Talk:Anal sex/Archive 2

message: In what logic Greece is put into "EASTERN CULTURES" ? Based on geography, religion , cultural or racial isssues? I am waiting an answer. Why the term greek in anal sex is not considered by wikipedia a slur? The described reasons about having anal sex before wedding are relevant for muslims, not christians, if you have any sense of reality (and credibility)
man, what are you talking about? greece is of course comparably eastern with respect to west europe.. its history is rooted in east, as a race greek nation is genetically similar to turks, and christianity does not mean the west automatically.. this is not the page to discuss where greece belongs..
and any sense of reality and credibility offers that anal sex is forbidden by majority of sects of all monotheistic religions.. don't try to reflect all christians are welcoming anal sex, while all muslims are completely against it, there are muslim sects who don't condone anal sex... Agnostic2694 01:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greece an eastern culture? 

message: For women, pleasure is derived from anal intercourse because the rectum shares a wall with the vagina and therefore shares some of the nerve endings associated with sexual pleasure.
This is wrong anatomically and factually -- most women do not find anal sex pleasurable, according to surveys by Kinsey and others.  Any statement to the contrary should be quantified somehow.
: The entire opening section of this article does not have a neutral POV.  Rather, it verges on arguments in favor of anal sex and clearly favors a male's perspective.  This seems to violate the official NPOV stance.
: Claiming that "most women do not find it pleasurable" is POV and unverifiable. What is verifiable is that heterosexual couples do indeed practice it (survey mentioned in 4th link below), and that some females find it pleasurable and can achieve orgasm. The presense of nerve endings in the areas described is also verifiable.
::It isn't really unverifiable, most women do not enjoy anal sex as is shown in consistent studies.  Whether that is based on anatomical reasons or social reasons is not really important to whether or not it is a fact.  It could be mentioned that most women do not enjoy anal sex, but some do.  It should also be mentioned that many heterosexual couples do engage in anal sex (and if anyone doesn't understand how most women can dislike anal sex and then a large number of them can participate in it, they don't know very much about women).
::: Let's see some of those "consistent studies." OhNoitsJamieTalk 18:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patently false statement 

message: The article seems to have been reverted to a previous, disputed version, or else someone has restored some disputed information, specifically in the "positions" section.  This has been vigorously disputed above and remains unresolved.  What is it doing back in the article?  Exploding Boy 05:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Just a second

message: I've probably opened a can of worms here. I did scan through and read some of the voluminous debate on the positions section. I rewrote it. I think it's neutral and it avoids jargon like "top", "bottom", "pitcher" and "catcher". In my mind, "penetrative" and "receptive" are descriptive without having one need to reach for a dictionary, look up obscure (to some people) jargon on the Web, or figure out how come the "top" is on the bottom in some positions. :) Although it is a bit awkward in spots with the his/her bits, picking one gender would get me into trouble, I'm sure. :) I also removed and completely replaced what I considered the bogus description of the missionary anal position. I didn't notice anyone here arguing in favour of it, and a lot confused by the description, including me. A cursory (I do admit) search on the Web only finds one reference  that implies a face-to-face position (and none attributing the title to a from-behind position), which makes sense since being face-to-face is the defining feature of the missionary position. However, the position described is valid, so I included a much briefer description of it that didn't make unnecessary allusions to porn videos. Your comments are welcome. --Craig 07:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Positions: And in summary... 

message: This article, especially in the "Anal sex among gay/bisexual men and lesbians" section, is full of weasel words. Phrases like "It should be noted…" and "Some have argued…" are even less useful than "Guanaco believes…". I'll try to clean some of it up, but I'll need help finding sources for all this. Some have argued that this weasel information may simply need to go. Guanaco 03:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasels 

message: The line '("Greek" has become a popular synonym for anal sex in the U.S., perhaps reflecting the perceived acceptance of anal sex in Mediterranean cultures' seems redundant since the next section explains it better.
Also (at least from my experience) more straight people refer to anal sex as 'Greek' than gay people so the line 'and in modern times, "Greek" is sometimes used as gay slang for anal sex' should omit the word 'gay' and just call it slang. GalaxiaGuy 01:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek 

message: I think this is an encyclopedia, not a sexual instructions website. The picture of a woman inserting a strap-on dildo on the man is not suitable for an encyclopedia. I don't see how that picture can help the reader to understand the subject. I'm removing it. --Alberto msr 20:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Granny needs to grow up.  The pegging image is no more explicit than the "Suzuki Harunobu" image.  An ink drawing capturing only outlines hardly counts as explicit, especially when compared to some of the other images on wikipedia.  This image is also used elsewhere on wikipedia (along with quite a few other sex-related line drawings), so it's ridiculous to say that it's too explicit for an encyclopedia.  I don't find pegging an especially pleasant idea, but it's most definitely relevant.  I've moved it to the "Anal sex among heterosexuals" section, though. -- Dpark 00:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Hi Alberto, I'd like to respectfully disagree with you on this subject.  The article in question IS about anal sex, so the 'grandma browsing' argument you make above seems a bit of a stretch.  Would you censors Fuck, Shit and Meekrob too, just because they are bad words?  This _is_ an encyclopedia, like you mentioned, but your personal problems with that picture, especially in light of what seems to be pretty wide scale disagreement from everyone else with you, are not grounds to remove it.  You are welcome to engage in mediation, and I applaud your willingness to avoid a revert war, but please don't censor Wikipedia.  Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't see how that image "would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers".  Is the typical Wikipedia reader really a repressive conservative prude?  Call in the mediation if you think it's worth it.  I don't see that image as inappropriate, though. -- Dpark 01:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would consider a photograph of a woman using a strap-on taken in the act of anal sex to be a little inappropriate, and verging on the pornographic.  But what we have here is an illustration, rather than an actual photograph.  The illustration is not overly detailed, and in a reasonably tasteful style, not excessive at all.  Not so sure about the presence of the enema bag, though.  Chris talk back 01:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd say the enema bag might actually be pretty relevant, especially since the discussion of whether or not an enema is/should be used is touched on in the article. In either event, it'd be hard to classify the illustration of an enema bag as offensive. -- Dpark 01:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't thinking so much about whether it's offensive, but whether it's necessary to show the enema bag or whether it just distracts from the, er, act.  But that's another story.  Chris talk back 01:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

text: It is also apparently gratuitous.  What is there in the article which requires that picture in order to be clearly understood? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text: So, I looked at the Pegging (sexual practice) page and the second picture is of a much better quality. - FrancisTyers 04:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Concerning Granny
The best way for an English teacher to expand the vocabulary of her students is to teach them the definitions of new vocavulary that they encounter in text. The Teacher may then resort to employing a dictionary to find an accurate definition of new words. The dictionary is a very large database of accurately defined words, similarly structured to wikipedia. It is organized for the purpose of retrieving data. The dictionary defined everyday vocabulary such as common nouns and verbs to obscure, newly introduced pieces of english language. It also defines explicitly words such as vulva, anal sex, rape, penis], and other "tabooed" words as such. However, the teacher knows well enough not to tread into those grounds, to the students, that is. Now, a student, once acquiring the skill of how to search for words in a dictionary, can search for words such as vulva, anal sex, rape and penis at his will. This is the situation for a dictionary, and for other informative text on paper. 
"Yet Wikipedia is not censored for minors, it's not a hentai 18+ website. It's a place where Granny wants to surf with her 7 year old nephew without fearing any shocking stuff appearing on the computer screen. Imagine how shocked Granny would feel about the anal sex article? But it's a SCIENTIFIC article, so there is no problem. Yet feeling shockful, Granny would take it easy. But if she saw that picture, she would have an heart attack! You don't wanna make Granny die from a heart attack after visiting Wikipedia, do you? The picture you re-added has no scientific use nor "how to do" explanation. It's too explicit for an encyclopedia. We don't wanna any government organ from some country to obligate Wikipedia to put a "minors warning" in its home page. If you are gonna use pictures, please use something more subtle, like the ancient pictures in the beginning of the article. Hope you understand it. Cheers. --Alberto msr 21:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Women doing the man's ass picture 

message: Saying "feces often come out" is overstating things and although I think the point that some people do find it "disusting" should be mentioned the tone is a little, er, sudden... --GalaxiaGuy
What would be your suggestion to enhance that paragraph? Suggestions are welcome. --Alberto msr 20:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've updated the line to reflect that some feces may still be in the rectum, but typically not a large amount. -- Dpark 00:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The new feces line 

message: I've added a one liner on condom and HIV use in the overview. I appreciate this is discussed later in health issues but IMHO we do need a one liner in the overview since it is such an important recommendation and afterall the overview does mention lubrication.Nil Einne 19:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I revised it, because I felt it implied that a condom is more important for anal sex than vaginal (which isn't strictly true).  I also felt the mention of lubrication was redundant (since it's mentioned in the previous line), and that it looked like you were saying that lube is responsible for reducing STD risk (which isn't exactly false, but not exactly true, either). -- Dpark 22:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overview 

