Talk:Sexual intercourse/Archive 2

message: sexual ethics was redirected to sexual norms which I didn't feel was appropriate, so I was bold and made a new page. Perhaps someone here would be interested in editing that page since currently it's wildly POV(mine)? I really don't know much about the topic and need some help. Vesperal 21:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Invite to [[sexual ethics]]

message: This article is frequently  vandalized by anonymous users.  This vote is a non-binding poll to determine the Wikipedia community consensus on prohibiting anonymous edits as a method to reduce vandalism. The results will be forwarded to the WikiMedia Board of Trustees as a recommendation. You can copy and add this comment to other talk pages to encourage others to vote. Click here to vote.
:: If I understand correctly, the alternative to prohibiting anonymous users is to create a special 'censorship committee' of volunteers who must 'approve' each update and whose opinion decides if it is or is not 'vandalism'. The very concept of a select few people deciding who can or can't post their edits creates a culture of censorship and is odious. The socalled 'Recent Changes Patrol' is the worst of all possible worlds.
:: Also a censorship committee would have technical problems because of the delay in updating the article. The latest post by a named user can be overridden by the delayed anonymous update that was finally getting 'approved' only afterward.
:: If the only options were between restriction to named users versus a censorship committee, I would choose to have named users only. I strongly oppose a censorship committee that would delay updates.
:: Is maintaining vandalism really that big a deal? (The highest trafficked areas also have the most legitimate contributors to monitor them.) It seems ok to leave things the way they are.
::Haldrik 19:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wish to make such a recommendation/proposal, might I suggest you consider following the normal conventions on wikipedia such as signing your post and adding new discussions to the BOTTOM of the thread? Nil Einne 00:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote to prohibit anonymous edits 

message: These seem to me to be of only marginal relevance to this article about a specific erotic and reproductive act. I've removed them. Please restore any or all if you disagree.
*Sexual morality
*Sexual slang
*Sex in advertising
*Sex Diet
*Nymphomania
--Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:13, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Some internal links removed

message: The text says: "The term for the higher vertebrates (e.g. the lions in the picture to the right) and some other animals is "copulation"." Please specify for which animals the term is used. What taxons of animals? Specifically. The article should also distinguish "copulation" and "sexual intercourse" more explicitly. I think the two things, "copulation" and "sexual intercourse", should have two separate articles. The article is way too anthropocentric. In simplistic words, it focuses too much on humans. I personally don't like that. Just my opinion. It sucks.
Neutral? There's nothing "neutral" about that. First of all, if you are gonna confuse "copulation" with "sexual intercourse", then why not redirect to "copulation" instead of "sexual intercourse"? That's ridiculous. There are way more animal specimens out there in nature than there are humans. So then, what's so neutral about the article? The term used for animals is "copulation". There are way more species that "copulate" than species that "have sexual intercourse". So if you're gonna redirect somewhere, it's the article "Sexual intercourse" that should redirect to "Copulation", not the other way around.
And then, if the article mentions positions during sexual intercourse of humans, why not mention positions of other animals during copulation? And that's supposed to be neutral? I don't see it.
Why not mention the sexual positions of Drosophila flies or platypuses? Why not mention the "complications" that dogs or kangaroos have during sex? Why not mention the sexually transmitted diseases of cats or chickens or dinosaurs? They have sex, too.
Then, if the article "Copulation" redirects to "Sexual intercourse", why is there a section that's called "Morality and legality". The article "copulation" is supposed to talk about copulation of animals. That's why many articles about biology and zoology have hyperlinks to that article, so the copulation of animals is described. What do "morality and legality" have to do with animals? Nothing. Nothing at all. The article mixes it all up. Animals don't care about things like "morality" or "legality". To them, those things are irrelevant. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 05:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Copulation" versus "sexual intercourse" 

message: I removed the "Sex on Television" section as it was written poorly by Wikipedia standards and the subject matter, which was almost entirely about one particular sex scene on a British TV show that interested the author, was not very appropriate by Wiki standards (actually it was quite idiotic). Here is the section I removed:
"---Sex on Television---Why this is has never really been certain, but sexual intercourse on television can make great viewing figures. One of the most explicit sex scenes on telly ever aired was on February 25 2004, on ITV's Footballer's Wives, in which Tanya Turner and Conrad Gates have sex standing up, and then lying down using the missionary position, with Conrad pouring champagne on Tanya's breasts, and licking it off. Other sex scenes on television have been aired, but this is one of the most notable."
I also moved part of "Miscellaneous" section to Morality and put the remainder under a new heading of "Misconceptions" to which I added a little myself, as half of it clearly belonged in the "Morality" section and the other part was about an Urban Legend which was a ripe topic for a new section to which more could concievably be added by people whom have any good ideas. Here was the part I moved to the existing "Morality Section":
"There is a good deal of controversy about the kind of relationship one should have with someone else before engaging in sexual intercourse. This controversy is beyond the scope of this article; interested readers are encouraged to read the articles on chastity, evolutionary psychology, and sexual morality."
And this is the part I relabled, the first paragraph was in the original "Miscellaneous" section and the second paragraph I added:
"There is an urban legend that dolphins, bonobos, and humans are the only animals that have sex for pleasure; in actual fact, what distinguishes these three species from other animals is that they also have heterosexual sex when the female is not at a point in her gestation cycle suitable for successful impregnation [2].
A related urban legend is that only humans have homosexual sex but Bonobos regularly engage in various forms of intercourse and/or stimulation with the same sex, in addition to other animals such as dogs."
--Brentt 05:30, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Sex on Telly and Miscellaneous  

message: I would like to propose that we remove the "Other Names" section entirely and move all of it to the Sexual Slang article.  For one thing, the article is mainly about the physiology of sexual intercourse, not about the anthropology and folklre of it.  Second, all of the "other names" are in English, so they're really about particularly English-language slang, which doesn't seem appropriate in a general encyclopedia article about intercourse, even though this is the English-language version of Wikipedia.  Third, many of the expressions of the list are highly sub-cultural and of dubious general status.  When I was in college, men used to say "I dipped my wick".  Should I add that to the list?  And if I made up an expression and added that to the list, who would know that it was made up?  So I propose removing this entire section and keeping the things that seem relevant in the Sexual Slang article.  Jeremy J. Shapiro 18:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. TheMadBaron 13:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I agree, What do you think POTW? Scott 22:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

text: This is beginning to seem urgent to me because the "Other Names" section is moving in the direction of being longer than the rest of the article! Does anyone object?  Jeremy J. Shapiro 06:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see you've done it already. No, I don't object, although I would object to completely excising every last occurrence of a slang term in all sex-related articles. For example, the term blowjob (although I always thought it was two words) is in the oral sex article (recently edited by TheMadBaron who commented above), but it is used in context and is not simply a reference to slang. --Craig (t|c) 08:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree entirely.  I don't object at all to slang in the sex-related articles.  I think it would be entirely appropriate and even advisable to have up to half a dozen of the most common expressions (e.g. ones that would be in a major dictionary of slang), especially if it were noted that these were English-language expressions.  I object only to this interminable list of slang, some of which is trivial or minor and some of which may even be made up.  I think that for sexual intercourse we should definitely have such things as "fuck", "screw", and other expressions that have real tradition behind them ("fuck" is very very old) etc., but not such things as "I chased her around the henhouse" or "I poured my espresso into her latte" etc. Jeremy J. Shapiro 20:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, and even the dedicated lists of slang of just out of this world. Speaking of the oral sex article, it has its own list of slang you might consider looking at, although it's not quite a simple list as the one here was. --Craig (t|c) 23:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to remove "Other Names"

message: The first sentence in the "Misconceptions" section is very ambiguous.  It states that there is a misconception, but doesn't really explain what that misconception is.  The way that it is phrased, you expect to find additional animals listed after dolphins, bonobos, and humans, or at least an explanation of the misconception.  The paragraph just seems poorly constructed.  I'm not an authority on this type of animal behavior so I'm not sure how to rectify the problem.
:The article is trying to say that these animals have sex when the female is not likely to be impregnated.  That has led to the conclusion that they are having sex for pleasure, which is one possible explanation.  Another possible explanation is that they are bad at telling when pregnancy is likely to occur.  Yet another possible explanation is that these animals are trying to form a stronger bond with a mate.  It is not possible to say for sure "why" an animal species does something.  It is only possible to describe what they do, and what the consequences are.  I have reworded the paragraph. Johntex\talk 21:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Misconceptions" section 

