Talk:Sex position/Archive 1

message: The title is ambiguous. "List of human sex positions" would be more accurate. Sex is not unique to humans. Given that the article is not about sex positions for all species clarification is in order.
:Disagree.  First, most people (I think) would assume that "list of sex positions" refered to humans unless otherwise stated.  Second, like many other article titles in Wikipedia, it is not totally specific, but could provide a disambiguation link at the top if there were other pages about similarly named topics. --Strait 13:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title Change 

message: I am not sure where to ask this, but should we merge  Categories:Sex positions into here?  There are some nice articles on missionary and side entry missionary, then lots of stubs. --Maxweber 21:48, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge project 

message: Does anybody know who did the illustrations?
: I did. Rama 09:49, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  They are very nice. Do you do them from imagination, pictures, or models? Maxweber 18:17, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow, I think they are kind of weird, actually.  24.175.10.61 16:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustrations 

message: Are you kidding me. Blatant, but hilarious, vandalism:
"The Cameltoe Slide - The erect penis is gracefully slid up and down between the lubricated walls of the outer vagina contacting the little flicker at the aphex of each oscillation. This is a smooth action and must be performed with constant angular frequency  \omega  This is a harmonic motion and should always be regarded as such, one must be careful not to operate with unharnessed vigor as the kinetic energy increases as the square of frequency and so the amount of work done in each swing is given by 
: \frac{1}{2} m_p (\omega)^2 A^2 \sin^2 (\omega t) 
where  m_p  is the mass of the penis"
* Holy shit, thanks for the tip... I gotta write this stuff down! ;) 71.102.146.119 05:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: lol! Nah, this could have been a serious edit done by somebody who also majored in math and sex at university. To write like that is just merely talking in his/her native language. Oh yeah, also I throughly recommend "the Cameltoe Slide" as an excellent way to get warmed up.... Mathmo Talk 02:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extra positions 

message: * 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)
thread_title:  Gender Neutrality (Copied from leapfrog position discussion) 

message: Is this vandalism? The article says at the beginning:  "In fact, some of these positions are also found among bonobos." Even if it were true, it wouldn't be at the beginning of the articles. — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism? 

message: I suggest that this article be moved to Wikibooks (specifically, to the Wikibooks:how-tos bookshelf) for the following reasons:
#The article seems non-encyclopedic, because the article seems to encourage people to put into practice what they read on the article.
#It looks more like a how-to guide than an encyclopedia article, despite the message inside the article that tells that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. The message itself suggests that the article looks like a how-to guide.
#Editors of this article seem to know a lot about what they write. On the Wikibooks site, they can expand the article/book even more. With the information found on the separate articles in Wikipedia, a whole book could be expanded with details.
#This is not a typical Wikipedia list. It is way too expanded in comparison to other lists. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 19:03, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
*Slightly disagree (conditional). If a good trimming of the article can be done... eg., with all content going to wikibooks, a synopsis bere, and a list positon names so the individual articles can be made/found ... I'd support it. A gutting of the article I would oppose. 
*# The article is encyclopedic, because the article describes the topic and then gives a brief summuary of each entry (the entries have thier own articles).
*# It's an encyclopedia article, which necessarily needs to describe the entries / content of the article (which is a list). 
*# I would support a expanded article/book, if the synopsis is kept here (with the individual articles linked and listed in this article}.
*# Typical Wikipedia list? It's probably one of the better list that wikipedia has. The other lists need to be expanded.
:I do think that, with a careful edit here, an expanded book (multiple time this article size) could be written. With the information found on the separate articles in Wikipedia and more contribution from knowledgeable editors, a codex could be expanded with high detail (which isn't here in wikipedia).
19:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested move to Wikibooks 

message: I disagree with Shawnc's edit. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the adverb, likely means: in all probability : PROBABLY <a popular dance hall was more likely her choice than his -- Valentine Williams>
In the original sentence, before Shawnc's edit (There is no evidence that this act has ever occurred and it is likely physically impossible.) the word likely can be replaced by probably without altering the meaning of the sentence.--GraemeMcRaetalk 22:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, by grammar I meant changing it for stylistic purposes (it had a slight sound of cacophony to me). Shawnc 17:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  likely 

message: Should there be a distinct section for fictional, theoretical, or mythical sexual positions, i.e. ones that have never shown to be physically possible? Or some other way to more clearly note the positions that aren't practical "sexual positions", like Double Vaginal Double Anal? -Silence 11:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictional sexual positions? 

message: I put this article up for RfC because I wanted to get many more viewpoints, and I'm happy that this has generated so much discussion. However, since this has the potential to be an emotional argument, I hope everyone will calm down and we can base everything off logical arguments. Since Wikipedia Is Not a Paper Encyclopedia, we get to include things that wouldn't be included in other encyclopedias, and we get to have debates that perhaps have never been addressed anywhere else in the past. 
This being said, the conversations above are nice to read through but hard to get a clear consensus from. So, I've decided to list the most obvious solutions, and have people give their opinions in an organized list fashion below. This probably should not be considered a vote, but rather an organized way to view what most people think.
# Keep the page as it is, with the disclaimer already included that the positions are not exclusive to heterosexuals.
# Change the language of the entire article to something more NPOV than man/woman. If you support this version, please say which terms you would like to be used (e.g.- insertive/receiving partner).
# Make this multiple pages, perhaps List of Heterosexual Sex Positions and List of Homosexual Sex Positions, or List of Heterosexual Sex Positions, List of Homosexual Sex Positions (male), and List of Homosexual Sex Positions (female). In this solution, the current page would likely stay as a sort of disambiguation page, listing all the relevant pages.
# Some other solution that I have missed in the discussion above or has not yet been suggested.
Thanks for your cooperation, and please make the number that you support bold so that it will be easier to see if we can get a consensus.
EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regroup and Organize 

