Talk:Sexual intercourse/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Gay marriage in the Marital status and relationships section

Editor Ewawer keeps removing information about gay marriage from this section, basically saying it has nothing to do with sexual intercourse. As I stated on his talk page: Given what the beginning of the Marital status and relationships section says in summary: "Sexual intercourse is commonly considered a 'marital right' by many religions, permissible to married couples generally for the purpose of reproduction. Today, there is wide variation in the opinions and teachings about sexual intercourse relative to marriage and other intimate relationships by the world's religions." ...

....I am not understanding his removal of the gay marriage information at all. This has to do with sexual intercourse just the same as other prohibited things in relation to marriage. Gay marriage is prohibited due to one's sexual orientation -- who that person wants to have sexual intercourse with. It's why there is a Sexual orientation and gender section.

So... Exactly why should other prohibitions in relation to marriage and sexual intercourse be mentioned, but not gay marriage? The main reason gay marriage is objected to is because of the disapproval of two men having sex or two women having sex. I added a lead-in to the information to show what it has to do with sexual intercourse. Ewawer still reverted, saying, "Opposition to same-sex marriage need to be based on objection to homosexual sex. If the point is that there is such objection, well that may be quite correct)." I explained to him that, "Opposition to same-sex marriage is based on homosexual sex. It's one of the main reasons for opposition. Refer to the sources." The third time, he stated, "The reference deal with same-sex marriage as a right, not with the role of sex as the basis of any objection." In response to that, I point that, "The references discuss [discrimination] based on sexuality. It has everything to do with marriage and sexual intercourse."

I'm seriously not understanding Ewawer's removal. How does a gay/lesbian sexual orientation have nothing to do with homosexual sex? Flyer22 (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

From what I can see, Ewawer (talk · contribs) is removing valid, apposite, well-supported content. It looks a lot like MPOV and UGH behaviour; that's not okeh, especially since s/he has been approached in a civil attempt to discuss the matter and appears deliberately unwilling to participate in discussion. I am tempted to warn Ewawer, and will do so if s/he reverts and doesn't join in the discussion. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C15:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Pardon my intrusion (coming here through Flyer22's contributions and talk page), but I have to agree. The sources are about not allowing people to get married because of their sexual orientation/sexual activities. If you're discriminating against someone because of their sexual orientation, then it is because you disagree with who that person takes to bed (unless that person is asexual, and even some asexuals take people to bed). The sources verify that this is one reason there is opposition to gay marriage. It's not in any way irrelevant to the section on marriage in this article. Why is this information even being disputed for inclusion? If "gay sex" and the bible are not the issues mostly driving the discrimination against gay marriage, then what are? JacobTrue (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Boy, how the fan club has come out batting. My point was that sure there is an expectation of sex in marriage. However, it is not necessarily true that the opposition to gay marriage is due to gay sex, though some may use that argument. If the point is that "society" disapproves of certain categories of sex, then you are looking at laws that ban those practices. That is not the direction of the contribution on the basis of gay marriage. If the point is to indicate that there is disapproval of gay sex, say so (with sources), but do not branch off into a discussion of the unfairness of denying marriage status to gay couples. That does not in itself affect their ability to engage in sex without legal consequences. What relevance has the statement that x number of countries allow same-sex marriage to an article on sexual intercourse? In my eyes, interesting though that may be, such material is not relevant here. I do not like throwing around labels like POV. Ewawer (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC) PS. I do not appreciate when my good faith contributions are referred as "silly" and now as MPOV. Is that what a discussion of points of view has degenerated to? Ewawer (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Ewawer, there are now two issues on the floor: the argument you're making, and the way you're making it. The latter first: you have until now refused to participate appropriately (or at all, for that matter) in a discussion of content propriety you yourself created. It amounts to making a mess for other editors to clean up, and that kind of uncoöperative behaviour usually will not tend to win friends and influence people. To me, your argument appears to work against itself in that you express your point of view ("In my eyes…such material is not relevant here") and then say you don't like "throwing around labels like POV". This amounts to "I'm just saying…", which is uttered as an attempt at a get-out-of-jail-free card for whatever unduly pointed remarks one has just made. The grownup thing if you have a concern with a piece of content in an article is to discuss it and work towards consensus, not to passive-aggressively delete blocks of text with incomprehensible or absent edit summaries. For you to come now kvetching sarcastically over the "fan club" having "come out batting" smacks of selective perception. It is unproductive and a little rich; stop it now, please and thank you.

As to the question of the content itself: To the degree that you look like you might be trying to say we should leave comprehensive coverage of issues centred round same-sex marriage to the various topical articles, I agree with you, but the content in question is appropriately concise and is apposite to this article. That is because sexual intercourse and marriage are reciprocally contextual in both the political and the religious realm. Surely there can be either without the other, but much religious dogma—as enumerated in this article—holds that intercourse is to be practiced solely within marriage. And much political opposition to same-sex marriage is either the filtrate of such religious dogma or is directly based on opposition to same-sex intercourse per se. I do think the content in question could be better supported, with sources more clearly explicating the link between political and/or religious animus against homosexual intercourse and animus against same-sex marriage, but that is scarcely grounds for the removal of the content. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C22:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Ewawer, you can call it "the fan club" all you want but, but I see no valid reason for you removing the information. It's quite clearly laid out above. No matter what you personally think, the reliable sources discuss sexual orientation and all that comes with it as the main opposition to gay marriage. Sexual orientation of course encompasses sexual activities in this case. That means it belongs in the Marital status and relationships section, where all the other reasons some aspects of marriage are prohibited/limited. The section is mostly about "a 'marital right' by many religions, permissible to married couples generally for the purpose of reproduction" and discussing "opinions and teachings about sexual intercourse relative to marriage and other intimate relationships by the world's religions." Therefore, how does gay marriage not fit in there, when homosexuality is often dumped on as a sin and abomination by some religious groups who make it quite clear that this is why they are against gay marriage? Yes, the point is that society disapproves of certain categories of sex, and, yes, we are looking at laws that ban those practices. That IS "the direction of the contribution on the basis of gay marriage," as backed up reliable sources. Yes, the point is to indicate that there is disapproval of gay sex, as is clear from the sources...which speak of discrimination against gay people based on their sexual orientation. If the section is about certain aspects of marriage that are prohibited, how is it not appropriate to "branch off into a discussion of the unfairness of denying marriage status to gay couples"?

