Talk:List of sex positions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is a former featured list. Please see its original nomination page and why it was removed. If it has improved again to featured list standard, you may renominate the article to become a featured list.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of sex positions article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (`~~~~`). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

1 Requests/Questions
2 Sexual positions
3 Miscellaneous Comments

[edit] Requests/Questions

Discussion on Guidelines for images in Sexology and Sexuality articles
Click here

[edit] Title Change

The title is ambiguous. "List of human sex positions" would be more accurate. Sex is not unique to humans. Given that the article is not about sex positions for all species clarification is in order.

Disagree. First, most people (I think) would assume that "list of sex positions" refered to humans unless otherwise stated. Second, like many other article titles in Wikipedia, it is not totally specific, but could provide a disambiguation link at the top if there were other pages about similarly named topics. --Strait 13:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge project

I am not sure where to ask this, but should we merge Categories:Sex positions into here? There are some nice articles on missionary and side entry missionary, then lots of stubs. --Maxweber 21:48, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Illustrations

Does anybody know who did the illustrations?

I did. Rama 09:49, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

They are very nice. Do you do them from imagination, pictures, or models? Maxweber 18:17, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wow, I think they are kind of weird, actually. 24.175.10.61 16:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The illustrations are really nice. Could it be possible to make some of them black background with white lines?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.196.237.106 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Sexual positions

[edit] Extra positions

Are you kidding me. Blatant, but hilarious, vandalism: "The Cameltoe Slide - The erect penis is gracefully slid up and down between the lubricated walls of the outer vagina contacting the little flicker at the aphex of each oscillation. This is a smooth action and must be performed with constant angular frequency $ω$ This is a harmonic motion and should always be regarded as such, one must be careful not to operate with unharnessed vigor as the kinetic energy increases as the square of frequency and so the amount of work done in each swing is given by

$\frac{1}{2} m_p (\omega)^2 A^2 \sin^2 (\omega t)$

where $m p$ is the mass of the penis"

Holy shit, thanks for the tip... I gotta write this stuff down! ;) 71.102.146.119 05:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

lol! Nah, this could have been a serious edit done by somebody who also majored in math and sex at university. To write like that is just merely talking in his/her native language. Oh yeah, also I throughly recommend "the Cameltoe Slide" as an excellent way to get warmed up.... Mathmo ^Talk 02:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genital sex positions

I would propose a general pronoun clean-up for these sections, since they refer explicitly to male-female, male-male, and female-female positions. There is no need to use the plural-for-singular here, since the hypothetical actors in these descriptions have already been defined as male and female, by subject heading. Any objections?

From a grammatical point of view, plural-for-singular is always incorrect, strictly, and his/her should be used if gender implications are unwanted. 142.177.229.20 05:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Matthew M. White

Plural is better in order to avoid pinning gender to a position - I'm just too lazy to go through and figure out a good workaround. Also "lays" is used where "lies" is preferable, I would propose correcting this as well.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.196.237.106 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Male-male genital sex positions

It would be nice if someone would go over this and add some positions unique to gay or lesbian sex, now i can imagine some but i dont know if they are physically possible or their names.

Since i dont have the "right" sexual preference to try it myself this is a call for aid from fellow wikipedians --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 17:05, 2004 Apr 7 (UTC)

With the exception of what goes where, there is no position a hetereosexed couple can get into that a same-sex couple can't. For male-male couplings, there is obviously no vagina for penetration, so any male-female position performed for anal penetration works. For female-female couplings desiring penile-vaginal or penile-anal intercourse, the use of a strap-on can allow all of the male-female positions possible. - UtherSRG 17:23, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes of course, however those may have specific other than the straight-ones, and there may also be some other exotic ones, thats that i was talking about. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:24, 2004 Apr 9 (UTC)

All or nearly all other non-penetrative penis- or vagina- manipulation activities are independent of the sex of the other person, with the possible exception of female tribadism and male face-to-face "frot". Still, ignorance does not imply noexistence, so does anyone know of any exotic homosexual-only positions that I have left out here? -- Karada 10:37, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if this would be considered frot or mutual masturbation, but one man can masturbate himself and a partner (or partners) simultaneously with one hand, I've heard it called "double JO"; also a man can slide his forskin over the glans of his partner, this is called docking. Also there's nothing inherently gay or lesbian about anal use of double ended dildos I'm going to remove that and put some stuff that's been discussed up

70.248.135.223 15:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC) I don't know the name of this particular position, but I believe that the recieving partner has to wrap his testicles around the penis of the penatrating partner, while the penatrating partner slides in and out between the reciever's scrotum

one typically homosexual thing is the "dark room party", where naked people dance and rub each other in the dark. Could be done by lesbians or gay (and bisexual of course), but I have heard it was rather a male thing. Can anybody confirm ? (if this is true, we will absolutely have to get a picture ! ;) ) Rama 19:27, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I had just asked this question at Talk:Missionary position wondering the same thing about homosexual positions. I eventually made my way here trying to find out more information. If homosexual couples can engage in the same positions as heterosexuals, then aren't all of the sex position pages from the heterosexual point of view? I was certain that I have heard and used the names missionary and doggy style in reference to the homosexual variants of the positions. I don't think we should change all the pictures or anything as they give the general idea for either type The changing of the use of "man" and "woman" to other articles would be difficult but I just thought I'd ask the question anyway. :) --Sketchee 11:18, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Tori and Uke, like in judo ? :) Rama 11:06, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How about penetrating and receiving partner? In fact, I'll do that now. --Dmlandfair 7 July 2005 02:42 (UTC)

[edit] Anal sex positions

Okay, does anyone have any specific anal sex positions? I can think that most vaginal positions can be adapted anally, although some with difficulty (different angle of rectal vs. vaginal entry) -- Karada 17:58 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Group sex positions

[edit] Miscellaneous Comments

[edit] Discussion

I'm not sure if Backdoor entrance should qualify as a sex position, it's more of a type of intercourse isn't it? - Camster342

Does the 69 sex position and anal intercourse really qualify as "not widely known"? Also, I feel that "they are not the ordinary acts done between people" seems a little politically loaded to me. I'm going to go ahead and do a couple of verbiage tweaks there. I've also moved the "cybersex" and "phone sex" links to the "See also" section, since those don't really strike me as sexual positions. Justin Bacon

Maybe in the same sense as in "political positions," "moral positions," etc. --Calieber 03:09, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Can we expect a discussion of cultural ways of clasifying sex positions? eg Karma Sutra, Joy of Sex etc, a sort of history of lists of sex positions?

I'm also concerned that this page seems to have a Western POV. For example, the "missionary position" is described as being the most common. I am under the impression that although this position is most common in the Western world due to Christian influence, it had to be taught by the missionaries to indigenous peoples in the rest of the world, implying their cultural preference was other than the missionary position, and hence the name of the position. --zandperl 16:16, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The missionary position is BY FAR most common world-wide because it gives the best chance for pregnancy. This is noted because in the animal world "doggy style" is the most common. -Iopq 00:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

A lot of the newest definitions seem to have been taken from http://www.condoms.au.com/positions/positions.html -- I'm taking them out as possible copyvios. -- 217.158.106.228 23:20, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

User:Karada seems to think that the names of the positions on this list aren't genuine, and are in fact copyvios. Any thoughts? See User Talk:Karada. Vancouverguy 23:45, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

These are not in conformity with regular practice of sex.

What does this mean? Does it mean the listed positions are weird, i.e., there's something wrong with them (or some NPOV version of that sentiment) or that they're unusual, i.e., the sentence merely recapitulates the preceding two? "Not in conformity" gives the whole thing a strange, Orwellian tone. --Calieber

I find the mere concept idea of "regular practice of sex" frightening for the society (without mentioning sexuality as well). Some things are legal and other are not, but nothing is "regular". I certainly agree with Calieber, this formulation leaves room for huge improvements. Rama 09:56, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See http://masamania.com/masha/101-150/118/index.htm where they claim to have invented a new position, the helicopter fuck. (Warning: explicit picture content). -- Karada 10:28, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

404 :(

[edit] Gender Neutrality (Copied from leapfrog position discussion)

Question. Stumbled across this page as I was checking out the recent changes looking for vandals. Are all articles on sex positons written like this? ie...a man and a woman. Could this position not be done by two males or two females (one will strap on)? Should articles include this type of info or are all articles written from a 'straight' point of view? Just asking (I would actually prefer it to stay the way it is but I'm surprised that the wording is like it is!)KsprayDad 23:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- I would put in a vote for gender neutrality, I'm sure there's a way to do it tastefully without offending anyone. --TomBurns 19:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Me too—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.196.237.106 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Not a how-to

I am not going to watch this article. But I remind you that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Tom Haws 07:20, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please remove links

It seems as though many of the articles about obscure individual sex positions just get created as vandalism. Many are blanked and protected. Someone needs to go through and remove links to the esoteric positions as they are already defined here. Some sexual positions are popular enough that articles CAN and have been written about them, such as the missionary position and 69. CryptoDerk 03:56, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

This is an issue again. Bagging the bunny and Cleaning the spoon have both been put up as separate articles. The text of the articles is just a copy of the text from the list here. How best to manage this situation?--Gaff talk 02:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The language used to describe these positions is a bit on the colloquial side. Also, the "bagging the bunny" section describes a practice rather than a position. The reference to "bunny fuck" might be obscure to some readers. (I admit I had to call upon the vast resources of the Internet to fully understand the concept.) I found no explanation in the Wikipedia for either "bagging the bunny" or "bunny fuck". These practices should probably be documented in Human sexual behavior#Sex_acts_and_practices rather than here.

--GraemeMcRae 04:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism?

Is this vandalism? The article says at the beginning: "In fact, some of these positions are also found among bonobos." Even if it were true, it wouldn't be at the beginning of the articles. — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested move to Wikibooks

I suggest that this article be moved to Wikibooks (specifically, to the Wikibooks:how-tos bookshelf) for the following reasons:

The article seems non-encyclopedic, because the article seems to encourage people to put into practice what they read on the article.
It looks more like a how-to guide than an encyclopedia article, despite the message inside the article that tells that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. The message itself suggests that the article looks like a how-to guide.
Editors of this article seem to know a lot about what they write. On the Wikibooks site, they can expand the article/book even more. With the information found on the separate articles in Wikipedia, a whole book could be expanded with details.
This is not a typical Wikipedia list. It is way too expanded in comparison to other lists. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 19:03, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Slightly disagree (conditional). If a good trimming of the article can be done... eg., with all content going to wikibooks, a synopsis bere, and a list positon names so the individual articles can be made/found ... I'd support it. A gutting of the article I would oppose.
1. The article is encyclopedic, because the article describes the topic and then gives a brief summuary of each entry (the entries have thier own articles).
2. It's an encyclopedia article, which necessarily needs to describe the entries / content of the article (which is a list).
3. I would support a expanded article/book, if the synopsis is kept here (with the individual articles linked and listed in this article}.
4. Typical Wikipedia list? It's probably one of the better list that wikipedia has. The other lists need to be expanded.

I do think that, with a careful edit here, an expanded book (multiple time this article size) could be written. With the information found on the separate articles in Wikipedia and more contribution from knowledgeable editors, a codex could be expanded with high detail (which isn't here in wikipedia).

19:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm also against a move to Wikibooks, but I don't have anything against a duplicate or a link in Wikibooks. The article is encyclopedic beacause a good Encycopedia needs an overview of one of the most frequent activities of mankind (besides war). The Preface in fact does warn you not to try any of these activities without proper medical advice.
1. Consensus has not been reached (several times) whether How-To-Guides should or shoud not be removed from Wikipedia. So for now lists and How-Tos cannot be removed with this argument.
2. Featuered articles are something we can be proud of and they shoudn't be removed because they are so complete. --Leopard 14:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. None of the arguments stated for the move stand examination. A duplicate, or perhaps expanded duplicate, is of course welcome on Wikibooks, but I have yet to see a reason to remove this list from wikipedia. Rama 16:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Double vaginal double anal

Having this helps any reader who has heard about the position or logically extrapolates it from the others, and might conclude that it was left out by accident. How does it hurt anything? --Prosfilaes 21:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The problem with DVDA is that it's physically impossible. Perhaps if a quartet of severed penises suddenly found themselves able to thrust of their own accord...but in a realistic situation, the bodies of those taking part would be in the way of any and all action.

Yeah, its fake. It's a fake sexual position made up by a band who called themselves DVDA.

[edit] likely

I disagree with Shawnc's edit. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the adverb, likely means: in all probability : PROBABLY <a popular dance hall was more likely her choice than his -- Valentine Williams>

In the original sentence, before Shawnc's edit (There is no evidence that this act has ever occurred and it is likely physically impossible.) the word likely can be replaced by probably without altering the meaning of the sentence.
--GraemeMcRae^talk 22:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, by grammar I meant changing it for stylistic purposes (it had a slight sound of cacophony to me). Shawnc 17:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

It would appear that this page has been vandalised (not for the first time, I should imagine). I'm not a regular Wikipedian, so I'm afraid I don't know how to fix it myself, nor could I find any pages on which to bring it to the urgent attention of those who do. Kris Hansen 04:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Just go back to the last page in the history that's not vandalism, and edit it from there. You might want to check your cache, though; as far as I can tell, I made the last edit and elimated the vandalisation.--Prosfilaes 05:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The dirty sanchez link contains information on abusive scenarios akin to rape.

Upon looking at this link, I agree with you. While Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors, there were multiple descriptions on that page that were, quite frankly, abusive and illegal (in an assault and battery sort of way). I have removed the link for this reason. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 01:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag added after blanking/vandalism

Does anyone know why the POV tag was added recently? Generally when someone adds that, the idea is to talk about the problem on the talk page. Soo... what's the problem? Jacqui ^{★ 04:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)}

Okay, to answer my own question... it was added earlier by User:Exploding Boy, who complained of heterosexist bias. Does anyone have any ideas to change this? There was already some discussion of same-sex positions above. I was under the impression that the issue had been resolved. Jacqui ^{★ 04:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)}

This issue was discussed back in July. The final sentiment seemed to be that all references of "man" should be changed to "penetrating partner" while references to "woman" should be changed to "receiving partner." Looking back at the history, these edits were made but then reverted by another user. Not sure if the other editors simply weren't paying attention, or decided it wasn't worth an edit war. Either way, this language can be changed back again, but I think we should get a consensus first. It should also be noted that the intro to the positions reads:

These are the most widely known positions, and are widespread and prevalent during the act of sex. Although these descriptions use the word "man" for the insertive partner, and "woman" for the receptive partner, many of these positions can be used in sex between two men or two women.

I don't get how two women can engage in intercourse at all. Drahcir

Is this adequate, or should all of the references be changed? EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I would think it would be better to use the non man/woman phrases in all cases where "insertive partner" and "receptive partner" wouldn't change or lose any meaning. I will look over the article again, but as of right now I can't recall any instances where that would be the case. I won't do it myself, however, unless/until we agree on it here on the talk page, given the previous rvt. (Was the user who reverted an IP or a username? Perhaps we could ask why he or she did that.) Jacqui ^{★ 05:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)}

I hope that this course of action is not taken. There isn't any "heterosexist" as it is generally accepted that the position are man/woman ... this isn't to say that it's a natural or moral mode. AND ... the terminology is defined in the beginning of the article (eg., explain what is meant by the terms in order to avoid: (a) causing unnecessary offense, and (b) misleading the reader) ... this is congruent with NPOV policy. Also, Wikipedia neutrality policy does not state, or imply, that there must be "equal validity" to minority views. Sincerely, JDR 16:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

(Answers own question again) It was User:P0lyglut who reverted the use of "insertive partner" and "receptive partner". I checked his talk page, and it doesn't seem anyone ever talked to him about it there. I am wondering if it just slipped under the radar after another spate of vandalism. Again, I have not contacted him (yet?); let's talk here first. Jacqui ^{★ 05:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)}

I didn't want to bother with an edit war. It seems important to me that non-exclusively heterosexual positions shouldn't use exclusively heterosexual terminology. Dave 15:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I think "receiving partner" and "inserting partner" are perhaps a bit dry for an article that is not particularly serious. ("Sorority Fuck?" For fun, I Googled that term, found nothing but this article. Is this encyclopedic? I can see how original research might be particularly tempting for this article, but it somewhat underscores the silliness of some of the entries.) In any case, following PC logic, "receiving" and "inserting" could be said to be phallocentric. For example, why does a man "insert" his penis into a woman, rather than having the woman "envelop" it? (Maybe "pitcher" and "catcher" could be used instead.) I would also add the pics seem mostly to be man/woman. Is that heterosexist? Does someone want to draw other variations? Perhaps mirror articles could be made with the appropriate pics and wording (or sans pics) such that "Male Homosexual Positions" could have its own article, etc. IronDuke 05:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm all for people revolting against phallocentrism, but to me, "receiving" and "inserting" don't necessarily have to do with penises. (This next sentence may be TMI for some, just a warning.) I'm queer, and in some of my relationships with women, we used dildoes. I was both an inserting and a receiving partner, depending on the day, and no penises were involved.