message: Since there seems to be a fairly strong consensus and per CambridgeBayWeather's warning above (see the post just above the RfC section), I think we should proceed with this. The consensus is to change all references to "man" to "penetrating partner" and all references to woman to "receiving partner," except in cases where the type of position is very explictly about one gender (e.g.- some of the stuff starting with oral sex and onward). Anyone who has time/effort can make this change, or do it in chunks. If no one gets around to it, I'll try to do it when I have time. We'll also make sure to monitor the page for a while, to make sure no one reverts this change. Please place posts below if you have any questions/comments/opposition.
EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 21:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries. I had felt like putting this "consensus" message for a couple of days now, as it seems pretty clear what the best thing to do is. I think once we make those edits, the POV tag will be removed, and we can get back to adding to the list rather than discussing its word usage. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 06:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Just to add a comment, using man/woman for penetrating/receiving isn't just heterosexist, but also ignores the fact that the woman can be the penetrating partner, with a male receptive partner (ie, pegging). Maybe this is an obvious point, but the current introduction mentioning same sex partners doesn't cover this possibility at all. Mdwh 05:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus 

message: :"This is a featured list, so why not let everyone know?"
:Because the big box for it is so huge, cluttering, unnecessary, and useless, that if we included it on the main page of this article, list of sex positions would no longer qualify for Featured List status and we'd have to remove it anyway.
:"If the featured list template is not supposed to be displayed in an article, please cite the Wikipedia policy which states this."
:Not a requirement for removing your addition. Wikipedia's rules and guidelines cannot possibly account for every conceivable situation, and fortunately, they don't have to; common sense and following consensus are much more important than rules-lawyering anyway.
:"Common sense" is adhered to by not adding a template to the article that adds nothing to the article: you ask why we wouldn't want to let everyone know, but I counter by asking why we would want to shove it in everyone's face, so blatantly boast about how awesome an article is? If someone came to an article called list of sex positions, it's because that person wants information on sex positions. Someone who comes to this article for that purpose, thus, is immediately confronted with a totally useless, garish box at the top of the page announcing how awesome the article is. Wikipedia does not use templates whenever it can possibly avoid it, and this is certainly a case where we can, and should, avoid it, as the template is no more useful to the article page than if we put a giant, 50-point font message saying "THIS ARTICLE IS AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1" at the top of the page.
:"Consensus" is adhered to by noting that every other featured article and list on Wikipedia is not marred by a huge "THIS ARTICLE IS FEATURED :D :D :D" box at the top of its main page. If you disagree and think that your version should be the standard, the place to take this up is on the Wikipedia:Featured article and Wikipedia:Featured list talk pages, not on individual featured pages.
:"Thank you."
:No, thank you. -Silence 05:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured lists 

message: Come on.... --Commo1 02:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snowmobiling? 

message: Thanks to everyone for the response to RfC and the discussions. Per our consensus above, I have made the major edit of changing all references to "man" to "penetrating partner" and all references to "woman" to "receiving partner." I have not edited anything below the start of the "Oral Sex" section; if you feel that this should be edited, feel free to do so, though many of those are single-sex specific. Also, feel free to work on the wording; I tried to eliminate some of the cases where it talked about the "penetrating partner penetrating," but couldn't find solutions to all of them. I have also removed this page from the Request for Comment page. If there is anything else that needs to be done regarding this subject, you can post it below this message. Thanks again to everyone for solving the problem! EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Minority views? The view that these are only possible with a man and a woman is certainly in the minority. Guanaco 15:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  End of RfC- Article Edited 

message: This is the image at the top of the page.  I really don't like it.  First, where is the guy's head?  I can't find it.  Second, it appears to be a scan out of a book; you can see faint backwards writing behind the image.  Is there another we can agree to use? --Strait 21:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Klimt-missionaires-02.jpg 

message: There is variation of the cowgirl position not in the article, though I don't have a name for it. If the man's waist is sufficiently slim, the woman (with the man's penis fully inserted and his back arched) can bring her knees under his back, thus providing him support. The man in this position is essentially immobile, and the woman fully controls the intercourse. She brings on the man's orgasm by leaning backwards and pushing against the man. His orgasm triggers her's. In this position, the woman always achieves orgasm and it occurs almost simultaneously with the man's. 159.101.34.74 16:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cowgirl position variation 

message: This page has been linked to by CollegeHumor on January 14, so I expect to see a number of hoaxes added to the article. ~MDD4696 05:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  stundents are creative enough not only to write hoaxes, but to also try them out. so, whatever they add, if it's physically possible, it's probably true. ;)  Kirils 05:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CollegeHumor 

message: The Lithuanian category of sex positions has an large number of sex positions unlinked to the English pages. Unfortunately, the Baltic languages aren't as transparent to the English reader as a Romanace or Germantic languages are, so I can't tell if the Wiki-links are just missing or if there's a different set of positions or different divisions. At the very least, it would be helpful to add wikilinks if anyone can.--Prosfilaes 08:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lithuanian 

message: When it mentions the missionary position, the comment about the woman feeling "very slightly 'submissive'" is contrived.  In the female superior positions, however, it's perfectly ok for her to be just "dominant".  This is an annoying inconsistancy, nothing more or less.
:I agree. The qualifiers should be left open, not explicitly stated. Exactly how dominant or submissive would vary greatly I imagine, unless someone wants to cite a source for research into this. Peace. Metta Bubble 10:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistancy 

message: Apologies for the poor edit summary for this edit; I accidently hit the return button while typing it. The full summary would have read, "remove 'squirt bottle'- not a position". EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 02:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Squirt bottle" edit 

message: A friend of mine who helps sysadmin the web's largest porn video download site where users are allowed to select sub-scene clips recently tallied the sex positions in their 25 most popular sub-scene clip requests.  He determined that the most popular sex position (for porn viewers to watch, anyway) is doggy style with the guy holding one or both of the girl's wrists or arms, usually near her back or waist.  As far as I can tell, this particular position has no name.  Clearly this situation must be rectified.  Is there anything better than "doggy with him holding her arm"? 71.141.137.62 07:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is it called when he holds her wrists or arms during doggy? 

