Talk:Sexual intercourse/Archive 3

message: no merging is necessary.more articles are easy for readers.
There has been some fairly tense discussion in Premarital sex regarding the state of that article, Fornication, and Extramarital sex. Since it's all coming down to article title name, i'm recommending that all of those articles be merged into the morality and legality section of this article, and that the participants in those debates help on cleaning up that section rather than an endless proliferation of redundant or meaningless stubs. Thoughts?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JFQ (talk • contribs) .
A note to editors here:  there is already a proposal (partially sponsored by myself) to merge Fornication and Premarital sex into Extramarital sex; this discussion hasn't been formally closed that I am aware of.  My opinion would be that the main article on Sexual intercourse is already getting too large, but the consensus on the notability (or lack thereof) of the material in these small articles hasn't really been established.  Please read the talk pages of these articles for more of the story of these ongoing debates.  Cheers, Kasreyn 10:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: This was recently added:
: Overstretching is extremely painful, this generally occurs when the male's penis has a too big circumference or in a rape situation when the female is not in a position to withdraw the penis from the vagina therefore relieving the vagina of the immense pain. Overstretching of the vagina can lead to swollen vaginal tissue and in some of the worst & most horrid cases, infection.
I've moved it here because it needs to be copy edited and sourced. --Tony Sidaway 17:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recently added paragraph on "overstretching"

message: To someone who speak british-english, this says that the penentration is performed TO the Penis.
I would perfer "penetration BY the hardened erect penis". 
--Charlesknight 08:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Penetration of the hardened erect penis 

message: The Catholic and Protestant sections only list negative views of the churches wrt sex.  Christians view sex as a sacred charge and it is a positive thing when done properly.  This needs to be fixed.
Also, it's said, cant find the proper citation, in some christian religions, that, as it is associated with joy and pleasure, it shoudl be still within mariige bounds. I guess it woudl be best to merge moral discussion from both premartial and exmartial sex, leaving just the definition there.
::The section on Protestantism is next to worthless, due to the wide spectrum of protestant churches. While it doesn't say anything technically wrong, the actual text is relevant only for those groups that use these texts and says nothing about how it is interpreted for actual daily life. --OliverH 15:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Sections 

message: All this article has is sketchs of people having sex. I think we need a photograph of a couple engaging in sexual intercourse. What does any one else say? matt wilson 19:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue has been discussed before and so far the consensus has always been that drawings are more appropriate for a scholarly work such as our, for a variety of reasons.  This remains my view, certainly.  I encourage you to read through the archives for the past discussion. Johntex\talk 19:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: For images of explicit sexual acts, yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.  What would be "stupid" would be to blindly plunge ahead adding lots of full-color photographs to articles like creampie (sexual act) or autofellatio or Meatholes without considering the broader consequences to the reputation of the project. Johntex\talk 12:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Hold your horses, have you explained to your girlfriend exactly what your doing and the implications of it? Nil Einne 22:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to be able to document your and your girlfriends ages and that you are giving permission for the pictures to be used and put in the public domain.  You should know that on most sexuality articles we prohibit what are called "vanity images".  Pretty much, if an image is not asked for by the editors of the article, it probably will be considered to be such a vanity image.  Atom 23:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, how very Christian of you. Taking a picture of your girlfriend, while you were having sex, without her knowing? Lol, firstly if you are a true Christian, you can't have sex with her 'till your married. But back on subject, I do not think we are having any photos here, especially not some crude one of you having sex with your supposed girlfriend. And finally, to upload photos, I think you need to be a member. I can't be bothered to sign out and check if that's true though. Age of consent is the minimum age at which two people can have sex. As your 'girlfriend' is 14, I'm taking that that is quite illigal. The Haunted Angel (The Forest Whispers My Name) 21:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I laud your motives, but I wonder what Christianity has to do with anything here?  I don't recall 75.109.101.139 ever mentioning his religious persuasion.  Kasreyn 06:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 75.etc, do not post such an image.  I can guarantee that it will not only be speedily deleted, but continued uploading of such material may result in your permanent banning from the project.  It's already happened once - and that was to someone much more well-spoken who had a much stronger case to argue than you.  I urge you to desist instantly.  Cheers, Kasreyn 06:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you all retarded? The anonamous user was joking! a child could see it! 218.186.9.1 07:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photograph Of Sex

message: A user has twice removed the entry on Wicca.  I am not sure why. Pagans and Wiccans views are just as relevent and important as other religions.  The view that Wiccans have that sexuality is sacred may be inconvenient or uncomfortable for conservative christian types, but we need to respect, and allow all views, not remove the views of religions that we don't agree with.
Atom 23:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I kind of wonder why more religions aren't covered.  Surely there are more Mormons than neopagans, yet we don't cover Mormon views.  How about Shinto?  And so on and so forth.  Kasreyn 06:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I guess in accordance with NPOV we allow people to put their views in when they are factual and not just opinion.  Someone Wiccan/Neopagan added their view and Mormons didn't.  Also, the christian view is covered, which mormons are a subset of.  SO, I agree with you in the context that we need more people to add their religious view if it is distinct.  Atom 12:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no debate about the notability of religion's view on sexuality. My position has to do with sourcing. If every religion is gievn an indepth section then that would qualify as undue weight and a sperate article would be needed to cover religion and sexuality such as oh...Religion and sexuality. NeoFreak 21:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of religion 

message: I think having the teddy bear in the sketch of the Missionary Position is creepy and was inserted by someone who has thoughts about sexual acts with young girls. I see from the history that the teddy bear have been added and removed a few times, thus there are probably people out there who think like me. I do agree with the sketchs, but please remove the teddy bear. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.251.172.221 (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The teddy bear is there in the original version of the image, thus it ought to be included on this page. There is no valid reason for it not to be there, you finding it "creep" is your own POV. Mathmo Talk 15:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  But the boat seems to have already sailed on that one.  Kasreyn 02:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think there is broad consensus that we don't need any of the recent drawing that were added in this article.  The article on sex positions has good quality (rather than poor quality) images that go into depth about a wide variety of images related to sexual intercourse.  Introducing even a few images here would result in all of those eventually being put here.  A good reference to that article would be much more appropriate.  Atom 15:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My only problem is that I think the photos of the statues were more detailed and informative than the line drawings in that article.  I'm aware that the original decision to use line drawings rather than photos of actual couples was to avoid any unwanted appearance of prurient interest.  Do statues (in this case, statues which are anatomically very accurate but whose genital regions are never clearly shown) cross this line as well?  I really don't think they do.  Kasreyn 22:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teddy Bear in Missionary Position Sketch 

message: Sexual intercourse should not be so narrowly defined. This article should be renamed "opposite-sex sexual intercourse" or be expanded to include all kinds of intercourse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.36.126 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 2006 December 11
:Your post might possibly be taken more seriously if you would
:#Post at the bottom of the page instead of the top.
:#Sign your post with ~~~~ as requested by the instructions.
:#Not begin your post with an inflamatory title.
:Possibly.  No guarantees, but it would be a good start. Johntex\talk 03:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heterosexist Claptrap 

message: My edits about WIlliam Roach and Anne Kirkbridge are true. Everyone better stop reverting them. They are not vandalism. Transmexico 01:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read history, and policies on what you should add to Wikipedia. You have not cited any sources on this, and as someone said, Wikipedia is not a place for so called "true" stories. Disinclination 04:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My Edits

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
====Survey - Support votes====
#Support, as the nominator.  Joie de Vivre 15:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: #Support, as the nominator.  Joie de Vivre 15:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - Support votes

message: #Oppose - Use the common term most recognized.  No reason to change and confuse people. Atom 15:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - Oppose votes

message: In the Wicca section, there's a statement that I can't tell if it's a common Wiccan perspective, or just someone's personal opinion:
"Sexuality freed from the shackles of obligatory breeding is what makes us specifically human."
Not only is this worded like an indisputable fact, it's a rather outdated point of view that has been since been shown to be false. Bonobos and dolphins regularly have sex for pleasure in situations where breeding is impossible. It's possible that other species do this, also.
There's a reference tag after that line, but it's a book, so I'm not sure if it actually says that, or that the book is representative of common Wiccan belief.
Is there anyone with more knowledge about what Wiccans usually believe on this subject? If it's not a common belief, it should probably be removed. -kotra 09:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But is the book correct about this? From Kotra's statement, it makes it pretty clear that the sentence seems incorrect, almost biased, that animals cannot have sex for pleasure. Disinclination 00:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: P.S. I might actually add that to the article about it being a form of energy exchange... I have some books around here, although someone lost my Witches Encyclopedia, but I might be able to find it in one so that it can be sourced in one of these books. Also, what book was that quote above stated in?--Azslande 08:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I noticed what book it was in, 1983? Wow thats old, I was born in 1984, I have to say, a much better source *and I really hope its in one of mine* would be a Scott Cunningham book. I will look into it tomorrow and tweak the article, unless someone removes that quote before I can.--Azslande 08:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr. Cunningham's words should be taken with a grain of salt, however. :P He was a brilliant Wiccan writer, but alot of his books inspired the whole 'We can do whatever we want' kind of generation of Wiccans. I don't think this was necessarily his intention, but eh. ... Do we have any more recent books to pull quotes from, preferably ones at -least- from the 90's? Lol. Disinclination 16:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately I lent some of my books to a niece and one of them came up missing, a very expensive one actually and I'm fairly certain it was the one that had an excellent quote in it about sex from a wiccan/pagan perspective. I will head over to my local religious bookshop and browse through some of the books there and see if I can pull any quotes from them. Will take me a few days to get over there though. In the mean time, I seriously think that quote thats currently there should be removed for the time being as it does not seem to be an accurate representation, even though its sourced.--Azslande 19:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comments everyone. Azslande confirmed my suspicion that the statement isn't a common belief among contemporary Wiccans, so I'll remove it accordingly. -kotra 03:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wicca statement 

message: I just corrected some vandalism by user:Joseph St at 03:48, January 13, 2007 Sjc80 07:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I have an idea. Rather than use drawings for illistrations, I will take a picture of me and my girlfriend making love. It will be nice pictures as we are both 16. Then I will post it here. It will be a sharp, full colour image. Will detail. I will do it in multiple positions. I just want to ask permission first 75.109.100.86 20:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly suspect this is the same user as 75.109.101.139. Mathmo Talk 16:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No.  This would almost certainly be illegal under the laws of Florida where Wikipedia's servers are hosted.  Once you are 18, it becomes more possible, but there is still a majority of Wikipedia editors who prefer that we use drawings instead of photographs, so this contribution would probably still not be terribly helpful. --Strait 02:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though of course others would disagree, because a photo is always a more realistic option than a drawing (certainly way more so than any of the current drawings we are using). Mathmo Talk 16:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: A minor point, you are getting uploading and downloading confused with each other. Mathmo Talk 16:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Just for clarification, any picture of this kind of any person under 18 is considered child pornography and is a felony in Florida (and most of the United States). We've already had a debate like this in the past with autofellatio. PTO 17:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, 16 year olds *are* adults.  But as previously indicated the law considers photos of images people under aged 18 in thsat jurisdiction (and in fact in all of the U.S.) to be illegal.  Atom 15:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: May I use a photo

message: I would just rename this to either "Coitus" or "Penile-Vaginal Intercourse". Sexual intercourse != penetration / insertive sexual behavior -whatever that means- (ask to LGBT people)... Towsonu2003 23:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The primary meaning of "sexual intercourse" as commonly used specifically refers to penile-vaginal intercourse, as documented by many sources earlier on this talk page when this question was raised just a month ago. The article links to articles on other sexual acts. Remember that Wikipedia is a tertiary source, which means that article content has to be based on how things are at the moment, not how we want them to be. Gandoman 10:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  well, to the LGBT interest group that is tossing their POV around Wikipedia like it's their encyclopedia, "primary meanings" or "dictionary definitions" aren't sufficient.  an example is what is happening at the Marriage article.  eventually enough LGBT-interest POV pushers will converge upon this article and politically correct it even though it will mean reflecting their definitions of terms rather than the medical or dictionary definition. r b-j 03:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heterosexist 

