Talk:Intercrural sex
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Image
What does the new image have to do with the topic? Is there any evidence that intercrural sex is meant to be inferred to be taking place? --Strait 23:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- It is more than simply an inference, the penis can be seen (slightly), the two were lovers, and the positions of their bodies (Zephyrus seems to be thrusting, and his waist is lower than that of Hyacinthus) all establish that it is taking place. Given that it is, the relevence seems self-explanatory.--Oreo Priest 06:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Misc
Is there any quantitative evidence that this is mainly a gay practice? Plenty of heteros do this, especially when one or both partners is sexually inexperienced.
- I don't know that there is - I'm gonna change that. --Blackcats 10:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-
- It's a fairly universal practice and I was just thinking about how this article was far too focused on the gay community. - 67.166.139.181 16:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
User 68.117.211.92 - I think it's still important to include reasons as to why people might choose this form of sex as opposed to another. I'm going to add back in the part which you removed about that. If people still think it doesn't belong, then we can talk about it more here... --Blackcats 05:55, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think you've made it all fit together well. The only problem I have is with the term "full" penetration, while I understand that for heterosexuals (obviously) femoral sex is a natural precursor to "full" penetrative vaginal sex, for men anal penetration isn't neccesarily an, I dunno, "inevitability" in the same way, the anatomy is just different. Its not the full or partial expression just two different expressions. So I'm removing the word full.
dry fuck? [1]
Dry humping or Dry fucking is different from Leg sex, but it could be used as an external link. I don't know how to work this in there with a citation, but this is a great way to avoid STDs. Nina Odell 21:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Intercrural and circumcision
My spouse learned intercrural from an earlier bisexual partner, and taught it to me as a form of foreplay. Intercrural has all the safe sex and pregnancy avoidance advantages of the handjob, while giving some pleasure to the woman as well. The woman could possibly come to orgasm while doing intercrural, by fingering her clit.
Although I had read much about sexual practices by the time I met my spouse, I had never encountered intercrural. Nor was it talked about in the bawdy world of my youth, which very frequently joked about dildos, oral, anal, mutual masturbation, and more. I have concluded that intercrural is not well known among North American straights. I will now propose an explanation. The entry says that among Calcutta men who engager in homosexual acts, 88% of Hindus admit to intercrurial, but only 40% of Moslems, figures I do not wish to question. Keep in mind that intercrurial is not seriously taboo in any religion except medieval Christianity. Hence Hindus and Moslems are about equally likely to admit to the practice. Recall that Hindus are uncircumcised, while Moslems and most adult Americans are circumcised. Therefore, the propensity to engage in intercrurial sex is correlated with the absence of the foreskin. Intercrurial is easy and fun for an uncircumcised man, but requires ample lubrication when the man is circumcised. It should be noted that intercrural tends to put too much tension on the frenulum compared to vaginal intercourse.
To my surprise, my spouse derives some pleasure from intercrural. I am also surprised it is not more widely known among teenagers as a form of safe sex that is less embarrassing and degrading for women than fellatio. Again, Americans are the chattiest people in the world about sexual practices, and educated American men usually lack a foreskin. The proportion of American teens who are uncircumcised has risen of late. I predict that intercrural will soon become part of popular culture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.36.179.65 (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Penetration
Just how could this be penetrative sex? (question asked by anonymous reader)
- answer:
The male "penetrates" the gap between his partner's thighs. Ok, it's a stretch. 76.243.129.217 (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Do Not Merge Sumata with Intercrural Sex
Sumata and intercrural sex are obviously two different activities -- intercrural is strictly "male places penis between partner's thighs and thrusts" which simulates intercourse. It involves legs and thrusting. Sumata is more a form of frottage by the female on the male, using different body parts. Lap dancing versus thigh humping. Sumata is not simulated intercourse. If you muddy the difference between Sumata and Intercrural Sex, then you might as well throw in titty fucking (mammary intercourse) and hand jobs into the same article. Probably throw in that thing foot fetishists have done to them too... foot jobs? Could probably thrown in tribadism too. And armpit humping.
Alternatively, one could argue that the purity of the Intercrural Sex article should not be sullied with oddball practices like Sumata and armpit humping. Intercrural Sex (male humping partner's thigh gap) is clearly of historical and demographic significance. I mean, come on... Abe Lincoln or Shaka Zulu humping their bed partner's closed thighs (male or female) is completely different from either of them getting a serious lap dance at a hot strip club (Tropical Lei in LA comes to mind). 76.243.129.217 (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
And while we're on the topic, how does this article rate a "rated as low-importance on the importance scale" for sexuality?? We're talkin' Abe Lincoln, Oscar Wilde, and Shaka Zulu here, as well as stunning numbers like 40-88% of males in a particular demographic doin' it this way! And somebody's gone to a lot of trouble with the references too. And how 'bout those historical links to Oxford, Princeton, Plato, and the Medieval Christian Church! 76.243.129.217 (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)