyer22 (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is obvious; males penis does not matter, and is irrelevant in dry sex. Vagina is naturally moist, and dry sex always involves a female vaginal sexual intercourse. Therefor the article focuses on the female aspect, because that is the only way. "dry sex" MEANS the vagina is manually de-mostifed of its moisture, and then have sex. In this respect, penis has nothing to do with it, as it the only requirement is the vagina, and the penis cannot be dry or moist.--Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress, talk, 00:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dry sex. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110224032801/http://www.alanguttmacher.org:80/pubs/journals/2409398.html to http://www.alanguttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2409398.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]