The main point is this: It does not matter that opposition to gay marriage is not always due to gay sex, though you'd have to provide a reliable source for that because what opposition to gay marriage is there that is unrelated to gay sex? It all comes back to gay sex in one form or another, even if arguing that gay parenting comes with gay marriage and that a child needs a mother and a father. What matters is that opposition to gay marriage has something to do with opposition to gay sex and that should therefore be covered in a section about marriage and sexual intercourse. What relevance is there to naming or mentioning the number of countries that allow same-sex marriage in an article on sexual intercourse? Um, to show that things have started to change and that same-sex marriage is no longer prohibited in all countries due to religion or whatever other reason. Though I admit that we don't have to mention all of them by name.

You haven't edited this article since May 2010, and seemed pretty much done with it back then. Now all of a sudden you show up and object to the gay marriage material? If you've been watching this article all this time, where were you for all the other discussions that have been going on lately? I do not mean to imply bad faith, but I hope your battling me on this is not due to either my reverting or undoing your edits on the Pedophilia, Sexual orientation and Anal sex articles (or my alerting you about the picture issue regarding the Physical attractiveness article). I can understand your frustration at my reverting you on all that stuff, but I had good reasons for doing so. Flyer22 (talk) 22:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I was about to thank you for returning the discussion back to the main issue, which I acknowledge is sensitive to many gay couples. However, you and your fans obviously still prefer to attack the man and not his ideas. I guess that that is a debating style in some quarters.

The only point that I'm really trying to make is that if all issues that in some way relate to sexual practices and sexual orientation etc are to be included in this article than virtually all issues of sexuality would be equally relevant. For example, one would need to discuss laws which regulate sexual activity, such as incest, under-age sex, etc etc. Then we can more fully discuss the religious and other views to sex in marriage, and extramarital sex, etc etc. And just one further point, at least some of. the sources referred to do not deal with gay sex being the basis of objection to gay marriage. I had a look again at some of these materials, which refer to sexual orientation and resulting psychological stresses, etc and not to the objection to gay sex being the reason for denial of gay marriage rights. Ewawer (talk) 23:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Er…"sensitive to many gay couples"? I guess, but that's of no relevance. It is more than a little backhanded, though. We're trying to write an encyclopædia here, which describes the world as it is. Your impugnments of other editors' motives are neither helpful nor appropriate. You are not under attack; you are merely being called on your uncoöperative behaviour. Start coöperating and this what you perceive as an "attack" will stop. If you can find sturdy evidentiary support for your notion that incest, underage sex and whatnot are equally relevant to this article as the content under dispute, by all means make the contribution. I'm still not seeing much substance to your argument beyond your opinion that the content in question is not apposite. Bitching and moaning about attacks that aren't happening won't gain you much traction. Working to build consensus will. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C23:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Ewawer, I'm not sure why you have to keep giving so much attitude. But moving on:

I don't get your point that "if all issues that in some way relate to sexual practices and sexual orientation etc are to be included in this article than virtually all issues of sexuality would be equally relevant." I don't get that point because not everything is relevant to the Marital status and relationships section. Gay marriage is, for all the reasons stated by myself and others above. And as for laws which regulate sexual activity, such as rape, underage sex, etc., yes, some of that is addressed in the Sexual intercourse#Ethical, moral, and legal issues section and its subsections. It would be a major omission if gay marriage was not also included. Addressing these issues does not mean that we have to go in-depth about them. The main articles are for that. And I don't get how you can say that "at least some of the sources referred to do not deal with gay sex being the basis of objection to gay marriage." Homosexuality is not about gay sex to you? Really, does sexual orientation have nothing to do with sex? Isn't that what sexual orientation is about? If the sources are discussing opposition to gay marriage being based on a homosexual sexual orientation, which they do, then how is that discrimination not about gay sex? But since you want the sources to explicitly say "gay sex," though I doubt you read the sources completely, I will add some. Scheinwerfermann also suggested that. But just to be clear, if any one of the sources had specifically used the words "gay sex," but the others only said homosexuality, that still would not be grounds for removing the addition completely. Flyer22 (talk) 23:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Casting a light (ahem) from a different direction: Ewawer, there are sources (and it sounds like there are more to come) supporting the notion that some inclusion of same-sex marriage is warranted in this article. You disagree. Okeh, can you show us some reliable sources supporting your position? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C00:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

You two cannot see that you are keeping this article in B-class status. I personally have better things to do than play ping-pong with you both. I think I'll take my bat and go home. Ewawer (talk) 00:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I take it, then, that you can't show us any reliable sources supporting your position, then? As you wish. That's an unfortunate, rather childish attitude you're throwing round. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C00:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Ewawer, I'm working on propelling this article to above B-class status. I've been doing that for some time now. And as someone who has experience getting articles to GA status, I'm pretty sure I will achieve that with this article as well. After making the Prevalence, safe sex, and contraception and Adolescents sections represent a wider view (as in not just a mostly American one), I should be very close. There will just be a few other things to take care of after that, such as an Etymology and definitions section, though that's optional.

Anyway, I added two sources specifically discussing gay marriage and sex in relation to discrimination by society and law. Though I added two, I'd actually gathered three from Google Books. They are as follows:

Same-sex marriage: the legal and psychological evolution in America. See the beginning (starting with the Preface) and Page 9 for examples. Though more are also in the book. This is the second source I added.

Gay marriage and democracy: equality for all. See Chapter 7, page 162 for an example. Though more are also in the book.

Red families v. blue families: legal polarization and the creation of culture. This source explicitly makes our point right off the bat, and it's the first source I used.

I didn't use all three sources because all three are not needed and we already have enough sources that accurately back up the line "Opposition to same-sex marriage is largely based on the belief that sexual intercourse and sexual orientation should be of a heterosexual nature." I did remove mention of the countries by name, though. Flyer22 (talk) 02:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

First let me state my bias: I'm an atheist, I have absolutely no problems with homosexuality, and I find it appalling that gay rights and gay marriage are not universally accepted in all countries. With that said, I think part of what was written on the subject in this article goes too far off the topic of sexual intercourse.

