Talk:Reverse receptive partner on top (sex position)

message: I wrote a mail to the Reverse Cowgirl if she'd like to link here, and she did. Cool :-) --Kurt Jansson 12:42 May 14, 2003 (UTC)
:To whom it may concern: Nobody in the universe calls this the reverse amazon. --24.21.101.75 08:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: at least easily a thousand plus links disagrees with you  Mathmo 14:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  misc 

message: :The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move debate was move. --Muchness 10:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support per nom. --Muchness 05:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Done. —Nightstallion (?) 08:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Should "man can fall asleep" really be listed as an advantage? Not to mention that the man being able to view penetration is no better for the reverse cowgirl than for the regular cowgirl. And that for most couples the man's arm is not long enough to reach the clitoris without being propped up.
58.108.109.76 11:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree.  I think that the view is better than for the "regular cowgirl".  Given no consensus on this issue and the lack of any citations, it should not be listed either way. --Strait 20:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support per nom. --Muchness 05:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. —Nightstallion (?) 08:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div>
Should "man can fall asleep" really be listed as an advantage? Not to mention that the man being able to view penetration is no better for the reverse cowgirl than for the regular cowgirl. And that for most couples the man's arm is not long enough to reach the clitoris without being propped up.
58.108.109.76 11:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree.  I think that the view is better than for the "regular cowgirl".  Given no consensus on this issue and the lack of any citations, it should not be listed either way. --Strait 20:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I got rid of the "unreferenced" tag. Come off it. I mean, seriously, let's not be childish. Next you'll want references on "water is H2O" and "the sky is blue". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.19.13.91 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This page contains all sorts of information besides the very fact that this position is possible, which I assume is what you are reacting to.  Therefore, it needs references. --Strait 20:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  come on, does this really need to be tagged as "unreferenced"? 

message: I have removed the video illustrating the position.  I do not think that it added anything to the article.--Kelmendi 02:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed video