![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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)
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.
If the wording is the main issue under debate, then why not simply say that women can find anal sex pleasurable, as opposed to categorically stating we do or don't, because that's more a matter of preference than anything else.
GO TO: http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/sexinfo/?article=faq&refid=125 ON ANAL SEX Read About the Dangers of Anal Sex.
We probably shouldn't include statements so general such as "women like/don't like". It would be better to state that "this agrees with the majority of women, as revealed by surveys".-- Orthologist 15:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
http://www.slate.com/id/2126643/
According to data released earlier this year by the Centers for Disease Control, the probability of HIV acquisition by the receptive partner in unprotected oral sex with an HIV carrier is one per 10,000 acts. In vaginal sex, it's 10 per 10,000 acts. In anal sex, it's 50 per 10,000 acts. Do the math. Oral sex is 10 times safer than vaginal sex. Anal sex is five times more dangerous than vaginal sex and 50 times more dangerous than oral sex.
Other useful academic data is also available on the PDF link within the article. It takes one to know one 08:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
...which leads me onto a second point:
i believe the section "The most necessary elements of a good experience are communication, lubrication, and relaxation." needs to be replaced. also, the article mentions it as existant, but it's not. has this page been forgotten about?
What are the Dangers of Anal Sex?
Question: What are the Dangers of Anal Sex?
Answer: Anal sex can be risky. Even when people use lots of lubrication during anal sex, there can be tearing of the tissue inside the anus, which is not as well protected as the skin outside the anus. Our external tissue is “kerotinized,” meaning that it has layers of dead cells that create a thickened protective barrier. The tissue inside the anus does not have this feature. Without plenty of lubrication, anal tissue can tear quite easily, creating openings where bacteria and viruses can enter and cause problems.
The first picture shows the anus, where the rectum ends and releases feces from the body. The anus is usually held closed by a sphincter, which is a muscle that goes around the opening of the anus. (There are many different sphincters in the body, and they all encircle specific body parts, keeping them closed when the sphincter muscle contracts, then letting things pass through when the sphincter muscle relaxes.) In this picture, the person who is going to receive anal sex is shown at the left, lying face down, and the penis is shown at the right before it makes contact with the anus.
The second picture shows the penis putting pressure on the anus as the man attempts to push his penis into the recipient’s anus. The extra pressure on the anus places the sphincter muscle around the anus to contract extra tightly. This tightening of the sphincter is a reflex and it happens automatically, as if the body was designed to keep things from entering the anus from the outside. The contraction of the sphincter makes it all the harder for the penis to enter into the anus—especially if no lubricants have been used to facilitate anal penetration.
The third picture shows that the penis has begun to be pushed into the anus. Note that the tight fight of the penis in the anus (which is closed by the anal sphincter) causes small tears in the interior parts of the anus, though there may not be any conspicuous external bleeding. The risks for tearing in the anus are higher if little or no lubrication is used, and/or anal penetration is done quickly, rather than slowly and gradually with adequate lubrication.
The fourth picture portrays a highly enlarged representation of one of the many tiny tears in the anus, showing that it is much larger than a virus. Hence, even a miniscule tear is like a “superhighway” for viruses such as HIV—the virus that causes AIDS. Viruses are among the very smallest of life forms, so a broken blood vessel is gigantic in comparison with a virus.
For this reason, anal sex is the riskiest form of sexual activity when it comes to the transmission of HIV/AIDS. Tiny tears in the anal tissue are like giant superhighways for the HIV viruses, allowing them to get inside the body and enter the blood system. Anal tears provide an opening for all the other STDs as well. It may be possible for repetitive anal sex to lead to weakening of the anal sphincter, which is the muscle that tightens after we defecate. Once weakened, feces can escape the anus against our will. However, on Dr. Drew’s website [
[1]], it says that doing Kegel exercises can help strengthen the anal sphincter.. The Kegel exercises are usually used to strengthen the muscles near the vagina. The exercises consist of tightening and relaxing the muscles that you use to stop the flow of urine. These muscles also help stop feces from escaping the anus.
Even if the anus has been washed thoroughly, do not let anything that has touched it come in contact with the vagina or urethra. Lots of bacteria live in the anus and they can cause infections in the vagina or urethra. This is the reason women are taught to wipe front to back, to avoid spreading diseases to the front. Even if you and your partner have no STIs (sexually transmitted infections) or STDs (sexually transmitted diseases), he should always use a condom (with extra lubrication) for anal sex, then replace that with a fresh new condom before starting vaginal sex. The condom will protect him from bacterial infections from inside the anus.
To read more information about anal sex, please click here.
--Sexperts
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)
The following text:
seems to be biased or at least poorly written. To my best knowledge, the percentage of false negatives isn't high after the minimum period for detection which I believe is several weeks (obviously if the transmission occured recently within the time period where the test is not effective, this can't really be considered a false negative IMHO). Furthermore, what are the tranmission rates for protected anal sex (I mean with protection properly used and lubrication, etc to prevent condom breakage)? Is it really true that it is not recommend and by which organisations (Homophobes alliance etc will not be considered)? I know where I live (NZ), there has been a bit of a fuss lately with regards to vaginal intercourse. The courts have decided and this has been supported by a number of organisations that someone is not required to disclose their HIV status (this person knew they were HIV+ and did not disclose) provided protection is used. As said, this is with vaginal intercourse but the article (quoted paragraph) says this applies to all sexual activities that effectively transmit HIV. Also I suspect the same decision would have be reached for anal sex as well. Nil Einne 16:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Also, HIV testing is much less precise than people think. False negatives do occur. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.111.225.61 ( talk • contribs) .
HUMANS CANNOT CHANGE THE DESIGN AND USE FOR THE HUMAN BODY
Why do you reader, believe there is so much sickness and disease? It is because people are Stupid, Ignorant, Self Willed, Rebellious and Arrogant. They believe they know more than the Creator about His Creation. Wake Up Stupid Humanity! You don't have to be like you are! Look around you...THINK - READ AND SEE HOW YOUR BODY DETERIORATES when you abuse it. ANAL SEX IS ABUSE TO THE BODY..while the soul is being Killed!
The true answer to this question is:
Anal sex is a Perversion. It is born of LUST of the flesh. It is written in the Torah/Bible "it is an abomination to God, our Blessed Creator".
Sex is a gift to humanity. It is the tie that bonds one heart and body to the other in "marriage", which is a committed partnership between a Man and a Woman. It is to co-create with God to create new bodies for the Souls He wants to send to this earth plane to learn and develop a family for the spiritual world.
The anus is the doorway for the fecal matter; waste, filled with poisons and toxins, the ground and gestation space for sickness, disease and death to be alleviated from the gut, called the intestine. That waste matter is commonly called poop, dung, cocka etc.
When a person has anal sex, two possible side effects are: poisons and toxins are speed to the other person, who penetrates the anus or who copulates (with the mouth) the anus. Germs enter and it may take a week, a month or a year or so to gestate in the intestines and go into the blood system of the person who is performing this act. Another side effect is "baldness" as the germs flow into the bloodline. It is written that "the life is in the blood", so when the blood is contaminated, the, blood is then polluted, cannot nourish the body, and it seems that the weakest place is the follicles of the head, eyebrows and sometimes eyelashes.
When a person allows another to penetrate the anus, the colon is affected. The danger is that the colon can be "torn" and the pain is horrific and blood poisoning can set in. Also as that person ages, the tissues thin and the elasticity becomes weak.
There are more colon problems today than ever before. More surgery to remove parts of the colon, or cancer of the colon. It is an un natural act. Even the animals don't indulge in such behavior. People who do that should be ashamed of themselves for destroying their body and others also. It is an un natural act, for those who are seeking a "thrill from lust".
There was a time when this was on the books in many states as AGAINST THE LAW. It should return to that once again. It is called Sodomy, one of the worst sins against ones own body. So, who ever you are, Wise Up, don't be as stupid as the trendsetters are who are publicizing such ignorant, abominal acts and promoting such things. Below is pasted from the WEB What are the Dangers of Anal Sex?
" Anal sex can be risky. Even when people use lots of lubrication during anal sex, there can be tearing of the tissue inside the anus, which is not as well protected as the skin outside the anus. Our external tissue is “kerotinized,” meaning that it has layers of dead cells that create a thickened protective barrier. The tissue inside the anus does not have this feature. Without plenty of lubrication, anal tissue can tear quite easily, creating openings where bacteria and viruses can enter and cause problems." Source(s) Check with the Bible, the Gastroenterologist, the Proctologist who themselves are not a homosexual." In men who have sex with men, the incidence of anal Cancer and /or anal tears climbs to about 100 in 100,000. It could be more as these figures are not updated. Read the Wikipedia "NEW EVIDENCE OF SODOMY" AND CHECK THIS LINK: http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/sexinfo/?article...
Animals do in fact engage in anal sex both in the sense that humans are animals and that non-human animals engage in anal sex. 71.237.226.28 02:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)anonymous
—————————
You are so wrong about wikipedia is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored Do note use bible as a source, do not talk about god.
I lol'd really hard at the religious wack-job 71.98.15.142 02:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I think a few posters are going out of their way to downplay the fact that anal sex is a particularly risky form of sex. Sounds like some sort of gay agenda. Someone complained that the text "suggest you should not have anal sex with someone who is HIV+ or HIV unknown". Now why would someone suggest a silly thing like that? :)
Obviously you shouldn't have sex with anybody with HIV if you can help it. The point is anal sex is especially risky. That's biology, not an attack on gay people. 68.166.68.84 05:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
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 [2] 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)
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. Guan aco 03:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)--
Alberto msr
21:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
About the image, take a look at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Profanity . It's a page about the Profanity policy in Wikipedia. I'm not going to revert the page again, otherwise a revert-war could be started. Anyway, I'm going to call some mediation efforts here so that we can get in a consensus. -- Alberto msr 00:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
This picture is stupid. A man doing a woman's ass is way more common than woman doing a man's. The article basically even admits this. Why would you favor a drawing of a highly uncommon act over a highly common one?
Goaty
06:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Not particularly offensive, just not a particularly suitable quality reproduction for this page (no offense to the artist, but it just seems out of place). The womans form is all off, the lamp looks too small (or the enema bag too big), my 0.02€ is to remove it until a better quality image can be found. - FrancisTyers 04:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
By the way, if the 7 year old kid was the elderly lady's nephew, she would be his aunt, not his granny .... but whatever. :--) JackofOz 10:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
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)--Alberto msr 21:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)"
When granny shows her seven year old nephew how to use the dictionary, she hopefully doesn't search for words such as
penis,
vulva, and
rape as demonstrative examples, therefore a sane granny would do the same when browsing through wikipedia.
Just as the young once did with dictionaries, they now use the internet to satisfy their curiosity with "tabooed" terms such as
vulva,
penis and
rape. Adults have seen that vulnerability in the interet, and unlike the dictionary that defines any word with several lines of text, the internet hands you a boatload of video clips, images and sound bites of information at your command. So, parental control was invented. It isn't the responsibility of wikipedia to withold information, rather, wikipedia should contain the information, and a third party control what information is retrieved from wikipedia. That third party would be parental control. Personally, I have had parental control on, Norton and AOL parental control to be specific, and it DOES NOT block the wikipedia as a whole, rather, it only bars the viewer from viewing articles that contain material that the parental control software is scripted to censor.
For those who still feel that it is too dangerous to put out any image of anal sex or any other article that defined "tabooed" terms, wouldn't you be an advocate of book censcorship and the chinas own version of an Online encyclopedia "Baidu.com" ?
{Before you are quick to judge me, I will state that I am straight, and DO NOT take a liking for or advocate anal sex, however, I do take a liking for access to open access to information.}
Ottokarf 07:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
this is ludricus, this is an encyclopedia, not a childrens book, not a retirement home newspaper. bottom line pictures get people interested. Very few people are likely to read the entire article on the Potsdam Conference if the picture of stalin, churchill and roosevelt was not there. I am posting a picture up of pegging as it is clearly a form of anal sex Paskari 23:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
OK I can't find any pictures about pegging... Paskari 00:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
What about below? "Many" is a little vague and the second sentence doesn't sound right still...
GalaxiaGuy 21:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
It's gratuitous and unnecessary. The article isn't any better for it and some people may find it in poor taste, if not offensive.
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)
Using a condom is more important for anal sex than with vaginal sex, for several reasons that have been stated several times. 68.166.68.84 05:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
This paragraph I find confusing:
Does this refer to some articles in 'Cosmopolitan' or what? I am not aware of any increased media attention unless it be some coded references in rap songs or the like. This claim should either be expanded or deleted. And what is an 'ancestral taboo'? Henry Miller has written of committing this type of act during the early 20's of the 20th. Cspalletta 05:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I've editted the line, firstly because it looks like it was taken from sexuality.org [3] (or the original document; that one's actually a copy of another).
WP:
Sexuality.org:
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)
I just desired to point out, that if i recall correctly it this has nothing to do with the clitoris, It mentioned that it was could be stronger than vaginal penetration, vaginal penetration does not automatically involve the clitoris; and as for whether or not it is stronger than those in the clitoris, I honestly have ignorance and apathy to that, though I will point out that biological variation may in some cases make anal stimulation stronger than clitoral. On a side note: this is the first comment I have ever made and I don't fully understand the rules of editing the talk pages, if you feel a desire to delete this because I forgot to do something, please, go right ahead. -- 172.161.187.118 04:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
i just don't think it's a very clear picture. perhaps one of those drawings that are featured in the other sex articles would be appropriate. - Joeyramoney 04:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
She doesn't look underage to me JayKeaton 03:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I readded the pic, it seems it dissapeared 2 weeks ago. Why was that? I added it back. If it is removed again, can I be provided wtih a reason for it's removal? Faris b 17:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
Regarding this disputed paragraph:
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.
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)
Well, I just have to say that it is terribly disturbing when I add something extremely humorous and then someone immediately removes it before anyone else has even had the chance to enjoy the absurd joke I just made. Very disturbing! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.7.204.12 ( talk • contribs).
Is there a source for that assertion? 71.141.177.244 20:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
This article states that the anus does not produce its own lubricant (twice) It does though.
http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/1666.html
If the anus does in fact produce lubricant then the article is not only not right, I'd go so far as to say it's wrong... I'll edit.
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)
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)
I agree with you in that I believe a female "dominant" role should also be addressed in this article. I am more concerned personally with addressing the use of "strap-ons" and such by heterosexual couples, though, and the idea that a man doesn't have to be gay or bisexual in order to receive sexual pleasure anally. My main reason for not editing yet is that I'm having trouble with the semantics of "sex" ... a tongue or a finger would technically be Oral sex or Fingering (sexual act), and how exactly is the use of sex toys categorized? If someone penetrates someone else with any sex toy, is it always considered "sex", sometimes or never?
Anyway, I see how our interests in editing this page could overlap! If you (or anyone else reading this!) would like to brainstorm please leave a message in my talk page!
Hexwench 09:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
If sex is defined in phallocentric terms, then it denies female sexuality. It is the old chessnut: since lesbians don't use penes then it isn't really sex. I think that it is reasonable enough to say that lesbians DO have sex, and that sex is better defined in other terms. I would argue, and quite strongly, that if gay men can have anal sex, then so can lesbians. It appears that there are bigots and/or ignorant people, who are unaware of that lesbians enjoy sex, and (for some) including anal play.
I think the general idea here is that fingers/tongues are mere tools to stimulate sexually. In heterosexual sex, the penis is stimulated whilst it stimulates. Anal sex is about the anus being stimulated (prodded, probed etc), and it doesn't matter what is used. I do acknowledge that for most people when they think of anal sex they think of penes in rectums.
I would like in this article, added back to this article, an acknowledgement that lesbians do have anal sex, in the same way that lesbians have sex generally. - 58.107.87.183 14:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Moi again, i just needed to point out that while there is a lesbian section it is very small, stub-stature even, and while this is an improvement, it's not necessarily enough. However, I cannot suggest anything to improve it because you pretty much covered it with excellent generalization and listing, good job team! You Stubbed it. -- 172.161.187.118 04:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
"Anal sex or anal intercourse is a form of human sexual behavior" I disagree with the lead line assertion that anything you do with your sexual organs is "Human Sexual Behavior". By definition Sex is the process of sexual reproduction. If you hit your penis with a hammer, even if it gives you (and/or your partner) pleasure it is not "Human Sexual Behavior". Some terms need revising here, I'm open to suggestions befor I start extensive editing. Tstrobaugh 19:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia - "In humans, sex is conventionally perceived as a dichotomous state or identity for most biological and social purposes, such that a person can only be female or male." I don't believe that "gender" and "sexual reproduction" are the same thing.
Merriam Webster Main Entry: sex Pronunciation: 'seks Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Latin sexus 1 : either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures 2 : the sum of the structural, functional, and behavioral characteristics of organisms that are involved in reproduction marked by the union of gametes and that distinguish males and females 3 a : sexually motivated phenomena or behavior b : SEXUAL INTERCOURSE 4 : GENITALIA
Whoa!? Apparently "sex" means more than just one thing! Reproduction AND sexually motivated behavior.
Wikipedia - Human sexual behavior "Sexual activity (sexual function) in humans is an instinctive form of physical intimacy. It may be performed for the purposes of biological reproduction, spiritual transcendence, expressing affection, and/or having fun and enjoying oneself (known in this context as "sexual gratification"). The desire to have sex is one of the basic drives of human behavior."
"expressing affection, and/or having fun and enjoying oneself (known in this context as "sexual gratification")"
You said "If you hit your penis with a hammer, even if it gives you (and/or your partner) pleasure it is not "Human Sexual Behavior"
I would suggest that if hitting your penis brought you or your partner pleasure, that would indeed be "Sexual Behavior". I would also suggest that "sexual gratification" and "pleasure", in this context, are synonyms.
Atom 01:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Hehe. Timing is everything:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061012/ts_nm/environment_homosexuality_dc
It seems anal sex DOES exist in many animal species so I'd call it human sexual behavior, not some invention of mankind.
Faris b 09:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the animal thing is either, but in regards to your other comments, certainly you, as someone lettered in psychology, know that what is sexual to a person is mostly in their mind. "Sexual behavior" therefore is whatever actions someone takes that brings themselves, or their partners sexual pleasure. As for other animals expressing sexual behavior, well, that's perhaps not as complex, but how would you have any idea what animals pursue sexuality for pleasure, rather than reproduction? Certainly it is not only concievable, but highly likely with higher apes, whales and dolphins, elephants and other sentient forms besides us human animals. Atom 15:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
What I meant is that as was stated above by Tstrobaugh is that anal sex was unnatural and was the idea of humans and shouldn't be listed as human sexual behavior but in my defense that it does count as HSB is that if animals do it and animals don't just do things like humans do if you know what I mean then it is natural, why was that so hard to understand that anal sex is HSB (HSB = Human sexual behavior incase anybody was wondering)?
Faris b 19:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Look, no offense, but every now and then, someone like you comes along, demands that things be changed, there is a debate then it's over, I'm not saying this will happen this time but my point is that I believe the article is fine in the section you are referring to.
Faris b 20:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe your error has already been pointed out, and in addition, I'd like to point out that threatening to edit war is unlikely to be taken kindly (not to mention violating our policies).
I suggest you educate yourself about what "sex" and "sexual behaviour" mean, as well as thoroughly reading the talk page archives of this and related articles, before attempting to make fundamental changes to this article.
Exploding Boy
19:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I never said that I would start an edit war, I merely stated that you would probably be alone in your believe of editing the page and would be reverted by the majority, not me. As you probably already know, this page gets a lot of traffic. I've seen it happen many times, someone changes it and makes a big deal about being right then everyone else reverts it. If you could have your way, nothing but dick in pussy would count as HSB so basically, it's hard to explain but I think that everything's fine in the current way and before you get any ideas, I'm not threatening anything at all over you so just chill.
Faris b 20:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Well ok never mind then. Thanks for the clarification.
Faris b 06:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, the source I quoted was, of course, wikipedia, Human sexual behavior. I'm guessing that you won't find that authoritative.
"Instead, human motivation to engage in sexual behavior is due to a complex relationship among several factors." "As mentioned earlier, pursuit of erotic pleasure is a primary reason to engage in sexual behavior (Abramson et al., 1995; Hatfield et al., 1993). Kinsey and colleagues (1948; 1953) found that children between the ages of 2 and 5 years of age spontaneously touch their genitals. At this age, one could not argue that this sexual behavior is learned or designed to contribute to reproduction. Abramson and Pinkerton (1995) point out that the pleasure of sexual behavior is physiologically and psychologically-based and that the sex organs do not exist merely to guarantee reproductive behavior." [5]
Your cited reference (above) says: "With the beginning of our own century, and under the growing influence of psychoanalytic thinking, the concept of sexuality became even more inclusive. It now referred not only to procreation and the pursuit of erotic pleasure, but also to the need for love and personal fulfillment, i.e., to the "lust for life" itself. " Magnus Hirschfield Archive for Sexology
I can find a few more if these aren't suitable.
Atom
21:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
"The anus is a delicate area, and skin in the anal region can tear easily. Bodily fluids, including blood and semen, can enter the body through tiny cuts in the anus, increasing the risk of HIV. While most people are aware of the risk of contracting HIV/AIDS and hepatitis B and C through anal sex, many don't know that you can contract a number of STDs through this behavior including herpes, gonorrhea, HPV, and chlamydia.
Despite copious misinformation to the contrary, you can get pregnant from anal sex. The anal opening leads to the rectum, which is part of the large intestine, a part of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. The GI system is not directly connected with the reproductive tract, thus sperm entering the anus cannot swim through the GI tract to reach the egg. However, semen can and does drip from the anus after ejaculation. This semen comes in contact with the vaginal opening, which is lubricated with slippery mucus. During certain times of the month, vaginal mucus acts as a conduit to usher sperm into the vagina and uterus, ultimately to a waiting egg. So, anal sex should not be considered "safe" as it puts couples at risk of both STDs and pregnancy.
Condoms are often recommened as safer sex option for couples practicing anal sex. However, condoms are more likely to break during anal sex than during vaginal sex. Thus, even with a condom, anal sex can be risky. [3]". Reference:"[3] Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention, "Can I get HIV from anal sex?" December 20, 2002 http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/faq/faq22.htm". Thank you for your tiime. Tstrobaugh 14:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, what do you know? I was right. Regarding the whole "come in, demand changes then it's over and nothing happens" thing. No offense. Faris b 16:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Duh, What does getting pregnant have to do with it? We are talking about Human Sexual Behavior, which has to do with sexual pleasure, among other things. People have anal sex because it is pleasurable, not because they are trying to get pregnant. Human Sexual Behavior is multi-dimensional. Reproduction is only one aspect of it. And obviously not the aspect that is predominant when having anal sex. Atom 16:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I think my favorite part of this argument is that his definition of sex would include going to a fertility clinic or donating an egg. And if you include the bit about "sexually motivated behavior" (which he interprets as reproductively motivated), it turns out that every time you make a pass at someone or buy a nice new pair of underwear, you're getting laid. Makes my sex life look a hell of a lot more active. 71.193.152.63 14:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
"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"!!
We should let the person who put it in come up with a citation. One should not confuse acceptance of homosexuals with acceptance of honosexual acts. Two different things. Most churches propogate the teachings of Christ, and that is forgiveness and acceptance of others who are different. Even Catholicism has large numbers of homosexual members and homosexual clergy. Only recently has the catholic church decided to not allow homosexual priests, but still accepts homosexuals as members of their church. The catholic church is as misguided and anachronistic as it has always been. But, even so, the quote you give says that it accepts homosexuals as "human beings created in the image and likeness of God", and "The Catholic Church condemns "unjust discrimination" against those with deep-seated homosexual tendencies." Perhaps if the statement were to say something like "The large majority of Christian denominations recognizes the importance of accepting and welcoming homosexuals into their communities and protecting their civil rights." Only a conservative few believe that persecuting homsexuals is acceptable. Atom 03:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Let's use a dose of common sense here. Don't let Will & Grace and Queer as Folk fool you. There's still a large portion of the population (christian or otherwise) that disapprove of homosexuality. PR moves by the Christian community's representatives are a far cry from suggesting that most, or even close to half of practicing Christians approve of gayness. And it's not just those Christians down in Texas.
This may come as a surprise to most of you, but many Christians are not American. (I'm a non-Christian who is British.) I would guess that the number of conservative African Christians blows the number of US Liberal Christians out of the water. Before making any more assertions about what most Christians or most churches believe, it would be an interesting exercise to try asking a sample of Nigerian Pentecostalists (or indeed Anglicans) about the acceptability or otherwise of homosexuality. The responses are likely to come as a disappointment to mainstream educated-ish secular US ears. Regards, Notreallydavid 06:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
Many, many thanks for fixing the page!
Faris b 20:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
Anal sex implies sexual intercourse or sexual action which involves the human anus, a statement which I think is is obvious to most people (without myopic world views or bias). Therefore, I overhauled the female participants section. If you have any objections please note them. aubreyclark 11:02, 13 January 2007 (AKST)
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)
Right, well that's a pretty major change to be made without any discussion at all, so I'm changing it back. Exploding Boy 17:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not the one who added the female section but I believe it deserves to stay. Sorry I wasn't too articulate but I can try to re-rewrite it unless someone else would like to.
Faris b 00:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I find that change constructive. It offers much more insight than stating it is "practiced by heterosexuals or homosexuals". Also, I prefer the originality. Wikipedia articles must not always be dry. Please put it back into the intro. - GilliamJF 07:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
Damn! That is sick and funny?! And yes, I do like the Mythbusters show though. It should not be in the article though.
Faris b 18:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
The picture was of 4chan origin, we wondered how long it would be before you notice, sorry for the disturbance.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
This article needs a real photo. You can leave the historic depiction in the article, but you really should have a proper photo. 86.130.184.169 02:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't have a photo because if it does, there will be a bitchathon about it being "too graphic".
Faris b 04:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
i don't think there is a need for a photo ;p you don't see a photo under sexual intercourse or sex. soo....why would you need one here? 71.232.108.228 10:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I think everyone will agree that, as per Wikipedia:Profanity, the decision to include pictures should revolve around whether images better the article or not. According to the policy:
Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available.
Currently, the only images in this article are various works of art depicting the act, all based on the artist's visual perception of the act to begin with. As "the impetus for art is often called human creativity" (according to the article), one can hardly argue that the presentation of creative works serve as a substitute for firsthand, concrete pictures of the act itself (also see caption: "Ancient Indian art; Man and woman copulating, possibly anally [my emphasis]".
In order to have a picture suited for the article, it must answer the most basic question one could have while viewing this article—What does it look like? While paintings or illustrations can be of limited help in visualization of the act, they certainly don't showcase all aspects of it: the way the skin stretches, the positioning of the parties involved, etc. Pearl necklace (sexuality) exemplifies this: the reader is able to see a high-quality example of the lady's semen-covered neck, while the rest of the body is left unexposed—keeping the focus on the subject of the article. Anal sex should present a similar photograph: one that focuses on the penis (or other phallic object) being inserted into the anus of the other party.
It is certainly true that Wikipedia "is not a porn site", but as WP:NOT states, "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive." For this reason, "endless debates" isn't justification enough for keeping an image off.
It's true that if people can't get the concept of anal intercourse from the current pictures, "they need a lesson in human anatomy". And what better a way to give it? -- CA387 06:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
Any reason why the references provided were judged unsatisfactory, leaving parts of the article unsupported and vaguely worded? Haiduc 16:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, the idea seemed good, that heterosexuals have "more" anal sex than homosexuals, but I wondered how it was that they had determined that. I suppopse a number of other Wikipedians may have thought the same thing. I went to the reference, here [6] which appeared to be a U.K. health site. The reference suggested the same thing there, but there were no facts, no references, no studies there. I did a general google scholar search, and was unable to find anything meaningful that supported the claim there either.
By taking the number of homosexuals, estimated as 7% to 10% of the population, and suggesting that a third of the homosexuals don't do anal sex (but no source for where that came from) and estimating that comparing that to 10% of the heterosexual population regularly enages in anal sex (no source for that estimate) suggests that perhaps in gross numbers, heterosexuals have more anal sex than homosexuals seems like guesswork. I felt that it is fair to suggest that someone thinks it is the case, and might be the case, but as far as I can tell, there are actually no studies or research that suggest that it is the case.
Besides, does it really matter in overall numbers if more heterosexuals have anal sex than homosexuals have anal sex? Is there some kind of competition I am unaware of? Is heterosexual anal-sex less risky? Or, if heterosexuals engage in anal sex in larger overall numbers, than homosexuals, does that mean that homosexuals are now "O.K."? (referring to societal/religious disparagement of homosexuals).
Anyway, probably what I should have done is delete the statements altogether, rather than rewording them. Atom 19:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I didn't know who put the material in, sorry to step on your toes. I agree that changing incorrect perceptions and breaking stereotypes is important. Intuitively it makes sense that maybe from a numbers basis, a majority of all people who have anal sex are heterosexual, since heterosexuals are theoretically 90% - 97% of the population, and gays are 7%-10%. Also, gay males may have anal sex more than 30% of the time, and lesbians less than 30% of the time, reducing the overall average among homosexuals. But, there are so many unknown factors. Too many to make an assumption, or to make a claim that it is true without hard data. If 40% of the heterosexual population has had anal sex, but it is rare (once a year?) that would skew the numbers. We can't responsibly make the claim unless we can back it up with data. Certainly people who have a sterotypical view that only gay males have anal sex, and "normal" people don't need to have that view challenged. The way it is said now, or before is not convincing. We have to present facts based on research.
The Planetout reference was weakly supported too. I think that everyone knows that the receiving partner in sexual intercourse is more vulnerable to disease. And Anal sex is higher risk than vaginal sex in that regard. I find that the google scholar page usually has very strong references. If we can support the facts with articles from there, that would be solid. Atom 23:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, regarding you comment about motives. First I had no idea who had put that in there. Second, I was, between friends, trying to hypothesize what the value of making that point would be to the article. I wasn't even remotely trying to suggest that the person who put it in (apparently you) had ulterior motives. I'm only interested in presenting the facts accurately, as I assume you are too. (but we have to give good cites too) Atom 23:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)\
I don't get it. What great myth or stereotype are we trying to "debunk"? That gay people have anal sex? That gay people are more likely to have anal sex than straight people? Yeah, it's important we crush these lies before they spread any further.
Pointing out that more straight people have anal sex than gay people overall is like pointing out that the world as a whole kills more people than Al Qaeda. Pointless. 68.166.68.84 06:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
Well, I did not add the tag, but I think it is refereing to that specific section (Anal sex among heterosexuals). I read through it, and see this:
In several cultures female receptive anal intercourse in a heterosexual context is widely accepted, especially as there is lower risk of unwanted pregnancy via unprotected anal intercourse (though this is not an absolute guarantee, since semen can leak from the anus, across the perineum, and enter the vagina). Anal sex is even sometimes seen as preserving female virginity, because it leaves the hymen intact. Another reason is that the anus is considered to be "tighter" than the vagina (especially right after a delivery), therefore yielding more tactile pleasure for the penis. The taboo surrounding anal sex is likely to do with hygiene but also may have its roots in supposed psychoses deemed responsible for such "deviation." Some argue 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, they argue 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. Others have argued 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). Moreover, the social taboo surrounding anal sex could potentially be seen as an example of political and religious dogma affecting modern culture, whereby the taboo itself is materialized through initial observance of religious morals, for example those held by some branches of Christianity or Islam
.
There seems to be alot of speculation here, and a number of things that coul dbe documented.
Atom 15:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
149.167.98.195 17:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
REading through its obvious This article has been subject to copious amounts of spot editng and needs to be cleaned up for continuities sake.
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)
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)
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)
Under the Anatomical homologies, it says the following:
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)
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)
Receptive anal intercourse is also important to gay (attracted to men) female-to-male transsexuals both post-op and pre-op, (but especially so for pre-ops for obvious reasons). The introduction says that people of all different orientations and gender identities can enjoy anal sex (or it did last time I checked), that covers transgenders as well, though I see what your saying here. The problem would be that transgender sexuality would need its own section because it wouldn't fit neatly and logically into any of the others (both straight MtFs and gay FtMs are anally receptive transgender androphiles but do they belong in the heterosexual section or the homosexual section?, then you've got anally insertive FtMs both gay and straight, and MtFs lesbians, so where do they all go?) and, as you said, there wouldn't be a whole lot of stuff to fill it out with that wouldn't just be a repeat of other sections. Velps 19:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I see what you mean. How about "Anal sex among transexuals" then for the page?
Faris b 03:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah it would have to be its own section like that, then you could just include all the different variations, maybe dif subsections for MtF and FtM, but I think that title sounds more like its only reffering to anal intercourse where both partners are transsexual, maybe "In Transgender Contexts" or "Involving Transsexuals" or just "Transgender Sexuality" could work though. Velps 17:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I created the section. It needs some improvements but I think I got the point across.
Please do not remove the section anyone, I believe it should be included.
Faris b 16:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
How about because it is worth mention? If gays can be mentioned then why not transexuals? And where would I find citations for such things anyway? Most transexual (non porn) sites don't make much mention of anal sex. Faris b 18:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
So what is the verdict then? Can someone help make this section a reality?
Vala M 14:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, the sections are no longer orienation based now, so there's no place for it Velps 19:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I've noticed that. Who's idea was it to redo the page?
Vala M 14:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know, they just changed the titles without moving very much around, but I think it works better this way Velps 16:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
1.The section is about anal sex between men, the subsection is about how anal sex between men is biologically different from heterosexual or lesbian anal sex. I would say that the basic biology of a sex act would be pretty relavant to an article about it. 2. Thats not a sentence its a sentence fragment you've taken out of context. Velps 23:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
Actually the Skene's glands are believed to be the source of female g-spot orgasms (regardless of whether the penetration is vaginal or anal), you can read more about this at their entry, furthermore the type of orgasm each delivers is essentially the same, which is no surprise since they're basically the same organ, you can read more about this in "The G Spot: And Other Discoveries About Human Sexuality by Alice Kahn Ladas, Beverly Whipple, and John D. Perry". As for the homology I think its clear that its the prostate and g-spot being discussed, not the orafices Velps 22:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I understand that the Skene's gland is believed to be the g-spot, and that the prostate is its homologous organ. The problem is the implication that is sent by mentioning this fact in the anal sex article, when it is not relevant to anal sex. All that is relevant is the pleasure that can be garnered from stimulation of the prostate. Berserk798 22:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
The facts are what they are, if some people don't like certain conclusions that may be drawn from them then thats their problem. There's no reason to cover up the fact that the prostate, or male g-spot, is essentially a larger version of the more well known female g-spot; its the simplest and most straightforeward way to explain how males get off from receptive anal sex. How can that not be relavant? It would be strange not to mention it. Velps 18:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I never said we need to cover up the fact. I said that the fact is irrelevant to anal sex, and the way it is presented in the article leads to a colorful and inaccurate interpretation of male-male anal sex. It is not the most straight-forward way to explain pleasure from male receptive anal sex--it is factually and logically a roundabout way to do it, and it is misleading. Really, that's what the issue is. As I have several times mentioned, the only thing that is relevant to anal sex is that prostate stimulation can be pleasureable; it's homology with the Skene's gland is completely irrelevant. Also, do you think that the psychological factor plays no role in receptive pleasure? I personally think that it plays a larger role than the prostate does, but it isn't mentioned once in the article. Berserk798 23:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what anyone personally thinks, the two are homologous and thats just the biological reality of the situation, regardless of whatever "interpretation" it does or doesn't lead to. If we didn't state the simple fact that the two are homologues then it would raise the question of why the prostate is also known as the male g-spot and why do they respond so similarly to intercourse. Those questions are perfectly valid and relevant to any discussion of male anal sexuality and people desrve an honest answer.
Just because a point of fact bothers you, that doesn't make it misleading or irrelevant, so far your main argument has been your own anxiety about opinions others may form based on the knowlege that the prostate and g-spot are homologous, thats simply not enough justification to censor out basic anatomy. Velps 17:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Right, well you're ears are obviously closed to everything I'm saying. Maybe someone else will eventually come along and try to explain it, but if you're just going to brand me as trying to hide things or cover them up for personal reasons, then I'm done discussing it with you. This point of fact does not in any way bother me, I never suggested such, and you have no reason to say so. You're completely ignoring my point, or it's sailed right over your head (I'm not sure which). If it's the former, I might suggest you read this once you finally stop crying "censorship!". Berserk798 22:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
This image is irrelevant. I'm sure there has to be a better image...
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)
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. [2]
It has been argued citation needed 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)
It's also worth adding that the section was created by now-banned user:quickerection [7] Paul B 09:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Why did this happen? Isn't there usually a discussion about moves like this first? HalJor 22:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
get this featured. work hard everyone! 71.62.10.130 03:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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)
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.
If the wording is the main issue under debate, then why not simply say that women can find anal sex pleasurable, as opposed to categorically stating we do or don't, because that's more a matter of preference than anything else.
GO TO: http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/sexinfo/?article=faq&refid=125 ON ANAL SEX Read About the Dangers of Anal Sex.
We probably shouldn't include statements so general such as "women like/don't like". It would be better to state that "this agrees with the majority of women, as revealed by surveys".-- Orthologist 15:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
http://www.slate.com/id/2126643/
According to data released earlier this year by the Centers for Disease Control, the probability of HIV acquisition by the receptive partner in unprotected oral sex with an HIV carrier is one per 10,000 acts. In vaginal sex, it's 10 per 10,000 acts. In anal sex, it's 50 per 10,000 acts. Do the math. Oral sex is 10 times safer than vaginal sex. Anal sex is five times more dangerous than vaginal sex and 50 times more dangerous than oral sex.
Other useful academic data is also available on the PDF link within the article. It takes one to know one 08:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
...which leads me onto a second point:
i believe the section "The most necessary elements of a good experience are communication, lubrication, and relaxation." needs to be replaced. also, the article mentions it as existant, but it's not. has this page been forgotten about?
What are the Dangers of Anal Sex?
Question: What are the Dangers of Anal Sex?
Answer: Anal sex can be risky. Even when people use lots of lubrication during anal sex, there can be tearing of the tissue inside the anus, which is not as well protected as the skin outside the anus. Our external tissue is “kerotinized,” meaning that it has layers of dead cells that create a thickened protective barrier. The tissue inside the anus does not have this feature. Without plenty of lubrication, anal tissue can tear quite easily, creating openings where bacteria and viruses can enter and cause problems.
The first picture shows the anus, where the rectum ends and releases feces from the body. The anus is usually held closed by a sphincter, which is a muscle that goes around the opening of the anus. (There are many different sphincters in the body, and they all encircle specific body parts, keeping them closed when the sphincter muscle contracts, then letting things pass through when the sphincter muscle relaxes.) In this picture, the person who is going to receive anal sex is shown at the left, lying face down, and the penis is shown at the right before it makes contact with the anus.
The second picture shows the penis putting pressure on the anus as the man attempts to push his penis into the recipient’s anus. The extra pressure on the anus places the sphincter muscle around the anus to contract extra tightly. This tightening of the sphincter is a reflex and it happens automatically, as if the body was designed to keep things from entering the anus from the outside. The contraction of the sphincter makes it all the harder for the penis to enter into the anus—especially if no lubricants have been used to facilitate anal penetration.
The third picture shows that the penis has begun to be pushed into the anus. Note that the tight fight of the penis in the anus (which is closed by the anal sphincter) causes small tears in the interior parts of the anus, though there may not be any conspicuous external bleeding. The risks for tearing in the anus are higher if little or no lubrication is used, and/or anal penetration is done quickly, rather than slowly and gradually with adequate lubrication.
The fourth picture portrays a highly enlarged representation of one of the many tiny tears in the anus, showing that it is much larger than a virus. Hence, even a miniscule tear is like a “superhighway” for viruses such as HIV—the virus that causes AIDS. Viruses are among the very smallest of life forms, so a broken blood vessel is gigantic in comparison with a virus.
For this reason, anal sex is the riskiest form of sexual activity when it comes to the transmission of HIV/AIDS. Tiny tears in the anal tissue are like giant superhighways for the HIV viruses, allowing them to get inside the body and enter the blood system. Anal tears provide an opening for all the other STDs as well. It may be possible for repetitive anal sex to lead to weakening of the anal sphincter, which is the muscle that tightens after we defecate. Once weakened, feces can escape the anus against our will. However, on Dr. Drew’s website [
[1]], it says that doing Kegel exercises can help strengthen the anal sphincter.. The Kegel exercises are usually used to strengthen the muscles near the vagina. The exercises consist of tightening and relaxing the muscles that you use to stop the flow of urine. These muscles also help stop feces from escaping the anus.
Even if the anus has been washed thoroughly, do not let anything that has touched it come in contact with the vagina or urethra. Lots of bacteria live in the anus and they can cause infections in the vagina or urethra. This is the reason women are taught to wipe front to back, to avoid spreading diseases to the front. Even if you and your partner have no STIs (sexually transmitted infections) or STDs (sexually transmitted diseases), he should always use a condom (with extra lubrication) for anal sex, then replace that with a fresh new condom before starting vaginal sex. The condom will protect him from bacterial infections from inside the anus.
To read more information about anal sex, please click here.
--Sexperts
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)
The following text:
seems to be biased or at least poorly written. To my best knowledge, the percentage of false negatives isn't high after the minimum period for detection which I believe is several weeks (obviously if the transmission occured recently within the time period where the test is not effective, this can't really be considered a false negative IMHO). Furthermore, what are the tranmission rates for protected anal sex (I mean with protection properly used and lubrication, etc to prevent condom breakage)? Is it really true that it is not recommend and by which organisations (Homophobes alliance etc will not be considered)? I know where I live (NZ), there has been a bit of a fuss lately with regards to vaginal intercourse. The courts have decided and this has been supported by a number of organisations that someone is not required to disclose their HIV status (this person knew they were HIV+ and did not disclose) provided protection is used. As said, this is with vaginal intercourse but the article (quoted paragraph) says this applies to all sexual activities that effectively transmit HIV. Also I suspect the same decision would have be reached for anal sex as well. Nil Einne 16:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Also, HIV testing is much less precise than people think. False negatives do occur. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.111.225.61 ( talk • contribs) .
HUMANS CANNOT CHANGE THE DESIGN AND USE FOR THE HUMAN BODY
Why do you reader, believe there is so much sickness and disease? It is because people are Stupid, Ignorant, Self Willed, Rebellious and Arrogant. They believe they know more than the Creator about His Creation. Wake Up Stupid Humanity! You don't have to be like you are! Look around you...THINK - READ AND SEE HOW YOUR BODY DETERIORATES when you abuse it. ANAL SEX IS ABUSE TO THE BODY..while the soul is being Killed!
The true answer to this question is:
Anal sex is a Perversion. It is born of LUST of the flesh. It is written in the Torah/Bible "it is an abomination to God, our Blessed Creator".
Sex is a gift to humanity. It is the tie that bonds one heart and body to the other in "marriage", which is a committed partnership between a Man and a Woman. It is to co-create with God to create new bodies for the Souls He wants to send to this earth plane to learn and develop a family for the spiritual world.
The anus is the doorway for the fecal matter; waste, filled with poisons and toxins, the ground and gestation space for sickness, disease and death to be alleviated from the gut, called the intestine. That waste matter is commonly called poop, dung, cocka etc.
When a person has anal sex, two possible side effects are: poisons and toxins are speed to the other person, who penetrates the anus or who copulates (with the mouth) the anus. Germs enter and it may take a week, a month or a year or so to gestate in the intestines and go into the blood system of the person who is performing this act. Another side effect is "baldness" as the germs flow into the bloodline. It is written that "the life is in the blood", so when the blood is contaminated, the, blood is then polluted, cannot nourish the body, and it seems that the weakest place is the follicles of the head, eyebrows and sometimes eyelashes.
When a person allows another to penetrate the anus, the colon is affected. The danger is that the colon can be "torn" and the pain is horrific and blood poisoning can set in. Also as that person ages, the tissues thin and the elasticity becomes weak.
There are more colon problems today than ever before. More surgery to remove parts of the colon, or cancer of the colon. It is an un natural act. Even the animals don't indulge in such behavior. People who do that should be ashamed of themselves for destroying their body and others also. It is an un natural act, for those who are seeking a "thrill from lust".
There was a time when this was on the books in many states as AGAINST THE LAW. It should return to that once again. It is called Sodomy, one of the worst sins against ones own body. So, who ever you are, Wise Up, don't be as stupid as the trendsetters are who are publicizing such ignorant, abominal acts and promoting such things. Below is pasted from the WEB What are the Dangers of Anal Sex?
" Anal sex can be risky. Even when people use lots of lubrication during anal sex, there can be tearing of the tissue inside the anus, which is not as well protected as the skin outside the anus. Our external tissue is “kerotinized,” meaning that it has layers of dead cells that create a thickened protective barrier. The tissue inside the anus does not have this feature. Without plenty of lubrication, anal tissue can tear quite easily, creating openings where bacteria and viruses can enter and cause problems." Source(s) Check with the Bible, the Gastroenterologist, the Proctologist who themselves are not a homosexual." In men who have sex with men, the incidence of anal Cancer and /or anal tears climbs to about 100 in 100,000. It could be more as these figures are not updated. Read the Wikipedia "NEW EVIDENCE OF SODOMY" AND CHECK THIS LINK: http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/sexinfo/?article...
Animals do in fact engage in anal sex both in the sense that humans are animals and that non-human animals engage in anal sex. 71.237.226.28 02:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)anonymous
—————————
You are so wrong about wikipedia is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored Do note use bible as a source, do not talk about god.
I lol'd really hard at the religious wack-job 71.98.15.142 02:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I think a few posters are going out of their way to downplay the fact that anal sex is a particularly risky form of sex. Sounds like some sort of gay agenda. Someone complained that the text "suggest you should not have anal sex with someone who is HIV+ or HIV unknown". Now why would someone suggest a silly thing like that? :)
Obviously you shouldn't have sex with anybody with HIV if you can help it. The point is anal sex is especially risky. That's biology, not an attack on gay people. 68.166.68.84 05:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
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 [2] 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)
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. Guan aco 03:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)--
Alberto msr
21:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
About the image, take a look at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Profanity . It's a page about the Profanity policy in Wikipedia. I'm not going to revert the page again, otherwise a revert-war could be started. Anyway, I'm going to call some mediation efforts here so that we can get in a consensus. -- Alberto msr 00:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
This picture is stupid. A man doing a woman's ass is way more common than woman doing a man's. The article basically even admits this. Why would you favor a drawing of a highly uncommon act over a highly common one?
Goaty
06:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Not particularly offensive, just not a particularly suitable quality reproduction for this page (no offense to the artist, but it just seems out of place). The womans form is all off, the lamp looks too small (or the enema bag too big), my 0.02€ is to remove it until a better quality image can be found. - FrancisTyers 04:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
By the way, if the 7 year old kid was the elderly lady's nephew, she would be his aunt, not his granny .... but whatever. :--) JackofOz 10:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
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)--Alberto msr 21:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)"
When granny shows her seven year old nephew how to use the dictionary, she hopefully doesn't search for words such as
penis,
vulva, and
rape as demonstrative examples, therefore a sane granny would do the same when browsing through wikipedia.
Just as the young once did with dictionaries, they now use the internet to satisfy their curiosity with "tabooed" terms such as
vulva,
penis and
rape. Adults have seen that vulnerability in the interet, and unlike the dictionary that defines any word with several lines of text, the internet hands you a boatload of video clips, images and sound bites of information at your command. So, parental control was invented. It isn't the responsibility of wikipedia to withold information, rather, wikipedia should contain the information, and a third party control what information is retrieved from wikipedia. That third party would be parental control. Personally, I have had parental control on, Norton and AOL parental control to be specific, and it DOES NOT block the wikipedia as a whole, rather, it only bars the viewer from viewing articles that contain material that the parental control software is scripted to censor.
For those who still feel that it is too dangerous to put out any image of anal sex or any other article that defined "tabooed" terms, wouldn't you be an advocate of book censcorship and the chinas own version of an Online encyclopedia "Baidu.com" ?
{Before you are quick to judge me, I will state that I am straight, and DO NOT take a liking for or advocate anal sex, however, I do take a liking for access to open access to information.}
Ottokarf 07:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
this is ludricus, this is an encyclopedia, not a childrens book, not a retirement home newspaper. bottom line pictures get people interested. Very few people are likely to read the entire article on the Potsdam Conference if the picture of stalin, churchill and roosevelt was not there. I am posting a picture up of pegging as it is clearly a form of anal sex Paskari 23:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
OK I can't find any pictures about pegging... Paskari 00:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
What about below? "Many" is a little vague and the second sentence doesn't sound right still...
GalaxiaGuy 21:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
It's gratuitous and unnecessary. The article isn't any better for it and some people may find it in poor taste, if not offensive.
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)
Using a condom is more important for anal sex than with vaginal sex, for several reasons that have been stated several times. 68.166.68.84 05:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
This paragraph I find confusing:
Does this refer to some articles in 'Cosmopolitan' or what? I am not aware of any increased media attention unless it be some coded references in rap songs or the like. This claim should either be expanded or deleted. And what is an 'ancestral taboo'? Henry Miller has written of committing this type of act during the early 20's of the 20th. Cspalletta 05:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I've editted the line, firstly because it looks like it was taken from sexuality.org [3] (or the original document; that one's actually a copy of another).
WP:
Sexuality.org:
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)
I just desired to point out, that if i recall correctly it this has nothing to do with the clitoris, It mentioned that it was could be stronger than vaginal penetration, vaginal penetration does not automatically involve the clitoris; and as for whether or not it is stronger than those in the clitoris, I honestly have ignorance and apathy to that, though I will point out that biological variation may in some cases make anal stimulation stronger than clitoral. On a side note: this is the first comment I have ever made and I don't fully understand the rules of editing the talk pages, if you feel a desire to delete this because I forgot to do something, please, go right ahead. -- 172.161.187.118 04:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
i just don't think it's a very clear picture. perhaps one of those drawings that are featured in the other sex articles would be appropriate. - Joeyramoney 04:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
She doesn't look underage to me JayKeaton 03:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I readded the pic, it seems it dissapeared 2 weeks ago. Why was that? I added it back. If it is removed again, can I be provided wtih a reason for it's removal? Faris b 17:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
Regarding this disputed paragraph:
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.
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)
Well, I just have to say that it is terribly disturbing when I add something extremely humorous and then someone immediately removes it before anyone else has even had the chance to enjoy the absurd joke I just made. Very disturbing! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.7.204.12 ( talk • contribs).
Is there a source for that assertion? 71.141.177.244 20:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
This article states that the anus does not produce its own lubricant (twice) It does though.
http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/1666.html
If the anus does in fact produce lubricant then the article is not only not right, I'd go so far as to say it's wrong... I'll edit.
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)
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)
I agree with you in that I believe a female "dominant" role should also be addressed in this article. I am more concerned personally with addressing the use of "strap-ons" and such by heterosexual couples, though, and the idea that a man doesn't have to be gay or bisexual in order to receive sexual pleasure anally. My main reason for not editing yet is that I'm having trouble with the semantics of "sex" ... a tongue or a finger would technically be Oral sex or Fingering (sexual act), and how exactly is the use of sex toys categorized? If someone penetrates someone else with any sex toy, is it always considered "sex", sometimes or never?
Anyway, I see how our interests in editing this page could overlap! If you (or anyone else reading this!) would like to brainstorm please leave a message in my talk page!
Hexwench 09:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
If sex is defined in phallocentric terms, then it denies female sexuality. It is the old chessnut: since lesbians don't use penes then it isn't really sex. I think that it is reasonable enough to say that lesbians DO have sex, and that sex is better defined in other terms. I would argue, and quite strongly, that if gay men can have anal sex, then so can lesbians. It appears that there are bigots and/or ignorant people, who are unaware of that lesbians enjoy sex, and (for some) including anal play.
I think the general idea here is that fingers/tongues are mere tools to stimulate sexually. In heterosexual sex, the penis is stimulated whilst it stimulates. Anal sex is about the anus being stimulated (prodded, probed etc), and it doesn't matter what is used. I do acknowledge that for most people when they think of anal sex they think of penes in rectums.
I would like in this article, added back to this article, an acknowledgement that lesbians do have anal sex, in the same way that lesbians have sex generally. - 58.107.87.183 14:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Moi again, i just needed to point out that while there is a lesbian section it is very small, stub-stature even, and while this is an improvement, it's not necessarily enough. However, I cannot suggest anything to improve it because you pretty much covered it with excellent generalization and listing, good job team! You Stubbed it. -- 172.161.187.118 04:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
"Anal sex or anal intercourse is a form of human sexual behavior" I disagree with the lead line assertion that anything you do with your sexual organs is "Human Sexual Behavior". By definition Sex is the process of sexual reproduction. If you hit your penis with a hammer, even if it gives you (and/or your partner) pleasure it is not "Human Sexual Behavior". Some terms need revising here, I'm open to suggestions befor I start extensive editing. Tstrobaugh 19:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia - "In humans, sex is conventionally perceived as a dichotomous state or identity for most biological and social purposes, such that a person can only be female or male." I don't believe that "gender" and "sexual reproduction" are the same thing.
Merriam Webster Main Entry: sex Pronunciation: 'seks Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Latin sexus 1 : either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures 2 : the sum of the structural, functional, and behavioral characteristics of organisms that are involved in reproduction marked by the union of gametes and that distinguish males and females 3 a : sexually motivated phenomena or behavior b : SEXUAL INTERCOURSE 4 : GENITALIA
Whoa!? Apparently "sex" means more than just one thing! Reproduction AND sexually motivated behavior.
Wikipedia - Human sexual behavior "Sexual activity (sexual function) in humans is an instinctive form of physical intimacy. It may be performed for the purposes of biological reproduction, spiritual transcendence, expressing affection, and/or having fun and enjoying oneself (known in this context as "sexual gratification"). The desire to have sex is one of the basic drives of human behavior."
"expressing affection, and/or having fun and enjoying oneself (known in this context as "sexual gratification")"
You said "If you hit your penis with a hammer, even if it gives you (and/or your partner) pleasure it is not "Human Sexual Behavior"
I would suggest that if hitting your penis brought you or your partner pleasure, that would indeed be "Sexual Behavior". I would also suggest that "sexual gratification" and "pleasure", in this context, are synonyms.
Atom 01:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Hehe. Timing is everything:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061012/ts_nm/environment_homosexuality_dc
It seems anal sex DOES exist in many animal species so I'd call it human sexual behavior, not some invention of mankind.
Faris b 09:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the animal thing is either, but in regards to your other comments, certainly you, as someone lettered in psychology, know that what is sexual to a person is mostly in their mind. "Sexual behavior" therefore is whatever actions someone takes that brings themselves, or their partners sexual pleasure. As for other animals expressing sexual behavior, well, that's perhaps not as complex, but how would you have any idea what animals pursue sexuality for pleasure, rather than reproduction? Certainly it is not only concievable, but highly likely with higher apes, whales and dolphins, elephants and other sentient forms besides us human animals. Atom 15:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
What I meant is that as was stated above by Tstrobaugh is that anal sex was unnatural and was the idea of humans and shouldn't be listed as human sexual behavior but in my defense that it does count as HSB is that if animals do it and animals don't just do things like humans do if you know what I mean then it is natural, why was that so hard to understand that anal sex is HSB (HSB = Human sexual behavior incase anybody was wondering)?
Faris b 19:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Look, no offense, but every now and then, someone like you comes along, demands that things be changed, there is a debate then it's over, I'm not saying this will happen this time but my point is that I believe the article is fine in the section you are referring to.
Faris b 20:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe your error has already been pointed out, and in addition, I'd like to point out that threatening to edit war is unlikely to be taken kindly (not to mention violating our policies).
I suggest you educate yourself about what "sex" and "sexual behaviour" mean, as well as thoroughly reading the talk page archives of this and related articles, before attempting to make fundamental changes to this article.
Exploding Boy
19:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I never said that I would start an edit war, I merely stated that you would probably be alone in your believe of editing the page and would be reverted by the majority, not me. As you probably already know, this page gets a lot of traffic. I've seen it happen many times, someone changes it and makes a big deal about being right then everyone else reverts it. If you could have your way, nothing but dick in pussy would count as HSB so basically, it's hard to explain but I think that everything's fine in the current way and before you get any ideas, I'm not threatening anything at all over you so just chill.
Faris b 20:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Well ok never mind then. Thanks for the clarification.
Faris b 06:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, the source I quoted was, of course, wikipedia, Human sexual behavior. I'm guessing that you won't find that authoritative.
"Instead, human motivation to engage in sexual behavior is due to a complex relationship among several factors." "As mentioned earlier, pursuit of erotic pleasure is a primary reason to engage in sexual behavior (Abramson et al., 1995; Hatfield et al., 1993). Kinsey and colleagues (1948; 1953) found that children between the ages of 2 and 5 years of age spontaneously touch their genitals. At this age, one could not argue that this sexual behavior is learned or designed to contribute to reproduction. Abramson and Pinkerton (1995) point out that the pleasure of sexual behavior is physiologically and psychologically-based and that the sex organs do not exist merely to guarantee reproductive behavior." [5]
Your cited reference (above) says: "With the beginning of our own century, and under the growing influence of psychoanalytic thinking, the concept of sexuality became even more inclusive. It now referred not only to procreation and the pursuit of erotic pleasure, but also to the need for love and personal fulfillment, i.e., to the "lust for life" itself. " Magnus Hirschfield Archive for Sexology
I can find a few more if these aren't suitable.
Atom
21:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
"The anus is a delicate area, and skin in the anal region can tear easily. Bodily fluids, including blood and semen, can enter the body through tiny cuts in the anus, increasing the risk of HIV. While most people are aware of the risk of contracting HIV/AIDS and hepatitis B and C through anal sex, many don't know that you can contract a number of STDs through this behavior including herpes, gonorrhea, HPV, and chlamydia.
Despite copious misinformation to the contrary, you can get pregnant from anal sex. The anal opening leads to the rectum, which is part of the large intestine, a part of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. The GI system is not directly connected with the reproductive tract, thus sperm entering the anus cannot swim through the GI tract to reach the egg. However, semen can and does drip from the anus after ejaculation. This semen comes in contact with the vaginal opening, which is lubricated with slippery mucus. During certain times of the month, vaginal mucus acts as a conduit to usher sperm into the vagina and uterus, ultimately to a waiting egg. So, anal sex should not be considered "safe" as it puts couples at risk of both STDs and pregnancy.
Condoms are often recommened as safer sex option for couples practicing anal sex. However, condoms are more likely to break during anal sex than during vaginal sex. Thus, even with a condom, anal sex can be risky. [3]". Reference:"[3] Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention, "Can I get HIV from anal sex?" December 20, 2002 http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/faq/faq22.htm". Thank you for your tiime. Tstrobaugh 14:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, what do you know? I was right. Regarding the whole "come in, demand changes then it's over and nothing happens" thing. No offense. Faris b 16:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Duh, What does getting pregnant have to do with it? We are talking about Human Sexual Behavior, which has to do with sexual pleasure, among other things. People have anal sex because it is pleasurable, not because they are trying to get pregnant. Human Sexual Behavior is multi-dimensional. Reproduction is only one aspect of it. And obviously not the aspect that is predominant when having anal sex. Atom 16:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I think my favorite part of this argument is that his definition of sex would include going to a fertility clinic or donating an egg. And if you include the bit about "sexually motivated behavior" (which he interprets as reproductively motivated), it turns out that every time you make a pass at someone or buy a nice new pair of underwear, you're getting laid. Makes my sex life look a hell of a lot more active. 71.193.152.63 14:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
"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"!!
We should let the person who put it in come up with a citation. One should not confuse acceptance of homosexuals with acceptance of honosexual acts. Two different things. Most churches propogate the teachings of Christ, and that is forgiveness and acceptance of others who are different. Even Catholicism has large numbers of homosexual members and homosexual clergy. Only recently has the catholic church decided to not allow homosexual priests, but still accepts homosexuals as members of their church. The catholic church is as misguided and anachronistic as it has always been. But, even so, the quote you give says that it accepts homosexuals as "human beings created in the image and likeness of God", and "The Catholic Church condemns "unjust discrimination" against those with deep-seated homosexual tendencies." Perhaps if the statement were to say something like "The large majority of Christian denominations recognizes the importance of accepting and welcoming homosexuals into their communities and protecting their civil rights." Only a conservative few believe that persecuting homsexuals is acceptable. Atom 03:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Let's use a dose of common sense here. Don't let Will & Grace and Queer as Folk fool you. There's still a large portion of the population (christian or otherwise) that disapprove of homosexuality. PR moves by the Christian community's representatives are a far cry from suggesting that most, or even close to half of practicing Christians approve of gayness. And it's not just those Christians down in Texas.
This may come as a surprise to most of you, but many Christians are not American. (I'm a non-Christian who is British.) I would guess that the number of conservative African Christians blows the number of US Liberal Christians out of the water. Before making any more assertions about what most Christians or most churches believe, it would be an interesting exercise to try asking a sample of Nigerian Pentecostalists (or indeed Anglicans) about the acceptability or otherwise of homosexuality. The responses are likely to come as a disappointment to mainstream educated-ish secular US ears. Regards, Notreallydavid 06:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
Many, many thanks for fixing the page!
Faris b 20:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
Anal sex implies sexual intercourse or sexual action which involves the human anus, a statement which I think is is obvious to most people (without myopic world views or bias). Therefore, I overhauled the female participants section. If you have any objections please note them. aubreyclark 11:02, 13 January 2007 (AKST)
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)
Right, well that's a pretty major change to be made without any discussion at all, so I'm changing it back. Exploding Boy 17:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not the one who added the female section but I believe it deserves to stay. Sorry I wasn't too articulate but I can try to re-rewrite it unless someone else would like to.
Faris b 00:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I find that change constructive. It offers much more insight than stating it is "practiced by heterosexuals or homosexuals". Also, I prefer the originality. Wikipedia articles must not always be dry. Please put it back into the intro. - GilliamJF 07:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
Damn! That is sick and funny?! And yes, I do like the Mythbusters show though. It should not be in the article though.
Faris b 18:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
The picture was of 4chan origin, we wondered how long it would be before you notice, sorry for the disturbance.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
This article needs a real photo. You can leave the historic depiction in the article, but you really should have a proper photo. 86.130.184.169 02:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't have a photo because if it does, there will be a bitchathon about it being "too graphic".
Faris b 04:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
i don't think there is a need for a photo ;p you don't see a photo under sexual intercourse or sex. soo....why would you need one here? 71.232.108.228 10:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I think everyone will agree that, as per Wikipedia:Profanity, the decision to include pictures should revolve around whether images better the article or not. According to the policy:
Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available.
Currently, the only images in this article are various works of art depicting the act, all based on the artist's visual perception of the act to begin with. As "the impetus for art is often called human creativity" (according to the article), one can hardly argue that the presentation of creative works serve as a substitute for firsthand, concrete pictures of the act itself (also see caption: "Ancient Indian art; Man and woman copulating, possibly anally [my emphasis]".
In order to have a picture suited for the article, it must answer the most basic question one could have while viewing this article—What does it look like? While paintings or illustrations can be of limited help in visualization of the act, they certainly don't showcase all aspects of it: the way the skin stretches, the positioning of the parties involved, etc. Pearl necklace (sexuality) exemplifies this: the reader is able to see a high-quality example of the lady's semen-covered neck, while the rest of the body is left unexposed—keeping the focus on the subject of the article. Anal sex should present a similar photograph: one that focuses on the penis (or other phallic object) being inserted into the anus of the other party.
It is certainly true that Wikipedia "is not a porn site", but as WP:NOT states, "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive." For this reason, "endless debates" isn't justification enough for keeping an image off.
It's true that if people can't get the concept of anal intercourse from the current pictures, "they need a lesson in human anatomy". And what better a way to give it? -- CA387 06:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
Any reason why the references provided were judged unsatisfactory, leaving parts of the article unsupported and vaguely worded? Haiduc 16:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, the idea seemed good, that heterosexuals have "more" anal sex than homosexuals, but I wondered how it was that they had determined that. I suppopse a number of other Wikipedians may have thought the same thing. I went to the reference, here [6] which appeared to be a U.K. health site. The reference suggested the same thing there, but there were no facts, no references, no studies there. I did a general google scholar search, and was unable to find anything meaningful that supported the claim there either.
By taking the number of homosexuals, estimated as 7% to 10% of the population, and suggesting that a third of the homosexuals don't do anal sex (but no source for where that came from) and estimating that comparing that to 10% of the heterosexual population regularly enages in anal sex (no source for that estimate) suggests that perhaps in gross numbers, heterosexuals have more anal sex than homosexuals seems like guesswork. I felt that it is fair to suggest that someone thinks it is the case, and might be the case, but as far as I can tell, there are actually no studies or research that suggest that it is the case.
Besides, does it really matter in overall numbers if more heterosexuals have anal sex than homosexuals have anal sex? Is there some kind of competition I am unaware of? Is heterosexual anal-sex less risky? Or, if heterosexuals engage in anal sex in larger overall numbers, than homosexuals, does that mean that homosexuals are now "O.K."? (referring to societal/religious disparagement of homosexuals).
Anyway, probably what I should have done is delete the statements altogether, rather than rewording them. Atom 19:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I didn't know who put the material in, sorry to step on your toes. I agree that changing incorrect perceptions and breaking stereotypes is important. Intuitively it makes sense that maybe from a numbers basis, a majority of all people who have anal sex are heterosexual, since heterosexuals are theoretically 90% - 97% of the population, and gays are 7%-10%. Also, gay males may have anal sex more than 30% of the time, and lesbians less than 30% of the time, reducing the overall average among homosexuals. But, there are so many unknown factors. Too many to make an assumption, or to make a claim that it is true without hard data. If 40% of the heterosexual population has had anal sex, but it is rare (once a year?) that would skew the numbers. We can't responsibly make the claim unless we can back it up with data. Certainly people who have a sterotypical view that only gay males have anal sex, and "normal" people don't need to have that view challenged. The way it is said now, or before is not convincing. We have to present facts based on research.
The Planetout reference was weakly supported too. I think that everyone knows that the receiving partner in sexual intercourse is more vulnerable to disease. And Anal sex is higher risk than vaginal sex in that regard. I find that the google scholar page usually has very strong references. If we can support the facts with articles from there, that would be solid. Atom 23:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, regarding you comment about motives. First I had no idea who had put that in there. Second, I was, between friends, trying to hypothesize what the value of making that point would be to the article. I wasn't even remotely trying to suggest that the person who put it in (apparently you) had ulterior motives. I'm only interested in presenting the facts accurately, as I assume you are too. (but we have to give good cites too) Atom 23:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)\
I don't get it. What great myth or stereotype are we trying to "debunk"? That gay people have anal sex? That gay people are more likely to have anal sex than straight people? Yeah, it's important we crush these lies before they spread any further.
Pointing out that more straight people have anal sex than gay people overall is like pointing out that the world as a whole kills more people than Al Qaeda. Pointless. 68.166.68.84 06:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
Well, I did not add the tag, but I think it is refereing to that specific section (Anal sex among heterosexuals). I read through it, and see this:
In several cultures female receptive anal intercourse in a heterosexual context is widely accepted, especially as there is lower risk of unwanted pregnancy via unprotected anal intercourse (though this is not an absolute guarantee, since semen can leak from the anus, across the perineum, and enter the vagina). Anal sex is even sometimes seen as preserving female virginity, because it leaves the hymen intact. Another reason is that the anus is considered to be "tighter" than the vagina (especially right after a delivery), therefore yielding more tactile pleasure for the penis. The taboo surrounding anal sex is likely to do with hygiene but also may have its roots in supposed psychoses deemed responsible for such "deviation." Some argue 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, they argue 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. Others have argued 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). Moreover, the social taboo surrounding anal sex could potentially be seen as an example of political and religious dogma affecting modern culture, whereby the taboo itself is materialized through initial observance of religious morals, for example those held by some branches of Christianity or Islam
.
There seems to be alot of speculation here, and a number of things that coul dbe documented.
Atom 15:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
149.167.98.195 17:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
REading through its obvious This article has been subject to copious amounts of spot editng and needs to be cleaned up for continuities sake.
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)
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)
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)
Under the Anatomical homologies, it says the following:
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)
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)
Receptive anal intercourse is also important to gay (attracted to men) female-to-male transsexuals both post-op and pre-op, (but especially so for pre-ops for obvious reasons). The introduction says that people of all different orientations and gender identities can enjoy anal sex (or it did last time I checked), that covers transgenders as well, though I see what your saying here. The problem would be that transgender sexuality would need its own section because it wouldn't fit neatly and logically into any of the others (both straight MtFs and gay FtMs are anally receptive transgender androphiles but do they belong in the heterosexual section or the homosexual section?, then you've got anally insertive FtMs both gay and straight, and MtFs lesbians, so where do they all go?) and, as you said, there wouldn't be a whole lot of stuff to fill it out with that wouldn't just be a repeat of other sections. Velps 19:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I see what you mean. How about "Anal sex among transexuals" then for the page?
Faris b 03:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah it would have to be its own section like that, then you could just include all the different variations, maybe dif subsections for MtF and FtM, but I think that title sounds more like its only reffering to anal intercourse where both partners are transsexual, maybe "In Transgender Contexts" or "Involving Transsexuals" or just "Transgender Sexuality" could work though. Velps 17:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I created the section. It needs some improvements but I think I got the point across.
Please do not remove the section anyone, I believe it should be included.
Faris b 16:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
How about because it is worth mention? If gays can be mentioned then why not transexuals? And where would I find citations for such things anyway? Most transexual (non porn) sites don't make much mention of anal sex. Faris b 18:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
So what is the verdict then? Can someone help make this section a reality?
Vala M 14:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, the sections are no longer orienation based now, so there's no place for it Velps 19:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I've noticed that. Who's idea was it to redo the page?
Vala M 14:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know, they just changed the titles without moving very much around, but I think it works better this way Velps 16:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
1.The section is about anal sex between men, the subsection is about how anal sex between men is biologically different from heterosexual or lesbian anal sex. I would say that the basic biology of a sex act would be pretty relavant to an article about it. 2. Thats not a sentence its a sentence fragment you've taken out of context. Velps 23:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
Actually the Skene's glands are believed to be the source of female g-spot orgasms (regardless of whether the penetration is vaginal or anal), you can read more about this at their entry, furthermore the type of orgasm each delivers is essentially the same, which is no surprise since they're basically the same organ, you can read more about this in "The G Spot: And Other Discoveries About Human Sexuality by Alice Kahn Ladas, Beverly Whipple, and John D. Perry". As for the homology I think its clear that its the prostate and g-spot being discussed, not the orafices Velps 22:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I understand that the Skene's gland is believed to be the g-spot, and that the prostate is its homologous organ. The problem is the implication that is sent by mentioning this fact in the anal sex article, when it is not relevant to anal sex. All that is relevant is the pleasure that can be garnered from stimulation of the prostate. Berserk798 22:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
The facts are what they are, if some people don't like certain conclusions that may be drawn from them then thats their problem. There's no reason to cover up the fact that the prostate, or male g-spot, is essentially a larger version of the more well known female g-spot; its the simplest and most straightforeward way to explain how males get off from receptive anal sex. How can that not be relavant? It would be strange not to mention it. Velps 18:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I never said we need to cover up the fact. I said that the fact is irrelevant to anal sex, and the way it is presented in the article leads to a colorful and inaccurate interpretation of male-male anal sex. It is not the most straight-forward way to explain pleasure from male receptive anal sex--it is factually and logically a roundabout way to do it, and it is misleading. Really, that's what the issue is. As I have several times mentioned, the only thing that is relevant to anal sex is that prostate stimulation can be pleasureable; it's homology with the Skene's gland is completely irrelevant. Also, do you think that the psychological factor plays no role in receptive pleasure? I personally think that it plays a larger role than the prostate does, but it isn't mentioned once in the article. Berserk798 23:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what anyone personally thinks, the two are homologous and thats just the biological reality of the situation, regardless of whatever "interpretation" it does or doesn't lead to. If we didn't state the simple fact that the two are homologues then it would raise the question of why the prostate is also known as the male g-spot and why do they respond so similarly to intercourse. Those questions are perfectly valid and relevant to any discussion of male anal sexuality and people desrve an honest answer.
Just because a point of fact bothers you, that doesn't make it misleading or irrelevant, so far your main argument has been your own anxiety about opinions others may form based on the knowlege that the prostate and g-spot are homologous, thats simply not enough justification to censor out basic anatomy. Velps 17:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Right, well you're ears are obviously closed to everything I'm saying. Maybe someone else will eventually come along and try to explain it, but if you're just going to brand me as trying to hide things or cover them up for personal reasons, then I'm done discussing it with you. This point of fact does not in any way bother me, I never suggested such, and you have no reason to say so. You're completely ignoring my point, or it's sailed right over your head (I'm not sure which). If it's the former, I might suggest you read this once you finally stop crying "censorship!". Berserk798 22:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
This image is irrelevant. I'm sure there has to be a better image...
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)
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. [2]
It has been argued citation needed 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)
It's also worth adding that the section was created by now-banned user:quickerection [7] Paul B 09:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Why did this happen? Isn't there usually a discussion about moves like this first? HalJor 22:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
get this featured. work hard everyone! 71.62.10.130 03:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)