message: "abstinence from heterosexual intercourse is the only 100% effective way to avoid pregnancy"
right, but shouldn't there be a mention that:
According to the World Health Organization [2], condoms currently work successfully 97% of the time at twelve months, when used properly and consistently. (from the condom page)
:I would agree that it's odd that the article mentions pull-out - an utterly discredited and worthless form of BC - but makes no mention of condoms.  I wouldn't remove the reference to abstinence.  While it reads like something straight from the mouth of right-wing radio, it happens to be factually accurate.  Nothing succeeds at failing quite like inaction!  In the interests of fairness and NPOV, I'm adding a small reference to condom usage, but let's PLEASE try not to grow this paragraph.  This is the article on sex, not on birth control.  Don't lose focus.  -Kasreyn
:Plus it's not true. When abstinece is the policy over condom use pregnancy rates go up.--God_of War 06:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that is not true.  If you take the success rate when condoms are used "properly and constantly", then you have to compare that to abstinence when used "properly and constantly".  When you control conditions and compare like to like, then abstinence is more effective. Johntex\talk 02:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, technically, yes.  But what condom proponents, such as God of War and myself, mean when we say abstinence policies are less effective, is not that abstinence itself when properly practised is less effective - since it's of course the more effective possible method - but merely a realistic assessment that abstinence is much less likely to be properly practised than condom use, especially among teens and young adults.  My guess is that God of War was referring to general trends in an area embracing a pro-abstinence, anti-condom culture, not what would happen if people were to actually apply both practises perfectly, which is almost never done.  So technically, you're right, but controlled conditions don't generally occur in everyday life, so in practise, God of War's comment makes sense. -Kasreyn 11:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I must confess I'm not up on the Wikipedia Manual of Style as regarding quoting ranges of percentage values.  I was wanting to avoid a constant revert war over an exact number.  The last thing I need to spend my time on is arguing with someone over whether it's 95% or 93%.  Is there a more correct way to note that the majority of effectiveness studies put condom effectiveness ranging from 90-99 percent?  I haven't been able to find it in the manual of style.  -Kasreyn 19:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW, I believe condom is less effective than the IUD and (some forms of) hormonal birth control, assuming proper use of each. -- Pakaran 02:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A politically charged message 

message: Most things I've heard place the effectiveness lower than most other methods.  I'm sure there are tons of numbers that contradict each other.  The condom article says 80%. — Omegatron 01:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The number in the condom article is actually 85%, and is unsourced.  I have marked it as such.  I really don't see how you can claim it's less effective than most other methods, since any group that could be called "most other methods" would have to include such completely useless methods as the pull-out and rhythm methods, which would tend to drag down the average of most other methods by a lot.  -Kasreyn 08:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: While, it's true condoms have a high failure rate and abstainance is in theory 100% effective I think we must remember to keep things in perspective. If you're going to talk about the real world failure rate for condoms, it makes sense to talk about the real world failure rate for abstainance. This is of course nearly impossible to measure and it's why I personally we just shouldn't bother including it as a comparison. Also, shouldn't sterilisation be before abstinance? If you are properly sterilised, you've got a lower risk of pregnancy (or causing pregnancy) then if you practice abstinance because sterilisation will prevent you getting pregnant/causing pregnancy by rape. If you're a male and assuming here we don't consider masturbation necessary for abstinance, it's also possible your semen could be taken to induce a pregnancy (especially if you use a condom during masturbation) which sterilisation would prevent. Of course, these are all very unlikely but my point is that logically, assuming we're talking absolutes here, sterilisation must be more effective then abstinance. Nil Einne 05:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You've forgotten the "pull-out" and "rhythm" methods, both of which, in real practise, are significantly less effective than condoms.  So in reality, condoms are not on the bottom of the list.  Kasreyn 01:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Condom effectiveness 

message: This picturres are not good they should get ones with better boobs and vvaginas
:Please don't troll here...-- 陈鼎翔  贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 10:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is true though. For great justice. 17:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too lame pictures 

message: Sexual intercourse, specifically coitus, is the human form of copulation.
Is this correct? I do not think this is right, why should the term apply only to humans? There's this definition Sexual activity during which the erect penis is inserted into the vagina where ejaculation takes place. from here This definition seems to be exclusivelly about human activity  sexual intercourse, intercourse, sex act, copulation, coitus, coition, sexual congress, congress, sexual relation, relation, carnal knowledge (the act of sexual procreation between a man and a woman; the man's penis is inserted into the woman's vagina and excited until orgasm and ejaculation occur) (from here), though it does not distinguish between copulation and sexual intercourse as wikipedia does. Then there's this Sexual intercourse: Sexual activity that involves vaginal, anal, or oral penetration from here. And why should there be seperater pages for sexual intercourse and copulation? This seems daft to me, but maybe I'm just looking at it from a biologists POV. Alun 07:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scope of article wrong?