Opposition to same-sex marriage is related to (silly) beliefs that homosexual sexual intercourse is immoral - this part seems relevant. However, further details about the problems recognizing same-sex marriage, stating how many countries support it, etc. are not tied in very well with sexual intercourse. I've read the explanations above for why it's relevant, but I don't find them to be very persuasive. The whole section strikes me as a bit soapbox-y. Take this quote for example: "Since 2001, ten countries have begun allowing same-sex couples to marry nationwide." How many logical leaps does one have to make to relate that to sexual intercourse? Does an article on sexual intercourse really need to include the global progress of recognizing gay marriage? I would say no.

I wonder if the solution would be to re-frame the entire section on "Marital status and relationships" to "Religious views," (the section already discusses religion more than marriage anyways - the point about Buddhism is a good example) and then talk about how some religions disapprove of homosexual intercourse, with a brief explanation of how this impedes progress on gay rights and gay marriage. Focusing on the religious opposition to homosexual sex rather than same-sex marriage would be more relevant to the article IMO. kyledueck (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Kyledueck, the section is titled Ethical, moral, and legal issues. The Marital status and relationships section is just a subsection of that. You make it seem as though there are a lot of details in that section about gay marriage. There are not. Only the significantly relevant things are there. How is stating how many countries support it "going too far", when the section is about religious, cultural and legal views on marriage? How is it "a bit soapbox-y"? All the paragraph does is state that "opposition to same-sex marriage is largely based on the belief that sexual intercourse and sexual orientation should be of a heterosexual nature" and makes clear that it is a religious, cultural and legal matter in many nations. I'm not opposed to cutting the line about how many counties have allowed it, but I still don't see that anything needs to be cut. I also disagree that the section should be retitled Religious views. We should be specific regarding what a section is about, per WP:Manual of Style, and that section is about marriage. Sure, it's about marriage and religion. But, again, it is under the wider "Ethical, moral, and legal issues" heading. And if we were to title it something like Marriage in religion or Marriage and religious views (as it was pretty much titled before I did something different with the design), that would limit the section's scope. Marriage is about law as well, and not allowing gay people to get married includes legal bans that are driven by religious beliefs. So I'm open to renaming the section Religious and legal views in marriage or Marriage in religion and law (I feel that the latter is the better title). Flyer22 (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, that clears a few things up. I also read the Decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger source (I missed it the first time through), which made me see that the paragraph does have relevance to the article. It's mainly just the last sentence that I still have a problem with, and since you're okay with removing it, I'll do that.

I had not taken the legal aspects into consideration when I suggested "Religious views" as a title for the subsection, that's a good point. I don't have a strong opinion on which title would be best for the subsection, so I'll leave that decision to you. kyledueck (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

"The sex partners may be of opposite sexes"

The sex partners may be of opposite sexes, or they may be hermaphroditic, as is the case with snails.

is these 2 lines needed at all? Divinity76 (talk) 13:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

That line used to say "The entities may be of opposite sexes [so and so]." Only recently was it changed to "sex partners." The line shows another way that opposite sexes engage in sexual intercourse and sexually reproduce, and also alerts people right off the bat that this article is not only talking about humans. But whether or not that line is needed/trivial has been brought up once before. I objected to it being removed then, though I said I could do without it. And now I mind much less. Anyone else have any thoughts on it? Flyer22 (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

No strong feelings either way, but I'd hardly consider snails to be "partners". I do prefer entities. Puchiko (Talk-email) 19:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Who's going to post the copulating snails image? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 20:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

LOL!! You may be joking. But you may be serious, too, which makes it even funnier. Flyer22 (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I changed it back to "entities."[1] Flyer22 (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Technical virginity

I know the "Reproduction and sexual practices" section talks about technical virginity, but should we have more on it in this article? Or leave the Virginity article to deal with that? From the few sex-related articles on my watchlist, I also see that Ewawer has changed that heading in the Virginity article, which I feel is a mistake. "Technical virginity" is a redirect meant to point readers to the section about it, and I think a lot of people would be specifically looking for a heading like that. JacobTrue (talk) 22:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. I see that the bit about it here is fine, especially since there currently isn't a lot about it in the main article (just two paragraphs). The redirect issue has been addressed there and fixed. JacobTrue (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Restrictions on sex information in the lead

PassaMethod insists that the information about restrictions on sexual intercourse and such activities should come in the first or second paragraph. I disagree and have changed this twice.[2][3] I disagree because I feel that we should explain what sexual intercourse is first, its variations, how it bonds humans people, and the health aspect. Then go into what society feels about sexual intercourse. With PassaMethod's addition, I feel that restrictions on sexual activity should come first, then religious beliefs; this all fits into one paragraph and flows best that way, in my opinion, and I don't see how it does not. Flyer22 (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I dont mind what paragraph its in. I simply prefer laws are not lumped with religion. What do you think about seperating them? (see current version) Pass a Method talk 17:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The Ethical, religious, and legal views section is about legal and moral issues. Having legal and moral issues combined together makes just as much sense in the lead as it does lower in the article. The two are usually intertwined anyway. And the way you just separated the paragraph is not only a waste of space, but against WP:LEAD. We should not exceed four paragraphs. How about we start the third paragraph out saying that Cultural feelings on sexual intercourse have varied. Go into the restrictions on sexual activities, and then the religious beliefs. I understand how the religious beliefs information is a bit much, so some of that can be cut. Your addition on restrictions on sex was a good add to the lead, by the way. It needed that, per WP:LEAD. Flyer22 (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. Thanks on the positive feedback. Pass a Method talk 17:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I like it. And since we deal with some of the same topics on Wikipedia, I must say that it is better working with you than against you. But that's the case for most working environments, if not all, LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