message: I've editted the line, firstly because it looks like it was taken from sexuality.org (or the original document; that one's actually a copy of another).
WP:
: For women, pleasure may also be derived from anal intercourse because the rectum shares a wall with the vagina, and the sexual nerves are actually closer on that side, making the sensation different and sometimes actually stronger.
Sexuality.org:
: [...]and on women it is because the rectum (sorry if you're not looking for technical terms, but I need to be specific) shares a wall with the vagina, and the sexual nerves are actually closer on that side, making the sensation different and sometimes actually stronger.
Secondly, I'm not sure it's at all correct.  The strongest nerves are in the clitoris, which is definitely not between the vagina and rectum. -- Dpark 18:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't actually say "strongest"... Dan100 (Talk) 17:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but it did say that the sensation can be stronger than vaginal stimulation.  But it didn't really back that up, except to say the "sexual nerves" are closer on that side.  Which sexual nerves?  And are they actually stronger than those in the clitoris?  I doubt it. -- Dpark 00:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nerves between rectum and vagina 

message: I've removed the cleanup tag, since we've got the weasel words tag, too.  One should be enough.  If there are any problems with the article that aren't weasel word issues, please cite them here, where everyone can see them.  A lot of the discussions on this page are old, and seem to no longer apply.  If there are obvious problems, please draw atention to them again. -- Dpark 21:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaup Tag Removed -or- Cite Your Grievances 

message: It is not an uncommon practice for a man to ejaculate into his partner during anal sex. This is extremely dangerous, since the risk of being infected with HIV is very high. However, the risk of transmitting an STD is relatively low, if both partners are [monogamous] and if both have tested negative for HIV within the past six months.
I've removed this section to talk page as I believe it is covered elsewhere in the article and it does not seem to be sourced or written in an encyclopaedic tone. Please consider rewriting and sourcing, or merging into the article. - FrancisTyers 18:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ejaculation

message: Cleaned up the article a bit, moved references in style with Wikipedia:Footnotes, moved huge list out into separate article, sectionned introduction -- the lead should be short. Might come back if I have any further ideas, I'm leaving the verify tag on for now as the article needs to cite sources. - FrancisTyers 19:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: I deleted the section on Anal Sex positions because it didn't really have anything to do with the subject matter apart from the first link. The rest said "use a condom" and other such junk that had nothing to do with positions. The link should be included (in this article) elsewhere, but I'm not sure where to place it. If someone will do that it'd be most appreciated. Chooserr 00:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I shoved it in the See also section, seems to fit ;) - FrancisTyers 00:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Positions 

message: I listed the source it's page, and all the other stuff under the further reading bit. I can give a full quote if you like. Chooserr 00:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I've footnoted it. If you like you can provide a quote, but it isn't essential :) FrancisTyers 00:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source 

message: The image "Romanmanandyouth.jpg" at the top of the page seems inappropriate. These are not two consenting adults; one is a youth. This is of no relevance to a modern discussion on anal sex.
:I don't know how one would determine whether the youth was of the age of consent for Rome of his time.  Additionally, I believe the image was used because it's a pretty darn unobjectionable picture to use in this kind of article.  I also don't think the article should be restricted to talking about modern anal sex. -GregoryWeir 13:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia's article on oral sex features a variety of tasteful illustrations. I think something similar would be far more appropriate for this piece. --AWF
First of all, I don't think any Greek or Roman pottery was decorated with images of rape, as the top poster here is suggesting.  Second, you can't take your modern day convictions and project them into history; in the classical period sex between adult males and youths was acceptable and legal.  Exploding Boy 21:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romanman and youth jpg 

message: I notice that this fine article restricts itself to humans. A section on nonhumans could be added that mentions humans  engaging in anal sex with nonhumans as well as anal sex in nonhuman species. Bird sex is always anal sex because their  shit hole IS their sex hole. Species that INJECT sperm (like a hypodermic needle) provide another interesting contrast.  WAS 4.250 17:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With birds it's not anal it's cloacal 201.23.64.2 19:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nonhumans

message: The overview mentions the recommendations of sexologists for the use of lubrication for reasons of pleasure however afaik, most medical professionals and I guess most sexologists also recommend the use of (condom-friendly) lubrication (and condoms obviously) to reduce the risk of STI/STD transmission which the overview fails to mentions... Also, I'm skeptical whether there needs to be such a long section in the overview on US laws surrounding anal sex. This should probably be reduced with the extra content moved to a new legal section and information on the laws in other countries added. Nil Einne 11:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Overview