message: I think that once we get a source for this section, we should also add a note as to when the measurement is begun.  Ie., do they start the stopwatch when the guy is still flaccid, so that the time includes foreplay etc., or do they start the stopwatch at insertion?  I'm rather curious.  Kasreyn 17:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moot.  After over two weeks with no source found for the dubious claims, I've removed them.  There are limits to how long we can leave something unsourced in an article.  Kasreyn 11:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to orgasm measurement 

message: I had a big discussion with a friend. He says that the human sex drive can be compared to the sex drive of dogs. Furthermore he thinks if two teenager of different sexes are in a room for a long time, they will eventually have sex because they are driven by their sex drives. The teenagers haven't heard anything about sex before and they are pubescent. I disagree with his opinion, is there evidence to prove his theory incorrect? Janno 23:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This talk page really isn't the right place for such a discussion.  The topic here is the article, and how to improve it.  I recommend asking your question on a web forum devoted to topics relating to sex.  Good luck,  Kasreyn 23:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: See my comment directly above.  This talk page isn't the right place for such questions.  There are plenty of web forums and blogs where you can get an answer to your question.  Kasreyn 10:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question: Sex instinct 

message: "Sexual Drive" contains the following:
""The good stuff" which is slang for Casual sex..." Not only is that a non-sequitur, it's also a "slang" term I for one have never heard of. It doesn't sound like real slang to me, it's too cumbersome and it's a pretty common phrase that carries no sexual implications.--24.190.122.122 19:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The good stuff? what? 

message: Please see  at the image's talk page.  I am not entirely certain that the terms of use under the Free Art License for the image are being obeyed.  Kasreyn 23:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind.  The issue has been resolved.  Kasreyn 20:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding Image Modification 

message: There is a new Template:Birth control methods.  Would it be appropriate to add it to this article? Lyrl 19:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. This is not the birth control article. Don't give an Ameriflag 00:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I would think so.  As DGaAF has said, this isn't the article on birth control, however birth control is a very important topic related to sexual intercourse.  Kasreyn 02:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  birth control template 

message: I removed the paragraph about birth control as it has almost entirely nothing to do with "sexual procreation" and should not take up the bulk of the section. A simple mention of birth control is far more than adequate. This isn't the birth control article. Don't give an Ameriflag 00:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note the article is about intercourse specifically, not procreation.  That is to say, the article is about all kinds of sexual intercourse, including by those who have no desire to procreate.  Kasreyn 02:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section it was in was titled, "Sexual procreation". Either way, I don't really see any reason for birth control to be given any more than a passing mention at best. Thanks for your cooperation. Don't give an Ameriflag 03:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed unnecessary birth control exerpt 

message: I've added a cleanup tag to the section.  It's still very disorganized, it mixes discussion of secular and religious attitudes, and does not arrange its information in a logical way.  When I find time, I will try to rewrite it for clarity.  Kasreyn 20:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual morality and legality cleanup tag. 

message: "A man can boost his testosterone naturally through reducing (or eliminating) smoking, alcohol, certain drugs such as most anti-depressants, emotional stress, simple carbohydrates such as white sugar, and dietary sources of estrogen such as soy. He should also avoid exposing his testicles to too much heat such as from a hot tub. "
I'm aware that avoiding exposing the testicles to heat can prevent a reduction in fertility, as the heat harms sperm cells.  But, that is an issue of fertility, and not testosterone or pheremones.  How much of these other (generally common sense) suggestions are really about male health, or male fertility, rather than increasing testosterone?  Could we get references from some source?  Atom 12:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boosting Testosterone 

message: The following comment is for Unschool.  The reason I added the phrase about an "artist's interpretation" is that Leonardo Da Vinci has a very great reputation as a scientist, which might lead readers to assume that his illustration is scientifically accurate.  However, he was largely basing his work on guesswork, and modern MRI imaging of coitus has shown some significant differences from his interpretation.
If you can think of a better way to explain this in as few words as possible, please, be my guest.  The artist being a genius of legendary repute, I think it's worth a little space to inform readers that, while illustrative, the image is not accurate.  Kasreyn 08:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hemisected coitus image by Da Vinci