![]() | 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 |
A muscle fuck is a word from the gay community and refers to male anal sex. Some troll added it. Please can a mod remove "muscle fuck" from that list? 92.252.9.230 ( talk) 00:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Unless the furthest-left man has an infeasibly long penis.
We should use the words "natural", "normal", or "intact" to describe normal male genitalia that have not been modified or mutilated. Do we refer to people with normal oral anatomy as "untonsilectomized"? Or normal female anatomy as "unmastectomized"? Or men who have not had a vasectomy as "unvasectomized"? I would have corrected this error myself, but the article is semi-protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.236.24.25 ( talk) 12:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. The mention of someone being uncircumcised makes no sense in-context, since to "Dock" you would need a full-sized foreskin. Obviously this means that the person in question would not be circumcised. It makes sense without the "uncircumcised" word addition, so I vote that the word be removed and not replaced. This is more a question of international POV. If we're in the US, the word "uncircumcised" seems okay, but in England and most of the world, it would seem to be a redundant phrasing in this context. 98.225.230.65 ( talk) 11:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I fixed it, guys. MaraquanWocky ( talk) 21:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
WOW! Way to go pushing your agenda, and congratulations on no one effectively blocking your POV pushing.
Jersey John (
talk)
08:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Why not Mostraga ( talk) 13:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Why not Mostraga ( talk) 13:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Under "other positions" the description of the scissors position should be modified to say "manual stimulation of the breast and/or clitoris" rather than just "breast stimulation." Source: From personal experience, even a previously non-orgasmic woman may reach orgasm if the male partner is inside her in the scissors position, with left hand stimulating her right nipple, and right hand stimulating her clitoris.
Rkschaffner ( talk) 18:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Under the missionary position the possibility of the man being on top with the woman underneath but the woman has her legs together and flat seems to have been overlooked. The merit of this position is that the largest part of the man's cock engages the tightest part of the woman's cunt - which has its merits. 89.195.66.25 ( talk) 17:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Why isn't their any mention of urethra penetration? While not common, some women have made a name for themselves by being able to do it (the amazing Ty to name one). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.131.8.117 ( talk) 21:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Really you are not talking about a sexual position. You are specifying a type of penetration that may or may not be achieved through a variety of means (positions), This being the case perhaps there should be a separate page for discussion of different types of penetration.
To expand this point it's my opinion that some of the discussion or imagery diverge from the page topic/title in proper. The page is supposed to be informative on "sexual positions" so there shouldn't specific discussion about penetration. For example there is an entire section for the discussion of anal penetration which is superfluous as meany of the positions described in this section are the same positions described in other sections. such as doggy style and missionary. This section appears to be included only to describe anal penetration. This section can almost certainly be eliminated by adding to the already existing descriptions in other areas that both vaginal and anal penetration can be achieved in said position. This would seem to be more concise and less distracting from that page topic.
Furthermore the subject matter discussed in the topic "other positions" seems to be inconsistent as no positions are actually described. The only descriptions here are types of penetration. these types of penetration can be achieved from multiple positions. For example the depiction of anal fisting has the man laying on his back while this depicts the type of penetration being discussed the same penetration can be achieved doggy style as well and laying on the side.
I am unsure of what article standards the things I have mentions are actually in violation of but I'm pretty sure that most of these things are in violation of one or more article standards.
The result of the move request was: Moved to plural title, if only to not override the page history of the singular. — kwami ( talk) 08:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
List of sex positions → Sex position — Unnecessary division; Sex position is currently a stubbier duplicate of this one (with the exception of the History section). Cybercobra (talk) 22:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Really? Do people do this? I don't see how you could get sexual pleasure from it.-- 72.24.207.77 ( talk) 07:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
if "admin" on "cockdockers".org says so, it must be true. I mean, who's going to admit they actually clicked the link to verify the source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.40.252.23 ( talk) 07:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I know this article was just moved a few months ago, but it is clear that this article is just as much about the acts as it is about the positions. I believe one of the two titles suggested in my heading above would be more accurate and benefit readers more. For example, Sex acts redirects to Human sexual activity...when it would be better redirected here (in my opinion). Flyer22 ( talk) 16:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
Phoebepuppy (
talk)
13:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
SPELLING CHECK
Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Please explain specifically what needs to be changed. Thanks.