message: Regarding this disputed paragraph: 
:For women, pleasure is derived from anal intercourse because the rectum shares a wall with the vagina and therefore shares some of the nerve endings associated with sexual pleasure. The anus itself also contains a number of nerves which can react pleasurably when excited.
Claiming that "most women do not find it pleasurable" is POV and unverifiable.  What is verifiable is that heterosexual couples do indeed practice it (survey mentioned in 4th link below), and that some females find it pleasurable and can achieve orgasm.  The presense of nerve endings in the areas described is also verifiable.
*from soc.ucsb.edu
*from studenthealth.oregonstate.edu
*from sexuality.org
*"according to a 1994 survey, 25 percent of all heterosexual adults have engaged in anal sex." OhNoitsJamieTalk 20:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So what's the problem here? It doesn't say anything about the amount that find it pleasurable, but that pleasure could be derived from those sources. It could be that if you weren't a very good reader you would say that it says that all women find it pleasurable. However, it says nothing of the sort. Cheerio! Lass Lethe 01:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Heterosexual anal sex

message: I have redirected the wikilink on the term "digital rectal stimulation" on the Margaret Cho page to come here. However I am not sure whether or not that act qualifies as an act of masturbation of an act of anal sex. Pacian 16:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go to Uncyclopedia for such edits please. (I personally didn't find your edit funny...) Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 21:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Digital rectal stimulation

message: I came across this article today unexplainably and I was inspired to Be Bold with this page. I've moved around a lot of things, but I left almost all of the original information in the article. A lot of the problem with this article is that it has massive amounts of POV scattered everywhere, and a lot of redundancies. There were many times in this article that someone provides a link to another word and then choses to define it in detail on this page as well. The idea is to keep it as trim as possible on this page so that people who need small bits of information but know a lot about the subject already can come and read about it while people who don't know little nuances of the subject can go to other links and learn more. This is still evident with the sodomy stuff under the "western cultures" section, but I'm really clueless as to how I can fix that without deleting it all together. Some other things I tried to fix was the fact that random pieces of information were sitting in various places on the page (specifically, the stuff about sodomy and such). The main intro was also WAY too long, with information that should have been in the body of the article stuffed into the top.
I hope I've helped a bit with this article. Please post here if you have a problem or any questions about my assertions with this article. :-)
-Noneloud 09:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LOTS of work done by me (please don't hate me) 

message: :At least one study has shown that when performed properly, anal intercourse may actually improve anal health. The theory goes that excessive anal tension causes conditions like hemorrhoids and fistulas. Practitioners of anal sex must relax the anal area for it to be possible, and this ability to gain conscious control over the anus allows that person to better control its normal everyday function. In the study, the anal health of approximately 300 "fisting" practitioners was studied, and it was found that lower than average rates of hemorrhoids and fistulas were present. One caveat of the study is the small sample size, however.
The study in question appears to be contained in a book. As a scientist, I'm quite skeptical of any 'study' that exclusively appears in a book. Unless this study has also appeared in a peer-reviewed scientific journal (in which case we should link there) IMHO this section at tbe very least needs to be reworked if not completely removed. Perhaps we should say something like "In a book by Jack Morin, it was claimed based on a study by the author (or whoever)..." Nil Einne 14:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is likely nonsense, I've removed the paragraph.  The book is not by a medical doctor, either. --Xyzzyplugh 16:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Study? 

message: This article is phallo-centric. Perhaps because public sexual discussion is itself phallo-centric. But NPOV requires better.
Lesbians (who don't do penis) engage in anal play. This involves tongue, fingers, hands, and other things, rimming, digital stimulation and penetration and fisting. Why should the sexual practices of lesbians be excluded? As far as I can tell, anal sex is about anuses, and everybody, male and female, has one. The penis is incidental.
I'm going to take to this article with an axe. The focus should be on asses, with penises just another tool, and not a central theme. 58.107.87.183 05:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I am agreeing with you here, but I would have to say the present article is worse than previous versions I have seen. Not only is it Phallo-centric, its also Homosexually biased - now all the pictures, and most of the text is biased that way. A great pity - needs a rebalance back to where it was. Rgds, - Trident13 21:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phallo-centric 

message: Why does this need citation exactly? Ask just about anyone and they'll tell you they've heard of it. I know, you said it was needed to be proven but what do you mean by that? Proven online or proven by people's knowledge? If this didn't happen, why would the military need that don't ask don't tell stuff? Because they know it might/will happen. The navy has the most gay activities in it (and yes this is what I heard) because they're stuck on those darn submarines/ships for 6 months at a time with no women, at least none that they can have any anything with. It doesn't take an idiot to put 2 and 2 together like that. I say, just because a few people are complaining that it's not sourced on the web while 99% of the population knows this stuff, we should not need citations.
Faris b 19:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anal sex in schools and military 