message: Okay, I've looked at the "two men and one women" threesome picture for about 20 minutes (all in the interests of academic understanding, of course) and I can't make heads or tails of it. What exactly is going on here? Where is that penis coming from? There seems to be legs coming from every direction-- which set of legs belongs to which figures? Can someone clarify? Freddie deBoer 19:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whats going on in that picture? 

message: I've deleted the following from the "Receiving partner on top" section:
"Teenage Grundle The recieving partner lays down on his back.  The female partner places the mans testicals in her vagina and the strokes the male partner's penis, while penetrating his testicals bouncing up and down.  This position has been taboo in many cultures but has been very pleasing to both partners."
Aside from the misspellings and the unusualness of it ("places the mans testicals in her vagina"), it's also largely incomprehensible ("while penetrating his testicals bouncing up and down").  If someone would like to rewrite this and add it back in, that'd be fine, though it might fit better in the "Less common positions" section.  --LostLeviathan 21:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Teenage Grundle" 

message: I have googled the positions I removed. Bipedi intercourse not even returns a single hit. The two readded ones have a page on WP, one to describe foot fetish, in whcih the feet are sometmes used a tool to reach orgasm, the second the other way round, using the nose as the object to insert in places. --KimvdLinde 03:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree to the changes. Just didn't have the time to properly fix everything myself, but simply throwing these position out was plain wrong. Thanks for the work! :) --Kirils 14:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsense positions 

message: Is there any reason why List of anal sex positions should be a separate article (while vaginal, oral etc. positions are not)?  There seems no particular need for the current split, and it could be seen as a POV marginalisation of a particular activity. TSP 23:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Exploding Boy 23:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And done.  Exploding Boy 23:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge anal sex positions? 

message: One position that was left out and should not be is the Butterfly sex position
This, among other positions, is ideal for stimulating the woman's g-spot. Perhaps a section concentrating on g-spot stimulation positions would be useful.
Kraz_Eric 08:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Butterfly and G-Spot 

message: "The Screw – Receiving partner lies on edge of bed or couch with legs bent to one side, pulled slightly toward chest; penetrating partner stands and penetrates from rear. Very effective for women with orgasm difficulties."
Perhaps I'm just being slow today but this seems unclear - I can't visualise the position of the receiving partner. Are the legs on the bed or off? Both bent to the same side or spread? Can someone with the relevant experience clarify it? You'd be doing me a favour as well as wikipedia :) - Mule Man 00:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification - the Screw 

message: There's a lot of entries on here which don't have an article, and have deeply implausible names, deeply implausible physical requirements, or both. I'm in the process of marking them all as ; we shouldn't just be listing stuff someone made up, especially not on something that purports to be a half-decent list. if there's no cites provided for these, they really ought to be removed. Shimgray | talk | 19:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also removed at least one cite which was to a blogspot page, which does not seem to be entirely reliable at a first glance... Shimgray | talk | 19:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Note that we need cites not so much for the physical possibility as for the name... Shimgray | talk | 20:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I propose the removal of all names that do not have citations.  In their place, we could use simple descriptives (e.g. "man standing") or nothing.  For instance, I am presently cleaning up the oral sex section and I don't feel most of the names could be deleted without the article losing any information or readability.  Thoughts? --Strait 22:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok... So I'm currently replacing the dumb names that things have now with dumb names that are enshrined in antiquity in The Perfumed Garden.  "Tail of the ostrich" indeed.  I hope that the copy I'm reading on the web is not a joke or something... Anyway, I should also soon have some modern citable names to work with too.  --Strait 06:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of endless cruft 

message: Unless I have lost it in the massive arguments above, I don't believe there has been any agreement on whether we accept using "their" in place of "his or her".  The article itself uses both.  Given that the consensus seems to be that we need to allow either partner to be either gender at almost all times, this is an important decision.  While I'm not sure I like the singular "their", I also think that endless entries that read "he or she lies on his or her back while the recieving partner sits on top of him or her facing him or her" get really irritating.  Shall we take a straw poll?  Reply with either "him or her" or "their".  --Strait 12:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: their, see above.  --Strait 12:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar standardization 

message: I've already deleted a couple of entries because they are acts, not positions.  In other words, they either describe a type of motion rather than any particular physical orientation of the participants bodies (such as "ass to mouth").  I would like to get rid of some more in this vein as well as those that describe practices, such as voyeurism, but let me give y'all an opportunity to object first.  Is there a reason to keep any of these:
* Acts
** Manic fingering
** Dry Punch Fisting
** Using vibrators/dildos
** Pearl necklace
* Practices
**Exhibitionism
**Orgy
**Gang bang
**Voyeurism
**Humping
--Strait 12:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hearing no objections, I am deleting at least some of these as part of my cleanup campaign.  Ones in italics above have been deleted. --Strait 22:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Things which are not positions 

message: Since I've just eliminated and rearranged a lot of entries, I thought I'd expand on my motives for each.  For uncited entries, I asked up to five questions:
* Is it obviously fine for some reason? (For instance, even though "edge of the bed missionary" is uncited, it is obviously fine because the meaning is clear and the position is obviously not difficult or obscure.)
* Is it in Urbandictionary?
* Have I head of the name given?
* Is the name descriptive?  (Descriptive: "man on back".  Semi-descriptive: "T-square" Non-descriptive: "sphnix")
* Can I find significant Google hits that aren't Wikipedia-related?
You can see the results of my research here.  I haven't been totally consistent in my notation in this table, but hopefully it at least provides an idea of what went on. --Strait 04:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My cleanup criteria 