BTW, i was thinking of adding something in the intro about how humans are the only species of animals who predominantly have sex in private or do it hidden. Is that the case? I've tried to find sources, but its quite difficult. Wel all know that humans tend to "hide" their sexual exploits. Are humans the only species that "hides"? Pass a Method talk 10:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind you including this material, if you find reliable sources for it, and I'm not certain that I can answer for sure. But it's not lead material. The lead should only go over (summarize) the most significant/important aspects of a topic that are already covered lower in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, i believe wikipedia gives too much emphasis on religion in leads too often. In articles such as circumcision, religion SHOULD be mentioned because circumcision usually has some religionus connection. With this article, i fail to see a notable enough connection between sexual intercourse and religion. Most people dont have sex with religion in mind. Animals dont either. Im not religious and i find it quite overwhelming to see religion on so many article leads. even in articles you suspect would be free from such additions. For example, think of a leaflet for educating teenagers about sex. The leaflet is a brief summary which is 4 paragraphs long, explaining only the basics of sex. Do you expect religion to be mentioned within that leaflet? Wouldn't it be out of place? Pass a Method talk 12:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Sexual intercourse has a notable connection with religion, per the Ethical, moral, and legal issues section. I don't understand why you don't think it has a notable connection when people often dictate their sex lives with regard to religion (yes, possibly most people), as seen in the case of homosexuality. Religious beliefs with regard to sexual intercourse and other sexual activities are covered lower in the article. All of that is why it is mentioned in the lead. And it's only a brief mention in the lead now since the cut we agreed on.

You see religious beliefs in so many articles because most of the world is religious and therefore religious beliefs extend to a lot of things. What goes in a leaflet of course has no bearing on how we do things here at Wikipedia. But I'm guessing religion would be included in different kinds, if they haven't been already. Flyer22 (talk) 12:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I would understand your reasoning if this was the human sexuality article or something similar, but for "sexual intercourse", its disputable. Pass a Method talk 13:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how it's disputable, per what I stated above. That sexual intercourse has a notable connection with religion is covered in various reliable sources in this article. And we mention such beliefs in the Anal sex article and some other sexual articles as well, which are usually aspects of sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse is also about human sexuality and is not only defined as vaginal sex, or penetrative sex. The term can cover all mutual sex acts and rape (minus objects used for rape). If you are suggesting that religion shouldn't be included in this article, I'd have to disagree. As I stated, religion plays a big part in what people believe to be the right type of sex, the wrong type of sex, etc., which is why virginity pledges mainly exist, and it is mentioned in the lead because of that and the WP:LEAD guideline. Something as significant as this is supposed to be in the lead. I can't agree that religion shouldn't be in the lead or the article. And if this article were under WP:Peer review, you can trust that religion not being mentioned in the lead or the lower body of the article would be brought up as a minus for the article. Again, there is a reason religion is mentioned in so many Wikipedia articles. It is a societal view. A major part of society's view on sexual intercourse is religion, just like law. And both are in the lead and lower body of the article for that reason. Flyer22 (talk) 13:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

im not saying it shouldn't be in the lead. Im saying its still possibly too much. Maybe we need one or two sentence max. It currently has 4 sentences in the lead. Religion is declining in the UK (where i live) and other places. Pass a Method talk 14:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

If we cut any more, it won't even come close to adequately summarizing religion's role in societal beliefs about sexual intercourse. It's good to list a few examples, and that is what the lead currently does, mentioning the major religions and a bit about their beliefs on sexual intercourse. Even if religion is declining where you live and in other places, which I do believe to be true, most of the world still practices religion and the religions mentioned in the lead are the most prominent ones. When this article does go under some kind of review, the reviewer or reviewers may even say that the "Hinduism and Buddhism views on sexuality have differing interpretations." line needs to be clarified a bit, since your cut has left it vague.[4]

By the way, I always figured that you were religious, since you work on Islamic topics a lot. That's what I get for making assumptions, LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 18:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

My userpage userboxes clarify this Pass a Method talk 19:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I looked at your user page before, but didn't pay much attention to the Deism link. Deism is kinda religious, though, is it not? It's just that you don't believe in organized religion. Flyer22 (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Im sort of agnostic/deist. Pass a Method talk 20:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I just came across this conversation and am having a bit of trouble following it. My first impression was that Passa Method wanted the religious affects/restrictions on sex to feature prominently in the lead and Flyer22 did not. But then further down I got the reverse impression. Can you briefly clarify your positions for me, whether you have now agreed on a compromise, and whether you would like any input from a third party such as myself? Thanks :-) -MsBatfish (talk) 03:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The issue was more about the material's placement in the lead, but I can see how the first or second paragraph can be seen as "prominent." We eventually agreed on a placement (the third paragraph), as seen above. Maybe you didn't quite get that feeling because we got off-topic, into discussion about "sex in private" and religion? Really, I'm not sure how you got confused, LOL. I just didn't like the restrictions on sex information, which is a cultural issue, coming so early on -- and out of place -- in the lead. I mean, to have the lead first explain what sex is, then go into restrictions on sex, and then back to explaining what sex is and how it may affect the human body is just not a good lead to me. A good lead, like any good Wikipedia article as a whole, is to explain what something is first and then go into cultural feelings about it (though sometimes, for the body instead of the lead, cultural feelings about a subject are mentioned earlier on due to overlap). Sure, we're explaining what sex is again in the case of the paragraph about non-human animals, but that is in a different context and comes last because it would be out of place to have it come anywhere else in the lead since we are talking about human sexual intercourse first. It comes last, just like the In other animals section comes last.

But, yes, we worked out the "restrictions on sex" issue. Since then, we were mostly on the topic of how much religious information should be in the lead, and I stated that I feel that what is there now is fine and should not be cut any further (after the cut it was recently given). If anything, a bit of clarification needs to be added to the final line about Hinduism and Buddhism since it is currently vague. And of course your input is always welcomed here (at least by me). As you know, we don't own this article. Meaning...even if your input wasn't welcomed, you could still weigh in. Flyer22 (talk) 05:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Lol, thanks :-) I see, I think my confusion arose from the fact that - if I now understand it correctly - you wanted the "restrictions" info to be later on in the lead, but then later you mentioned that you didn't want the information reduced or eliminated. I initially thought this was a contradiction. For what it's worth I agree with you and I think I like how things are with the lead now. Thanks for explaining. -MsBatfish (talk) 11:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

@MsBatfish, basically, i consider "sexual intercourse" to be a physical/physiological topic, thus i thought it's less appropriate to have cultural/religious content included. My thinking says that religion/culture are more appropriate for human sexuality (or something similar). Pass a Method talk 11:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

MsBatfish, I didn't say anything about wanting the "restrictions on sex" information reduced or eliminated. With regard to having information reduced or eliminated, we were talking about the religious information. PassaMethod's latest reasoning makes no sense to me because it is essentially saying that we should have cultural/religious content in the anal sex article and primarily socio-sex related articles, but not in the one that is about all the actual acts. It's the sex acts that are restricted, that can lead to diseases, etc., not the social issues that come along with them. And on that note, restrictions on sex are also about culture -- what culture thinks of certain sex acts. This article is also the article that people are most likely to look for with regard to sexual information, per WP:COMMONNAME, not the Human sexuality or the Human sexual activity articles. And those latter articles need to be merged, really (as discussed before on this talk page). We don't need all three articles covering the general and specific aspects of human sexual activity.

PassaMethod, I undid this edit because, as I stated in my edit summary, "This is not the only section that is about religion. Furthermore, it is mostly about marriage. Lastly, the "Ethical, religious, and legal views" heading covers the fact that all of these sections are about those topics." Having anything that says "ethical," "law, "legal", "religious" or "religion" in the subheadings is therefore redundant. The blanket heading is already clear about this, even if not every section is about all three. Also, try not to change sourced wording, like you in this edit, unless you are certain that the source backs what you are changing it to. If the source says "most," that is just what it says and you will have to deal with that. Do not let your personal feelings about religion influence how you edit things in this article about religion or whatever else. I am not religious at all, more so without religion than you it seems (although my family is largely, if not mostly, religious), and yet I do not let that influence how I edit religious topics (except for when staying away from them because I lack certain information about them). Flyer22 (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction about teen sexual intercourse

The phrase "74% of sexually active 14- to 17-year-olds have had a sexual experience" seems like a contradiction. If a teen is sexually active, that automatically means that they have had a sexual experience, bringing the figure to 100%, in which case it is completely unnecessary to mention in the article. What are the community's thoughts on this? Alexroller (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You're right. The phrase 'under the age of consent' makes that statistic make sense in the cited source and was missing from our version. I've just added it. The question is now, since this part of the article is not about under-age sex in the UK, is there any point in the 74% clause in that sentence? I think it should just go, as what would be left is more interesting and relevant. --Nigelj (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that, Nigelj. I'm not sure how that happened. I hope I wasn't the one responsible for it (wording it that way). As for whether or not the material should stay in the article... Well, yes, that section is not about underage sex in the UK, but it is partly discussing teenage sex and underage teenage sex is often going to be a part of such discussions...since the age of consent varies...and since a lot of teenagers are having sex at ages 13, 14, and 15, even though the age of consent (considering all countries) are rarely that low (even with 15 being the more common of the three). I don't feel strongly about whether or not that piece of information is kept in the article, but I don't see it as any less relevant. Flyer22 (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: I'm pretty sure that I got this information from the Adolescent sexuality article, so that explains the underage part being left out. I'll go tweak this information in that article and in any other that I see presenting it this way. Flyer22 (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Flyer22 (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Duration Argument

Who wrote the Duration part of this page? It reads like a feminised view of how women are somehow let down by men. Not every relationship is like this and nor should it be professed as that. Trumpy (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure who wrote it. I'm female, but it wasn't me. I could search and see. But as for calling it a "duration argument" and "feminist view," it isn't. This is what it says:

Intercourse often ends when the man has ejaculated. Thus the partner might not have time to reach orgasm. In addition, many men suffer from premature ejaculation. Conversely, many women require a substantially longer duration of stimulation than men before reaching an orgasm.[51]

A survey of Canadian and American sex therapists said that the average time for intromission was 7 minutes and that 1 to 2 minutes was too short, 3 to 7 minutes was adequate and 7 to 13 minutes desirable,[52] while 10 to 30 minutes was too long.

It's just stating facts. Unless the man engages the woman in other sexual acts while he is recovering from his refractory period, heterosexual intercourse does often end when the man has ejaculated. Typically, in fact. And the woman is typically left not having reached an orgasm. Besides that, as the source says, women take longer to reach orgasm than men when having sex with a partner (especially when that partner is a man, according to Kinsey and several other researchers), and orgasm in women is not typically accomplished by sexual intercourse (penetration) because sexual intercourse usually does not sufficiently stimulate the clitoris (which is the organ that brings about most, if not all, female orgasms). So I'm not seeing how that text is written from a feminist point of view. Various reliable sources report the same thing. What are you suggesting be added? That a man may continue to engage in sexual penetration after he has ejaculated? Some other sexual act?

As for the intromission part, that's just more facts. Flyer22 (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Flyer22 :-) I mostly agree with you, but I do think this paragraph leaves a little something to be desired. And it is kind of perpetuating the view that women want/need long sex and men want/only need short sex. (In my personal experience I've found the opposite to be true, lol). But I don't see it as a "feminist argument". Anyway, maybe it could be worded a little better and made slightly more clear? The presumably female partner not having an orgasm can be due to other factors than the amount of time, such as the fact that many women require some form of clitoral stimulation and not all women are able to get clitoral stimulation through vaginal penetration alone. Also, what exactly is the definition of "intercourse" in this paragraph - is that solely referring to penile/vaginal penetration? (Just because in the lead it says intercourse may refer to any type of sex). Men increasingly do continue with other sexual acts after they have ejaculated, and even more frequently than that they engage in other sexual acts before they ejaculate (often before penile/vaginal penetration) in order for the woman to achieve orgasm first. Also, it isn't specified what the term "premature ejaculation" means here and the part about the survey of sex therapists is confusing. Are they talking about what the sex therapists themselves considered too short/too long? If so, what were they basing this on, their personal views/experience, or what their clients reported to them, or what? And what do they mean by too short/too long? Too short or too long for what? For the man to be considered a premature ejaculator? For the woman to have an orgasm? For a couple to be satisfied and fulfilled by their sexual encounter? MsBatfish (talk) 06:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, MasBatfish. Good to hear from you again. I don't mind if that section is improved of course. Right now, it's very small. I just don't see it as perpetuating any view. Source after source that I have accessed, the reliable scholarly sources, essentially state the same thing about this. For example, this source states, "75% of men and 29% of women always have orgasms with their partner. Women are much more likely to be nearly always or always orgasmic when alone than with a partner." And this source states, "Masters and Johnson found that men took about 4 minutes to reach orgasm with their partners. Women took about 10-20 minutes to reach orgasm with their partners, but 4 minutes to reach orgasm when they masturbated. Unfortunately, many couples are locked into the idea that orgasms should be achieved only through intercourse. Even the word foreplay suggests that any other form of sexual stimulation is merely preparation for the 'main event.'... ...Because women reach orgasm through intercourse less consistently than men, they are more likely than men to have faked an orgasm." So, basically, that is the consensus among researchers -- that woman take longer to become sexually aroused and also take longer to and/or don't reach orgasm with a partner (although some research shows that women reach orgasms a lot easier in sexual encounters with other women; see the second source I cited). No doubt this is due to the fact that a lot of heterosexual couples engage in little or no foreplay, as well as a lot of men not knowing that the clitoris is the primary cause of sexual pleasure in women; some women don't know it either and believe that they should get their maximum sexual pleasure from the vagina, not knowing that the vagina has relatively few nerve endings for this. The second source cites most of that. Both of these sources are in the article. I've been looking at a lot of articles and journals on sex and orgasm over the past two months, and almost all of the sources state this. But as for your points, we already mention the clitoral issue in the Reproduction and sexual practices and Coitus difficulties sections. Should we really mention it in the Duration section as well? That section is about the duration of sex and I am therefore not entirely convinced that we should be focusing on "other factors than the amount of time [that keeps a woman from reaching orgasm]" in that section. I obviously agree that "the presumably female partner not having an orgasm can be due to other factors than the amount of time," but that line is speaking of time as a factor: "Intercourse often ends when the man has ejaculated. Thus the partner might not have time to reach orgasm." Although some men wait for their refractory period to end and jump right back into sex afterward, or make an attempt to bring their woman to orgasm in the meantime, a lot of others do not. The refractory period makes a lot of men sleepy to the point that it is exactly what they do soon after orgasm. And sometimes the woman is no longer "in the mood" after the refractory period has ended, unless the man has kept "the mood" going in the meantime.