message: "Virtually all Christians confirm the importance of accepting and welcoming homosexuals into their communities and protecting their civil rights."
What about the people in Texas (as stated above this passage, the lawsuit)? Aren't they christians, I mean, alot of them? I don't think it's correct to say "virtually all"!!
:I have put a citation around this - certainly unproven, potentially verging on POV. The biggest christian group are the catholics, and they don't approve of use of the condom at present. It would probably be better written as "many churches" as opposed to "virtually all christians" - unless there's a pole of most of the chritians in the world out there some where. Rgds, - Trident13 23:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are entitled to your opinion.  It is common for people with a prejudice to assume that others think the same way they do.  Christian communities, as a while, tend to follow the teachings of Christ.  The passage does not say that Christians accept or feel that anal sex is fine.  It says that they respect and accept homosexuals, not anal sex.  "Virtually all" does not mean "all".  It means that the narrow minded anti-homosexual christians are a very small proportion of all Christians.  As the section has been there for quite some time, maybe you'd like to provide evidence (other than your doubt) that it is contrary? Atom 11:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this article on the recent U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops sorts out the proven case for removing the term "Virtualy All" - it does say that those with a homosexual tendancy don't lack human dignity. This also brings up the question as to why the article doesn't mention in the same section the proven fact that the Catholic Church teaches that homosexual inclination is "objectively disordered" and that homosexual acts are "intrinsically disordered", and hence preaches abstinence? I am a Christian but not a Catholic, and personally can't agree with the Catholic church on this, but as an encyclopedia we should state a balance of provable fact - which we clearly are not doing at present in this section of this article. Can we now agree text which removes the terms "virtually all" churches, and reflects the factual Catholic Church position? Rgds, - Trident13 23:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I can but agree Jpgordon! And Atom, as a statement which says "large majority" can't be verified and substantiated from a reputable source, the whole thing needs to be removed. I can think the Catholic church is biased on a number of issues, but unless its verifiable from a reputable source, you can't write it here on wiki - those are the rules! If we can't comply with that, then the statement is POV, and can resultantly be removed by any editor. Rgds, - Trident13 00:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christianity, Islam, etc. section 

message: Am I the only one who has this page's text appear on their browser seem to go on to the right forever? I have to scroll right to read most things, is there a way to fix this? It drives me crazy. 
Faris b 17:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page error? 

message: The article has been exclusively about the aspect of anal sexuality that involves a human penis. I thus removed the section which one sentence: Two women may have anal sex by using a strap-on dildo. Many females have replaced the strap-on with such objects as their fingers, fists, tongues, and many other various sexual toys such as double ended dildos, citing the first paragraph of the article: The insertion of a sex toy (dildo, butt plug, vibrator) or other object, the finger or the hand (fisting) as well as the tongue (anilingus) counts as anal stimulation and is not considered anal sex. Faris b objected, and decided the solution was to retain the section in question, and add ...but may be considered as such if both participants are female to the definition. I'm not convinced this is the solution to the problem. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Females... 

message: Once again, this article has become a total mess.  Who on earth came up with the definition in the opening paragraph?!  Exploding Boy 17:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mess

message: I dunno about anyone else, but to me, the newly added illustration (:Image:Illus wp 2006-10-12 cc-by-sa.gif) is really indistinguishable from a quarterback and his center, other than the dangly parts. That is to say, I don't really think this illustrates anal sex in any way that actually might edify the reader. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to have been uploaded by a user who has no history of vandalism. The two men in the picture are obvious caricatures of the hosts of Mythbusters. I've deleted the image, both from the database and from the article. I'm puzzled. - Richardcavell 12:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything about that image is disturbing.  Why does the one guy have protobreasts?  And why are they both staring at me?!  Exploding Boy 18:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The latest illustration 

message: during the ottoman period it is known that anal sex was an ordinary exercise among the bureaucratic and academic circles of time.. although islam has prohibitions over it, influenced by the roman culture through the inheritance of byzantium; ottomans were considerably tolerant to anal sex (in line with homosexuality) with respect to other islamic cultures.. quite a few ottoman sultans are known to have boys as lovers around them.. an expansion should include this fact under ancient cultures title i guess..Agnostic2694 01:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: interesting theory. Aside from the fact that Ottoman sultans had the largest harems of the world with more than one thousand women, I suppose if you brought some solid research on this by serious academicians, it might get a mention in the article. Baristarim 02:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ottoman custom of anal sex? 

message: Does anyone else feel parts of the article are two US centric? For example, US legal issues are discussed in both the Western cultures and legal issues sections. However there is quite a lot of legal information for other countries in Sodomy law. Ironically Sodomy law doesn't talk much about the situation in the US, much less then this article. IMHO, US legal issues should be completely removed from the Western cultures section. The section on US specific laws in legal issues should be trimmed down to one or two sentences at most. Nil Einne 16:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parts too US centric? 