message: User:Jaiwills insists that the top image must be 350px even though that interferes with either the intro text or the table of contents for anyone whose browser window is not very wide.  The style guide at Help:Images says that thumbnails shouldn't even have a size specified because users can set the size of thumbnails in their preferences.  Jaiwills is not paying attention to either of these arguments.  I have now reverted his change three times today, so I suppose I'm done for now.  I invite others to keep the page readable. --Strait 21:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Shimgray, looks like Jaiwills is now in violation of 3RR. --Strait 22:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top image size 

message: I am starting another overhaul in which I will de-emphasize the names of positions.  This is because I do not believe that more than a handful of positions have a single commonly accepted name.  These include:
* Missionary
* Doggy/Doggie
* Spoons/Spooning
* Cowboy/girl (maybe)
* 69
* glory hole 
* (most things under "other positions")
* Sandwich
* Circle jerk (maybe)
* (Some strictly descriptive names like "double penetration")
Please comment if you believe any others to be generally accepted.  Comparison of the old format to the new format:
*Peace sign – like the missionary position, but with the receiving partner's legs tightly closed and the penetrating partner's legs spread.  In this position, the couple resembles a peace sign (☮). (old)
*Like the missionary position, but with the receiving partner's legs tightly closed and the penetrating partner's legs spread.  In this position, the couple resembles a peace sign (☮) and so this position is sometimes called the peace sign. (new)
Any objections?  --Strait 03:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tinkering with names 

message: The article right now, as well as other pages on sex positions and acts, uses (fe)male in some places and (wo)man in others.  For example: "Pregnancy is a potential result of unprotected sex in any position between healthy ovulating females and sexually mature males." However: "The woman lies on her back as in the missionary position."  There are three options:
*Convert all gender references to man or woman
**Pro: We're not talking about generic males and females, but specifically human ones.
**Con: Readers may assume that the words man and woman exclude people younger than some arbitary age (probably 13, 18 or 21).
*Convert all gender references to male or female
**Pro: Age non-specific.
**Con: Species non-specific.
*Leave it a mix.
**Pro: Variety reads better than slavish consistency.
**Con: Looks sloppy.
I have not decided what I think yet. I'm interested to hear the thoughts of others. --Strait 20:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strictly speaking (with my nazi-grammarian helmet on), male and female are adjectives, not nouns.  Therefore, the sentence The suspect is a 30-year-old male. is incorrect; it should be The suspect is a 30-year-old man.  So if any changing is to be done, I'd lean toward man and woman.  Of course, there are exceptions to every rule... OscarTheCat3 17:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree.  It is defined as a noun in American Heritage and Merriam-Webster.  (It is also an adjective.) --Strait 22:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And Wikipedia is an American English encyclopaedia.  :-)  Honestly, I don't feel that strongly about it, but some consistency is always a "nice" thing.  OscarTheCat3 00:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd support it being a mix, simply because it is the easiest option to do and to maintain. Plus I liked the for reason given the most out of them all. Mathmo Talk 17:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Man/male woman/female 

message: I kind of liked those 19th century lithographs that Strait reverted, mainly to introduce the points I made in the captions.  It seems unbalanced that the last three screens of the article are bare of images, but that is by the by.  Here is a link to an archived version with the images.  Note that one shows penetration explicitly.  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 00:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, I don't really like those images.  However, I could be overruled if someone else comes down on your side.  However, in either case, the group sex section really can't have more than three images without being totally cluttered, so we should come to a consensus on which three to use rather than just adding more. --Strait 18:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be on the side of those images staying (or any similar ones), frankly all those black and white line drawings get boring and bland after a little while. Have different styles of drawings and colour, along with photographs keeps the page interesting and holds the readers' attention. Mathmo Talk 17:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think that there's much to be done about the lack of images in the article after the group sex section, since it's just "further reading", "references", "external links", etc. --Strait 18:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: On further investigation, I see that you wanted to add the new images to the "with many participants" sub-section, but neither of them illustrates a position described there.  Also, I see that both of the images are currently in use at group sex.  So while I appreciate that you like them, I don't think they should be here. --Strait 18:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fendi lithographs 

message: There are currently "citation needed" notes attached to the descriptions of double anal penetration and of double vaginal penetration, perhaps put here by someone overly skeptical of the actual mechanics. What on earth is being asked for here? A list of vaginas that can be verified to have contained more than one penis at the same time? The title of a pornographic movie supplying "evidence"? A photo?
:Now that would make for an interesting article: List of vaginas that have contained more than one penis simultaneously.  I can see the spamlinks already...  :-) OscarTheCat3 17:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ya.  Removed some. --Strait 22:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations where? 

message: Why was the Donkey Punch deleted from the list of sex positions?  It has a decent Wiki article (with sources), and in the 4 times it was nominated for deletion the result has always been keep.  I don't think it should go right along side all the other positions as it is mostly fictional and definitely dangerous.  I do however think that it deserves a mention somewhere. Thanks -- hibou 10:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention that it is not a position, it is an act (as I think I said in my edit comment, but should have if I didn't). But I think that the reason Atom gives are also sufficient for exclusion. --Strait 22:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm.  Ok, I'll take Strait's answer.  Because Atom, you assume the bottom would be a woman, and this isn't necessarily the case.  Also, all positions are "made up" -- until someone tries them, and then they're real ;) -- hibou 10:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Donkey Punch 

message: 1. General Sex Positions
-any positions between two people that wouldn't absoulutely require oral sex or phallus-in-vagina or phallus-in-anus penetration
2. Anal/Vaginal Sex Only Positions
-stuff that absolutely requires a phallus going into a vagina or anus
3. Oral Sex Only positions
-not "fellatio", "cunnelingus" or "analingus" but positions two people can be in while having them
4. Group Sex Only Positions
-not "DADV" or "double penetration ect. but positions people can be in while having them
Velps 01:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Reorganization 

message: Although the license is not clear, these could replace the handdrawn graphics on the page, or at least, supplement them.
http://www.b0g.org/wsnm/news.php?get=next&id=1153935052
:You've linked to a blog that doesn't have anything relevant visible anymore.  But that doesn't really matter unless you can get a clear license statement from the copyright holder... --Strait 21:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate pictures 

message: This list is starting to read like the Urban dictionary. "Elephant walk"? "Ugg boot"?  Does anyone else agree that a large number of items in this list need to be removed? Most of them don't even have a source. shotwell 17:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urban dictionary 

message: For my web briefs! Wet, wet, wet!!! Ohhhhhh!!!! Ohhhhhhhhh!!!!!! Thanks!!!
200.138.32.117 (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks Wikipedia Wetpedia 

message: The image of the lotus position depicts teenagers. Many find depiction of child sex offensive. Could someone replace it with a picture of mature adults? Thanks! 24.130.148.180 (talk) 05:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't look like teens to me. Quillaja (talk) 04:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lotus position image 

message: I think that the picture depicting the double penetration clearly hurts someone's beliefs when put a black and a asian man inserting into a white girl (why not two white europeans inserting into a black gal instead???). ALL other pictures in the Sex Positions are UNCOLOURED, impossible to say the ethinical group of the people depicted, whatta heck the double penetration must be the only one with ETHINIC CONOTATIONS? I demand, for the sake of Wikipedia's neutrality, that the picture became UNCOLOURED TOO. My english is not so good, but I think I made myself clear.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.84.193.2 (talk) 13:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: seriously now, you are reading waaaaay too much in to it. Take a deep breath and calm down :) Mathmo Talk 05:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I agree. Images shouldn't have any ethnic connotations.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.148.180 (talk) 05:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely it's racist to disagree with an image of mixed ethnicity intercourse. You wouldn't complain if a woman with blonde hair and a man with brown hair were having sex. Nor would you complain if people with different eye colours were having sex. So why is it an issue that people with different skin colours are having sex? Declan Davis (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good point. I think Davis pretty much closed this little debate. --BiT (talk) 12:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Some of the black and white pictures look a bit like asians to me, so even if you remove color from the images, it doesn't mean they are free from any possible racial interpretations. Also, who cares. Everyone likes sex. Quillaja (talk) 04:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double Penetration Image that feels so good 

message: I find it disturbing that it is a man, change it please.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.20.77 (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Felatio img 

message: The article cited that bukkake might be illegal in the United States is a horrible choice, as it does not mention the act and only that a group of films might be considered obscene, which was actually just a trumped up charge to check for tax violations. Therefore, a better citation should be found or that part should be removed. 76.116.109.221 20:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, when I went to the link that gave evidence to the illegality of bukkake it mentioned a club that was being researched for tax evasion.  The only section that even mentioned bukkake was when listing titles of films that were shipped to customers.  The list also included anal penetration (sodomy) which the supreme court ruled was legal.  I recommend that the allegation of possibly being illegal be removed, or better evidence be used to support that statement. 74.192.141.214 (talk) 13:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bukkake Illegal? 

message: A quick question:
I created a special page just for wikipedia visitors, http://www.sensualinteractive.com/si/list_of_sexual_positions.php
Could one of the moderators/editors please advise if this page meets the standard to be posted as an external link? As you will see, this page contains many sexual positions without any promotional material (e.g. banners, ads, logos, etc.).
please advise,
I would highly appreciate it,
Cutweed (talk) 05:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there used to be an external links section, the problem is that sometimes certain types of articles the external links section acts as a spam honeypot. While I think external links can often have lots of value to add to an article, in articles such as this one posting a request like what you did here is a good idea. Allows others to discuss it and arrive upon consensus. Mathmo Talk 21:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. There are a number of sites that offer users more illustrations and help further understand this subject. Moderators can decide which links should be included. Does anyone have links to include for review? We can forward them together to a moderator for approval. Also helpful would be if anyone knows the process on how to do this. Cutweed 14:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are not really moderators as such, rather the point is to achieve consensus amongst the editors. I'm can recall seeing a couple of good sites as external links, but can't recall them off the top of my mind at the moment. If I think of them, I'll mention it here. Mathmo Talk 00:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also seen external links in the past on this topic; however, they were removed periodically by moderators/editors. On one hand, I respect that they are doing their job in policing wikipedia from bad content; on the other hand, they removed all external links regardless of whether the websitea are relevant or not. I am just trying to get a way to communicate with them so we can come to some kind of agreements. Personally, I think external sources on this topic add greatly to the articles :) I appreciate any suggestions. Thanks, Cutweed 16:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.have-better-sex.com/positions-guide/ is a good source for position information Gaussian74 (talk) 01:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requests/Questions 

message: Maybe the original sources don't generalize, but to keep the article consistent, generalizing the positions seems like a good idea. There's no need to keep the descriptions gender specific especially when the article section starts with the words "These positions involve the insertion of a penis or penis-like object (such as a strap-on dildo) into a vagina or anus." If the reader wants to know the original text information, then they can look there. You can't say that the Kama Sutra was written for such instances as when a strap-on or some such is used.
--Zuejay 01:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll compromise on Burton's "Seventh posture" for the reasons you give.  But I think that it is silly to generalize "lateral coital position" or "coital alignment technique" when they are precisely defined terms which specifically refer to penile-vaginal intercourse and do so for particular reasons. This is in contrast with all other positions in this article — even those listed in the Perfumed Garden or Kama Sutra are not defined anywhere near as precisely as these.  --Strait 04:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since I can't say that I've read these texts, that'll have to do. Changing the "Seventh posture" now. Thanks. --Zuejay 05:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Generalizing 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:Linkimage}} 

