Talk:Leapfrog sex position

Doggy style artwork

The article currently reuses the doggy style artwork and labels it as "The Leapfrog position". It seems one of three things should be done:

merge the doggy style and leapfrog position articles together if they're the same (which the text seems to imply otherwise),
recaption the artwork as something like "Doggy style, similar to the leapfrog position", or
replace the doggy style image with an actual leapfrog position drawing.

Actually, it seems that the doggy style artwork is inaccurate, not this one. Read the article and compare it to the picture. Perhaps we need a new drawing for doggy style. 72.224.116.191 17:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure about that. Okay, my knowledge about this minor difference is quite weak, but I'll use this as a reference: [1]. As you can see, the naming is really similar ("The Frog Leap" -> "Leapfrog") and maybe the only difference between that position and this position is that the head should be lower than the hips. I really don't see why this couldn't be possible.

Maybe we should remove the picture until we know for sure?

--217.208.62.59 21:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gender Neutrality

Question. Stumbled across this page as I was checking out the recent changes looking for vandals. Are all articles on sex positons written like this? ie...a man and a woman. Could this position not be done by two males or two females (one will strap on)? Should articles include this type of info or are all articles written from a 'straight' point of view? Just asking (I would actually prefer it to stay the way it is but I'm surprised that the wording is like it is!)KsprayDad 23:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I would put in a vote for gender neutrality, I'm sure there's a way to do it tastefully without offending anyone. --TomBurns 19:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually did this edit. It's important to have gender neutrality in an encyclopedia. -- Magnus Bergmark, <magnus -DOT- bergmark -AT- gmail -DOT- com>, 23:26, 13 June 2006 (GMT+2)

personally i feel that the gender neutral way of writing this makes the artical quite cumbersome. Obviously if an artical is written in the traditional male/female description it is easy enough for a reader to adapt it to suit thier own situation.

the repeated uses if the term penetrating partner, and sentences like "The receiving partner also has the option of rotating his/her hips against the penis/dildo as he/she is penetrated giving added sensation to both partners" don't flow that easily.

It might be better the have it written normally than have an extra bit for adapting it for same sex situations.

Perhaps you could simply state once at the begining that the "male" used in the article refers to the one doing the penetration and the "female" the one recieving penetration, even if this is not their actual gender.

How about referring to them as the "top" and the "bottom" or the "giving" and the "recieving"? Both of those terms are acceptable for any sexual orientation. Also another point is that straight couples will switch up on occasion as well, evidenced by the "bendover boyfriend" stuff, where the female uses a strap-on on her male partner. ---TokyoGirl79