Qwyrxian (
talk)
15:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
PLEASE CHANGE
insertion of the male's penis into a partner's anus
TO
insertion of the penis into a partner's anus
REASON: few females have a penis
SOURCE: any book on human anatomy should do
Fdemers ( talk) 18:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
While I agree that many of the names for positions that are presented are descriptive, we should not try to stray too far into current slang usage. I can think of many now-defunct names for certain positions, but odd ones still appear on this page. For instance, with MFM double penetration: "this is sometimes called the sandwich or BigMac". BigMac? Really? At least sandwich is more descriptive. And the use of the term "Rusty trombone" for a sex act? I know what it is and I know it has an article, but I feel that this term's usage will go out of style in the very near future. 69.196.161.124 ( talk) 02:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
why are all the depictions hand drwan, then when you get down to fisting there is a real photo, i think that the picture has been used for shock purposes. either use all hand drawn for all depictions of positions or use real photos. 212.183.140.49 ( talk) 18:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
agreed. that particular image should be removed or replaced with a hand-drawn version, it does not feel like it belongs on this article 123.108.110.236 ( talk) 05:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
External link edit to update URL for "The Sex-Position Playbook" at menshealth.com
Please change URL from http://www.menshealth.com/cda/article.do?channel=sex.relationships&conitem=c1a1db9ba885f010VgnVCM10000013281eac____ to http://www.menshealth.com/sex-position-playbook/
Deadlink: http://www.menshealth.com/cda/article.do?channel=sex.relationships&conitem=c1a1db9ba885f010VgnVCM10000013281eac____ Live: http://www.menshealth.com/sex-position-playbook/ Kylewestern ( talk) 22:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Wiki-cunnilingus.png, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 12:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC) |
Hey,
I think this link should be included in the external references list... http://www.sexinfo101.com/sexualpositions.shtml
Cheers,
Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomkz ( talk • contribs) 04:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Is there a reason why you wouldn't want this resource there? Have you taken a look at the sites that are?
The link I am suggesting should be in this list as much as men's health, and more so then the other three that are there. Tomkz ( talk) 18:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Anyone? Tomkz ( talk) 17:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
It currently says in the article: " Oral sex itself can never result in pregnancy." That is not entirely correct. It would be correct to say "Oral sex by itself can not normally result in pregnancy", but the never is overstating the case and suggests false certainty. There exists a case report of a pregnancy after oral sex and a subsequent stabbing, where the stab wound allowed the male sperm to reach the fallopian tube/uterus: http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/811507-oral-sex-stabbing-pregnancy-story-could-be-true http://img2.tapuz.co.il/CommunaFiles/21227065.pdf 31.16.20.174 ( talk) 19:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I do not know if this has been suggested before about the pictures for Sex Positions and the like. How about using more uniform nondescript computer graphics of bodies using a neutral color (i.e. Silver or grey) with smoothing of facial features and etc to make things look as plain as possible but yet keep the general idea intact. Just a thought. Septagram ( talk) 04:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Please can we do without the pictures of sex positions??? I caught my 14 year old son on my computer looking at this article. And simply put, I do not want to subject him to filth. I am not the only parent out there that has to remain vigilant of what our kids see and do online. I know that Wikipedia is not censored and that the pictures can be hidden, but God forbid, any person or pervert of any age, including a minor can come to this article and see the graphic pictures. I am not even sure if this article is encyclopedic. If it were, then Encarta or Encyclopedia Brittanica would have a similar article on sex positions, which they do not. Yoganate79 ( talk) 03:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
It is wrong, and also they show lesbinism and black and white sex. This is perverted material that 14 year old should not be able to see, and sinful material. 219.101.196.2 ( talk) 08:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Tatr
Why does the article say "sex positions?" The word "sex" is NOT an adjective. The proper phrase is "sexual positions." If there is no dissent on this, I will change it around 1 March 2012.
Sexual positions sounds like we're referring to someone's sexuality. That's my two cents at least. Delierajaytoday ( talk) 12:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
It also would hint to any sexually provocative position, which is not what is desired.
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Trio-FFF.svg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Trio-FFF.svg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 13:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC) |
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Threesome in colour.svg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Threesome in colour.svg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 17:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC) |
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In '"Group sex" - "With many participants" sub-section, change circle jerk to circle jerk (sexual practice).
173.81.153.14 ( talk) 02:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia—Where Almost Everyone Demonstrating Something about the Human Body or Activity Is White, Circumcised, and Young.™ — President Lethe ( talk) 17:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Reading through the article, I couldn't help noticing that the design of the computer-drawn images makes this article look far less educational or neutral than they were (I assume) intended to be. Specifically, in all of the hetero examples, the guy has his face hidden while the woman is angled to display aroused facial expressions; in the lesbian examples, they show the receiving partner's face, and neither man's face is visible in the gay examples. Everyone being shaved (except a lesbian & a guy) and -- as others have noted -- having a specific race/age didn't help matters.
I did thoroughly look at all of the other Wikipedia images I could think of that would show the naked human body, and none of them look remotely like these; they look like something we'd find in a textbook, complete with notes wherever body hair has been trimmed or removed. This article's images look more like they were stills from pornography that were run through a graphic program filter to make them cartoonish.