message: What about adding a table with the first time age in the USA? Is it appropriate for this page? Is it in another article? Where can I find some statistical data from a statistical institute?
Here is an example of what I mean (data invented).
x axis: age
y axis: percentage
# All measures are in pixels
ImageSize  = width:400 height:300
PlotArea   = left:50 right:0 bottom:50 top:10
AlignBars  = justify
Period = from:0 till:30
TimeAxis = orientation:vertical
ScaleMajor = unit:year increment:2 start:0
# there is no automatic collision detection,
# so shift texts up or down manually to avoid overlap
PlotData =
  align:left anchor:from fontsize:M width:15 shift:(-5,0) textcolor:black color:red
  bar:<12 from:start till:1 text:1%
  bar:12 from:start till:1 text:1%
  bar:13 from:start till:5 text:5%
  bar:13 from:start till:5 text:5%
  bar:14 from:start till:5 text:5%
  bar:15 from:start till:5 text:5%
  bar:16 from:start till:5 text:5%
  bar:17 from:start till:5 text:5%
  bar:18 from:start till:5 text:5%
  bar:19 from:start till:5 text:5%
  bar:20 from:start till:5 text:5%
  bar:21 from:start till:5 text:5%
  bar:22 from:start till:5 text:5%
  bar:23 from:start till:5 text:5%
  bar:24 from:start till:5 text:5%
  bar:25 from:start till:5 text:5%
  bar:>25 from:start till:5 text:5%
trends in premarital sex
 trends in premarital sex from 1954 to 2003
Turned 15 in:	Age in 2002-03	Median age at first premarital sex
1954-63      	55-64         	20.4
1964-73      	45-54         	18.6
1974-83      	35-44         	18.0
1984-93      	25-34         	17.3
1994-2003    	15-24         	17.6
Source: Public Health Reports
http://www.publichealthreports.org/userfiles/122_1/12_PHR122-1_73-78.pdf
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Argento3 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've got to be kidding. Besides, premarital sex is irrelevant, only Cristian/Catholic type religions hold the concept of marriage. -202.180.108.32 03:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes, lets just forget about the millions upon millions of other people who are NOT of the Abrahamic religions that get married/are married. Try again. Disinclination 18:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well surely I choose the wrong source, you are right premarital sex is irrelevant. But I think that a paragraph  about first time age (and the progressive lowering of it in the western cultures) is important for this article but I'm too lazy to search for data. Disinclination you can say the same thing without sarcasm --Argento3 01:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was talking to the IP user. People who are not of the Abrahamic religions do hold on the concept of marriage. Disinclination 05:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem with that is that it isn't factual.  In the past, people got married at aged 11 or 12 and up.  Sexual involvement was just as early.  Only since the Victorian age has that been raised.  The concept of sexuality between teenagers being somehow a problem has only been recently developed, with an increase in the legal marriage age and age of consent laws.  We should find reliable sources for the comment, or remove it.  Atom 23:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  first time age 

message: In the 'Ethics and taboo' section there is this line:
"...been in human culture for thundreds of years." (Emphasis mine)
Is this meant to be hundreds or thousands? Lady BlahDeBlah 22:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake 