message: Is there no name for the double rimming position? It's like a 69 but with rimming instead of oral sex.
I am wondering how one of the positions on the other positions list is possible both partners face the other way top to toe with there legs on each other shoulders. Is this a safe sex position or vandalism? Delighted eyes 05:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ...and the reverse cowgirl. Although, given that there are probably infinitly many postions possible, we need to draw the line somewhere. Declan Davis (talk) 18:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We should draw the line at notability and verifiability.  If a position's notability can be attributed to reliable sources it should be included. Please be bold. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Positions 

message: I've removed the neutrality tag.  Out of 15 images currently in the article, 5 are of same-sex couples in a variety of positions, and a further 2 feature mixed-sex threesomes.  I think this satisfies the neutrality requirement.  Exploding Boy 01:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Minor correction: 1 mixed-sex threesome, 1 same-sex threesome. Neitherday 01:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah, that's right.  At least, according to the image caption, though I'd say it's debatable.  It's by no means clear that the person on the lower right is female (and the sex of the person on the lower left is debatable too, in my opinion).  I'm going to change the caption to be less specific.  Exploding Boy 01:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality tag removed 

message: i agree that it is biased to have only images of heterosexual intercourse on this page and I am glad that homosexual behavior has been added, but a quick count indicates that 6 of the 15 images are exclusively of homosexual sex. In recognition of the "undue weight" doctrine, it seems a little excessive to have 40% of the images show only homosexual activity. I don't know off hand what percentage of the world's population is of what sexual orientation, but I would venture an educated guess that far less than 40% are homosexual or bisexual. How about either adding some more images of heterosexuality or reducing the number of homosexual ones to a proportion that reflects prevalence in society? This has absolutely nothing to do with bias against homosexuality and I would suggest the opposite if the situation were reversed, but I think it adds to wikipedia's credibility to try make its image counts reflect statistics.
In response to an earlier post about showing a woman penetrating her partner with a strap-on, again I would cite the "undue weight" concept that this sexual activity is not common enough to warrant a separate picture on what is otherwise a broad survey of sexuality. The same would go for many other sexual activities that are uncommon, to list and picture every single one would be impractical. They properly belong on their own pages with perhaps a link from this one. 
I'm thinking it might be a good idea to split the page into "sexual intercourse" positions and "sexual acts" or some other way of dividing the material (maybe penetrative vs. non-penetrative). This would give more room for the many behaviors that receive only a cursory treatment here. 
Thanks
:Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).   ←BenB4 10:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  image proportions 

message: We get several incidents of vandalism each day, but the basic content is not all that different from six months ago.  Thanks to my vast experience with the subject, I can say we have covered all of the essential topics, and if there is anything IPs have to add, they can tell us here on talk.  Anyone against semiprotection? ←BenB4 03:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not protect all porn article because the average one has not changed "much" since 6 months ago? This seems like the start of a slippery dick to me. Best not to go to far away from our general concept of "anyone can edit". Though I'm certain you said this with absolutely the best intentions, and I can totally understand (and even agree) where you are coming from...   I just can't at the moment agree with your conclusion. So I'm having a tendency here towards preferring to leaving it as it is. Mathmo Talk 07:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just that IP users haven't contributed anything but vandalism and hoaxes, as far as I can tell.  Plus, this isn't exactly porn. ←BenB4 15:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It is in the top-21 by page views, but in terms of editing, it's been virtually static for months. ←BenB4 07:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semiprotect? 

message: In responding to a request on requests for page protection, I have semi-protected this article for two months.
I must say, I was surprised it hadn't been protected before. It struck me that something must be unique about this article and its' protection status (similar to the main page), but after getting a sanity check from some other people it appeared that I was wrong in assuming this.
So, anyways, it's been semi-protected for two months. If there is indeed a special circumstance for this article (I remember reading something unique about its' reading/editing rate, but can't put my finger on it), which means I shouldn't have semi-protected it, I encourage any other administrator to remove the protection. 
That being said, please don't bug me to remove it on the basis that you don't think it was warranted. I disagree, hence my action. In addition, if there is a special circumstance for this article, please request unprotection centrally, because I won't be overturning my own protection in this case. The more eyes, the better. Cheers, Daniel→♦ 07:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is in the top-21 by page views, but in terms of editing, it's been virtually static for months. ←BenB4 07:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Note about semi-protection

message: IS NOT MENTIONED IN THIS ARTICLE, WHY WAS I REDIRECTED? Fix this!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.210.114.16 (talk) 01:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gracious reader, can you please provide any reliable sources describing docking sleeves? I have reverted Docking sleeve (sex toy) to its pre-redirected state. Please add sources.  Thank you. Acct4 01:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Docking (sexual practice) should be redirected to penetrative_docking. I don't know how to do that. JimQ (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: JimQ: Done. BUT, looking at the edit history (every edit individually), and the reliability of the references, I question the validity of that article. I made a couple minor mods to it ad re-added the hoax tag, because something as unrealistic-sounding as that (from a physics of anatomy standpoint) I think would need to be mightily referenced. Some others may agree, some may disagree. FWIW, I am going to leave the page alone after this fix for you, but wanted to let you know. VigilancePrime (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Docking sleeves... 

message: Why is it that all of the images under oral sex appear to be homosexual couples?
There seems to be a couple too many homosexual images in the entire article as it is.
As this article deals with sexual positions only and nearly all these positions can be performed by any couple regardless or orientation, methinks the number of homoesexual pictures should reflect reality and be proportionate to the number of homosexuals.
Use articles like Sexual orientation to demonstrate the variety of sexual orientations and leave this article to only show the variety of positions with only a few homosexual images instead of the current number. This page is not here to reflect "the range and variety found in human sex acts", only the range and variety of sexual positions. 71.120.201.39 20:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The proportion is approx. 2 M/M, 3 F/F, 11 M/F. I don't think that this is out of line. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 06:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homosexuals Like Oral A Bit Much? 

message: I've seen a few references to the "French Butterfly" position in porn site honeypots, and one mention in a story, but no definition. Help? 
Finding a cite for Polish (as in Poland) is a little tricky since it's a homonym for polish (as in one's knob). Help welcome; I'll drop a cite tag on it. I encountered it in a men's magazine about twenty years ago. 
-- Akb4 20:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing: French butterfly, Polish 

message: There is a large section of the page that appears below the References section, in the same small print as the References. When I tried to edit the page, it seemed to be in the correct order, so I don't know how to fix it. Will someone with more editing experience fix this?
--mlesage (talk) 07:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections in wrong order 

message: This picture seems a little out of place in its current location. Compared to the rest of the images, it's a style break, and it's kind of hard to see what's "going on" in the picture (does the guy have a head somewhere?), making it a poor choice for an illustrative example. The image on top should be switched with this one.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.69.246 (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gustav Klint picture 

message: I don't know what the name would be for this, but what about using the cleft of the buttocks to stimulate the penis, without entering the anus, similar to a tit-job?80.7.59.211 (talk) 17:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-penetrative position missing? 

message: I'm not an autoconfirmed member, so I can't edit this page...but there is an error in the section titled, "Positions to promote or prevent conception". It states that men produce sperm from birth onwards, but that is not correct. Men are not sexually mature as children because they do not produce sperm, just as women are not sexually mature until they being ovulation/menstruation in puberty. Spermatogenesis begins at puberty for males just as ovulation does in women. The line in the parenthesis should be replaced with: "Men and women are typically fertile by the time they reach puberty." Fertile and puberty should be linked to their respective wiki pages for more information. Chaldor (talk) 08:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error: Spermatogenesis from birth 

message: Two standing positions are called suspended congress in this article. Which one is really it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.142.75.170 (talk) 07:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two suspended congress 

message: I must have invented(?) something new (!)?
Start in missionary position.
Penetrate.
Rotate penetration partner (male) legs up out and down, one leg at a time while fem legs are moved together.
Result: much stimulation of fem, male has wide stance that helps slow down orgasm and allows fem to get hers, sometimes several times. 
For further illustration: male foot, fem foot, (male penetration) fem foot, male foot. 
Male is at an angle such that he is rubbing near or on clit. 
I really do not want to leave my name.
Just call me dragon tea, even if I am in west coast time zone.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.65.83 (talk) 02:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  you missed a postion 

message: Does anyone know if  the song "they were only playing leapfrog" which is around a hundred years old, was suggestive of homosexual sex ? Johncmullen1960 (talk) 07:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  slang 

message: Personally I'm not convinced there's any real point to have the image but I always object to (US anyway) legal issues being part of a discussion other then when there is doubt over the copyright status of an image or when there is clear agreement about the legal issues. If editors believe there are legal issues for the foundation for having the image but others don't agree, then they should ask a lawyer (Mike Godwin). Until and unless he either says there may be an issue or he says we should consider for ourselves whether there is a legal issue then we shouldn't be relying on theories from wikipedians. Besides that, if the image raises legal issues for the foundation then I fail to see how simply removing it from the article helps. Nil Einne (talk) 11:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, we shouldn't speculate too much about the legal issues. I suspect that they aren't a problem in this case, but I saw no reason to address them: I argued for its removal/replacement on the grounds that a less offensive and equally informative alternative is available. It has since been removed and replaced from the article on those grounds (I think), and someone has prodded the image for deletion as "unencyclopedic pornography". So I don't think Mike Godwin will need to be bothered. -kotra (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal issues

message: Rama has just uploaded :File:Penetrative_position.jpg, a drawing depicting an anal missionary between two males. We did not had such a drawing yet, only paintings of it, so I've added it to the article. I have also removed :File:Klimt-missionaires-02.jpg (because we already have a missionary image), and :File:Andr51.jpg (which is now superseded by Rama's drawing I guess). Cheers, Face 15:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The list still contains a lot of images. I know it's different with every screen resolution, but I'm having quiete some white space: when an image is bigger than a section, it will move the text with it, which causes an empty space between the section header and that text. I'm afraid I will also remove :File:Amazon-variant-sex-position.svg to make this list more compact. That image didn't add much anyway, as it was very similiar to :File:Missionary_style.svg and is also used in Woman on top. Cheers, Face 15:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative image added

message: "A similar position can be used by two lesbians for cunnilingus, and it could presumably be used by two men for anal sex, but it is difficult to find a coherent explanation of the geometry of this position or its variants. A porn actor/actress who has mastered this position is considered an expert.  (The piledriver position resembles a wrestling move in which one wrestler picks up his opponent and rams him head-first into the mat. In this case, one might assume an intent to do harm. People trying the sexual position may be assumed to have a different intention, but they must be careful, as injury is possible. Some experts would advise "Don't try this at home.")"
This needed citations and was very unclear, and the jokey tone is not so encylopedic. Who consider a porn actress an expert? Is it named after the wresling move, or do both get there names from the tool? Why mention lesbian cunnilingus, can't a man to that too? And can't cunnilingus be done for any of the penetrative positions if you ignore the position of the active parner? So i moved it here until sources are found.Yobmod (talk) 12:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from article 

message: The last two positions listed in the "less common" section are poorly written and either need to be revised or removed completely. (Article is currently locked.) RawwrBag (talk) 10:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rubbish "less common" positions 

message: The wheelbarrow position redirects here, but there is no mention of it.  66.191.19.68 (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wheelbarrow Position 

message: Okok i know we are tolerant and so, but sex is usually happens between male and female, so should the pictures say. Now more the gay and lesbian picture than the straight ones... 192.100.130.228 (talk) 12:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you on about what you just wrote doesn't make sense?--Scorpio95 13:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I count 9 images depicting opposite-sex pairings, 5 images depicting same-sex pairings, and 2 images depicting both same- and opposite-sex pairings (with three participants). Straight pictures are the majority. -kotra (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