I'm not anti-porn/pro-censorship at all -- if anything I'd like to see more illustrations for the described positions as I couldn't imagine how they worked. My concern is just that the images currently in use don't look like they belong in a remotely respectable reference. I'd offer replacements if I had any drawing skills or knew where to look for images that offer the necessary rights/permissions. Xyzzy☥Avatar ( talk) 10:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I have just added this image to illustrate cunnilingus. It is currently the only 1 out of 5 oral sex images in the article where the 'giver' is male. Because of layout, as well as balance/POV and WP:NOTHOW-related issues (see discussion above), Seedfeeder's drawing of the woman performing cunnilingus is no longer needed here. I suggest therefore that it be removed. I will remove it myself in a couple of days if there is no further discussion about it here.-- TyrS chatties 00:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm a bit surprised, that nobody seems to have adressed it yet, but none of the pictures show any protection (condoms…). Of course this is understandable with the historic images. But with Seedfeeder's drawings? Daadler ( talk) 01:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
4th item in cunnilingus list had: "Humorously popularised in the Monty Python song "Sit On My Face" (1980)". This type of isolated cultural trivia obviously doesn't belong in the main body, if it belongs at all. Perhaps in a separate "Sex positions in popular culture" section.-- TyrS chatties 23:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Please! I Once AGAIN I caught my 14 year old son viewing this article with sexually explicit pictures. I know that Wikipedia is not censored but there must be some compromise involved. Please! This is an academic and intellectual web site that can be assessed by children of any age. What is even worse, I have checked Encyclopedia Brittanica's web site and there is no article dedicated to "sexual positions". I understand that a lot of you who edit this article are perverts, but that doesn't give you the right or an excuse to expose innocent childen who have no control over the content that they view. Yoganate79 ( talk) 02:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
YOU are the one exposing your child to what YOU believe is "filthy" by your own lack of censorship. Get some software and control your own child. There is nothing wrong with these articles or the pictures within. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.255.129 ( talk) 10:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Give me a break. A 14 year old should be trying to figure this stuff out. What's more is that there is a whole lot of stuff a lot worse than encyclopedic descriptions of sex on the Internet. Your kid is ONE CLICK away from HD color full-motion streaming live video of every possible sex act in the imagination of mankind since the dawn of time and your worried about drawings of sex positions?! Watch your own kid. Stop trying to censor the English-speaking world with your ideas of what's right and wrong because your son wants to see drawings of naked people.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here's the reason Wikipedia does not, can not, and will not censor to meet individual and personal sensibilities, morality or religious world-views. Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so. Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms. However, some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal or inclusion of content.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Reverse-cowgirl-animation.gif — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.135.161.45 ( talk) 17:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid I've nominated this image for deletion. The reasons should not be discussed here, but on the
deletion page. Please contribute there. --
Simon Speed (
talk)
20:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
The reporting IP User has been blocked as a troll per WP:ANI#Request additional review of disruptive editor |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The image is here: File:Reverse-cowgirl-prone-animation.gif, and in this one no subjects are identifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sex-position-demonstration ( talk • contribs) 21:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
There's no evidence there was any copyright violation, so why did the administrators (e.g., "Martin H."):
It just looks like they're on some kind of religious crusade, enacted through cronyism and illegitimate censorship. -- 150.135.161.194 ( talk) 02:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
|
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I see in many places "Most of these positions can be used for either vaginal or anal penetration.", this doesn't need to be repeated everywhere because the section "Anal sex positions" already specifies that "Most anal sex positions are adaptations of vaginal penetrative positions". Also because, by repeating it so often, it degrades the litterary style of this article, and it emphatises on a practice that most women, like myself, find unpleasant, and most women are tired of meeting men who ask it as if it was a usual practise to expect. Then after the sentence "Anal sex positions involve anal penetration." I would like to add "Note that anal penetration can also be performed by a woman equipped with a sex toy such as strap-on dildo."
Lilla saga ( talk) 09:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
It may be repetitive, but I don't believe it is done to emphasize a practice that "most women find unpleasant" but rather to be gender and orientation neutral because gay and bisexual men often find it quite pleasant as well as the women who enjoy it. JVB — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
JohannVanbeek (
talk •
contribs) 12:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Not done:Mainly per Johann, but also because it is easier to have it in more that one place to "make it clear".
Mdann52 (
talk)
20:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Please edit "man" and "woman" to "penetrating partner" and "receiving partner" Reasons: To bring it in line with the rest of the article, and because not every man has a penis (just cis men), and ditto women and vaginas - gender references are obsolete. Further, it could easily also be used by a women with a dildo. Oneboikyle ( talk) 20:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello all!
I've flagged this article until its NPOV issues can be resolved. Here is a list of problems (nonexhaustive) to look out for and correct. What may be obvious to you may not be so to other editors. Please add to this list to help outline what should be changed, or use it for your own guidance in doing just that!
Sexuality is much more diverse and interesting than this article currently portrays. :]
Eekiv
20:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
04:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Eekiv in that sometimes changing the order of words like "anal", "oral" & "vaginal" (when they appear together) would create a more balanced article. I disagree with the suggestion that we should use only one wording order, and that that order is dictated by some mainstream consensus. Various sources will order them in various ways, and occasionally re-ordering our wording would hardly be a threat to any status quo (whether real or imaginary). (Using the same logic, we could argue that the popular consensus is that gay men do have lots of anal sex, therefore we should reflect that, or that the existence in the world of approximately 150% more anuses than vaginas would be an argument for insisting on starting every such list with the word "anal".) Anyhow, an impression of bias is made in this article by the insistence on one particular word before the other no matter what, at all times, when of course there is no single worldwide consensus on what "people do sexually".
Regarding the statement, in the 21:52, 4 November 2013 post, that "...most gay and lesbian people do not engage in anal sex" . Like most (if not all) sweeping generalizations, this is highly debatable. Study results will, naturally, vary over time and in different geographical locations. For example, ACON (a leading New South Wales health promotion organisation specialising in HIV and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex health) states that "Anal sex is very common among gay men. Almost all gay men have tried anal sex at least once,with about 80% saying they’ve had it in the previous six months." Direct link here: [3] So I vote for the occasional reordering of the words in question on grounds of NPOV.-- Ty rS 06:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
The image captions here need improving. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Visual_arts/Art_Manual_of_Style#Image_captions. Though the historical ones are presumably by Anonymous, the seven illustraions by "Seedfeeder" lack the minimum information (artist and title of work). It seems odd that the source, or any kind of attribution, is missing on these.-- Ty rS 04:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I saw this in the lede, emphasis added:
I found it bizarre that the third sentence of the article could contain such an error. I mean... this is just wrong. If a sex position does not involve touching and direct stimulation, then how can it be a sex position? It is true that you can psychologically stimulate/arouse somebody with words/pictures/items etc., but that's not the actual intercourse.
I reworded the sentence ( ), but it was undone by User:Flyer22 (see: [4] [5] [6]). We discussed the issue on her talk page, see: User talk:Flyer22#Sex positions.
Any thoughts? - Manifestation ( talk) 10:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
The "Starfish position" is mentioned near the end of the article but cannot be found elsewhere in the article. I presume that it should be added to the "Penetrating partner on top with front entry" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WolRon ( talk • contribs) 05:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Sex position. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say that "Triple penetration usually involves the penetration of the anus, vagina, and mouth simultaneously." is absolutely wrong, at least in porn messed up world, while the truth is more disgusting. Every porn consumer that buys a film advertised with triple penetration would be extremely pissed off if there was no penetration of vagina and anus by three penises at the same time. What is described by the above quote is always called air tight. -- SamWinchester000 ( talk) 02:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
http://www.subzin.com/quotes/M602181a99/Jimmy+Carr%3A+In+Concert/Maybe+try+the+shocker.
This is not an article. It is multiple lists. If all of the bullet points are removed, then content is ~1K and much of that due to illustrations. So, I say call it
List of sex positions. Any discussion or objection?
Weeb Dingle (
talk)
18:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Add link to Sex position/Archive 2 in other species. E.g., [10] different genders on top/bottom for different insects. Jidanni ( talk) 03:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Sex position has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
41.115.95.96 ( talk) 11:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
here is a mention of the "starfish position" which is the first and only time throughout the article, without any clarification to it. this results in inconsistency. my suggestion is either delete this sentence or clarify in the article what is this. 89.134.199.32 ( talk) 00:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC).
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Suspended congress. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 5#Suspended congress until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Hog Farm
Bacon
02:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
here is a mention of the "starfish position" which is the first and only time throughout the article, without any clarification to it. this results in inconsistency. my suggestion is either delete this sentence or clarify in the article what is this. 89.134.199.32 ( talk) 00:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC).
Yes Slovoko ( talk) 05:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
2603:6080:4B03:BC06:998:9457:4E56:F3CE ( talk) 14:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)It needs more diversity- e.g. two women; the initial picture is mostly man-woman (and mostly man in a controlling position) with some man-man. Additionally, they are all penetrative. Non-penetrative sex positions should be given greater focus 2603:6080:4B03:BC06:998:9457:4E56:F3CE ( talk) 14:26, 8 May 2023 (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 |
A muscle fuck is a word from the gay community and refers to male anal sex. Some troll added it. Please can a mod remove "muscle fuck" from that list? 92.252.9.230 ( talk) 00:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Unless the furthest-left man has an infeasibly long penis.
We should use the words "natural", "normal", or "intact" to describe normal male genitalia that have not been modified or mutilated. Do we refer to people with normal oral anatomy as "untonsilectomized"? Or normal female anatomy as "unmastectomized"? Or men who have not had a vasectomy as "unvasectomized"? I would have corrected this error myself, but the article is semi-protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.236.24.25 ( talk) 12:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. The mention of someone being uncircumcised makes no sense in-context, since to "Dock" you would need a full-sized foreskin. Obviously this means that the person in question would not be circumcised. It makes sense without the "uncircumcised" word addition, so I vote that the word be removed and not replaced. This is more a question of international POV. If we're in the US, the word "uncircumcised" seems okay, but in England and most of the world, it would seem to be a redundant phrasing in this context. 98.225.230.65 ( talk) 11:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I fixed it, guys. MaraquanWocky ( talk) 21:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
WOW! Way to go pushing your agenda, and congratulations on no one effectively blocking your POV pushing.
Jersey John (
talk)
08:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Why not Mostraga ( talk) 13:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Why not Mostraga ( talk) 13:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Under "other positions" the description of the scissors position should be modified to say "manual stimulation of the breast and/or clitoris" rather than just "breast stimulation." Source: From personal experience, even a previously non-orgasmic woman may reach orgasm if the male partner is inside her in the scissors position, with left hand stimulating her right nipple, and right hand stimulating her clitoris.
Rkschaffner ( talk) 18:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Under the missionary position the possibility of the man being on top with the woman underneath but the woman has her legs together and flat seems to have been overlooked. The merit of this position is that the largest part of the man's cock engages the tightest part of the woman's cunt - which has its merits. 89.195.66.25 ( talk) 17:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Why isn't their any mention of urethra penetration? While not common, some women have made a name for themselves by being able to do it (the amazing Ty to name one). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.131.8.117 ( talk) 21:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Really you are not talking about a sexual position. You are specifying a type of penetration that may or may not be achieved through a variety of means (positions), This being the case perhaps there should be a separate page for discussion of different types of penetration.
To expand this point it's my opinion that some of the discussion or imagery diverge from the page topic/title in proper. The page is supposed to be informative on "sexual positions" so there shouldn't specific discussion about penetration. For example there is an entire section for the discussion of anal penetration which is superfluous as meany of the positions described in this section are the same positions described in other sections. such as doggy style and missionary. This section appears to be included only to describe anal penetration. This section can almost certainly be eliminated by adding to the already existing descriptions in other areas that both vaginal and anal penetration can be achieved in said position. This would seem to be more concise and less distracting from that page topic.
Furthermore the subject matter discussed in the topic "other positions" seems to be inconsistent as no positions are actually described. The only descriptions here are types of penetration. these types of penetration can be achieved from multiple positions. For example the depiction of anal fisting has the man laying on his back while this depicts the type of penetration being discussed the same penetration can be achieved doggy style as well and laying on the side.
I am unsure of what article standards the things I have mentions are actually in violation of but I'm pretty sure that most of these things are in violation of one or more article standards.
The result of the move request was: Moved to plural title, if only to not override the page history of the singular. — kwami ( talk) 08:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
List of sex positions → Sex position — Unnecessary division; Sex position is currently a stubbier duplicate of this one (with the exception of the History section). Cybercobra (talk) 22:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Really? Do people do this? I don't see how you could get sexual pleasure from it.-- 72.24.207.77 ( talk) 07:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
if "admin" on "cockdockers".org says so, it must be true. I mean, who's going to admit they actually clicked the link to verify the source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.40.252.23 ( talk) 07:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I know this article was just moved a few months ago, but it is clear that this article is just as much about the acts as it is about the positions. I believe one of the two titles suggested in my heading above would be more accurate and benefit readers more. For example, Sex acts redirects to Human sexual activity...when it would be better redirected here (in my opinion). Flyer22 ( talk) 16:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
Phoebepuppy (
talk)
13:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
SPELLING CHECK
Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Please explain specifically what needs to be changed. Thanks.
Qwyrxian (
talk)
15:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
PLEASE CHANGE
insertion of the male's penis into a partner's anus
TO
insertion of the penis into a partner's anus
REASON: few females have a penis
SOURCE: any book on human anatomy should do
Fdemers ( talk) 18:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
While I agree that many of the names for positions that are presented are descriptive, we should not try to stray too far into current slang usage. I can think of many now-defunct names for certain positions, but odd ones still appear on this page. For instance, with MFM double penetration: "this is sometimes called the sandwich or BigMac". BigMac? Really? At least sandwich is more descriptive. And the use of the term "Rusty trombone" for a sex act? I know what it is and I know it has an article, but I feel that this term's usage will go out of style in the very near future. 69.196.161.124 ( talk) 02:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
why are all the depictions hand drwan, then when you get down to fisting there is a real photo, i think that the picture has been used for shock purposes. either use all hand drawn for all depictions of positions or use real photos. 212.183.140.49 ( talk) 18:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
agreed. that particular image should be removed or replaced with a hand-drawn version, it does not feel like it belongs on this article 123.108.110.236 ( talk) 05:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
External link edit to update URL for "The Sex-Position Playbook" at menshealth.com
Please change URL from http://www.menshealth.com/cda/article.do?channel=sex.relationships&conitem=c1a1db9ba885f010VgnVCM10000013281eac____ to http://www.menshealth.com/sex-position-playbook/
Deadlink: http://www.menshealth.com/cda/article.do?channel=sex.relationships&conitem=c1a1db9ba885f010VgnVCM10000013281eac____ Live: http://www.menshealth.com/sex-position-playbook/ Kylewestern ( talk) 22:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Wiki-cunnilingus.png, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 12:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC) |
Hey,
I think this link should be included in the external references list... http://www.sexinfo101.com/sexualpositions.shtml
Cheers,
Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomkz ( talk • contribs) 04:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Is there a reason why you wouldn't want this resource there? Have you taken a look at the sites that are?
The link I am suggesting should be in this list as much as men's health, and more so then the other three that are there. Tomkz ( talk) 18:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Anyone? Tomkz ( talk) 17:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
It currently says in the article: " Oral sex itself can never result in pregnancy." That is not entirely correct. It would be correct to say "Oral sex by itself can not normally result in pregnancy", but the never is overstating the case and suggests false certainty. There exists a case report of a pregnancy after oral sex and a subsequent stabbing, where the stab wound allowed the male sperm to reach the fallopian tube/uterus: http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/811507-oral-sex-stabbing-pregnancy-story-could-be-true http://img2.tapuz.co.il/CommunaFiles/21227065.pdf 31.16.20.174 ( talk) 19:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I do not know if this has been suggested before about the pictures for Sex Positions and the like. How about using more uniform nondescript computer graphics of bodies using a neutral color (i.e. Silver or grey) with smoothing of facial features and etc to make things look as plain as possible but yet keep the general idea intact. Just a thought. Septagram ( talk) 04:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Please can we do without the pictures of sex positions??? I caught my 14 year old son on my computer looking at this article. And simply put, I do not want to subject him to filth. I am not the only parent out there that has to remain vigilant of what our kids see and do online. I know that Wikipedia is not censored and that the pictures can be hidden, but God forbid, any person or pervert of any age, including a minor can come to this article and see the graphic pictures. I am not even sure if this article is encyclopedic. If it were, then Encarta or Encyclopedia Brittanica would have a similar article on sex positions, which they do not. Yoganate79 ( talk) 03:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
It is wrong, and also they show lesbinism and black and white sex. This is perverted material that 14 year old should not be able to see, and sinful material. 219.101.196.2 ( talk) 08:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Tatr
Why does the article say "sex positions?" The word "sex" is NOT an adjective. The proper phrase is "sexual positions." If there is no dissent on this, I will change it around 1 March 2012.
Sexual positions sounds like we're referring to someone's sexuality. That's my two cents at least. Delierajaytoday ( talk) 12:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
It also would hint to any sexually provocative position, which is not what is desired.
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Trio-FFF.svg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Trio-FFF.svg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 13:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC) |
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Threesome in colour.svg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Threesome in colour.svg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 17:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC) |
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In '"Group sex" - "With many participants" sub-section, change circle jerk to circle jerk (sexual practice).
173.81.153.14 ( talk) 02:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia—Where Almost Everyone Demonstrating Something about the Human Body or Activity Is White, Circumcised, and Young.™ — President Lethe ( talk) 17:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Reading through the article, I couldn't help noticing that the design of the computer-drawn images makes this article look far less educational or neutral than they were (I assume) intended to be. Specifically, in all of the hetero examples, the guy has his face hidden while the woman is angled to display aroused facial expressions; in the lesbian examples, they show the receiving partner's face, and neither man's face is visible in the gay examples. Everyone being shaved (except a lesbian & a guy) and -- as others have noted -- having a specific race/age didn't help matters.
I did thoroughly look at all of the other Wikipedia images I could think of that would show the naked human body, and none of them look remotely like these; they look like something we'd find in a textbook, complete with notes wherever body hair has been trimmed or removed. This article's images look more like they were stills from pornography that were run through a graphic program filter to make them cartoonish.
I'm not anti-porn/pro-censorship at all -- if anything I'd like to see more illustrations for the described positions as I couldn't imagine how they worked. My concern is just that the images currently in use don't look like they belong in a remotely respectable reference. I'd offer replacements if I had any drawing skills or knew where to look for images that offer the necessary rights/permissions. Xyzzy☥Avatar ( talk) 10:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I have just added this image to illustrate cunnilingus. It is currently the only 1 out of 5 oral sex images in the article where the 'giver' is male. Because of layout, as well as balance/POV and WP:NOTHOW-related issues (see discussion above), Seedfeeder's drawing of the woman performing cunnilingus is no longer needed here. I suggest therefore that it be removed. I will remove it myself in a couple of days if there is no further discussion about it here.-- TyrS chatties 00:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm a bit surprised, that nobody seems to have adressed it yet, but none of the pictures show any protection (condoms…). Of course this is understandable with the historic images. But with Seedfeeder's drawings? Daadler ( talk) 01:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
4th item in cunnilingus list had: "Humorously popularised in the Monty Python song "Sit On My Face" (1980)". This type of isolated cultural trivia obviously doesn't belong in the main body, if it belongs at all. Perhaps in a separate "Sex positions in popular culture" section.-- TyrS chatties 23:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Please! I Once AGAIN I caught my 14 year old son viewing this article with sexually explicit pictures. I know that Wikipedia is not censored but there must be some compromise involved. Please! This is an academic and intellectual web site that can be assessed by children of any age. What is even worse, I have checked Encyclopedia Brittanica's web site and there is no article dedicated to "sexual positions". I understand that a lot of you who edit this article are perverts, but that doesn't give you the right or an excuse to expose innocent childen who have no control over the content that they view. Yoganate79 ( talk) 02:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
YOU are the one exposing your child to what YOU believe is "filthy" by your own lack of censorship. Get some software and control your own child. There is nothing wrong with these articles or the pictures within. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.255.129 ( talk) 10:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Give me a break. A 14 year old should be trying to figure this stuff out. What's more is that there is a whole lot of stuff a lot worse than encyclopedic descriptions of sex on the Internet. Your kid is ONE CLICK away from HD color full-motion streaming live video of every possible sex act in the imagination of mankind since the dawn of time and your worried about drawings of sex positions?! Watch your own kid. Stop trying to censor the English-speaking world with your ideas of what's right and wrong because your son wants to see drawings of naked people.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here's the reason Wikipedia does not, can not, and will not censor to meet individual and personal sensibilities, morality or religious world-views. Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so. Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms. However, some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal or inclusion of content.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Reverse-cowgirl-animation.gif — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.135.161.45 ( talk) 17:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid I've nominated this image for deletion. The reasons should not be discussed here, but on the
deletion page. Please contribute there. --
Simon Speed (
talk)
20:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
The reporting IP User has been blocked as a troll per WP:ANI#Request additional review of disruptive editor |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The image is here: File:Reverse-cowgirl-prone-animation.gif, and in this one no subjects are identifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sex-position-demonstration ( talk • contribs) 21:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
There's no evidence there was any copyright violation, so why did the administrators (e.g., "Martin H."):
It just looks like they're on some kind of religious crusade, enacted through cronyism and illegitimate censorship. -- 150.135.161.194 ( talk) 02:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
|
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I see in many places "Most of these positions can be used for either vaginal or anal penetration.", this doesn't need to be repeated everywhere because the section "Anal sex positions" already specifies that "Most anal sex positions are adaptations of vaginal penetrative positions". Also because, by repeating it so often, it degrades the litterary style of this article, and it emphatises on a practice that most women, like myself, find unpleasant, and most women are tired of meeting men who ask it as if it was a usual practise to expect. Then after the sentence "Anal sex positions involve anal penetration." I would like to add "Note that anal penetration can also be performed by a woman equipped with a sex toy such as strap-on dildo."
Lilla saga ( talk) 09:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
It may be repetitive, but I don't believe it is done to emphasize a practice that "most women find unpleasant" but rather to be gender and orientation neutral because gay and bisexual men often find it quite pleasant as well as the women who enjoy it. JVB — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
JohannVanbeek (
talk •
contribs) 12:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Not done:Mainly per Johann, but also because it is easier to have it in more that one place to "make it clear".
Mdann52 (
talk)
20:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Please edit "man" and "woman" to "penetrating partner" and "receiving partner" Reasons: To bring it in line with the rest of the article, and because not every man has a penis (just cis men), and ditto women and vaginas - gender references are obsolete. Further, it could easily also be used by a women with a dildo. Oneboikyle ( talk) 20:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello all!
I've flagged this article until its NPOV issues can be resolved. Here is a list of problems (nonexhaustive) to look out for and correct. What may be obvious to you may not be so to other editors. Please add to this list to help outline what should be changed, or use it for your own guidance in doing just that!
Sexuality is much more diverse and interesting than this article currently portrays. :]
Eekiv
20:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
04:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Eekiv in that sometimes changing the order of words like "anal", "oral" & "vaginal" (when they appear together) would create a more balanced article. I disagree with the suggestion that we should use only one wording order, and that that order is dictated by some mainstream consensus. Various sources will order them in various ways, and occasionally re-ordering our wording would hardly be a threat to any status quo (whether real or imaginary). (Using the same logic, we could argue that the popular consensus is that gay men do have lots of anal sex, therefore we should reflect that, or that the existence in the world of approximately 150% more anuses than vaginas would be an argument for insisting on starting every such list with the word "anal".) Anyhow, an impression of bias is made in this article by the insistence on one particular word before the other no matter what, at all times, when of course there is no single worldwide consensus on what "people do sexually".
Regarding the statement, in the 21:52, 4 November 2013 post, that "...most gay and lesbian people do not engage in anal sex" . Like most (if not all) sweeping generalizations, this is highly debatable. Study results will, naturally, vary over time and in different geographical locations. For example, ACON (a leading New South Wales health promotion organisation specialising in HIV and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex health) states that "Anal sex is very common among gay men. Almost all gay men have tried anal sex at least once,with about 80% saying they’ve had it in the previous six months." Direct link here: [3] So I vote for the occasional reordering of the words in question on grounds of NPOV.-- Ty rS 06:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
The image captions here need improving. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Visual_arts/Art_Manual_of_Style#Image_captions. Though the historical ones are presumably by Anonymous, the seven illustraions by "Seedfeeder" lack the minimum information (artist and title of work). It seems odd that the source, or any kind of attribution, is missing on these.-- Ty rS 04:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I saw this in the lede, emphasis added:
I found it bizarre that the third sentence of the article could contain such an error. I mean... this is just wrong. If a sex position does not involve touching and direct stimulation, then how can it be a sex position? It is true that you can psychologically stimulate/arouse somebody with words/pictures/items etc., but that's not the actual intercourse.
I reworded the sentence ( ), but it was undone by User:Flyer22 (see: [4] [5] [6]). We discussed the issue on her talk page, see: User talk:Flyer22#Sex positions.
Any thoughts? - Manifestation ( talk) 10:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
The "Starfish position" is mentioned near the end of the article but cannot be found elsewhere in the article. I presume that it should be added to the "Penetrating partner on top with front entry" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WolRon ( talk • contribs) 05:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Sex position. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say that "Triple penetration usually involves the penetration of the anus, vagina, and mouth simultaneously." is absolutely wrong, at least in porn messed up world, while the truth is more disgusting. Every porn consumer that buys a film advertised with triple penetration would be extremely pissed off if there was no penetration of vagina and anus by three penises at the same time. What is described by the above quote is always called air tight. -- SamWinchester000 ( talk) 02:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
http://www.subzin.com/quotes/M602181a99/Jimmy+Carr%3A+In+Concert/Maybe+try+the+shocker.
This is not an article. It is multiple lists. If all of the bullet points are removed, then content is ~1K and much of that due to illustrations. So, I say call it
List of sex positions. Any discussion or objection?
Weeb Dingle (
talk)
18:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Add link to Sex position/Archive 2 in other species. E.g., [10] different genders on top/bottom for different insects. Jidanni ( talk) 03:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Sex position has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
41.115.95.96 ( talk) 11:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
here is a mention of the "starfish position" which is the first and only time throughout the article, without any clarification to it. this results in inconsistency. my suggestion is either delete this sentence or clarify in the article what is this. 89.134.199.32 ( talk) 00:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC).
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Suspended congress. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 5#Suspended congress until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Hog Farm
Bacon
02:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
here is a mention of the "starfish position" which is the first and only time throughout the article, without any clarification to it. this results in inconsistency. my suggestion is either delete this sentence or clarify in the article what is this. 89.134.199.32 ( talk) 00:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC).
Yes Slovoko ( talk) 05:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
2603:6080:4B03:BC06:998:9457:4E56:F3CE ( talk) 14:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)It needs more diversity- e.g. two women; the initial picture is mostly man-woman (and mostly man in a controlling position) with some man-man. Additionally, they are all penetrative. Non-penetrative sex positions should be given greater focus 2603:6080:4B03:BC06:998:9457:4E56:F3CE ( talk) 14:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)