message: In the article it says that Orthodox Judaism permits heterosexual anal sex. I don't think this is true, for the same reason that fellatio and male masturbation are not allowed: all "seed" has to be directed towards childbirth or something like that.
Actually the article says "Orthodox Judaism teaches that sodomy is homosexual anal sex, and so, a sin and toevah,"  Where did you get the idea that the article said that it is permitted?  Atom 00:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judaism and Anal Sex 

message: However, since spermicide is an irritant to both the vagina and the anus, it can make contracting STDs easier for either partner, and can cause complications such as irritation, vaginal E. coli infection, and urinary tract infection. It can also damage the lining of the colon over time and should be avoided in condoms and lubrication.
I removed this sentence for two reasons; first, it is unclear what the contrasting statement is being made about (howver).  A semicolon would have made it clearer.  Second, it does not belong in this article to begin with.  It might belong in an article about vaginal/anal lubricants or sexual hazzards.  Jerry lavoie 06:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed extraneous description of hazzards of spermicidal lubricant use.

message: there are not pics of not penis to anus anal sex, nor between two men, nor any actual photographs, i think they are lacking and would make the article better illustrated and more well rounded and informative.
:I think photographs of actual anal sex would be cause for constant edit wars and endless debates. If someone can not get their head around the idea of anal sex from the two images of both male-male and male-female anal sex currently in the article they need a lesson in human anatomy. Further images can be found at Wikimedia commons, which is linked to in the See also section. Though images are necessary to illustrate a concept, and Wikipedia is not censored, it is also not a porn site. Richard001 23:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: commons:Category:Rear-entry positions includes a variety of images, one that's a more explicit is :Image:Doublepen.png.  Would that work?  If it wouldn't work because it depicts additional things beyond anal sex, someone could possibly edit the second penis out...  --Interiot 01:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That might be a good secondary option I think. I think it might be better to use a homosexual picture, as it can be more clear what's going on without a closeup. As to censorship issue, several pages include way more graphic images than the examples given for inclusion here. They have been debated heavily, but that's part of WP. Of course, religous people and homophobes seem to be particularly incensed by sodomy, so it might attract more anger than others. It just means more anti-vandals are needed. Example: Pearl necklace. VanTucky 00:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo Request

message: Ass to mouth recently failed an AfD, and was replaced by a redirect to Anal-oral contact.  I feel that this page is more appropriate for the redirect, if the subject doesn't deserve its own article, and have changed things accordingly. Tevildo 00:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. HalJor 00:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A2M redirect 

message: This tag on this page seems unwarranted it has better research and citation than a lot of other articles. Can anyone point to something  directly, as I am finding all the details cited by following links and reading references. I am considering removing the tag due to lack of evidence.--Matt 11:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been thinking about it overnight and two things occur to me one is considering the references already included a citation needed at the specific disputed phrase might be more appropriate and the other is that all of this is referred to on one of the see also links. Therefore the question is one of reputable source. --Matt 22:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aretino's Lust Sonnets discuss heterosexual anal sex extensively. There is a lot of published research on this, and the reasons for it, in the Renaissance period. Paul B 22:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  unreferenced tag 

message: Of the three current images, only one clearly depicts anal sex (the shunga). The others are just as likely to depict vaginal sex performed "Doggy style". None of the latter should be presented as the main image. Paul B 22:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The image change has been reverted with the bizarre claim that the red figure image is "normative". Why? Because it is heterosexual? Or because it is Greek rather than Japanese? The Japanese are not normative then? What kind of Eurocentric logic is this? There's no reason to assume that the red figure image even depicts non-vaginal sex. Paul B 00:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is more appropriate to begin with a more representative image - same sex relations are simply not as frequent as man/woman couplings. I will contribute a confirmed image of Greek ceramics as soon as possible. Haiduc 00:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your reasoning is incomprehensible. It is absurd to have an image standing for the topic that may not even portray it. I don't care whether it is hetero or homo. It should indisputably depict the act. I don't want to engage in an edit war, but I can see no merit at all in your argument. Paul B 01:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Hindu image has been in the article for eons. I have no idea what has gotten you so exercised. And I did not even want to get into the mechanics of the Greek images for fear of offending you. But I have found another that has received scholarly blessing as a clear example of hetero anal sex among the Greeks, and will upload it when I have a free moment. Haiduc 01:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hindu image? I am discussing a Shunga and a Red Figure (Greek) image, not a Hindu one. Nor have I any idea what you mean about being offended. I have no problem with the idea that Greeks engaged in anal sex, just that there is no good reason to believe that this picture depicts it. I think vaginal sex from the rear is far more common. The offense is entirely in your mind and you seem to have some sort of agenda - to show that anal sex is common among heterosexuals. Well, that's not much of a shock to me, or to my sexual partners, I can assure you. Neither, however, is vaginal sex from the rear, which is commonplace. If you have a clear image of heterosexual anal sex, then use it. This is not it. Paul B 01:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: images

message: 149.167.98.195 17:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  imo 

message: I find the supposed statistics on anal sex and incontinence somewhat dodgy.  The referenced article states, "forty anoreceptive (AR) male homosexuals were compared with 18 age matched non-anoreceptive (non-AR) heterosexual males."  Can one really generate reliable statistics on such a common sexual act from a sample of only fifty-eight men?  Here in this wikipedia article it is stated, "A 1993 study published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine found that 35% of individuals receiving anal intercourse experienced episodes of frequent anal incontinence."  I find it somewhat misleading; it suggests a finality to a statistic that seems overall inconclusive.
This part of the article should be removed or made more specific as to its limited scope and questionable factuality. --69.217.90.168 13:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course people lie about sex, but that does not mean that it is impossible to construct worthwhile statistics. The section seems to be well phrased. If you think the size of the sample should be mentioned, do so. Paul B 13:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just feel that if one wants to construct a worthwhile statistic on something that a fairly large portion of the population does, the sample should be way larger.  Using 58 people to draw a conclusion on something hundreds of thousands or maybe even millions of people do or have done seems fallacious to me.  I will modify that section to make more specific. --69.211.149.142 00:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that a bit more precision there would be useful. Also more data from more studies, if anyone can find them. Haiduc 05:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not falacious. Obviously more would be better, but 58 is not a trival number of participants by any means. Paul B 10:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incontinence 

message: Just a note that I've added a line in italics directing people to the article on animal sexuality if they wish to read about anal sex in animals. The article had previously not mentioned the topic at all, which I felt was unsatisfactory. Richard001 23:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation

message: Is there anyway we can get a non-transvestite image for the Male-Male section, the article has a bit of a heterogender bias right now visually. Androphile.org has a picture of an Etruscan vase depicting two men having anal sex, and a cameo of two nude male torsos in an anal sex position, maybe a more modern image might even be alright. I dunno, I think the Shunga image might better illustrate the Ancient Cultures section. Velps 18:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It dates from the 18th C, so it's hardly "ancient". I has the advntage that it depicts the actual act of anal penetration clearly. Most images do not, including the vase. It is not even clear whether the hetero images even depict anal sex at all. They may or may not be intended to. Paul B 23:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Male-Male Image

message: Under the Anatomical homologies, it says the following:
:Having anal sex physiologically alters a woman's hormonal makeup, creating deviations in the L5SI sector of a maturing ovum. This slight change in the nucleic acids can result in roxinuclobia, or, an alteration in the chromosomes which causes a fertalized egg's DNA to change slightly. Roxinuclobia causes the fetus to have sharper facial features and a faster metabolism. As a result, Roxinuclobic children tend to be more healthy, have more defined jaws, and have what people describe as a "Model-esq physique."
Where is the reference for this? I've never heard of this and it sounds kind of false to me. Can anyone get a reference/source for it?
Faris b 15:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a load of gibberish added anonymously yeasterday. Paul B 15:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anatomical homologies? 

message: I know, this probably doesn't need it's own section but should there be a mention of M to F (male to female) pre-operative transexuals and anal sex? It would be the same as male-male anal sex I guess but I'm just throwing it out there.
Faris b 15:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should it be included? All it says is that transexuals can have anal sex. We may as well have a section saying that wheelchair users can have anal sex. Anyone can have anal sex. It is uncited and uses inappropriate slangish abbreviations (M2F). If there is support for the assertions about attitudes then maybe some is worth keeping. Paul B 16:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transexual anal 

message: this whole section is unnecessary and has overtones of demeaning anal sex between women. 'however only men have penises' WHAT? what kind of sentence is that? the whole addition is irrelevant to the article and is just disjointed and random.71.232.108.228 10:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anatomical homologies 

message: I have an issue with the "Anatomical Homologies" section of this article. The way the facts are presented in this section gives the false impression that the prostate and Skene's gland purpose is to provide pleasure, and that the prostate's location near the male anus suggests a homology between the male anus and the female vagina... As if the male anus is supposed to be penetrated and men are supposed to garner pleasure from it the way a woman garners pleasure from vaginal penetration. This is wrong. While there are anatomical homologies between the prostate and Skene's gland, they both have nothing to do with pleasure and the homology certainly does not lie in the coincidence that both "spots" can be stimulated by the penetration of certain body cavities. 
I suggest that the article notes how the placement of the prostate can provide pleasure for men being anally penetrated, but say nothing of the homologies between the prostate and Skene's gland as they are completely irrelevant to anal sex. Berserk798 20:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I can't make any sense of your "point" either, so Velps is not alone. Paul B 12:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Anatomical Homologies" 

message: This image is irrelevant. I'm sure there has to be a better image...
:I agree, but see the discussion under "images" above, in which an editor works himself into a frenzy over the idea that it might not be appropriate as the lead image since it may not even depict the subject of the article. Paul B 11:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Asian art; Man and woman copulating, possibly anally 

message: There is a strange juxtaposition of hard medical fact (that anal sex can create incontinence) and a quote from a sex book authored by someone who is not a medical doctor.  Tristan Taormino may indeed be "self-styled anal sex 'sexpert,'" but her opinion appears to be somewhat in error.  Unless there is a really good reason retain the quote from the book, it really needs to be dropped. ~~~~
Its true that, like Sue Johansen, she's only a nurse not a doctor, but thats hardly nothing, I mean we can assume former porn star would know a thing or two but she does have some medical credentials as well. 
As for the study it wasn't clear (to me, maybe I missed something) whether the subjects who developed symptoms of incontinence were involoved in fisting, unlubricated sex, heavy drinking or if they had been raped, so I wouldn't assume that they're right and she's wrong Velps 21:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incontinence section 

message: ===Feminist point of view===
The outspoken feminist Camille Paglia noted that anal sex is not the same thing as vaginal sex because the vaginal canal goes right to the womb, to the heart of a women's sexual identity, the heart of nature itself."Interviewing the Vamp": Interview by Elana Zeide. The Yale Journal of Ethics, 1996
It has been argued  that a male heterosexual attraction to the practice has a basis in patriarchal mythologies surrounding a fear of the vagina and suspicion of women's sexual enjoyment and appetites (see succubus). Additionally, it is argued that the appeal of anal sex to many male heterosexuals is a fetish of the taboo, sometimes associated with feces and human waste, as well as of violence and domination, as anal sex practices can result in the bruising and tearing of tissue. Moreover, there have been arguments that the avoidance of the anus is essentially human escapism, a facade whereby man denies his excretory functions, and that, ergo, the practice of the act is merely a form of disillusionment (cf. Ernest Becker's The Denial of Death). 
From a utilitarian perspective it is also argued by some that the anus is a highly sensitive area with erogenous potential, providing ample opportunity for sexual arousal; that anal sex is a natural permutation of human sexuality, little different from oral sex or other noncoital contact; and that women can derive as much pleasure from the violation of taboos against non-traditional sexual practices as men can.
Most of this seems to be quite bizarre, and is largely unreferenced. The one reference is to the very idiosyncratic Camile Paglia, and even that does not really explain what her opinion is actually supposed to mean, beyond the blindingly obvious point that anal sex, like all non-vaginal sex, does not connect to the womb. It is not at all clear what this fact is supposed to imply or why this somehow separates it from "the heart of a woman's sexual identity". Paul B 00:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: moved from article

message: The outspoken feminist Camille Paglia noted that anal sex is not the same thing as vaginal sex because the vaginal canal goes right to the womb, to the heart of a women's sexual identity, the heart of nature itself."Interviewing the Vamp": Interview by Elana Zeide. The Yale Journal of Ethics, 1996
It has been argued  that a male heterosexual attraction to the practice has a basis in patriarchal mythologies surrounding a fear of the vagina and suspicion of women's sexual enjoyment and appetites (see succubus). Additionally, it is argued that the appeal of anal sex to many male heterosexuals is a fetish of the taboo, sometimes associated with feces and human waste, as well as of violence and domination, as anal sex practices can result in the bruising and tearing of tissue. Moreover, there have been arguments that the avoidance of the anus is essentially human escapism, a facade whereby man denies his excretory functions, and that, ergo, the practice of the act is merely a form of disillusionment (cf. Ernest Becker's The Denial of Death). 
From a utilitarian perspective it is also argued by some that the anus is a highly sensitive area with erogenous potential, providing ample opportunity for sexual arousal; that anal sex is a natural permutation of human sexuality, little different from oral sex or other noncoital contact; and that women can derive as much pleasure from the violation of taboos against non-traditional sexual practices as men can.
Most of this seems to be quite bizarre, and is largely unreferenced. The one reference is to the very idiosyncratic Camile Paglia, and even that does not really explain what her opinion is actually supposed to mean, beyond the blindingly obvious point that anal sex, like all non-vaginal sex, does not connect to the womb. It is not at all clear what this fact is supposed to imply or why this somehow separates it from "the heart of a woman's sexual identity". Paul B 00:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Feminist point of view

message: get this featured. work hard everyone! 71.62.10.130 03:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  lets