text: 8 out of 17 is less than half. -kotra (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

text: We should only add pictures that aid understanding of the subject; the subject is sex positions, not sexual orientation or whatever other non-relevant differences more pictures would illustrate. This is in line with our image use policy. But see also my comment below, I think one more picture (or a switching out of a current picture) might be beneficial. -kotra (talk) 19:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Missionary has 1 same-sex (male-male) and 1 opposite-sex illustration, which is good because they are, mechanically speaking, slightly different; and so both should be illustrated. The other same-sex illustrations are frot (for obvious reasons), one of the threesome pictures (which I think is ok, but unneeded since there are two other pictures of threesomes), fellatio, cunnilingus, and sixty-nine. I agree that the last three don't need to be same-sex, and you do have a point that these positions are probably more common in opposite-sex couplings, simply because opposite-sex couplings are more common. However, oral sex is the same position when performed by opposite-sex or same-sex couples, the only functional difference is if it's fellatio or cunnilingus. So I don't see any practical need to change the fellatio and cunnilingus pictures, since sexual orientation is irrelevant to the mechanics of the position. However, with the sixty-nine image, it only illustrates cunnilingus; this is a little misleading because sixty-nine can involve either fellatio, cunnilingus, or both. So I would say there should either be another sixty-nine image that illustrates fellatio, or the current one should be replaced with a female-male one that would show both types. -kotra (talk) 19:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

text: It's the image at List of sex positions#Penetrating partner on top with front entry. -kotra (talk) 00:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Way too much same-sex images 

message: I am very afraid that this article is written like a how-to. For example:
:The receiving partner crosses their feet behind their head (or at least puts their feet next to their ears), while lying on their back. The penetrating partner then holds the receiving partner tightly around each instep or ankle and lies on the receiving partner full-length. A variation is to have the receiving partner cross their ankles on their stomach, knees to shoulders, and then have the penetrating partner lie on the receiving partner's crossed ankles with their full weight.
Or another further below:
:Shocker: simultaneous fingering of the vagina and anus using one hand. The index and middle finger are inserted in the vagina, and the pinky in the anus. A number of variations are possible by using different combinations of fingers in each orifice.
And one can find dozens such examples in this article. I mean, this is a list article. I find this list also has too many details on each element. --> RUL3R*flaming | *vandalism 05:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that all this article does is describe the positions in enough detail for the reader to understand what each position is. A how-to would be like extensive step-by-step instructions in the style of wikiHow. Two to three sentences on each position as we have now only constitute a basic overview, and any less would be too little for the reader to understand the positions. Not a policy violation. -kotra (talk) 06:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious policy concern 

message: It's not enough just to describe the various positions, based on whatever sources of knowledge the editors may have. The history of this list-making should be given as well (so far there are references to the Kama Sutra, Perfumed Garden, and Masters & Johnson), along with the history of the various names assigned to the different positions. Think about how the OED would treat a phrase like "missionary position," citing earliest known usages and so forth. Some sort of grounding in scholarly literature (from various relevant fields) is needed to distinguish this article from a mere tip-sheet. 
Incidentally, I came here looking for the name for a position in which the woman lies prone, legs together, and is vaginally penetrated by a man straddling her. (For literary purposes, believe it or not.) The article seems to describe the position, but no name is given. (It may be that no good name exists, or that there are several alternative names.)Dawud (talk) 06:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needed: History of Nomenclature and Typology 

message: Why does it use the word several?  Multiple penetration does not imply being penetrated by "several" objects, only multiple.  If anything it implies 2 or so, 6 is one hell of a lot, but several is just the wrong word to use. 72.208.128.200 (talk) 06:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple Penetration = Multiple 

message: it sure seems that way. i bet some of this stuff can really hurt if you dont know what youre doing.
:Would WP:RISK fulfill your request? - RUL3R*trolling*vandalism 07:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  shouldnt some of this stuff come with a warning? 

message: * Gallery of 365 sex positions
* Lesbian Sex Positions
:   Set Sail For The Seven Seas  303° 17' 45" NET   20:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New helpful 'External links' suggestion 

message: I thinked at maybe you can chance some images to better ones. I have an idea.
Are those better? I can searcs more food images to rest of images.--WikiLove (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better images 

message: I have heard from somewhere that the sign of the horns originated from fingering a woman.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.42.219 (talk) 02:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sign of the horns 

message: Is it really legal to have such pornographic pictures without having that "are you 18" warning first?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rottenbone (talk • contribs) 15:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures without warning? 

message: The receiving partner lies on their back
There are so many incorrect instances of the above that someone should do something about it.
Partner is a singular noun; their signifies more than one.
The correct expression should be: 
The receiving partner lies on his (her) back 
Geez24.170.225.180 (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Singular They &_& IonutRO (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  poor English 

message: The wording beneath the prevention of pregnancy section seems to imply that a woman may be impregnated through direct anal sex, with no other conditions. The next two examples shows the conditions of semen being introduced to the vaginal opening. Although I think the intent here was to place these entries under one kind of condition (the semen being introduced to the vagina without direct contact between the penis and vagina), the latter examples specifically state the other portion, while the anal just says it is possible. It is certainly not possible to become naturally pregnant without semen introduced through the vagina. This sentence in the article should be revised to better communicate the intended information. 68.214.68.18 (talk) 08:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Positions to promote or prevent conception - implies anal sex directly causes pregnancy 

message: I hereby request that all sexual positions in this article be replaced with these. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.153.3.86 (talk) 08:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, that way they would be completely non-offensive to everybody! lol. Well...  except perhaps robots?!?! Mathmo Talk 07:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lets just formally oppose on grounds of sillyness Martijn Hoekstra 13:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: The penetrating partner on their back with knees up torward their chest, the receiving partner then mounts their partner. The receiver controls all motion and thrust. Bacically the missionary position, but the partners positions reversed.
Izzzy12k (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another less common position