Talk:Non-penetrative sex/Archive 1

message: Checking google, all sites said that anal sex and oral sex don't count as outercourse, so I changed the definition. AxelBoldt 01:57 Dec 28, 2002 (UTC)
Armpit, seriously?!?!? -- Anon
:This is disgusting. Should this even be on here? Lizzy
:: "Whatever floats your boat..." Jeeves 22:26, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Older discussion

message: Why is this a useful thing?
: The risk of pregnancy with oral sex is only through contact between sperm-bearing fluids such as semen or Cowper's fluid and female sex organs, though the sex organs aren't usually in close contact with oral sex.
--The Hanged Man 07:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oral Sex and Pregnancy 

message: Shouldn't this be called "extracourse"? 24ip | lolol 23:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: outercourse?

message: I don't intend to be yucky, but are Cleveland steamers classed as intercourse (because it involves feces) or outercourse (because there is no penetration involved)? Scott Gall 07:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For those not aware of the definition, see Cleveland steamer.  I would not classify this rarely-performed, fetishistic act as either intercourse or outercourse, because it does not involve either penile penetration (as in the case of intercourse) or genital stimulation (as in the case of outercourse).  In my opinion, it does not qualify as either.  Joie de Vivre 21:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleveland steamers 

message: Does anyone else think that the picture paired with this article is inappropriate for an encyclopedia? It seems like it would be more at place in an advertisement for a cartoon pornography site. I would recommend that the image either be deleted, or replaced with a more appropriate (read: clinical) illustration of the concept of outercourse.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.210.163 (talk) 07:36, 4 February 2007
:I kind of had the same reaction coming to this page, seeing the illustration as even a bit comical, but I wonder where one would find a better picture than this. It may be a bit more "active" than the usually static pictures found in encyclopedias, but it illustrates the point very well. Cybertooth85 01:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's appropriate for this page. If you're looking up mammary intercourse, fine, have a picture, but if you're looking at this page for a general definition of outercourse, it's certainly not necessary. Wikipedia's role is not to sensationalize. —Emiellaiendiay 06:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree that this drawing does not belong here.  Please see Wikipedia is not censored, Wikipedia Content disclaimer and Wikipedia:Profanity.  If this image were a photograph of a sex act, I might be more inclined to agree with your opinion on this, but it is only a drawing.  Unless the user who removed this image is prepared to replace it with a better image, it should remain on the page.  Joie de Vivre 16:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not a very good drawing. No offense to the poster, but it should probably be replaced with a better one. --John Kenneth Fisher 02:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: The proposed merge is already being discussed on Talk:Frottage.  Please continue the discussion there. --Simon Speed 23:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Frottage]]?