Thanks for your mention of the "sorority fuck" and your work in Googling it. I think that is something we should further discuss, and I agree that it's unencyclopedic. It has nothing to do with the f-word but the fact that the term isn't in modern parlance, at least on the Internet. Jacqui ^{★ 05:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)}

A couple of suggestions to choose from:

Put an asterisk after every position that could be man-man. A double-asterisk for woman-woman.
Write a section specifically for homosexual males listing the positions doable by them. And another for homosexual females. Bend over 10:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

As I mentioned to Bend over before when I missed the 'featured list' listing. If this does not get sorted soon (and the POV tag removed) the list will end up here Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

I added this talk page to the Society, Law, and Sex section of Requests for comment. Hopefully this will allow us to get more comments and more points of view for this discussion. People arriving from RfC, please leave your comments below. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 16:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: the neutrality issue, the page as it stands reflects an overall heterosexist bias. Not only are the positions described not limited to opposite-sex partners, but the one doing the penetrating is not always male and the object used is not always a penis. Some simple editing would remove this bias. Exploding Boy 18:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Exploded .... please read the NPOV policy. Wikipedia neutrality policy does not state, or imply, that there must be "equal validity" to minority views. There isn't any "heterosexist" as it is generally accepted that the position are man/woman ... this DOES NOT make an assumption that it's a natural or moral mode.

As per NPOV policy ... the terminology is defined in the beginning of the article (eg., explain what is meant by the terms in order to avoid: (a) causing unnecessary offense, and (b) misleading the reader).

Sincerely, JDR 19:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't make that assumption, no, but in an attempt to be enyclopedic we should use the most umbrellaïsh description we can muster unless we're describing something specific. Dave 19:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The generally accepted description is of a man and woman. Unless we're describing something specific between homosexual partners, this should be used. It's not necessary to use the "most umbrellaïsh description". Again, Wikipedia's neutrality policy does not state, or imply, that there must be "equal validity" to minority views.

To be enyclopedic is also not the same a being "politically correct". Using the most umbrellaish description is to be PC ... not enyclopedic. Defining what is meant and how the article is composed is sufficient to avoid causing unnecessary offense. Sincerely, JDR 20:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you say that two men can do the same things as a man and a woman at the top, it still says "man and woman" throughout the article, which is fairly contradictory. Beyond that, is it inaccurate to call the man in heterosex the penetrative partner? The woman the receptive partner? Not at all; it means the same thing in regard to straight people and it extends the current description to include a significant number of people who also use these same positions. Dave 06:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I would have to agree with exploding that a brief look through the page shows it to be heterosexist. I think that your argument about NPOV is also wrong in this case. It is not 90% of the population thinks one thing, 10% thinks another and the 90% disagree with the 10% thus forming a majority opinion. It is 90% practices one thing and 10% practices another. This is not a case of reporting the most widely held view, it is a case of reporting the world how it is. I would suspect that in fact 90% of the heterosexuals have most certainly not tried most of the positions, so it would be equally NPOV, by that argument, to only list the top 10, and not mention any others.

That said, I do not think it is in fact necessary for the list to tie itself in knots trying to be gender neutral in every mention. Sandpiper 21:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

There are a number of images of homosexual sex, particularly in oral sex, though. Overall, the list does not leave me with the impression that is tends to censor out homosexuality. Rama 00:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

As much as I understand the desire for NPOV, I think it's important to realise that the topic at hand is highly man/woman oriented. All available pictures display a man and a woman and it's probably safe to assume that the positions were invented in heterosexual vaginal intercourse. There is a nice disclaimer at the top which also points out that some of the positions might not be adaptable to different forms of intercourse. I don't think anyone benefits from removing that distinction. In my opinion the best way to make this article more NPOV is to add sections with specific positions for non-heterosexual vaginal intercourse (if there are any). Jeroen (talk) 17:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Leave it as is. I think its going to make the article too complicated to try to include homosexual info too. Instead, perhaps a second article specifically about homosexual positions? After all the article doesn't include techniques for masturbation, threesomes, use of tools, sex with animals, bondage, etc. You can't include everything in one article.Herostratus 20:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

No. Homosexual and heterosexual sexual positions are equally relevant. The only possible way they could be relegated to another article is if we moved this page to List of heterosexual sex positions. Otherwise, excluding them is violently heterocentric; I won't say "bigoted" because I see no reason not to assume your comparison of homosexual intercourse with "sex with animals" is anything but an innocent faux pas. Masturbation is not necessarily a "sexual position" because it doesn't (directly) involve a partner, though I see absolutely no reason not to have a page for masturbation techniques (if there isn't one already), and to link to it here. Multi-partner ones are necessarily sexual positions, and there are already several positions on the page that require more than one partner. Use of tools rarely involves unusual sexual positions, since tools like strap-ons are typically meant to allow access to normal sexual positions in unusual situations. If there are noteworthy positions that require tools, I see no reason not to include them on this list, however, especially since we have positions on the list that are anatomically impossible or the like. And sex with animals is significantly unusual and noteworthy enough that some mentioning of it may be relevant, but only for well-known sexual positions involving animals (as there are probably few, if any); they can also be mentioned on pages like bestiality. I'd suggest giving something like that its own page, but I doubt it would be very long due to a lack of documentation and writing on the subject, so there's no point yet. Especially since I disagree with you that this page is too long; there's plenty of room to grow! -Silence 20:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Certain posters seem to be confused about what is being discussed here and why it is important.

To begin with, making the assumption that the penetrating partner is necessarily male and the penetrated partner necessarily female, and that the object doing the penetrating is always a penis is inherently false and misleading. This issue continues to be a problem on nearly all the sex position articles.

The position that it is "generally accepted" that the positions listed are only male/female, inserter/insertee is similarly false. That may be what is generally assumed, but our job is not to perpetuate misinformation.

This is not, as User:Reddi (signing himself as JDR), has stated pandering to "minority views"; rather, it is correcting a series of factual inaccuracies and misleading statements. As the page exists now, most references are to man/inserter-woman/insertee, although those positions can be, and frequently are, reversed. Most references throughout the artice refer to "man" and "woman." Having separate sections for male-male and female-female positions only reinforces this misleading view.

This is not about being politically correct either. It is about (for the umpteenth time) correcting factual inaccuracies.

The claim that "it's probably safe to assume that the positions were invented in heterosexual vaginal intercourse" is incredibly bizarre and probably doesn't need demolishing here.

Being inclusive and factually correct does not have to entail "tying oneself in knots" or awkward language. Writing carefully is the aim of every serious scholar and reputable scholarly work.

Exploding Boy 22:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd be very interested in your demolishing, as I don't see what's so bizarre about my statement. Sex, however nice for recreational purposes, is closely related to procreation, which has a tendency to be something involving a man, a woman and some straight sex.

For the record: I would like to see this article rewritten in a neutral manner, but only if it can be done without the knots. Jeroen (talk) 23:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

That'd be fine.. if this was an article about procreation. It's not. It's an article about sexual positions. There's only one sexual position you need for procreation. The fact that the article lists dozens of elaborate and unusual sexual positions shows definitively that this article is not strongly tied to procreation (though that is one small part of it), but to pleasure. Homosexuals and heterosexuals are equally capable of having sex for pleasure, and equally capable of using a variety of sex positions—which is the topic of this list. Noone is benefited by excluding a large, significant group of people from the list through unnecessarily biased wording, so there is no reason to do it. Let's not debate whether or not to make the article neutral, but rather debate the best way to make the article neutral. -Silence 00:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Hear, hear. By the way, an anon IP removed the POV tag. I put it back, because we're still talking here. I am going to assume good faith about the IP -- the person didn't have anything on his or her talk page, and probably just didn't know how these things work on Wikipedia. Jacqui ^{★ 03:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)}

Jacqui, thanks for answering me so frankly. I will only add (as I'm sure you're aware) that phallocentrism is possible even when no men are involved...I think Silence has a good point about finding neutrality, but taking that point up, I'd be wary of sentences like this: "The man/insering partner inserts/allows his penis/her dildo/his/her object to be placed/enveloped in the orifice of the woman/man/receiving partner/enveloper." There is no way to construct such a sentence that can adequately encompass all possible permutations and sensibilities. Thus, I would recommed that the page stay essentially as it is, with the tag "heterosexual" applied to it, and anyone who feels that other groups are being left out can mirror the article with their own illustrations and descriptions. IronDuke 03:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

That's not the way Wikipedia works. We don't just force groups that are being left out to mirror the article with their own illustrations and descriptions. That's merely a way to fragment Wikipedia.--Prosfilaes 04:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think I said anything about "forcing" anyone to do anything. My point, which I'll repeat, was that satisying every conceivable group would make the article essentially unreadable. Breaking it down into more than one article would make each individual article quite readable. If you have a better idea than mine, by all means, put it forward. IronDuke 04:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

No one has proposed, despite the strawmen, satisfying every conceivable group. The only thing that has been proposed is satisfying the two groups that will most commonly make use of a "list of sex positions": heterosexual and homosexual people. Is your suggestion that listing significant positions of any group outside of heterosexuals, even a group that makes up 10% of the population, would suddenly render the page unreadably flawed and complex? The "receiving/enveloping partner" thing was a joke, and has no real validity, since no group is being excluded and no untruths are being stated by not wording things to that ridiculous extreme. It seems that a few people in this conversation are incapable of distinguishing between political correctness (which I loathe with a passion) and mere accuracy. Also, you don't seem to have accounted for the fact that if we had one article for heterosexual positions and one for homosexual positions, we still would have all male/male and female/female positions in the same article, thus creating the exact same problems we have now, just exiling them to an article you aren't interested in. How convenient. -Silence 04:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, things seem to be getting a bit testy here, so maybe I can put a little graphite rod into this discussion. First, Silence, you're right, I was putting up a bit of a strawman, wasn't I? I was trying (poorly perhaps) to get at the notion that attempting to remove a heterosexist bias in a text where the pictures are quite hetero-oriented is a bit silly. I guess what it boils down to is this: I think it's a bit odd to speak of "accuracy" in the context of an article like this that is more of a how-to with cute illustrations that also contains some bizarre (and more than likely invented) sexual "positions." You may have missed my earlier post above, so I'll repeat it: "Perhaps mirror articles could be made with the appropriate pics and wording (or sans pics) such that "Male Homosexual Positions" could have its own article, etc." To this we could add a female/female page, etc. Perhaps the article could begin with a disambiguation page, and individuals could simply click on the article they wanted. And speaking of strawmen, I have absolutely no desire to "exile" anything to anywhere, nor am I any more or less "interested" in an article on homosexual positions than I am heterosexual ones. I came here because there was an RfC, and I commented in the spirit of trying to make the article as good as it could possibly be. And please note, I haven't touched the article itself in any way, and have no plans to. If I wanted to "exile" gays or "force" groups away from the mainstream, I could have edited the article to accomplish just that. IronDuke 01:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

"I was trying (poorly perhaps) to get at the notion that attempting to remove a heterosexist bias in a text where the pictures are quite hetero-oriented is a bit silly." - Possibly the most confusing argument I've seen in this discussion is "We shouldn't try to make the text of the article more inclusive, because most of the images aren't inclusive!" Um. Isn't that part of the original point? There are dozens of male/female images, one or two female/female ones, and absolutely no male/male ones. That's not a sign that the article's already perfectly balanced, it's a sign that the images are at least as hetero-focused as the text, if not more so. Let's not give our readers the idea that gay men don't have sex positions.

"an article like this that is more of a how-to" - Wrong. This article is a list of common sexual positions, not a how-to guide. If it is a how-to-guide, that's another matter that needs fixing in this article. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide.

"with cute illustrations that also contains some bizarre (and more than likely invented) sexual "positions."" - Um. I don't quite catch your drift. Aren't all sexual positions "invented"?

"You may have missed my earlier post above" - No, I saw the suggestion, and ones like it. While it's an interesting possibility, it happens to be inefficient, impractical, and, for those who see this as a matter of NPOV, a violation of the Wikipedia:POV fork guideline. Too many sexual positions are used by heterosexuals and homosexuals (male and female) alike. There is absolutely no reason not to simply include it all on one page, and to worry about subdividing or trimming in the future, when it starts to become a problem; it's nowhere near that now, and if we did need to shorten the page, surely the extra images would be the first things to go, not any of the entries or descriptions!

"And speaking of strawmen, I have absolutely no desire to "exile" anything to anywhere, nor am I any more or less "interested" in an article on homosexual positions than I am heterosexual ones." - Sorry. I'm just not a very creative person. That's why I can't imagine what reason there could be for subdividing this list into multiple lists at this point, except to allow people to avoid having to deal with sexual positions they aren't comfortable with or interested in. Since that's apparently not the case, I retract the statement.

"If I wanted to "exile" gays or "force" groups away from the mainstream, I could have edited the article to accomplish just that." - Er, no, because it would have been reverted. Discussing this is the best way to get things done, regardless of what your position is. -Silence 02:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I guess I open myself up for this by coming to a disputed page and putting in my two cents. Silence, I have many disagreements with both the tone of your comments above and their accuracy, but I'll try and leave it alone. If you really want a response from me, maybe we can take it to one of our talk pages. All I'll say is, if it's your heart's desire to confront people with sexual images that make them uncomfortable (which is what it looks like from your comments), it might be more appropriate for you to do so in your own blog. IronDuke 02:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Que? I thought we were done with the strawmen (my desire here is to ensure that the article is accurate and comprehensive in its subject matter, not to confront anyone on their preconceptions), and that we'd just established that you don't subscribe to the belief I criticized above, making it irrelevant to the current conversation at hand. Why the above comment? It doesn't seem to make sense in the conversation's context; almost my entire above post was unrelated to that issue, and what little was related consisted of explaining and retracting my above poorly-thought-out accusations. But OK, if you're not up to discussing this anymore, that's perfectly alright. I apologize if I in any way offended you. If you feel like explaining anytime what you feel is "inaccurate" about my above statements (I can't help what you think their tone is, everyone sees comments as being of a different tone on the Internet), feel free to say so wherever you feel, be it here or in User Talk or wherever you prefer. -Silence 02:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Left response at Silence's talk page, for masochists who want to read it. IronDuke 03:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Goodness. Gracious. Sakes. Y'all. This is all a little crazy, hmm, for a list that is--if we're honest--equal parts for edification and amusement? Now, I'm just jumping in here from the RfC page, but it seems like the easiest fix would be to substitute man/woman/cat/batman with "inserting partner/receiving partner" and he/she/etc with "their." It works without delving into the lovely issues of the purpose of sex (AHEM, Jkruis), the patent rights (AHEM AGAIN, Jkruis), or any of the other debatable issues surrounding the nature of sex. This is a list, everyone. Let's not get nasty, it's supposed to be fun...just like I love the 80's and the 100 Sexiest Moments in Barnyard History. I mean, in Hollywood. I mean...you get my point :) Onesong 20:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional sexual positions?

Should there be a distinct section for fictional, theoretical, or mythical sexual positions, i.e. ones that have never shown to be physically possible? Or some other way to more clearly note the positions that aren't practical "sexual positions", like Double Vaginal Double Anal? -Silence 11:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Removed glass bottom boat ride and angry pirate. Neither are properly sex positions (the same could be said of the Houdidi). Both are also fictional and highly unlikely ever done in reality. Zotdragon 13:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regroup and Organize

I put this article up for RfC because I wanted to get many more viewpoints, and I'm happy that this has generated so much discussion. However, since this has the potential to be an emotional argument, I hope everyone will calm down and we can base everything off logical arguments. Since Wikipedia Is Not a Paper Encyclopedia, we get to include things that wouldn't be included in other encyclopedias, and we get to have debates that perhaps have never been addressed anywhere else in the past.

This being said, the conversations above are nice to read through but hard to get a clear consensus from. So, I've decided to list the most obvious solutions, and have people give their opinions in an organized list fashion below. This probably should not be considered a vote, but rather an organized way to view what most people think.

Keep the page as it is, with the disclaimer already included that the positions are not exclusive to heterosexuals.
Change the language of the entire article to something more NPOV than man/woman. If you support this version, please say which terms you would like to be used (e.g.- insertive/receiving partner).
Make this multiple pages, perhaps List of Heterosexual Sex Positions and List of Homosexual Sex Positions, or List of Heterosexual Sex Positions, List of Homosexual Sex Positions (male), and List of Homosexual Sex Positions (female). In this solution, the current page would likely stay as a sort of disambiguation page, listing all the relevant pages.
Some other solution that I have missed in the discussion above or has not yet been suggested.

Thanks for your cooperation, and please make the number that you support bold so that it will be easier to see if we can get a consensus.

EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

2 for every situation where the position is regularly used by pairs other than a man and a woman, not for the sake of NPOV, but simply for the sake of accuracy—I view this is a matter of simple correctness, not as a matter of neutral wording or avoiding offending minority groups. Offend whoever you want, just don't be wrong or cause unnecessary confusion with highly misleading terminology. Thus, certainly keep the "man/woman" terminology for every entry that's entirely or almost entirely used by heterosexual couples. On this page, "man" should means male, and "woman" female, and it's just that simple. I don't have a strong preference for the specific terminology we use in their place, as long as it is as clear, simple, and accurate as possible. "Penetrating partner" and "receiving partner" seem fine to me, are already used on a number of pages (like doggy style, probably a good example of neutral wording for us to use as a model), and get 25,000–35,000 hits on Google, so there's no risk that they're unused terms. But if there's some better option, fire away. 3 is a possibility for the distant future (sans the obnoxious over-capitalization), if this article gets too bloated, but is currently completely unnecessary and would just cause a lot of problems because of the sheer number of overlaps there are between sexual positions on all those pages. Vastly more convenient to just have it on one page. -Silence 07:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Looking at doggy style, 2 is not as bad as I had feared. 3 seems wrong to me. Positions could be sorted according to the cavities involved, but I don't think it is relevant whether the owner of said cavity is male or female. Jeroen (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

3 For reasons stated above. IronDuke 02:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
2 For reasons stated above, and per Silence. Exploding Boy 18:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

2. I especially don't support 3 because Gender and sex are not linked. Naming the separate lists "homosexual" and "heterosexual" therefore doesn't make sense. An MTF, FTM, genderqueer or intersexed person will quite possibly be very confused trying to decide which list to look at if they are named that way. Jacqui ^★ 02:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus

Since there seems to be a fairly strong consensus and per CambridgeBayWeather's warning above (see the post just above the RfC section), I think we should proceed with this. The consensus is to change all references to "man" to "penetrating partner" and all references to woman to "receiving partner," except in cases where the type of position is very explictly about one gender (e.g.- some of the stuff starting with oral sex and onward). Anyone who has time/effort can make this change, or do it in chunks. If no one gets around to it, I'll try to do it when I have time. We'll also make sure to monitor the page for a while, to make sure no one reverts this change. Please place posts below if you have any questions/comments/opposition.

EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 21:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not a warning just a comment. I will not post it to Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates but someone else might. I would prefer to give the article a chance to be fixed first. See my other comments at User talk:Bend over CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

No worries. I had felt like putting this "consensus" message for a couple of days now, as it seems pretty clear what the best thing to do is. I think once we make those edits, the POV tag will be removed, and we can get back to adding to the list rather than discussing its word usage. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 06:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Just to add a comment, using man/woman for penetrating/receiving isn't just heterosexist, but also ignores the fact that the woman can be the penetrating partner, with a male receptive partner (ie, pegging). Maybe this is an obvious point, but the current introduction mentioning same sex partners doesn't cover this possibility at all. Mdwh 05:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Featured lists

"This is a featured list, so why not let everyone know?"

Because the big box for it is so huge, cluttering, unnecessary, and useless, that if we included it on the main page of this article, list of sex positions would no longer qualify for Featured List status and we'd have to remove it anyway.

"If the featured list template is not supposed to be displayed in an article, please cite the Wikipedia policy which states this."

Not a requirement for removing your addition. Wikipedia's rules and guidelines cannot possibly account for every conceivable situation, and fortunately, they don't have to; common sense and following consensus are much more important than rules-lawyering anyway.

"Common sense" is adhered to by not adding a template to the article that adds nothing to the article: you ask why we wouldn't want to let everyone know, but I counter by asking why we would want to shove it in everyone's face, so blatantly boast about how awesome an article is? If someone came to an article called list of sex positions, it's because that person wants information on sex positions. Someone who comes to this article for that purpose, thus, is immediately confronted with a totally useless, garish box at the top of the page announcing how awesome the article is. Wikipedia does not use templates whenever it can possibly avoid it, and this is certainly a case where we can, and should, avoid it, as the template is no more useful to the article page than if we put a giant, 50-point font message saying "THIS ARTICLE IS AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1" at the top of the page.

"Consensus" is adhered to by noting that every other featured article and list on Wikipedia is not marred by a huge "THIS ARTICLE IS FEATURED :D :D :D" box at the top of its main page. If you disagree and think that your version should be the standard, the place to take this up is on the Wikipedia:Featured article and Wikipedia:Featured list talk pages, not on individual featured pages.

"Thank you."

No, thank you. -Silence 05:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Snowmobiling?

Come on.... --Commo1 02:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] End of RfC- Article Edited

Thanks to everyone for the response to RfC and the discussions. Per our consensus above, I have made the major edit of changing all references to "man" to "penetrating partner" and all references to "woman" to "receiving partner." I have not edited anything below the start of the "Oral Sex" section; if you feel that this should be edited, feel free to do so, though many of those are single-sex specific. Also, feel free to work on the wording; I tried to eliminate some of the cases where it talked about the "penetrating partner penetrating," but couldn't find solutions to all of them. I have also removed this page from the Request for Comment page. If there is anything else that needs to be done regarding this subject, you can post it below this message. Thanks again to everyone for solving the problem! EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

This article has pandered to "minority views". Great. JDR 10:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Minority views? The view that these are only possible with a man and a woman is certainly in the minority. Guan aco 15:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Discussion on Guidelines for images in Sexology and Sexuality articles
Click here

Live images have been reverted a couple times now, and I just wanted to open up a discussion about it. We're currently having a similar discussion over at Talk:Doggy style. The current consensus seems to be that the drawings are plenty descriptive in illustrating sexual phenomena and, because of that, live images are unnecessary. While Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors, this does not necessarily encourage us to be explicit. Rather, it encourages us to be as explicit as is necessary. Any thoughts or comments, especially if you weren't a part of the other conversation at the Doggy style page? EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 06:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

These are scientific illustrations. If people are looking up an entry on SEXUAL POSITIONS, they have no right to be 'prude'. The censorship irritates and interferes with dissemination of information. If your offended, GO AWAY!!!

Sex censorship KILLS innocent people!

People must be able to discuss sex candidly, in order to know how to avoid serious health risks. This candor is especially necessary for gay males, who must know there are important alternatives to anal sex. This single scientific illustration makes that information crystal clear at a single glance. This picture saves lives.

Haldrik 16:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to comment on "the drawings are plenty descriptive"; this is at least not always true. There are things which are very difficult to convoy convincingly with a drawing, and some sexual positions are among the possible examples (I am thinking of auto-fellatio in particular).

My feeling is that in general, photographs are intrinsically better than drawings for encyclopedic purpose. In the particular case of sexual positions, we run into the very tricky problem of producing photos which do not look like cheap porn (not to mention the difficulty of producing photographs at all). However, I regard the present drawings as temporary solutions which should fade away when appropriate photos become available. Rama 16:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you that the main thing we should worry about is what form of media is the most encyclopedic. We need something that is descriptive, useful, and that one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. Whether this is drawings or photographs for the case of sexual intercourse is a topic that I think should be thoroughly discussed within the Wikipedia community before any decision is made. As you said, the major problems with photographs are finding ones that a.) are very descriptive, b.) don't look like cheap porn, and c.) don't violate any copyrights. Assuming we can find such pictures, should we use them on a regular and widespread basis? I hope cooler heads will prevail and that we can have an open, candid discussion about these issues. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 06:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Is there a problem with wikipedians to create the photographs? We just have to decide whether we want it. -- Kirils 04:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi EWS23. I believe your initial summary of the doggy style debate is lacking. There wasn't consensus in the doggy style discussion. I do concur there was a lot of useful ideas put forward. My reading of the discussion is that possibly slightly more people opted in favour of quality images (including the use of photos) instead of the rather uninformative photograph and rather uninformative line drawings that were originally put forward. This seems to be the gist (theme) here also. I like your suggestions a,b and c. Though (b) is borderline an untenable discussion, as all nudity will be considered cheap by some vocal minority. Your suggestion d-"a cool head" isn't necessarily a good thing when fighting censorship. Sometimes it's better for people to say, "take your thinly veiled moralistic agenda and shove it". Afterall, no-censorship is policy on wikipedia, not some choice that can be put forward for mediation: Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. I suggest a way forward is to define our criteria in terms we can all agree on. Such critera that I notice here and with my interpretation are that we source images that are:

Encyclopedic
Informative
Very descriptive
High quality
Not degrading
Uncensored

Do you think if we can workship a list like this we might be able to make some progress on the debate? Peace. Metta Bubble 02:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Metta Bubble- You are correct that I initially misrepresented the debate at Talk:Doggy style, and for that I apologize. I assure you it was not intentional, but merely the fact that I more closely read the comments following the RfC than the ones that came before it. I think your six bullet points are very good and should be helpful. As for the "cooler heads" part, I understand that sometimes it pays to be vocal and emotional when combatting an equally vocal and emotional competitor; however, I've also found that debates that allow emotional comments are much more prone to personal attacks and periods of anti-productivity. Getting back to the topic, I am not wholly opposed to live photos, nor am I a "prude" as I'm sure some people will try to label me. However, as a last point in this post, I'd like to point out that we've been able to create great pages on pornography and sexual intercourse without images that would offend most reasonable people (however, I suppose the latter would depend on your opinion of the drawings that are currently up). This may serve as a good starting point- how well do the current drawings on sexual intercourse and List of sex positions meet the above six bullets? EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi EWS23. Sorry about the lack of reply. I've been giving this discussion some thought. I like where we're heading and and I am contemplating we might be able to contribute these ideas to working standard for the encyclopedic merit of images discussion over the next little while. I'm generally interested in convergence of groups focused on non-censorship and groups focused on decency. I think there's more that can be done to bring these groups together. Peace. Metta Bubble 10:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Metta Bubble. I'll definately try to steer people who are interested in this kind of debate over to that page. I'll also direct that page to the conversations here and at Talk:Doggy style. Thanks for all your comments, and I'm sure we will find solutions to all these discussions in the near future. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 16:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I work in a government place and during an interesting conversation we decided to look up "doggy style". Some government locations have a policy that stipulates we should not be looking at pornographic photo's/images. I think, however, that if they are properly presented in an educative way (that is without the necessity of abundance and too many details), there should be no problem. (ie.: is an orgy image necessary to demonstrate what an orgy maybe?) Aside, though my hormonal intrinsinc sexual beast is saying let's try and look at some porn, the other aquired mild manuristic side is saying, well, perhaps we should try and keep this professional. (So when easilly possible, what happens in bed or with others (sex possitions), should be described by a text and explained with a minimal amount of contreversy and perhaps an image and than a photo.)(note: I think the problem is that a photo has much more info than may be necessary!) (Solution: just say it as it is!) --CylePat 17:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Pornography is defined by the intent to arouse. If the intent is to illustrate and educate, then it is therefore not pornography. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 07:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that pages like this that contain content that might be considered objectionable by some would be bettered by the addition of some sort of warning at the beginning, so viewers of the page know what they are getting into. In this first warning section, I don't think any of said content should be visible. This is especially important for when people are searching for subjects that may have multiple meanings, some that are sexual and some that are not. It could be that an unsuspecting net-surfer, perhaps a minor, would encounter such an offensive page completely unintentionally. In my opinion, this suggestion would not amount to censorship in the least because people would still be able to easily access the content if they so chose. Actually, what would probably be even more effective, and would demonstrate a greater level of concern, would be a catch-all warning in the home page of the wikipedia website that indicates that the pages contained within it are not censored and could have content which some may find offensive. I apologize for the jumbled arrangement of these thoughts, but please consider them and respond to them.65.26.151.7 06:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

A catch-all warning, you say? Hm, how does Wikipedia:General disclaimer look? It's linked on every page on Wikipedia. Powers ^T 12:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Klimt-missionaires-02.jpg

This is the image at the top of the page. I really don't like it. First, where is the guy's head? I can't find it. Second, it appears to be a scan out of a book; you can see faint backwards writing behind the image. Is there another we can agree to use? --Strait 21:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cowgirl position variation

There is variation of the cowgirl position not in the article, though I don't have a name for it. If the man's waist is sufficiently slim, the woman (with the man's penis fully inserted and his back arched) can bring her knees under his back, thus providing him support. The man in this position is essentially immobile, and the woman fully controls the intercourse. She brings on the man's orgasm by leaning backwards and pushing against the man. His orgasm triggers her's. In this position, the woman always achieves orgasm and it occurs almost simultaneously with the man's. 159.101.34.74 16:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

"In this position, the woman always achieves orgasm and it occurs almost simultaneously with the man's."

I'm pretty certain there's no sex position that guarantees the woman 'always' acheives orgasm.....

[edit] CollegeHumor

This page has been linked to by CollegeHumor on January 14, so I expect to see a number of hoaxes added to the article. ~MDD 46 96 05:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

stundents are creative enough not only to write hoaxes, but to also try them out. so, whatever they add, if it's physically possible, it's probably true. ;) Kirils 05:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lithuanian

The Lithuanian category of sex positions has an large number of sex positions unlinked to the English pages. Unfortunately, the Baltic languages aren't as transparent to the English reader as a Romanace or Germantic languages are, so I can't tell if the Wiki-links are just missing or if there's a different set of positions or different divisions. At the very least, it would be helpful to add wikilinks if anyone can.--Prosfilaes 08:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistancy

When it mentions the missionary position, the comment about the woman feeling "very slightly 'submissive'" is contrived. In the female superior positions, however, it's perfectly ok for her to be just "dominant". This is an annoying inconsistancy, nothing more or less.

I agree. The qualifiers should be left open, not explicitly stated. Exactly how dominant or submissive would vary greatly I imagine, unless someone wants to cite a source for research into this. Peace. Metta Bubble 10:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Squirt bottle" edit

Apologies for the poor edit summary for this edit; I accidently hit the return button while typing it. The full summary would have read, "remove 'squirt bottle'- not a position". EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 02:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is it called when he holds her wrists or arms during doggy?

A friend of mine who helps sysadmin the web's largest porn video download site where users are allowed to select sub-scene clips recently tallied the sex positions in their 25 most popular sub-scene clip requests. He determined that the most popular sex position (for porn viewers to watch, anyway) is doggy style with the guy holding one or both of the girl's wrists or arms, usually near her back or waist. As far as I can tell, this particular position has no name. Clearly this situation must be rectified. Is there anything better than "doggy with him holding her arm"? 71.141.137.62 07:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whats going on in that picture?

Okay, I've looked at the "two men and one women" threesome picture for about 20 minutes (all in the interests of academic understanding, of course) and I can't make heads or tails of it. What exactly is going on here? Where is that penis coming from? There seems to be legs coming from every direction-- which set of legs belongs to which figures? Can someone clarify? Freddie deBoer 19:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't see the problem - guy with face on on the right lays on his back on bottom, female lies on her back on top of him, guy on the left er... watches and strokes guy on right. Did you look at the full size picture? IMO it's pretty clear... 71.240.80.211 15:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Teenage Grundle"

I've deleted the following from the "Receiving partner on top" section:

"Teenage Grundle The recieving partner lays down on his back. The female partner places the mans testicals in her vagina and the strokes the male partner's penis, while penetrating his testicals bouncing up and down. This position has been taboo in many cultures but has been very pleasing to both partners."

Aside from the misspellings and the unusualness of it ("places the mans testicals in her vagina"), it's also largely incomprehensible ("while penetrating his testicals bouncing up and down"). If someone would like to rewrite this and add it back in, that'd be fine, though it might fit better in the "Less common positions" section. --LostLeviathan 21:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nonsense positions

I have googled the positions I removed. Bipedi intercourse not even returns a single hit. The two readded ones have a page on WP, one to describe foot fetish, in whcih the feet are sometmes used a tool to reach orgasm, the second the other way round, using the nose as the object to insert in places. --KimvdLinde 03:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree to the changes. Just didn't have the time to properly fix everything myself, but simply throwing these position out was plain wrong. Thanks for the work! :) --Kirils 14:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge anal sex positions?

Is there any reason why List of anal sex positions should be a separate article (while vaginal, oral etc. positions are not)? There seems no particular need for the current split, and it could be seen as a POV marginalisation of a particular activity. TSP 23:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Exploding Boy 23:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

And done. Exploding Boy 23:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pronouns

While most of this list is quite good when it comes to inclusive language, there are a few areas where it could use improvemnt. I wonder, for example, whether it's really necessary, in the "male-female genital" section, to keep repeating "him or her" or to use the singular "they" when referring to the person whose vagina is being penetrated; it seems to go without saying, doesn't it? On the other hand, since these "'male'-female genital" positions could also be achieved using strap ons (thus making them female-female), perhaps we should be less absolute about calling the penetrative partner the "man" in these descriptions.

I'd like to suggest using "'active'and 'receptive' partner," in places where the sexes of the people engaging in the positions described may vary. Exploding Boy 23:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that "penetrating" and "receiving partner" is the current terminology in use.

Another odd thing about the page which could perhaps be fixed but will need some thought, is the categorisation. The various positions usable for vaginal or anal sex have been rephrased to be gender-neutral; yet they're still classified under "Male-female genital sex". If they are to remain classified like this, is there any point in rewording them to be gender-neutral? TSP 01:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the "male-female" heading should probably be removed, while the "male-male" and "female-female" headings should stay, since they describe positions specific to those gender pairings. Once that heading is removed/modified, are there any other concerns with the inclusive language? E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 01:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it might be worth considering whether it's really true, as some people on the talk page seem to think, that all vaginal sex positions are also possible anal sex positions. I'm unconvinced.... TSP 02:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Based on the comments here, I've removed the "male-female" header and attempted to rewrite the intro to that section. [1] Feel free to tweak/change it. As for your other comment, I see no reason why it wouldn't be possible, but I'm certainly not an expert on the subject. Were there any in particular you were concerned about? E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Butterfly and G-Spot

One position that was left out and should not be is the Butterfly sex position

This, among other positions, is ideal for stimulating the woman's g-spot. Perhaps a section concentrating on g-spot stimulation positions would be useful. Kraz_Eric 08:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification - the Screw

"The Screw – Receiving partner lies on edge of bed or couch with legs bent to one side, pulled slightly toward chest; penetrating partner stands and penetrates from rear. Very effective for women with orgasm difficulties."

Perhaps I'm just being slow today but this seems unclear - I can't visualise the position of the receiving partner. Are the legs on the bed or off? Both bent to the same side or spread? Can someone with the relevant experience clarify it? You'd be doing me a favour as well as wikipedia :) - Mule Man 00:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gay/Lesbian/Straight Sex Article

I think we should create seperate articles for straights, gays, and lesbians. Each has it's own needs and differences. There are many positions and sexual pratices that are only possible between people of the same sex ... I should know, I'm gay myself. But this article has a straight bias and seems to shy away from male on male sexual positions. QuirkyAndSuch 04:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

That would result in an awful lot of duplicated content. Most sex positions are gender-neutral. Powers 13:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

"Most sex positions are gender-neutral." I agree, but if so, then the illustrations should include depictions of female-female and male-male in some of the positions, rather than male-female only. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Haldrik (talk • contribs) .

If you can find or create such illustrations of similar quality, by all means do so and add them to the article. Powers 14:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Addition of endless cruft

There's a lot of entries on here which don't have an article, and have deeply implausible names, deeply implausible physical requirements, or both. I'm in the process of marking them all as {{citeneeded}}; we shouldn't just be listing stuff someone made up, especially not on something that purports to be a half-decent list. if there's no cites provided for these, they really ought to be removed. Shimgray | talk | 19:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've also removed at least one cite which was to a blogspot page, which does not seem to be entirely reliable at a first glance... Shimgray | talk | 19:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Note that we need cites not so much for the physical possibility as for the name... Shimgray | talk | 20:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I propose the removal of all names that do not have citations. In their place, we could use simple descriptives (e.g. "man standing") or nothing. For instance, I am presently cleaning up the oral sex section and I don't feel most of the names could be deleted without the article losing any information or readability. Thoughts? --Strait 22:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok... So I'm currently replacing the dumb names that things have now with dumb names that are enshrined in antiquity in The Perfumed Garden. "Tail of the ostrich" indeed. I hope that the copy I'm reading on the web is not a joke or something... Anyway, I should also soon have some modern citable names to work with too. --Strait 06:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar standardization

Unless I have lost it in the massive arguments above, I don't believe there has been any agreement on whether we accept using "their" in place of "his or her". The article itself uses both. Given that the consensus seems to be that we need to allow either partner to be either gender at almost all times, this is an important decision. While I'm not sure I like the singular "their", I also think that endless entries that read "he or she lies on his or her back while the recieving partner sits on top of him or her facing him or her" get really irritating. Shall we take a straw poll? Reply with either "him or her" or "their". --Strait 12:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

their, see above. --Strait 12:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I have heard no comments, so I am starting a cleanup campaign using my own judgement on this matter. Please head me off if this is not to your liking. --Strait 17:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Things which are not positions

I've already deleted a couple of entries because they are acts, not positions. In other words, they either describe a type of motion rather than any particular physical orientation of the participants bodies (such as "ass to mouth"). I would like to get rid of some more in this vein as well as those that describe practices, such as voyeurism, but let me give y'all an opportunity to object first. Is there a reason to keep any of these:

Acts
- Manic fingering
- Dry Punch Fisting
- Using vibrators/dildos
- Pearl necklace
Practices
- Exhibitionism
- Orgy
- Gang bang
- Voyeurism
- Humping

--Strait 12:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hearing no objections, I am deleting at least some of these as part of my cleanup campaign. Ones in italics above have been deleted. --Strait 22:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Spot on there mate Oatey 21:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My cleanup criteria

Since I've just eliminated and rearranged a lot of entries, I thought I'd expand on my motives for each. For uncited entries, I asked up to five questions:

Is it obviously fine for some reason? (For instance, even though "edge of the bed missionary" is uncited, it is obviously fine because the meaning is clear and the position is obviously not difficult or obscure.)
Is it in Urbandictionary?
Have I head of the name given?
Is the name descriptive? (Descriptive: "man on back". Semi-descriptive: "T-square" Non-descriptive: "sphnix")
Can I find significant Google hits that aren't Wikipedia-related?

You can see the results of my research here. I haven't been totally consistent in my notation in this table, but hopefully it at least provides an idea of what went on. --Strait 04:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Top image size

User:Jaiwills insists that the top image must be 350px even though that interferes with either the intro text or the table of contents for anyone whose browser window is not very wide. The style guide at Help:Images says that thumbnails shouldn't even have a size specified because users can set the size of thumbnails in their preferences. Jaiwills is not paying attention to either of these arguments. I have now reverted his change three times today, so I suppose I'm done for now. I invite others to keep the page readable. --Strait 21:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Shimgray, looks like Jaiwills is now in violation of 3RR. --Strait 22:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kit Kat Shuffle

Does anybody know why when I added the act of the kit kat shuffle it was removed? Thanks Oatey 22:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure when you put it there before, but I removed a nearly identical entry last night for "the spocker". I do not feel that it needs to be there:

It is just a minor variant of Shocker (hand gesture), which has its own page. Variants can, and are, discussed there.
There was no citation. Indeed, you used a different name for the same act as the last person.
This page is already too long. There are 6 ways of inserting 2 to 4 fingers in two holes with at least one finger in each hole and not paying attention to which fingers are used. If you allow use of the thumb, there are 10 ways. If you pay attention to which figers go where, there are 170. I'm sure that lots of people out there have names for lots of these, but the only one of them which seems notable enough to merit adding it to this page is the "shocker" itself. Please dispute this if you wish, but provide references.

--Strait 22:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Well said, Strait. Johntex\^talk 02:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

What the? The Shocker isn't even a sex position; I have no clue why it or its variants are listed. =) Powers ^T 15:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tinkering with names

I am starting another overhaul in which I will de-emphasize the names of positions. This is because I do not believe that more than a handful of positions have a single commonly accepted name. These include:

Missionary
Doggy/Doggie
Spoons/Spooning
Cowboy/girl (maybe)
69
glory hole
(most things under "other positions")
Sandwich
Circle jerk (maybe)
(Some strictly descriptive names like "double penetration")

Please comment if you believe any others to be generally accepted. Comparison of the old format to the new format:

Peace sign – like the missionary position, but with the receiving partner's legs tightly closed and the penetrating partner's legs spread. In this position, the couple resembles a peace sign (☮). (old)
Like the missionary position, but with the receiving partner's legs tightly closed and the penetrating partner's legs spread. In this position, the couple resembles a peace sign (☮) and so this position is sometimes called the peace sign. (new)

Any objections? --Strait 03:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Man/male woman/female

The article right now, as well as other pages on sex positions and acts, uses (fe)male in some places and (wo)man in others. For example: "Pregnancy is a potential result of unprotected sex in any position between healthy ovulating females and sexually mature males." However: "The woman lies on her back as in the missionary position." There are three options:

Convert all gender references to man or woman
- Pro: We're not talking about generic males and females, but specifically human ones.
- Con: Readers may assume that the words man and woman exclude people younger than some arbitary age (probably 13, 18 or 21).
Convert all gender references to male or female
- Pro: Age non-specific.
- Con: Species non-specific.
Leave it a mix.
- Pro: Variety reads better than slavish consistency.
- Con: Looks sloppy.

I have not decided what I think yet. I'm interested to hear the thoughts of others. --Strait 20:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Strictly speaking (with my nazi-grammarian helmet on), male and female are adjectives, not nouns. Therefore, the sentence The suspect is a 30-year-old male. is incorrect; it should be The suspect is a 30-year-old man. So if any changing is to be done, I'd lean toward man and woman. Of course, there are exceptions to every rule... OscarTheCat3 17:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. It is defined as a noun in American Heritage and Merriam-Webster. (It is also an adjective.) --Strait 22:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

And Wikipedia is an American English encyclopaedia. :-) Honestly, I don't feel that strongly about it, but some consistency is always a "nice" thing. OscarTheCat3 00:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fendi lithographs

I kind of liked those 19th century lithographs that Strait reverted, mainly to introduce the points I made in the captions. It seems unbalanced that the last three screens of the article are bare of images, but that is by the by. Here is a link to an archived version with the images. Note that one shows penetration explicitly. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 00:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I don't really like those images. However, I could be overruled if someone else comes down on your side. However, in either case, the group sex section really can't have more than three images without being totally cluttered, so we should come to a consensus on which three to use rather than just adding more.

I don't think that there's much to be done about the lack of images in the article after the group sex section, since it's just "further reading", "references", "external links", etc. --Strait 18:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

On further investigation, I see that you wanted to add the new images to the "with many participants" sub-section, but neither of them illustrates a position described there. Also, I see that both of the images are currently in use at group sex. So while I appreciate that you like them, I don't think they should be here. --Strait 18:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations where?

There are currently "citation needed" notes attached to the descriptions of double anal penetration and of double vaginal penetration, perhaps put here by someone overly skeptical of the actual mechanics. What on earth is being asked for here? A list of vaginas that can be verified to have contained more than one penis at the same time? The title of a pornographic movie supplying "evidence"? A photo?

Now that would make for an interesting article: List of vaginas that have contained more than one penis simultaneously. I can see the spamlinks already... :-) OscarTheCat3 17:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ya. Removed some. --Strait 22:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Donkey Punch

Why was the Donkey Punch deleted from the list of sex positions? It has a decent Wiki article (with sources), and in the 4 times it was nominated for deletion the result has always been keep. I don't think it should go right along side all the other positions as it is mostly fictional and definitely dangerous. I do however think that it deserves a mention somewhere. Thanks -- hibou 10:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Because this article is about sex positions, not violence against women. It is also a made up concept, not something real. Atom 13:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that it is not a position, it is an act (as I think I said in my edit comment, but should have if I didn't). But I think that the reason Atom gives are also sufficient for exclusion. --Strait 22:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Ok, I'll take Strait's answer. Because Atom, you assume the bottom would be a woman, and this isn't necessarily the case. Also, all positions are "made up" -- until someone tries them, and then they're real ;) -- hibou 10:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Reorganization

1. General Sex Positions -any positions between two people that wouldn't absoulutely require oral sex or phallus-in-vagina or phallus-in-anus penetration

2. Anal/Vaginal Sex Only Positions -stuff that absolutely requires a phallus going into a vagina or anus

3. Oral Sex Only positions -not "fellatio", "cunnelingus" or "analingus" but positions two people can be in while having them

4. Group Sex Only Positions -not "DADV" or "double penetration ect. but positions people can be in while having them Velps 01:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternate pictures

Although the license is not clear, these could replace the handdrawn graphics on the page, or at least, supplement them. http://www.b0g.org/wsnm/news.php?get=next&id=1153935052

You've linked to a blog that doesn't have anything relevant visible anymore. But that doesn't really matter unless you can get a clear license statement from the copyright holder... --Strait 21:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Urban dictionary

This list is starting to read like the Urban dictionary. "Elephant walk"? "Ugg boot"? Does anyone else agree that a large number of items in this list need to be removed? Most of them don't even have a source. shotwell 17:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations?

My comment is partially in response to the "urban dictionary" post above and partially to the "citation needed" links sprinkled liberally throughout the article. Why are citations needed for most of these, especially some of the common or obvious ones? I don't think we really need a scholarly source to tell us they exist. I'm fairly new to the editing side of wikipedia (despite the creation date of my account being just minutes ago, I've made a number of anonymous contributions before, so I'm not THAT new!), so I'm not really up on the interpretation of policies, but I've read the "verifiable" policy and the "no original research" policy. It seems to me that something that intuitively seems correct and can also be verified with a trivially simple experiment (along the lines of "if I drop a dense object, it will fall") shouldn't fall under "original research" and also shouldn't need to be verified with an external source. If there's a consensus that agrees with me, I'll come back and remove a bunch of the citations; if not, then I guess I'll take my opinion to the policy talk pages. In support of my position I offer the discussion here. Yanroy 08:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Many of the "citation needed"s are there because:

The position is given a name and it is not clear that the name is used by anyone except the person who added it.
There are claims made about the position such as "good for pregnancy" which are not obvious.

Less critically, some positions are marked as needing a citation, in my mind, because it is not clear that they really belong on a list which, by necessity (see top of the article), can only contain the more common positions. Having a mention in a published source would be an indication that they are worth listing. --Strait 15:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_sex_positions_8bc9.html"

Category: Wikipedia former featured lists