That said, I don't mind information being added there about men continuing sex in some other form after ejaculation or waiting for the refractory period to end before continuing. That's why I brought it up. We can document the fact that more than one session can take place. And maybe we should combine the Duration section with the Coitus difficulties section for now, titling it Duration and coitus difficulties. If so, we should also probably change the word "coitus," because "coitus" usually refers to heterosexual sex (at least in various scholarly texts I have looked over, it does). Changing the heading away from "coitus" was also brought up before, in reference to when that section is finally no longer just about heterosexual sex. As for the meaning of "intercourse" in the debated paragraph... Whatever type of intercourse it is, it still "often ends when the man has ejaculated." But if the source is saying that performing any one sex act would have led the woman to orgasm, I doubt they are speaking of the woman performing oral sex on the man or the woman having anal sex performed on her. Neither of those would have led to orgasm, except for in cases of indirect stimulation to the clitoris/G-Spot when speaking of anal sex and psychological stimulation when speaking of anal or oral sex. It goes without saying (at least when I'm saying it to you) that if the man had been performing oral sex or any other direct stimulation on/to the woman's clitoris, she would have likely reached orgasm before it came time for him to ejaculate. So either the source is speaking of sex acts being performed on the man or penile-vaginal sex. In my knowledge, "intercourse" usually means penile-vaginal penetration (like in the second source I cited above), which is why it is mentioned first in the lead. When the scholars are referring to other sexual acts, they usually say "anal sex," "oral sex," and so on. Flyer22 (talk) 09:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Forever young?

> A long-term study of 3,500 people between 30 and 101 by clinical neuropsychologist David Weeks, MD, head of old age psychology at the Royal Edinburgh Hospital in Scotland, found that "sex helps you look between four and seven years younger" <

This statement seems bogus, sourced or not. In fact common wisdom of mankind has always held that abstinence preserves youthfulness. For example, the world famous statue of Mary holding the dead Christ, by Michelangelo Buonarotti, depicts an "illogically" young Mary. This has been explained by the eternal virginity of Mary preserving her 18-like young looks even into her 50s.

Hindi wisdom also teaches that emission of semen for pleasure is a waste of body energy (chakra) and is detrimental to the human body.

It is a common observation that many priests live suprisingly long. The only proven 122 year old person never married.

We also know from historical sources that ancient greeks, even as young adults, "only" had sex on an average of 50 occasions per year, which is probably a third of what is common in today's first world. 82.131.210.163 (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, IP. What are you suggesting we do with the line that you dispute? We can only go WP:Reliable sources here at Wikipedia and that line is supported by three references. We are not supposed to remove things simply because we don't like them, per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. But to show that this information may not be that accurate, we also say "Exclusive causation, however, is unclear, and the benefits may be indirectly related to sex and directly related to significant reductions in stress, greater contentment, and better sleep that sex promotes." Flyer22 (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Wording

I will try a new wording per Flyer's edit summary. I will leave the hatnote as a compromise. But i disagree with this part of your edit summary "penile-vaginal intercourse first and foremost, as the more reliable sources say". First of all it makes you sound like some sort of social conservative. Secondly, i dont see how the sources are more reliable than mine, even though i can find many more good quality sources. Pass a Method talk 23:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

further discussed here Pass a Method talk 01:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind you disagreeing, but I will get to that in a moment. My statement certainly has nothing to do with social conservatism, since I am not religious in any way, as I told you before and as made clear on this talk page before that in the past. There's also my heavy editing of LGBT topics to factor in. So accusing me of being such is laughable at best. Bad faith on your part at worst. There's a reason you were reverted before I reverted you, with a different editor calling your edit controversial. Exactly why do you think dildos need to be specifically mentioned in the lead when we already say that sexual intercourse can refer to other sexual penetrative acts, making sure to link to the Sexual penetration article and to mention the anal sex, oral sex and fingering examples? I wouldn't have minded you adding dildo use after fingering, such as saying "or use of a dildo," which is what I did (had to tweak punctuation afterward), but dildos shouldn't come first, certainly not before anal sex, oral sex and fingering. Research shows that dildo use is one of the least performed sexual acts, and it therefore doesn't come close to commonly being considered sexual intercourse. Yes, sexual intercourse "first and foremost refers to penile-vaginal intercourse," according to the general public and the majority of reliable sources. This is why sexual intercourse is defined as penile-vaginal sex first in any dictionary or encyclopedia you look in (Encyclopædia Britannica, used first in the lead, defines it as only that). Why do you think researchers usually or rather very often define "loss of virginity" as only penile-vaginal sex, as mentioned in the section about technical virginity in the Virginity article? As I stated in the #Duration Argument section above, "intercourse" usually means penile-vaginal penetration like in this source. When the scholars are referring to other sexual acts, they usually say "anal sex," "oral sex," "digital penetration," and so on. And by "scholars," I mean researchers. The reason the lead first defines sexual intercourse as penile-vaginal penetration is because that is its most common definition, in terms of sexual reproduction and sexual pleasure. Not to mention, it's the traditional definition, as this health.discovery.com source, used second in the lead, says. Sexual intercourse usually meaning penile-vaginal sex is what various other sources in the article show. It has nothing do with my being conservative. Not all sexual penetrative acts are considered sexual intercourse, which is exactly why the Sexual penetration article even currently exists. It's also why the Rape article says that rape usually means sexual intercourse is involved. "Usually," because when a woman is raped by a bottle, for example, that is hardly ever considered sexual intercourse. If ever. The other reason is that a few parts of the world have started to not require that sexual intercourse or any other penetrative act happen for a sexual assault to be considered rape. But, anyway, my main point is that we should go by the most common definition first, like we do for the Anal sex article, and then go into the alternate definitions. Is saying that "anal sex is first and foremost penile-anal intercourse" conservatism or bias as well? Clearly, no. So I don't see why it has to be in this case. Most Wikipedia articles do this when there is more than one definition of a term, except for in cases where the most common definition is inaccurate. Yes, you can get a reliable source to support almost anything you want; it doesn't make that source correct. I called the first two sources more reliable because it's not just a scholar's opinion of what sexual intercourse is. Besides, I've been planning to create a Definitions section for this article for some time now, seeing as "sexual intercourse" is defined differently by different people.

As for the hatnote, I meant that it was placed by an editor who feels it should be there since this article is mostly about humans. There was an extensive debate last year about whether to make this article equally or more about non-humans than mostly about humans or to create a split-off article titled Human sexual intercourse. WP:Consensus for was for no split. So months later, one of the editors who was for a split placed the "Primarily about human sexual intercourse" hatnote at the top. I'd rather it stay as a compromise, even though there is already an In other animals section with that link lower in the article.

I'll be transporting a small part of my response to the WikiProject LGBT studies as well. Not sure why you felt the need to take it there, as though I am some LGBT bigot. That project also isn't very active. But oh well. If you want to play that game, I can take this to other projects or some form of WP:Dispute resolution. But discussion about the lead of this article should take place on this article's talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 02:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

To reiterate and add something new, like I stated at WikiProject LGBT studies: "All the first sentence of the Sexual intercourse article is doing is defining the more common definition of the term before going into other definitions of the term, just like dictionaries and other encyclopedias do, not making a political statement. Would it be great if sexual intercourse consistently meant anal sex, oral sex, digital penetration and dildo use? Yes, in a lot of people's eyes it would. But it doesn't. There is only one way that sexual intercourse is consistently defined, and that's penile-vaginal intercourse. For other sexual acts, it varies (whether or not they are considered sexual intercourse)...depending on the sources." Flyer22 (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Flyer22 here; it's not just a matter of finding a source that says that, but of what the WP:WEIGHT of reliable sources say. Most dictionary definition of sexual intercourse shows it is penile-vaginal in nature. We can't re-define a word here ahead of what our reliable sources say, no matter what we feel it should mean. Yobol (talk) 04:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Flyer, i'm not saying i disagree, only saying that you should preferably not use general statements such as "according to the the general public". as you stated above. I have seen you use similar type of general language before. I dont feel strongly about this edit, so no need to take it anywhere else Flyer. Im okay with the current version. Pass a Method talk 09:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Where else have you seen me say something like "according to the general public"? I don't interact with you often. The only time we interact is when you edit sexual and/or reproductive topics that I have a great knowledge of, and then we sometimes butt heads due to grammar, formatting or accuracy issues. If I make a general statement the way I did above, it's because it's based on facts, various reliable sources stating the same thing. The general public (aka mostly heterosexual public) does think of sexual intercourse as penile-vaginal intercourse first and foremost. I can't tell you how many books and medical/sexual journals I have come across online...online or through written text at home or in a public library defining "intercourse" as penile-vaginal intercourse and specifying when they mean other sexual acts. Sometimes, they say "PVI" (penile-vaginal intercourse, but they generally just say "intercourse"). Researchers do this because it's what the general public initially (sometimes only) think of when they see or hear the words "sexual intercourse," which is why "technical virginity" even exists; it's existed for a very long time now, all over the world, way before it became so associated with American teenagers. You mentioned this at the LGBT project -- about how society places a larger focus on penile-vaginal intercourse when it comes to defining sexual intercourse -- so I fail to understand your criticizing me for saying the same thing. And with regard to the lead, there's also non-human animals to think about when issuing the first line, since this article is not only about humans (nor do I feel that it should be, as stated in the past extensive discussion I mentioned before). While all non-human animals engage in penile-vaginal intercourse (ones with a vagina and penis, and the few who don't show an exclusive sexual preference for the same sex, that is), not all non-human animals engage in anal sex, oral sex, digital stimulation, and dildo use, especially not dildo use since that is only a human act. In fact, as the lead notes, most non-human animals engage in sexual intercourse only when the female is in estrus (aka, they are trying to reproduce...even with getting pleasure out of it). So all I'm trying to say is that anything I write about sexual topics in a Wikipedia article is based on reliable sources...not personal feelings/beliefs...and that's the way it should be. Flyer22 (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The phrase "according to the general public" is something i would expect in a magazine or newspaper culumn but not in an encyclopedia edited by people from different corners of the world. Basically it is a very vague term. What does general public refer to? "general public" is a meaningless term here. Different age groups, diferent countries etc. have different "general public" opinions verying widely. For example if you compare a people in a theocracy to a liberal democracy they would probably have extremely polarizing views from one another. Pass a Method talk 16:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I sufficiently explained "according to the general public" and my use of it above...even when I originally stated it...so your criticism of it being vague is off the mark. Especially, since, as I stated, you put forth the same thing...except you used "our society." And, yes, that type of wording, mine and yours, are often used on a Wikipedia talk page, so you are off the mark there as well. Flyer22 (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

When i said society i meant American society (or similar) because thats where i'm guessing you're from through your editing style. I only used "our" out of convenience. But as a non-American, I believe this article and many wikipedia articles have an Amerian society viewpoint which i want to change. I have been on three continents on Earth so have a pretty good idea of how a "general public" can deeply differ on such issues. Pass a Method talk 16:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

From my comments above, it should be clear that I was not only speaking of American society. "Technical virginity" did not just pop up with American society; I already mentioned this. All over the world, and throughout history, there has been overwhelming importance placed on penile-vaginal intecourse, which is why there is so much emphasis on whether or not a girl or woman is a virgin based on the state of her vagina. After all, virginity testing is not about examining the anus, mouth or hands. My being American does not limit my knowledge of what goes on in non-American cultures. I am well-read on the topic of sexual relations throughout history and generally on what researchers have written about sexual relations, which why I objected to your changing the first line. I've already gone over the reasons why, and you stated that you accept the change, so I would like to move on. Not debate how educated either of us are on these topics. Yes, there is an American or otherwise European bias in a lot of English Wikipedia articles, but this one was/is not about that with its first line; it is simply going by what reliable sources initally define sexual intercourse to mean. It's not just based on American culture. Some reliable sources, like the first one, define sexual intercourse only as penile-vaginal intercourse. Some reliable sources, like the second one, also mention other sexual acts. But, again, the keyword is "some." Depending on the source, anal sex, oral sex and/or other sex acts may be excluded from the definition of sexual intercourse, but penile-vaginal intercourse is always included. Flyer22 (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

And the rest of the article also generally represents a WP:Worldwide view -- about types of sex acts, effects and social and/or religious views. Effects of sexual intercourse (improved or harmed health) are consistent all over the world, except for in cases where social implications and therefore social effects are significantly different. But there are only two sections in this article that I need to give more of a worldwide view to (one of them is tagged as such)...and I will be taking care of those at a later date. Flyer22 (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

This edit is another example of you enforcing American norms onto wikipedia. In American society monogamy is the norm, hence you systematically remove polygamous sex to solely describe sex as between "a pair". I hope you change your editing style into a more inclusive one because i'm starting to see a narrow POV pattern in your edits. If you disagreed with the sextoy part, why did you remove the "group" part? Pass a Method talk 17:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

What in the hell are you talking about?! My reasons for reverting you are made clear in the edit summary! I was speaking of your redundancy of adding sex toys (pipelinked as "object insertion") when we already mention "other penetrative sex acts" and dildo use. Dildos are sex toys. So why the hell are you singling it out as though it is distinct from being one? I was saying "Either add sex toys by itself, so that it covers all sex toys, or only mention dildo use and let the Sexual penetration article cover the rest." I reverted you on the Anal sex article because of this redundancy as well. So your POV-pushing claims are laughable yet again. I go by reliable and authoritative sources here at Wikipedia, as well as WP:Due weight, which is something you often fail to do. I and many others have had to revert your sloppy, unsourced or poorly sourced material over and over again. It has gotten so bad that you got the attention of an IP who constantly stalks you to make sure you aren't screwing up and then complains to User:Herostratus, me or others when you do screw up, if he can't revert you himself. So don't throw a hissy fit at me because I reverted your sloppiness. My revert had nothing to do with reverting sex taking place between groups. But while we're on the subject, that's your POV showing. Sexual acts do usually take place between two people. I know this from research, not just common sense. Marriage between more than two people, for example, is outlawed in most countries/cultures. And just because sexual acts can take place between more than two people doesn't mean that it's WP:LEAD material. It's more of a common sense issue to me. I suppose it can be argued that it should be mentioned since some adolescents may not know this, but, to me, it's just more of your excessiveness showing. I reverted you because of redundancy and excessiveness, but my focus was not on reverting your addition of "groups." You want to add "pairings or groups" back, go ahead. But at least add a damn reliable source about group sex. And if you haven't noticed, I don't enjoy encountering you or working with you, but I work with you for compromises because that's the way Wikipedia is supposed to work...except for when compromises cannot be made. Flyer22 (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay i will try to not get too close to you lol. Pass a Method talk 21:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Human fleas are they real?

I have been surfing the internet recently looking into flea treatment for my dog. I stumbled onto a website http://www.humanfleas.org that claims there is such a thing as a human flea. Apparently it goes by the name of Pulex irritans which means human flea. Now I have seen other sites talking about this Pulex irritans and was wondering if it is in fact real and if it differs from pet fleas. How do we catch them, can we prevent them? I have many questions now relating to the human flea and I cant stop itching. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.251.21 (talk) 08:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Ummm ... you do realise this page is for discussing the article Sexual intercourse ? It would be really wonderful if Human flea redirected here, because there was a Victorian meme where the chap would ask a girl "Would you like to see my etchings ?" leading to a session where he showed her his itchings - desires or intimate flea-bites. --195.137.93.171 (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

No - that's not how you came to be here.

But Etching tells the story, in part !

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Why the "in-out" part is never described?

is so unimportant? I dont believe so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.246.81.205 (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Group sex rather than polygamy?

I have a little problem with the following line:

"In human societies, some jurisdictions have placed various restrictive laws against certain sexual activities such as . . . polygamy . . ."

To my knowledge, polygamy isn't a sexual behaviour but rather a marriage status. I do realise that marriage plays a role in the legality of sex acts but this sentence makes that unclear. Would it be accepted that 'group sex' or another suitable word or phrase be used? Thanks. 81.129.161.210 (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I was going to say, it depends what the reference says, but it appears there isn't one. This is listed in the lede, but I can't find it anywhere in the body of the article. So, do any legal jurisdictions have a law against group sex? I've never heard of one. Many jurisdictions have a law against polygamy, but as it's a matrimonial status not a sex act, if we can't find laws against group sex in various jurisdictions, I think it should just be removed from the list. --Nigelj (talk)

I think to cover both husbands and wives we would also have to mention Polyandry ? I have no expertise here, but from what I have heard these marriages tend to work mostly in pairs, using a timetable or schedule. So no, probably irrelevant. --195.137.93.171 (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)