message: Whether or not the words "sexual intercourse" are usually intended to refer to coitus (as mentioned above) seems entirely irrelevant to me. What I think is relevant is that "sexual intercourse" can refer, depending on who you ask, to not only coitus, but also to penetrative anal intercourse, fellatio, even mammary sex, nasal sex, aural sex, ocular sex and all of the (probably) less-common other kinds of "sex". My opinion (note that word there, opinion) is that the most widely-accepted definition would be "insertive penile intercourse" of any kind.
The idea that exclusion of penetrative anal intercourse is "heterosexist" is flawed; it is not as if anal sex never occurs in heterosexual pairs, it's just that it's more common in certain cultures (often as a method of birth control) than in others. From a white, upper-class American perspective anal intercourse may be "mostly a gay thing", but a young working-class African-American woman is likely to have a very different perception.
When it comes down to it, what is and what is not "sexual intercourse" is a very complicated topic. However, I would venture to say that most people, at least in the cultures with which I am well-acquainted, who engage in penetrative anal intercourse would certainly say that what they are doing is a form of "sexual intercourse", while a good portion of those engaging in fellatio would say something along the lines of "it's not real sex".
I think that the parts of this article referring exclusively to coitus need to be moved to the article coitus (if it's not already a separate article, it needs to be), and this article needs to be expanded a bit with both biological and anthropological perspectives on all types of sexual intercourse. Although some cultures may teach that anal sex and oral sex are "wrong" or "sinful", they are part of the range of normal human sexual behavior and can be found to some degree in every culture (although it will be less frequent in some than in others).
This article also needs to explore in-depth what is, and what is not, "sexual intercourse", and according to whom. --Node 08:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree whole-heartedly with this. I think that the article as it stands is etymologically incorrect in using sexual intercourse to refer exclusively to vaginal sex.71.193.233.96 01:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll take your word on that. So only boys and girls can have sex? What about men and women? --Node 00:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coitus vs. "Sexual intercourse" 

message: The article obviously needs to be blocked due to immature people vandalizing the page.
I don't have to continue giving examples. It's pointless to keep this 'war' going on. Plus, this downgrades Wikipedia in general. It would be great if an administrator locked the page for unregistered users, so that future vandals can enjoy a ban. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Teo64x (talk • contribs) 10:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lock the Article 

message: There is currently a discussion at Talk:Sex as to whether or not the current article at that title belongs elsehwere and whether or not that page should redirect here (although a disambig page would certainly be another possibility). All opinions and ideas are welcomed. --Node 00:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect from [[Sex]]? Yes/no/maybe? 

message: I took the liberty to add the  template in the References section. But there was a link there that I'm not sure about where it is referred to (it wans't in the references format and had no text either), so I took a step forward and deleted it. TEO 09:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link at References 

message: I may not be an expert linguist, but when you say Sexual intercourse I immediately start to wonder if there is such a thing as "asexual intercourse". To my knowledge there is not! The word intercourse is sexual, and doesn't require the word sexual in front of it. (It's like saying "Deadly lightning"; I never heard of "safe" lightning)
:Lightning may never be "safe", but it is not always deadly. The word intercourse is not necessarily sexual. Intercourse can refer to discussions or to (non-sexual) business transactions as well as to sexual things. It also happens to be the name of a mostly Amish town in Pennsylvania, USA (my mother has an old newspaper article saved about Y2K which says "___ _____, mother of 9 from Intercourse..."). --Node 03:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are all sorts of other intercourse... social intercourse, commercial intercourse... intercourse is any kind of human interaction, right? -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual? intercourse 

message: Insert non-formatted text here
New Scientist Magazine reports Stuart Brody, a psychologist at the University of Paisley, UK, compared the impact of different sexual activities on blood pressure when a person later experiences acute stress. For a fortnight, 24 women and 22 men kept diaries of how often they engaged in penile-vaginal intercourse (PVI), masturbation or partnered sexual activity excluding intercourse. After, the volunteers underwent a stress test involving public speaking and mental arithmetic out loud.
Volunteers who'd had PVI but none of the other kinds of sex were least stressed, and their blood pressure returned to normal faster than those who'd only masturbated or had non-coital sex. Those who abstained had the highest blood-pressure response to stress 
He speculates that release of the "pair-bonding" hormone oxytocin between partners might account for the calming effect."
The effects are not attributable simply to the short-term relief afforded by orgasm, but rather, endure for at least a week," 
(Biological Psychology, vol 71, p 214). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.209.107.3 (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is sexual intercourse and effects on stress lacking.  Please edit and add 

message: I realise that this will be a sensitive subject, so I will try to be clear. Desire, thinking about, fantasising regarding sex with children is not illegal/prohibited. There are no legal mechanisms to deny people the ability to think in a certain manner. Most societies disallow the expression of such desires by moral and social disapproval, and the use of legal methods to restrict communication of such desires. What is illegal is the practice, procurement, advancement or support of pedophilia, and its depiction even as fiction. By stating that the desire is illegal, rather than publicly condemned, is untruthful. In short, people who have or do think such thoughts are not criminals - those that act upon such impulses are. It is a brutal, nasty, and perhaps shocking, truth, but it is the truth. LessHeard vanU 20:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pedophilia and "desire". 

message: I believe we should remove the part from the lead that deals with "how to engage in coitus" into its own section, and another section in how to engage in anal sex. It should not be in the lead if we're trying to show both anal sex and coitus as sexual intercourse. Leaving only coitus in the lead seems rather POV. Disinclination 02:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. --Node 09:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two new sections 

message: what's the difference between human sexual behaviour and sexual intercourse? can we merge these two? Brallan 11:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with human sexual behaviour?

message: Hi all. I have just been reading a bit of the discussion here as to what exactly "sexual intercourse" involves, and it strikes me that this could be cleared up by clearly defining what we want to discuss. An article on penile-vaginal sex is needed.
So, I propose: 
# that this article be moved to Coitus (which currently redirects here); (Rationale: Coitus is the proper medical term for vaginal intercourse. "Sexual intercourse" is a euphemism, rather like the older "sexual congress", and should not be the heading of an article. Furthermore, as with many euphemisms, its exact meaning is unclear, leading to disagreements as to what should, or should not, be included.)
# that this page ("sexual intercourse") redirect to "Coitus"; and
# that at the head of the new "coitus" page, there be direct links to anal, oral, and any other sexual practices that might lead someone there via "sexual intercourse". (Rationale: the new "coitus" page could concentrate on expanding information on penile-vaginal sex (coitus), and other variations could focus on those aspects. 
Alternatively, "sexual intercourse" could become a disambiguation page, listing "coitus", "oral sex", etc... as alternatives. (I dislike this alternative, myself, as it might tend to confuse.) Sound reasonable?  Esseh 23:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose, on Wikipedia the use of the most common term is recognized. --EfferAKS 21:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think the idea is too crazy. The bigger issue than usage is that the scope of the article will change. NeoFreak 21:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Effer's objection is valid, but with a re-direct from "sexual intercourse" to the new (old?) page, it wouldn't matter. As an encyclopedia, we should be educating, too, not just reflecting societal euphemisms (ESPECIALLY if the euphemism is ambiguous).  (and NeoFreak, my thoughts exactly - leave anal sex, oral sex, other variants to their own pages.) Esseh 00:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested move 

message: Even though the page is supposed to be semi-protected, there was a bunch of vulgar nonsense written in the introduction of the article. I presume it is common to find vulgarities in articles that deal with sexuality. Xanthi22 15:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Xanthi22. Good catch. The vandal is a registered user. Presumably the lock is for unregistered types. Anyway, I added a level-1 warning to his talk page. (Oh, and I took the liberty of starting your comment in a new thread.) Esseh 20:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: I deleated the  homo picture because it is too  gay. If you disagree, please state why. It is not [[sexual intercourse in that picture. It is sodomy and history and  gay. All.ya.little.triksters 22:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sodomy is part of sexual intercourse, beit between men only or a man and a women. Therefore the representation is valid. BTW your comment "...too gay." makes it appear that you think homosexual acts are bad or wrong or something. Wikipedia conforms to NPOV, making the above an invalid reason to remove content. LessHeard vanU 12:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture