Talk:Sexual intercourse/Archive 1

message: It would be good if we could cite sources for these:
:It is said that dolphins, bonobos, and humans are the only animals that have sex for pleasure. It is also said that only in humans and a species of spiders can sexual intercorse be forced.
— Matt 11:54, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The above is plain simply an urban legend.  cite  I have corrected the relevant section of the entry. Samboy 04:26, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, according to snopes the status of this legend is "true".  A deeper reading suggests there may be accuracy to the claim.  --Chinasaur 19:31, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: I don't think think kind of viewpoint is appropriate for this page.  In particular, I know a number of people (by and large, females) who feel sex is a complete emotional and physical unity, and can not detatch sexual attraction from a desire to be in a long-term relationship with someone. Samboy 04:30, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: "It is said that dolphins, bonobos, and humans are the only animals that have sex for pleasure"
This seems inaccurate, on more than one ground.  
1/ it seems to be rather human-centric (ie, we like it, but others don't).  
2/ I'm not sure if neutral research has ever been conducted into questions such as "do dogs or other animals familiar to people enjoy sex" for example.
3/ Farm and breeding experience suggests that sex is indeed enjoyed by other species, when permitted.
4/ The fact that something is instinctual doesn't conflict with the idea it's also enjoyed.  Eating is instinctive yet enjoyable for example.
Thoughts on whether this statement should be revised, or left more open?
:Again, this is an urban legend.  cite  I have corrected the relevant section of the entry. Samboy 04:31, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Sex is only pleasurable...' to revise? 

message: Jakew, while I believe both views are relevant, the reader should not be guided one way or the other but given the option to review the material.  They can view the sample size as too small, perhaps, but this article should not qualify any opinion in advance as to accuracy or merit.  DanP 20:43, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually agree with you about allowing criticism.  But the criticism shouldn't just say "because of small sample size,etc." because those are opinions in themselves.  If you can make it clear that the "small sample size, etc." is opinion from the prospective of the critic, that's fine. But the article should not imply that those potential faults are inherently true, and that the criticism follows as a natural result.  DanP 20:58, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: (going with your analogy) By "good bowel movements", do you mean just that there are no problems that specifically involve the field of medicine, or do you mean it's a rewarding and fulfilling experience?  (Again, I'm just going with your analogy, since intercourse has more than just procreative function)  I don't believe a whole article related to intercourse impacts of circumcision is warranted in Wikipedia, but I'm not against it either.  I just don't believe mentioning lubrication and dryness potential is very hard to do in a single paragraph.  This article is about sexual intercourse, and whether effects are related to medical diagnoses, orgasms, masturbation, or physiological function in general is kind of outside that scope.  Personally, I think it's kind of unusual to have a "medical analysis" article, given that other Wikipedia articles seem to weave science and other academic discipines into their articles without such special treatment.  I could do without "analysis" articles, given that analysis is inherent in study of any topic.  But that is just my opinion.   I am open to your ideas on what to do.  DanP 22:04, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: You raise some good points.  My concerns about a "sexual effects" page is that intercourse is a narrower focus than all of sexuality (masturbation, orgasms, and all), and intercourse problems are in this article already.   Also, just because the impact of circumcision is tied to several topics (sex, medicine, politics, etc.), creating a special "circumpedia" seems kind of counterintuitive to encyclopedia structure.  Imagine if we broke encyclopedias into "overlap" articles with "medical implications of tongue piercing" or "social impacts of prostitution".  Of your ideas, I like just linking to the circumcision page, but I would leave the O'Hara-related links here since they focus on adult intercourse, not on circumcision of babies.  Maybe some other users can chime in on what is best structure-wise.  DanP 23:05, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed section on circumcision 

message: The following sentence is urban legend:
:It originally started as a law enforcement acronym in the medieval times meaning 'For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge’ and was written on the forms cops used to process the criminal acts of prostitutes, rapists, and pedophiles.
See Origin of the F-Word -- DanBlackham 08:58, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Urban legend

message: The article seems to be heavily biased against animals other than the humans (except for the lead picture). -- Sundar 06:06, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
:Now that there is a separate article for Human sexual behavior, I recommend we remove all human-centric issues to that article and keep this article strictly about the biological phenomenon.  The entire heading "The Act" should probably be removed.  Sex (dab) should point both here and to Human behavior with a clear explanation of the different focuses.  This seems like the obvious right move to me, coming into this fray so recently from the outside.  If there are issues I'm missing, please add them here, otherwise I will begin to be bold within the week.  --Chinasaur 19:44, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV