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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
I note the term "back scuttle" is an old fashioned description of anal sex and presumably has its origins in the naval use of the word. I can't find a reliable reference but thought it worth capturing here for now. Garglebutt / (talk) 10:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
The article is unequivocally wrong when it states anal sex is forbidden in Judaism. Between a man and a woman, the practice is permissible. Only under the rubrick of homosexual relationships is it forbidden. (Babylonian Talmud Yevamot 34b; Maimonides' Mishnah Torah, Laws of Forbidden Relations, 21:9) ( Joshuare5768 ( talk) 23:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC))
I thought it silly to ask for citation under the fact that some cultures accept anal sex. This isn't really an arguable fact considering the availability of discussions threads/products/pornography aimed at enjoying the act of anal sex making the statement unarguable being that the Webster definition (5b) of culture is: the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group. [1] However it may be a good idea to erase the statement all together as it is slightly redundant basically only saying "some people like it, some people don't".
P.S. It's late, I'm bored, hope I helped...meh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dallas1138 ( talk • contribs) 07:55, 27 June 2008 UTC
My understanding was that the term "Greek" for the practice arose because culturally, greek women are very careful to keep their hymen intact to be ruptured only by their future marriage partner, and so in pre-marital sexual encounters they permit anal intercourse while disallowing vaginal intercourse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.131.128.151 ( talk) 07:31, 24 July 2008 UTC
Not a bad article but what is missing is the female counterpart of the picture of male genital anatomy. As the article itself points, there are now more heterosexual woman than gay men having anal sex. Clearly, this article needs a clarifying picture for women. Bobbob56 ( talk) 14:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
Please remove the phrase "Fucked" from beneath the Islamic section of this page. Replace "men gettin fucked" to "men participating" or "men recieving"
41.182.14.205 ( talk) 18:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Remove incorrect references to false ideas of paedophilic ideas within the religious strands on this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.157.59 ( talk) 11:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
you said that about Islam; But deep shame attaches to the passive partner: "for this reason men stop getting fucked at the age of 15 or 16 and "forget" that they ever allowed/suffered/enjoyed it earlier."
1- your references are extremal false, the writer has a deep hatred against Islam. Reference need to be reviewed Hisham albaldawi ( talk) 10:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC) Hisham
what about threesome —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stingbeads ( talk • contribs) 08:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
hey please can you re edit the section of anal sex in islam, the source is from a zionist biased jew, please he has not done any single research remove this shame of a lie away thank yoi
Joininghome ( talk) 01:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
The source is extremely false, the writer has deep hatred for islam, this is evident through his vulgar use of language to paint a disgusting image in the reader
Joininghome ( talk) 01:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I have some suggestions for the section on Buddhist views.
(Sanskrit: Kāmesu micchācāra literally "sense gratifications arising from the 5 senses"")
The language here is Pāli, not Sanskrit, and it means Kāmesu loc. pl. "in sense-desires/sense-pleasures" + micchācāra "wrong conduct". Therefore "wrong conduct in sense-desires/sense-pleasures".
However, "sexual misconduct" is subjected to interpretation relative to the social norms of the followers.[103] In fact, Buddhism in its fundamental form, does not define what is right and what is wrong in absolute terms for lay followers. Therefore the interpretation of what kinds of sexual activity is acceptable for a layperson, is not a religious matter as far as Buddhism is concerned.[104]
Unlike most other world religions, most variations of Buddhism do not go into details about what is right and what is wrong in what it considers mundane activities of life. Details of accepted or unaccepted human sexual conduct are not specifically mentioned in any of the religious scriptures in the Pali language.
This is not correct. Unacceptable human sexual conduct is defined in the Pāli Canon at Aṅguttara Nikāya 10.176: "He engages in sensual misconduct. He gets sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man." This is made clear at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_and_Buddhism#Lay_Buddhism.
It should also be remembered that the Pāli Canon is accepted by all sects of Buddhism, albeit not as a primary text for many. It would be fair to say that the definition of sexual misconduct in AN 10.176 would be accepted by all Buddhists.
It is clear from this AN passage that the sexual behavior prohibited by the Buddha was defined according to its social aspect, that is to say as behavior that would break proper social relations: adultery, pedophilia, etc. It would be more correct for the article to say that socially disruptive sexual behavior is clearly defined and prohibited in the Sutta Piṭaka but specific sexual acts such as anal, oral, etc. are not. This is supported by the article cited at footnote 103: http://www.4ui.com/eart/199eart1.htm
Furthermore there is a large quantity of material in the Vinaya Piṭaka, which is the first division of the Pāli Canon, that does forbid specific sexual acts for monks. Anal, oral, masturbation, bestiality, sex with trees, etc., are all defined and prohibited. They constitute one of the highest violations of monastic discipline. Therefore the statement Details of accepted or unaccepted human sexual conduct are not specifically mentioned in any of the religious scriptures in the Pali language is an outright falsehood.
Thanks and I hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.72.68 ( talk) 00:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
The section on anal cancer seems opaque and muddled to me. Where is the factual information on increased rates of anal cancer in bi-sexual men and other MSM? Why is it not right up front? This is a serious issue that affects gay and bi men (esp) that have anal sex as an integral part of their sex lives.
Here's a quote I found from a simple google search if anyone would be so kind as to include some form of it in the article, I'd be forever grateful:
"Each year anal cancer is diagnosed in about two people out of every 100,000 people in the general population. HIV negative MSM are 20 times more likely to be diagnosed with anal cancer. Their rate is about 40 cases per 100,000. HIV-positive MSM are up to 40 times more likely to be diagnosed with the disease, resulting in a rate of 80 anal cancer cases per 100,000 people."
By Liz Margolies, L.C.S.W., and Bill Goeren, L.C.S.W. http://www.thebody.com/content/art54524.html
Thank you, Reasonable Stranger
P.S. 'MSM' means 'men who have sex with men'. I looked it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReasonableStranger ( talk • contribs) 13:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
EDIT (Reasonable Stranger) Aug 22nd, 2010: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.221.162 ( talk) 02:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks, obviously I'm talking about the murkiness of section ON anal cancer. The stats/facts aren't even "right up front" in the section that supposedly deals with that specific issue. But thank you anyways for your time. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.221.162 ( talk) 02:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Anal cancer is relatively rare, accounting for about 1 percent of gastrointestinal malignancies, but as many as 4,000 new cases can be diagnosed within a year in the United States, according to the American Cancer Society.[76][77] Most cases of anal cancer are related to infection with the human papilloma virus.[76][77] The incidence of the disease has jumped 160% in men and 78% in women in the last thirty years...
Orthodox Judaism does not teach that anal sex is a sin. It is OK if a couple is married. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Troy100 ( talk • contribs) 23:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Please remove the pornographic image attached to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.171.32 ( talk) 01:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Please get a life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LupusRexRgis ( talk • contribs) 08:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.2.143 ( talk) 20:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm rather concerned about the coverage of health-risks of anal sex. Firstly,
"The hazards are due to the vulnerability of the tissues, as the penetration of the anus may cause tearing and bleeding of the soft tissues,[9] and can damage the sphincter muscles, causing incontinence and anal prolapse."
And secondly,
"Frequent anal sex is associated with hemorrhoids, anal prolapse, leakage, ano-rectal pain and ulcers and fissures."
Finally,
Physical damage to the rectum and anus can manifest as generalized ano-rectal trauma, anal fissures,[12] rectal prolapse, and exacerbating (but not causing) hemorrhoids.
For starteres, the ambiguity of saying that "anal sex is associated with hemorrhoids" but later saying that it cannot actually cause them must be cleared up. In general though, I'm getting a bit confused about this topic. I know this isn't a discussion forum or anything, it's just that when I read this article, I get a much more ghastly impression of the physical injury related health effects than on medical sites. I seem to get the impression, and maybe this is the impression you intend to give, from this article that "hemorrhoids, anal prolapse, leakage, ano-rectal pain and ulcers and fissures" are almost inevitable consequences of a fairly active anal sex life ("frequent" is not defined, so it might as well not be there). And yet if I go on the NHS website it doesn't really mention any of these things and the netdoctor only talks about the STI problem [2] [3]. Sure, both websites mention the importance of relaxing the sphincter muscle blahblah blah, and Dr. John Dean does mention that "Forced penetration may result in tearing of the sensitive skin around the anus or the sphincter itself. This may result in severe anal pain or even faecal incontinence." (my Italics) But surely this is a matter of the way that the sex is carried out. Should there not be more emphasis on the differences between health risks in properly-done anal sex and that which is done without lubrication or with a tense sphinter and so forth. At the very least, some kind of statistics about the prominence of these sorts of problems amongst receivers of anal sex should be added, I think (Yes, I am aware about the existing information on incontinence, but I think there should be more on the other things, such as anal prolapse.
I am not trying to deny that these problems exist, or to contradict your highly reputable sources by people who know a hell of a lot more than me, and ignorant layman, I just think a few things should be clarified because from personal experience, the majority of people I know who engage in anal sex do not have problems with "hemorrhoids, anal prolapse, leakage, ano-rectal pain and ulcers and fissures", yet this article seems to suggest that these are common problems. 86.181.205.252 ( talk) 13:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
978-it semi-protected}} Setion: Prostate, clitoral and G-Spot stimulation
In addition to open communication building trust is crucial, when it comes to anal sex. Trust is built by consistently delivering on your word. In the context of anal sex the giving partner should take multiple days to do small steps of anal stimulation to gradually build her arousal towards anal play that also builds trust that the giver will not go too fast and hurt the receiver. Take the time to build trust, communicate openly about the experience of every small step, and let the receiver know it does not matter how long it takes. It is about the passion and pleasure of the journey. Thus, anal sex can be a deeply intimate experience for couples.
Section: Further Reading DeCitore, David "Arouse Her Anal Ecstasy" The Best Step-by Step Guide that Provides a Pleasurable Path to Anal Sexuality, so She Enjoys Amazing Orgasms and Loves It from Beginning to End. ISBN 978-0-615-39914-0
DavidDeCitore ( talk) 05:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
Requesting deletion (2):
1) "Liwat, or the sin of Lot's people, is officially prohibited by most Islamic sects."
Liwat is not allowed by ALL Islamic sects. There is literally no sect of Islam that allows this. The original page for this article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_anal_sex cites an unreliable source which do not elaborate at all about anal sex in the perspective of Islam, not to mention having no authority at all to provide accurate interpretation of the Hadith. Did anyone ever opened the source link? It's just a one page containing a piece of hadith. That's about it.
The hadith that was quoted in the source is this one:
'Your wives are a tilth unto you; so go to your tilth when or how you will.' Quran (2.223)
The Quranic verse at the time was referring to the Jews who concocted that: 'If one has sexual intercourse with his wife from the back, then she will deliver a squint-eyed child.'
It is clear that one will not able to produce an offspring at all from anal sex. Therefore the Jews is not referring 'from the back' as being the anus, as women will not get pregnant AT ALL if she were to be entered from her anus, let alone to deliver a squint-eyed child. In other words, a man has to enter a woman through her vagina in order to impregnate his wife, thus the verse above is referring to a man may freely coming from the back of his wife if he so will, provided the entry is still through her vagina.
There should be no questioning at all if it meant that a man can enter the wife from anus or not, as apart from the fact that the verse is specifically addressing the misconception of the Jews as explained above, there are numerous occasions in Quran that strongly disparage the act of the Luth, which is Liwat. See Al-araf. 80 8 1
Helpful sources:
http://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=86457
http://www.zimbio.com/Islam/articles/2044509/Unnatural+offences+Controversy
http://www.answering-christianity.com/anal_sex.htm
2) This part do not belong in the subsection of this article - Islam. Unless it is about psychological impact of prohibiting homosexual practice (which consequently involves not only Islam, but also the rest of all popular religion and culture up until our modern day), this part of the article only serve to spread a biased view and personal opinion of the author.
"As the fact that liwat is regarded as a temptation indicates, anal intercourse is not seen as repulsively unnatural so much as dangerously attractive: "one has to avoid getting buggered precisely in order not to acquire a taste for it and thus become addicted."[99] In practise, the segregation of women and the strong emphasis on virility leads to adolescents and unmarried young men seeking sexual outlets with males younger than themselves – in one study in Morocco, with boys in the age-range 7 to 13.[100] But deep shame attaches to the passive partner: "for this reason men stop getting fucked at the age of 15 or 16 and "forget" that they ever allowed/suffered/enjoyed it earlier."[99] Similar sexual sociologies are reported for other Muslim societies from North Africa to Pakistan and the Far East.[101]"
J.Schmill (
talk) 13:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Not done: In the first part of your request, you need to find a reliable source which says that all sects prohibit this. The sources you supplied, even if they were reliable sources, do not make that claim. The second portion you ask to have removed is sourced and refers explicitly to liwat and Muslim culture, so it seems appropriate to keep in this section. If you can find a reliable source which disputes these claims, then that dispute could be added. Thanks, Celestra ( talk) 15:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
In the world the consideration —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.254.228 ( talk) 01:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the following text (an extended discussion of why clitoral and vaginal orgasm may not be different), since (1) this information can be found on the relevant pages by interested readers, and (2) it's not particularly relevant to the article's subject.
(Text in question:
"The clitoris surrounds the vagina somewhat like a horseshoe.[21] The Gräfenberg spot, or G-Spot, is a small area behind the female pubic bone surrounding the urethra and accessible through the anterior wall of the vagina. An orgasm attained through G-Spot stimulation is referred to as "vaginal", because it results from stimulation inside the vagina. The G-Spot is also thought to have legs which are accessible through anal penetration, but recent hypotheses, as well as discoveries, about the size of the clitoris show that clitoral tissue extends considerably inside the vagina. This research may possibly invalidate any attempt to claim that clitoral orgasm and vaginal orgasm are two different things.[19][24]")--TyrS 02:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
...but a physiological explanation of why some women may find anal stimulation pleasurable is that the clitoris has "legs" that extend along the vaginal lips back to the anus.[23]
Thanks very much, that'd be great. (For the life of me I can't see how that sentence could be seen as even slightly on-topic, unless the point was to try to encourage female readers to have anal sex. And for the record, I'm more concerned about imbalance and bias in general on Wikipedia than about sexism alone.) Thanks for the co-operation.--TyrS 06:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyranny Sue ( talk • contribs)
A word of caution: editors need to be careful that they don't let their personal enthusiasm for a topic mean that Wikipedia starts to sound like a promoter of any particular practices/products/services/etc. Please keep in mind that, as in any Wikipedia article, the tone of the text should be kept as objective, neutral and relevant as possible, no matter how editors may personally feel about it.--TyrS 03:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyranny Sue ( talk • contribs)
Does anyone else think it might be worthwhile/interesting to write a small section dealing with the topic (or the idea of the topic) in a cultural/semiotic context? I.e. the meaning(s) of phrases like "taking it up the ass".--TyrS 10:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyranny Sue ( talk • contribs)
Sections about this have been removed from this article time and time again. My guess is because the sections only had one or two sentences about it, it's not too common among heterosexuals, and the main article about the sexual practice of pegging can tackle it. I'll have to read the archives about that.
TyrS very recently added a section on it. Let me make clear that I have no problem with a section on pegging in this article or the image, as long as the section is big enough. Otherwise, I feel that it should all just be under the subsection title Experience of the Heterosexual section. Flyer22 ( talk) 17:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that occurred to me too, and I did a little research but (as you can imagine with only a cursory look) didn't find anything reliable (to say the least). But certainly, if you have time. (Unfortunately, I currently have no reliable citations or anything though.)--TyrS 05:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyranny Sue ( talk • contribs)
At the end of the Anatomy and Stimulation section we currently have the following, in which we essentially pass on some advice:
"About.com writer Ramon Johnson advises interested parties to familiarize themselves with their body's likes and dislikes, in order to make this practice more enjoyable. He writes that because each person's sphincter muscles react to penetration differently, potential practitioners need to learn how their body works. Exploring the sensitivity of the sphincter and how it reacts when relaxed or tense, practicing relaxation techniques such as deep breathing, using small sex toys, then gradually increasing the size, are a few of Johnson's suggestions for potential practitioners.[13] Open communication with the sex partner is also advised.[13]"
I'm not really sure that as an encyclopedia we should be giving readers advice on sexual practices, which seems to me more the domain of a sex manual than an encyclopedia. Perhaps an external link to the web page in question would be enough.--
TyrS
blah 08:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Tyranny Sue (
talk •
contribs)
Thanks for fixing this, Flyer, and I appreciate your co-operation. By the way, I'm sorry you've gotten the impression that I'm especially picking on your section. This is purely coincidental.
However, I have to say I don't agree with your opinion that "adding a how-to-guide tag ... is extreme" and I believe it definitely needed to be pointed out that (as the 'how to' box states) "The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to train". You've replied "Wikipedia often relays the advice of experts or people in certain fields" - if you provide a link to the articles you mean, I will have a look at them.
You also wrote: "It's not Wikipedia giving advice. It's experts or other such people with knowledge in the field giving advice." We do choose what we include, though, and that can be to relay "instructions, advice or how-to content". And this will naturally tend to sound NPOV. It's really important we don't wander off from just presenting the facts into trying to "inspire"/encourage people to do or try something.
Moreover, people can easily be directed to many other sites that provide how-to type advice on anal sex in the External Links section. Perhaps the people complaining (as you say) here on the talk page that anal sex isn't being presented as "positively" as they'd like don't realize that Wikipedia isn't here to train or advise or instruct people in how to carry out certain practices. Furthermore, these people can very easily find anal sex "positively" presented elsewhere on the web. Instructing people on how to have anal sex (even if the advice is relayed) is very unlikely to come across as neutral or encyclopedic.
(Any different problems I might have with the article I will, of course, raise under appropriate headings.)
TyrS
chatties 11:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello again Flyer22,
The how-to section box you just removed referred to the last sentence in the section ("About.com writer Ramon Johnson advises interested parties to communicate with their sex partner and familiarize themselves with their body's likes and dislikes, as each person's sphincter muscles react to penetration differently") i.e. relaying non-crucial, non-medical-consensus advice leaning towards advocacy/promotion as per discussion above. I realize you must've put quite a lot of work into this, and I know it sucks when one's work is altered/removed, but I still strongly suggest that this is more appropriate as an external link. Perhaps you can move this how-to style of material into an article in Wikibooks or Wikiversity?
TyrS
chatties 01:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Tyranny Sue (
talk •
contribs)
I agree with what you say above about SilentBobyxy2's contribution - moreover, they added that whole paragraph without joining in the discussion here (on the very issue of advice-giving - seems odd).
I do maintain that, in general, Wikipedia appearing to relay advice or how-to content on any high-risk private/personal/sexual/intimate activity (like anal sex) makes for a obviously unencyclopedic tone, which is why I added the "how-to" box.
I'd also recommend that, considering that (1) this is an encyclopedia, (2) this type of content is highly sensitive and personal, (3) this article topic is a high-risk activity potentially leading to life-long major illness and/or death and (4) the internet more than abounds with promotional anal sex material, we should probably change the order of the 2nd & 3rd paragraphs.--
TyrS
chatties 08:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I believe all religious analyses of anal intercourse should be moved to the articles detailing their respective religions.
does the article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_and_roll discuss music from the zoroastrian point of view?
does the article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football criticise sport as frivolity unrelated to saving souls for the lord's kingdom?
of course not: that would be ridiculous. what makes sex any different from anything else?
I believe that the various prohibitions on coffee, alcohol, dance, pleasure, hair cutting, shaving, not wearing hats, sex, driving automobiles, using electricity, sin, marriage, and all the other crazy stuff banned by all the worlds religions should be separated from the articles covering those topics and dumped into the religions' articles to which they belong. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.160.101.3 (
talk) 19:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
also a lot of comments in the religion section are unverified and lack citations, and are clearly just conjectures/opinions. For example, "Orthodox Judaism teaches that..." is uncited, and as a matter of fact, that is not necessarily true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.212.62 ( talk) 16:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
The second and third paragraphs warn against the pain and possible injury as well as disease that could occur with anal sex, yet the same is true of vaginal sex.
Why did the author insist to include so much condemnation if not to promote a certain set of values?
This article is highly unencyclopedic, extremely biased and anti-gay. DCX ( talk) 22:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
DCX ( talk) 11:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I am asking for a NEUTRAL TONE, not a promotional one. The fact that another editor falsely & insultingly accused you of that in a very pejorative way does not give you the right to make the SAME FALSE accusation to me.
There is no section on religion in oral sex and there is a vague short paragraph about Buddhism in the VAGINAL SEX article. WHY DOES RELIGION HAVE TO BE IN THIS ARTICLE AND NOT THOSE?
DCX ( talk) 00:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
1. The fact that BOTH anti-gay and pro-gay advocates find this article to be advocating against anal sex should have told you something, but you willfully ignored it. 2. You still have not made anything other than a circular argument for the inclusion of religion in this article with no clear reason to justify why that section should not be in the Sodomy article. 3. "...it cannot be helped that so many gay men just are not that into anal sex." is not an anti-gay slur. It is a factual statement" - I don't know if it is factual or not, but as a gay man that has never been my experience. What is you research for this, besides a Wikipedia article? Your implication was that I must be bitter from being rejected by so many gay men who rejected my advances presumably for anal sex. You did this in an attempt to shut me down. 4. The fact that you have been thoroughly and willfully unwilling to believe that you are not infallible is just reprehensible. Intent is as important as deeds. DCX ( talk) 02:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
1. What anti-gay and pro-gay advocates find this article to be advocating against anal sex. What are you talking about?
2. I have made strong arguments for inclusion. You choose to ignore them and Wikipedia's style for comprehensive articles, saying it's a "circular argument."
3. What is my research? There's research in the damn Wikipedia article. Have you read it? Looked at the sources? They are reliable. It is not Wikipedia reporting that information itself. More research can be found on Google Books. Again, it is not anti-gay to say that plenty of gay men are not into anal sex. That is a fact, whether you accept it or not. Have you even looked at the Frot article? You say my implication was that you must be bitter from being rejected by so many gay men who rejected your advances presumably for anal sex? You say I did this in an attempt to shut you down? I say, "Wrong?!" I find it anti-gay that you act as though it is a lie or is insulting that plenty of gay men do not engage in anal sex. I find it insulting that you automatically attribute anal sex to gay sex.
4. The fact that you thoroughly and willfully believe that I am [fallible] regarding the statement is just reprehensible. I will not say I was wrong for stating a damn fact. A fact backed up by reliable sources. Flyer22 ( talk) 02:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
1. Maggie Gallagher is AntiGay and has indicated this page as advocating against anal sex. DougCWEHO is ProGay and indicates this page advocates against anal sex.
2. A Circular argument is not a strong argument. I ignored nothing.
3. Again, the problem is your intent more than the statement. You intended to insult me buy stating that. As for research, try asking an actual gay man.
4. I believe you are fallible, (double negative=positive) not infallible. I further believe that I am fallible as fallible if not more so than you. I do however believe that I am capable of deductive reasoning. DCX ( talk) 02:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
1. Maggie Gallagher has nothing to do with this article. But learn to add or point to reliable sources to back your claims. And citing yourself? Eh...
2. You can call them "circular arguments" and weak all you want. Wikipedia disagrees. This is not a simple case of other stuff exists.
3. The problem is what you perceived as my intent. That perception was/is wrong. You can keep stating it as right, but it is still wrong. As for research, they did ask real gay men. And Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, not OR, per WP:OR.
4. Corrected then. Flyer22 ( talk) 03:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Anal sex most often refers to the sex act involving insertion of the penis into the anus of a sex partner. [1] The term anal sex can also sometimes include other sexual acts involving the anus, including pegging, anal–oral sex, fingering, and object insertion. A 2009 study of American college undergraduates, the large majority heterosexual, found that one in four reported having had anal sex. [2]
Anal sex is pleasurable for many people, and some may reach orgasm (through stimulation of the prostate in men, and clitoral and G-Spot leg stimulation in women). [3] Others find it painful, in some cases extremely so. [4] [5] Psychological factors, as well as technique, are found to play a role in the experience of pain or pleasure during anal sex. [6] [7]
As with most forms of sexual interaction, individuals are at risk for contracting sexually transmitted diseases, [8] [9] and thus safe sex practices are advised. [8] Anal sex is considered a high-risk sexual practice, and unprotected anal sex is the riskiest of all forms of sexual intercourse. [10] The hazards are due to the vulnerability of the tissues, as the penetration of the anus may cause tearing and bleeding of the soft tissues, [11] and can damage the sphincter muscles. As the rectal mucous membrane provides little natural lubrication, a lubricant is generally used when penetrating the anus. [12]
dailyuw.com
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
I note the term "back scuttle" is an old fashioned description of anal sex and presumably has its origins in the naval use of the word. I can't find a reliable reference but thought it worth capturing here for now. Garglebutt / (talk) 10:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
The article is unequivocally wrong when it states anal sex is forbidden in Judaism. Between a man and a woman, the practice is permissible. Only under the rubrick of homosexual relationships is it forbidden. (Babylonian Talmud Yevamot 34b; Maimonides' Mishnah Torah, Laws of Forbidden Relations, 21:9) ( Joshuare5768 ( talk) 23:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC))
I thought it silly to ask for citation under the fact that some cultures accept anal sex. This isn't really an arguable fact considering the availability of discussions threads/products/pornography aimed at enjoying the act of anal sex making the statement unarguable being that the Webster definition (5b) of culture is: the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group. [1] However it may be a good idea to erase the statement all together as it is slightly redundant basically only saying "some people like it, some people don't".
P.S. It's late, I'm bored, hope I helped...meh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dallas1138 ( talk • contribs) 07:55, 27 June 2008 UTC
My understanding was that the term "Greek" for the practice arose because culturally, greek women are very careful to keep their hymen intact to be ruptured only by their future marriage partner, and so in pre-marital sexual encounters they permit anal intercourse while disallowing vaginal intercourse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.131.128.151 ( talk) 07:31, 24 July 2008 UTC
Not a bad article but what is missing is the female counterpart of the picture of male genital anatomy. As the article itself points, there are now more heterosexual woman than gay men having anal sex. Clearly, this article needs a clarifying picture for women. Bobbob56 ( talk) 14:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
Please remove the phrase "Fucked" from beneath the Islamic section of this page. Replace "men gettin fucked" to "men participating" or "men recieving"
41.182.14.205 ( talk) 18:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Remove incorrect references to false ideas of paedophilic ideas within the religious strands on this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.157.59 ( talk) 11:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
you said that about Islam; But deep shame attaches to the passive partner: "for this reason men stop getting fucked at the age of 15 or 16 and "forget" that they ever allowed/suffered/enjoyed it earlier."
1- your references are extremal false, the writer has a deep hatred against Islam. Reference need to be reviewed Hisham albaldawi ( talk) 10:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC) Hisham
what about threesome —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stingbeads ( talk • contribs) 08:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
hey please can you re edit the section of anal sex in islam, the source is from a zionist biased jew, please he has not done any single research remove this shame of a lie away thank yoi
Joininghome ( talk) 01:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
The source is extremely false, the writer has deep hatred for islam, this is evident through his vulgar use of language to paint a disgusting image in the reader
Joininghome ( talk) 01:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I have some suggestions for the section on Buddhist views.
(Sanskrit: Kāmesu micchācāra literally "sense gratifications arising from the 5 senses"")
The language here is Pāli, not Sanskrit, and it means Kāmesu loc. pl. "in sense-desires/sense-pleasures" + micchācāra "wrong conduct". Therefore "wrong conduct in sense-desires/sense-pleasures".
However, "sexual misconduct" is subjected to interpretation relative to the social norms of the followers.[103] In fact, Buddhism in its fundamental form, does not define what is right and what is wrong in absolute terms for lay followers. Therefore the interpretation of what kinds of sexual activity is acceptable for a layperson, is not a religious matter as far as Buddhism is concerned.[104]
Unlike most other world religions, most variations of Buddhism do not go into details about what is right and what is wrong in what it considers mundane activities of life. Details of accepted or unaccepted human sexual conduct are not specifically mentioned in any of the religious scriptures in the Pali language.
This is not correct. Unacceptable human sexual conduct is defined in the Pāli Canon at Aṅguttara Nikāya 10.176: "He engages in sensual misconduct. He gets sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man." This is made clear at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_and_Buddhism#Lay_Buddhism.
It should also be remembered that the Pāli Canon is accepted by all sects of Buddhism, albeit not as a primary text for many. It would be fair to say that the definition of sexual misconduct in AN 10.176 would be accepted by all Buddhists.
It is clear from this AN passage that the sexual behavior prohibited by the Buddha was defined according to its social aspect, that is to say as behavior that would break proper social relations: adultery, pedophilia, etc. It would be more correct for the article to say that socially disruptive sexual behavior is clearly defined and prohibited in the Sutta Piṭaka but specific sexual acts such as anal, oral, etc. are not. This is supported by the article cited at footnote 103: http://www.4ui.com/eart/199eart1.htm
Furthermore there is a large quantity of material in the Vinaya Piṭaka, which is the first division of the Pāli Canon, that does forbid specific sexual acts for monks. Anal, oral, masturbation, bestiality, sex with trees, etc., are all defined and prohibited. They constitute one of the highest violations of monastic discipline. Therefore the statement Details of accepted or unaccepted human sexual conduct are not specifically mentioned in any of the religious scriptures in the Pali language is an outright falsehood.
Thanks and I hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.72.68 ( talk) 00:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
The section on anal cancer seems opaque and muddled to me. Where is the factual information on increased rates of anal cancer in bi-sexual men and other MSM? Why is it not right up front? This is a serious issue that affects gay and bi men (esp) that have anal sex as an integral part of their sex lives.
Here's a quote I found from a simple google search if anyone would be so kind as to include some form of it in the article, I'd be forever grateful:
"Each year anal cancer is diagnosed in about two people out of every 100,000 people in the general population. HIV negative MSM are 20 times more likely to be diagnosed with anal cancer. Their rate is about 40 cases per 100,000. HIV-positive MSM are up to 40 times more likely to be diagnosed with the disease, resulting in a rate of 80 anal cancer cases per 100,000 people."
By Liz Margolies, L.C.S.W., and Bill Goeren, L.C.S.W. http://www.thebody.com/content/art54524.html
Thank you, Reasonable Stranger
P.S. 'MSM' means 'men who have sex with men'. I looked it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReasonableStranger ( talk • contribs) 13:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
EDIT (Reasonable Stranger) Aug 22nd, 2010: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.221.162 ( talk) 02:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks, obviously I'm talking about the murkiness of section ON anal cancer. The stats/facts aren't even "right up front" in the section that supposedly deals with that specific issue. But thank you anyways for your time. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.221.162 ( talk) 02:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Anal cancer is relatively rare, accounting for about 1 percent of gastrointestinal malignancies, but as many as 4,000 new cases can be diagnosed within a year in the United States, according to the American Cancer Society.[76][77] Most cases of anal cancer are related to infection with the human papilloma virus.[76][77] The incidence of the disease has jumped 160% in men and 78% in women in the last thirty years...
Orthodox Judaism does not teach that anal sex is a sin. It is OK if a couple is married. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Troy100 ( talk • contribs) 23:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Please remove the pornographic image attached to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.171.32 ( talk) 01:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Please get a life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LupusRexRgis ( talk • contribs) 08:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.2.143 ( talk) 20:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm rather concerned about the coverage of health-risks of anal sex. Firstly,
"The hazards are due to the vulnerability of the tissues, as the penetration of the anus may cause tearing and bleeding of the soft tissues,[9] and can damage the sphincter muscles, causing incontinence and anal prolapse."
And secondly,
"Frequent anal sex is associated with hemorrhoids, anal prolapse, leakage, ano-rectal pain and ulcers and fissures."
Finally,
Physical damage to the rectum and anus can manifest as generalized ano-rectal trauma, anal fissures,[12] rectal prolapse, and exacerbating (but not causing) hemorrhoids.
For starteres, the ambiguity of saying that "anal sex is associated with hemorrhoids" but later saying that it cannot actually cause them must be cleared up. In general though, I'm getting a bit confused about this topic. I know this isn't a discussion forum or anything, it's just that when I read this article, I get a much more ghastly impression of the physical injury related health effects than on medical sites. I seem to get the impression, and maybe this is the impression you intend to give, from this article that "hemorrhoids, anal prolapse, leakage, ano-rectal pain and ulcers and fissures" are almost inevitable consequences of a fairly active anal sex life ("frequent" is not defined, so it might as well not be there). And yet if I go on the NHS website it doesn't really mention any of these things and the netdoctor only talks about the STI problem [2] [3]. Sure, both websites mention the importance of relaxing the sphincter muscle blahblah blah, and Dr. John Dean does mention that "Forced penetration may result in tearing of the sensitive skin around the anus or the sphincter itself. This may result in severe anal pain or even faecal incontinence." (my Italics) But surely this is a matter of the way that the sex is carried out. Should there not be more emphasis on the differences between health risks in properly-done anal sex and that which is done without lubrication or with a tense sphinter and so forth. At the very least, some kind of statistics about the prominence of these sorts of problems amongst receivers of anal sex should be added, I think (Yes, I am aware about the existing information on incontinence, but I think there should be more on the other things, such as anal prolapse.
I am not trying to deny that these problems exist, or to contradict your highly reputable sources by people who know a hell of a lot more than me, and ignorant layman, I just think a few things should be clarified because from personal experience, the majority of people I know who engage in anal sex do not have problems with "hemorrhoids, anal prolapse, leakage, ano-rectal pain and ulcers and fissures", yet this article seems to suggest that these are common problems. 86.181.205.252 ( talk) 13:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
978-it semi-protected}} Setion: Prostate, clitoral and G-Spot stimulation
In addition to open communication building trust is crucial, when it comes to anal sex. Trust is built by consistently delivering on your word. In the context of anal sex the giving partner should take multiple days to do small steps of anal stimulation to gradually build her arousal towards anal play that also builds trust that the giver will not go too fast and hurt the receiver. Take the time to build trust, communicate openly about the experience of every small step, and let the receiver know it does not matter how long it takes. It is about the passion and pleasure of the journey. Thus, anal sex can be a deeply intimate experience for couples.
Section: Further Reading DeCitore, David "Arouse Her Anal Ecstasy" The Best Step-by Step Guide that Provides a Pleasurable Path to Anal Sexuality, so She Enjoys Amazing Orgasms and Loves It from Beginning to End. ISBN 978-0-615-39914-0
DavidDeCitore ( talk) 05:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
Requesting deletion (2):
1) "Liwat, or the sin of Lot's people, is officially prohibited by most Islamic sects."
Liwat is not allowed by ALL Islamic sects. There is literally no sect of Islam that allows this. The original page for this article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_anal_sex cites an unreliable source which do not elaborate at all about anal sex in the perspective of Islam, not to mention having no authority at all to provide accurate interpretation of the Hadith. Did anyone ever opened the source link? It's just a one page containing a piece of hadith. That's about it.
The hadith that was quoted in the source is this one:
'Your wives are a tilth unto you; so go to your tilth when or how you will.' Quran (2.223)
The Quranic verse at the time was referring to the Jews who concocted that: 'If one has sexual intercourse with his wife from the back, then she will deliver a squint-eyed child.'
It is clear that one will not able to produce an offspring at all from anal sex. Therefore the Jews is not referring 'from the back' as being the anus, as women will not get pregnant AT ALL if she were to be entered from her anus, let alone to deliver a squint-eyed child. In other words, a man has to enter a woman through her vagina in order to impregnate his wife, thus the verse above is referring to a man may freely coming from the back of his wife if he so will, provided the entry is still through her vagina.
There should be no questioning at all if it meant that a man can enter the wife from anus or not, as apart from the fact that the verse is specifically addressing the misconception of the Jews as explained above, there are numerous occasions in Quran that strongly disparage the act of the Luth, which is Liwat. See Al-araf. 80 8 1
Helpful sources:
http://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=86457
http://www.zimbio.com/Islam/articles/2044509/Unnatural+offences+Controversy
http://www.answering-christianity.com/anal_sex.htm
2) This part do not belong in the subsection of this article - Islam. Unless it is about psychological impact of prohibiting homosexual practice (which consequently involves not only Islam, but also the rest of all popular religion and culture up until our modern day), this part of the article only serve to spread a biased view and personal opinion of the author.
"As the fact that liwat is regarded as a temptation indicates, anal intercourse is not seen as repulsively unnatural so much as dangerously attractive: "one has to avoid getting buggered precisely in order not to acquire a taste for it and thus become addicted."[99] In practise, the segregation of women and the strong emphasis on virility leads to adolescents and unmarried young men seeking sexual outlets with males younger than themselves – in one study in Morocco, with boys in the age-range 7 to 13.[100] But deep shame attaches to the passive partner: "for this reason men stop getting fucked at the age of 15 or 16 and "forget" that they ever allowed/suffered/enjoyed it earlier."[99] Similar sexual sociologies are reported for other Muslim societies from North Africa to Pakistan and the Far East.[101]"
J.Schmill (
talk) 13:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Not done: In the first part of your request, you need to find a reliable source which says that all sects prohibit this. The sources you supplied, even if they were reliable sources, do not make that claim. The second portion you ask to have removed is sourced and refers explicitly to liwat and Muslim culture, so it seems appropriate to keep in this section. If you can find a reliable source which disputes these claims, then that dispute could be added. Thanks, Celestra ( talk) 15:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
In the world the consideration —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.254.228 ( talk) 01:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the following text (an extended discussion of why clitoral and vaginal orgasm may not be different), since (1) this information can be found on the relevant pages by interested readers, and (2) it's not particularly relevant to the article's subject.
(Text in question:
"The clitoris surrounds the vagina somewhat like a horseshoe.[21] The Gräfenberg spot, or G-Spot, is a small area behind the female pubic bone surrounding the urethra and accessible through the anterior wall of the vagina. An orgasm attained through G-Spot stimulation is referred to as "vaginal", because it results from stimulation inside the vagina. The G-Spot is also thought to have legs which are accessible through anal penetration, but recent hypotheses, as well as discoveries, about the size of the clitoris show that clitoral tissue extends considerably inside the vagina. This research may possibly invalidate any attempt to claim that clitoral orgasm and vaginal orgasm are two different things.[19][24]")--TyrS 02:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
...but a physiological explanation of why some women may find anal stimulation pleasurable is that the clitoris has "legs" that extend along the vaginal lips back to the anus.[23]
Thanks very much, that'd be great. (For the life of me I can't see how that sentence could be seen as even slightly on-topic, unless the point was to try to encourage female readers to have anal sex. And for the record, I'm more concerned about imbalance and bias in general on Wikipedia than about sexism alone.) Thanks for the co-operation.--TyrS 06:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyranny Sue ( talk • contribs)
A word of caution: editors need to be careful that they don't let their personal enthusiasm for a topic mean that Wikipedia starts to sound like a promoter of any particular practices/products/services/etc. Please keep in mind that, as in any Wikipedia article, the tone of the text should be kept as objective, neutral and relevant as possible, no matter how editors may personally feel about it.--TyrS 03:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyranny Sue ( talk • contribs)
Does anyone else think it might be worthwhile/interesting to write a small section dealing with the topic (or the idea of the topic) in a cultural/semiotic context? I.e. the meaning(s) of phrases like "taking it up the ass".--TyrS 10:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyranny Sue ( talk • contribs)
Sections about this have been removed from this article time and time again. My guess is because the sections only had one or two sentences about it, it's not too common among heterosexuals, and the main article about the sexual practice of pegging can tackle it. I'll have to read the archives about that.
TyrS very recently added a section on it. Let me make clear that I have no problem with a section on pegging in this article or the image, as long as the section is big enough. Otherwise, I feel that it should all just be under the subsection title Experience of the Heterosexual section. Flyer22 ( talk) 17:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that occurred to me too, and I did a little research but (as you can imagine with only a cursory look) didn't find anything reliable (to say the least). But certainly, if you have time. (Unfortunately, I currently have no reliable citations or anything though.)--TyrS 05:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyranny Sue ( talk • contribs)
At the end of the Anatomy and Stimulation section we currently have the following, in which we essentially pass on some advice:
"About.com writer Ramon Johnson advises interested parties to familiarize themselves with their body's likes and dislikes, in order to make this practice more enjoyable. He writes that because each person's sphincter muscles react to penetration differently, potential practitioners need to learn how their body works. Exploring the sensitivity of the sphincter and how it reacts when relaxed or tense, practicing relaxation techniques such as deep breathing, using small sex toys, then gradually increasing the size, are a few of Johnson's suggestions for potential practitioners.[13] Open communication with the sex partner is also advised.[13]"
I'm not really sure that as an encyclopedia we should be giving readers advice on sexual practices, which seems to me more the domain of a sex manual than an encyclopedia. Perhaps an external link to the web page in question would be enough.--
TyrS
blah 08:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Tyranny Sue (
talk •
contribs)
Thanks for fixing this, Flyer, and I appreciate your co-operation. By the way, I'm sorry you've gotten the impression that I'm especially picking on your section. This is purely coincidental.
However, I have to say I don't agree with your opinion that "adding a how-to-guide tag ... is extreme" and I believe it definitely needed to be pointed out that (as the 'how to' box states) "The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to train". You've replied "Wikipedia often relays the advice of experts or people in certain fields" - if you provide a link to the articles you mean, I will have a look at them.
You also wrote: "It's not Wikipedia giving advice. It's experts or other such people with knowledge in the field giving advice." We do choose what we include, though, and that can be to relay "instructions, advice or how-to content". And this will naturally tend to sound NPOV. It's really important we don't wander off from just presenting the facts into trying to "inspire"/encourage people to do or try something.
Moreover, people can easily be directed to many other sites that provide how-to type advice on anal sex in the External Links section. Perhaps the people complaining (as you say) here on the talk page that anal sex isn't being presented as "positively" as they'd like don't realize that Wikipedia isn't here to train or advise or instruct people in how to carry out certain practices. Furthermore, these people can very easily find anal sex "positively" presented elsewhere on the web. Instructing people on how to have anal sex (even if the advice is relayed) is very unlikely to come across as neutral or encyclopedic.
(Any different problems I might have with the article I will, of course, raise under appropriate headings.)
TyrS
chatties 11:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello again Flyer22,
The how-to section box you just removed referred to the last sentence in the section ("About.com writer Ramon Johnson advises interested parties to communicate with their sex partner and familiarize themselves with their body's likes and dislikes, as each person's sphincter muscles react to penetration differently") i.e. relaying non-crucial, non-medical-consensus advice leaning towards advocacy/promotion as per discussion above. I realize you must've put quite a lot of work into this, and I know it sucks when one's work is altered/removed, but I still strongly suggest that this is more appropriate as an external link. Perhaps you can move this how-to style of material into an article in Wikibooks or Wikiversity?
TyrS
chatties 01:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Tyranny Sue (
talk •
contribs)
I agree with what you say above about SilentBobyxy2's contribution - moreover, they added that whole paragraph without joining in the discussion here (on the very issue of advice-giving - seems odd).
I do maintain that, in general, Wikipedia appearing to relay advice or how-to content on any high-risk private/personal/sexual/intimate activity (like anal sex) makes for a obviously unencyclopedic tone, which is why I added the "how-to" box.
I'd also recommend that, considering that (1) this is an encyclopedia, (2) this type of content is highly sensitive and personal, (3) this article topic is a high-risk activity potentially leading to life-long major illness and/or death and (4) the internet more than abounds with promotional anal sex material, we should probably change the order of the 2nd & 3rd paragraphs.--
TyrS
chatties 08:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I believe all religious analyses of anal intercourse should be moved to the articles detailing their respective religions.
does the article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_and_roll discuss music from the zoroastrian point of view?
does the article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football criticise sport as frivolity unrelated to saving souls for the lord's kingdom?
of course not: that would be ridiculous. what makes sex any different from anything else?
I believe that the various prohibitions on coffee, alcohol, dance, pleasure, hair cutting, shaving, not wearing hats, sex, driving automobiles, using electricity, sin, marriage, and all the other crazy stuff banned by all the worlds religions should be separated from the articles covering those topics and dumped into the religions' articles to which they belong. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.160.101.3 (
talk) 19:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
also a lot of comments in the religion section are unverified and lack citations, and are clearly just conjectures/opinions. For example, "Orthodox Judaism teaches that..." is uncited, and as a matter of fact, that is not necessarily true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.212.62 ( talk) 16:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
The second and third paragraphs warn against the pain and possible injury as well as disease that could occur with anal sex, yet the same is true of vaginal sex.
Why did the author insist to include so much condemnation if not to promote a certain set of values?
This article is highly unencyclopedic, extremely biased and anti-gay. DCX ( talk) 22:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
DCX ( talk) 11:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I am asking for a NEUTRAL TONE, not a promotional one. The fact that another editor falsely & insultingly accused you of that in a very pejorative way does not give you the right to make the SAME FALSE accusation to me.
There is no section on religion in oral sex and there is a vague short paragraph about Buddhism in the VAGINAL SEX article. WHY DOES RELIGION HAVE TO BE IN THIS ARTICLE AND NOT THOSE?
DCX ( talk) 00:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
1. The fact that BOTH anti-gay and pro-gay advocates find this article to be advocating against anal sex should have told you something, but you willfully ignored it. 2. You still have not made anything other than a circular argument for the inclusion of religion in this article with no clear reason to justify why that section should not be in the Sodomy article. 3. "...it cannot be helped that so many gay men just are not that into anal sex." is not an anti-gay slur. It is a factual statement" - I don't know if it is factual or not, but as a gay man that has never been my experience. What is you research for this, besides a Wikipedia article? Your implication was that I must be bitter from being rejected by so many gay men who rejected my advances presumably for anal sex. You did this in an attempt to shut me down. 4. The fact that you have been thoroughly and willfully unwilling to believe that you are not infallible is just reprehensible. Intent is as important as deeds. DCX ( talk) 02:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
1. What anti-gay and pro-gay advocates find this article to be advocating against anal sex. What are you talking about?
2. I have made strong arguments for inclusion. You choose to ignore them and Wikipedia's style for comprehensive articles, saying it's a "circular argument."
3. What is my research? There's research in the damn Wikipedia article. Have you read it? Looked at the sources? They are reliable. It is not Wikipedia reporting that information itself. More research can be found on Google Books. Again, it is not anti-gay to say that plenty of gay men are not into anal sex. That is a fact, whether you accept it or not. Have you even looked at the Frot article? You say my implication was that you must be bitter from being rejected by so many gay men who rejected your advances presumably for anal sex? You say I did this in an attempt to shut you down? I say, "Wrong?!" I find it anti-gay that you act as though it is a lie or is insulting that plenty of gay men do not engage in anal sex. I find it insulting that you automatically attribute anal sex to gay sex.
4. The fact that you thoroughly and willfully believe that I am [fallible] regarding the statement is just reprehensible. I will not say I was wrong for stating a damn fact. A fact backed up by reliable sources. Flyer22 ( talk) 02:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
1. Maggie Gallagher is AntiGay and has indicated this page as advocating against anal sex. DougCWEHO is ProGay and indicates this page advocates against anal sex.
2. A Circular argument is not a strong argument. I ignored nothing.
3. Again, the problem is your intent more than the statement. You intended to insult me buy stating that. As for research, try asking an actual gay man.
4. I believe you are fallible, (double negative=positive) not infallible. I further believe that I am fallible as fallible if not more so than you. I do however believe that I am capable of deductive reasoning. DCX ( talk) 02:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
1. Maggie Gallagher has nothing to do with this article. But learn to add or point to reliable sources to back your claims. And citing yourself? Eh...
2. You can call them "circular arguments" and weak all you want. Wikipedia disagrees. This is not a simple case of other stuff exists.
3. The problem is what you perceived as my intent. That perception was/is wrong. You can keep stating it as right, but it is still wrong. As for research, they did ask real gay men. And Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, not OR, per WP:OR.
4. Corrected then. Flyer22 ( talk) 03:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Anal sex most often refers to the sex act involving insertion of the penis into the anus of a sex partner. [1] The term anal sex can also sometimes include other sexual acts involving the anus, including pegging, anal–oral sex, fingering, and object insertion. A 2009 study of American college undergraduates, the large majority heterosexual, found that one in four reported having had anal sex. [2]
Anal sex is pleasurable for many people, and some may reach orgasm (through stimulation of the prostate in men, and clitoral and G-Spot leg stimulation in women). [3] Others find it painful, in some cases extremely so. [4] [5] Psychological factors, as well as technique, are found to play a role in the experience of pain or pleasure during anal sex. [6] [7]
As with most forms of sexual interaction, individuals are at risk for contracting sexually transmitted diseases, [8] [9] and thus safe sex practices are advised. [8] Anal sex is considered a high-risk sexual practice, and unprotected anal sex is the riskiest of all forms of sexual intercourse. [10] The hazards are due to the vulnerability of the tissues, as the penetration of the anus may cause tearing and bleeding of the soft tissues, [11] and can damage the sphincter muscles. As the rectal mucous membrane provides little natural lubrication, a lubricant is generally used when penetrating the anus. [12]
dailyuw.com
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).