Talk:Anal sex/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Greece an eastern culture?

In what logic Greece is put into "EASTERN CULTURES" ? Based on geography, religion , cultural or racial isssues? I am waiting an answer. Why the term greek in anal sex is not considered by wikipedia a slur? The described reasons about having anal sex before wedding are relevant for muslims, not christians, if you have any sense of reality (and credibility)

man, what are you talking about? greece is of course comparably eastern with respect to west europe.. its history is rooted in east, as a race greek nation is genetically similar to turks, and christianity does not mean the west automatically.. this is not the page to discuss where greece belongs.. and any sense of reality and credibility offers that anal sex is forbidden by majority of sects of all monotheistic religions.. don't try to reflect all christians are welcoming anal sex, while all muslims are completely against it, there are muslim sects who don't condone anal sex... Agnostic2694 01:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Patently false statement

For women, pleasure is derived from anal intercourse because the rectum shares a wall with the vagina and therefore shares some of the nerve endings associated with sexual pleasure.

This is wrong anatomically and factually -- most women do not find anal sex pleasurable, according to surveys by Kinsey and others. Any statement to the contrary should be quantified somehow.

The entire opening section of this article does not have a neutral POV. Rather, it verges on arguments in favor of anal sex and clearly favors a male's perspective. This seems to violate the official NPOV stance.

Claiming that "most women do not find it pleasurable" is POV and unverifiable. What is verifiable is that heterosexual couples do indeed practice it (survey mentioned in 4th link below), and that some females find it pleasurable and can achieve orgasm. The presense of nerve endings in the areas described is also verifiable.

It isn't really unverifiable, most women do not enjoy anal sex as is shown in consistent studies. Whether that is based on anatomical reasons or social reasons is not really important to whether or not it is a fact. It could be mentioned that most women do not enjoy anal sex, but some do. It should also be mentioned that many heterosexual couples do engage in anal sex (and if anyone doesn't understand how most women can dislike anal sex and then a large number of them can participate in it, they don't know very much about women).

Let's see some of those "consistent studies." OhNoitsJamie^Talk 18:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

If the wording is the main issue under debate, then why not simply say that women can find anal sex pleasurable, as opposed to categorically stating we do or don't, because that's more a matter of preference than anything else.

GO TO: http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/sexinfo/?article=faq&refid=125 ON ANAL SEX Read About the Dangers of Anal Sex.

We probably shouldn't include statements so general such as "women like/don't like". It would be better to state that "this agrees with the majority of women, as revealed by surveys".--Orthologist 15:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

New Evidence about Sodomy

http://www.slate.com/id/2126643/

According to data released earlier this year by the Centers for Disease Control, the probability of HIV acquisition by the receptive partner in unprotected oral sex with an HIV carrier is one per 10,000 acts. In vaginal sex, it's 10 per 10,000 acts. In anal sex, it's 50 per 10,000 acts. Do the math. Oral sex is 10 times safer than vaginal sex. Anal sex is five times more dangerous than vaginal sex and 50 times more dangerous than oral sex.

Other useful academic data is also available on the PDF link within the article. It takes one to know one 08:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there has ever been any discension here that anal sex is a riskier activity then vaginal sex which is riskier then oral sex. This is a well accepted fact, supported by organisations like the WHO etc. However, this does not mean anal sex is bad or should be banned. If you claim otherwise then you should also support banning all sexual activity. Or hey why not just ban all contact between people? Nor does it mean people having anal sex are at more risk then people having vaginal sex. Someone having protected anal sex is likely to be at far lower risk then someone having unprotected vaginal and probably even oral sex. In fact, I wonder if a polygamic gay man who practices proctected anal sex is at lower risk then a monogamic heterosexual man who does practices unprotected vaginal sex. Point being, (proper) protection is probably the most important factor so I don't see why you need to concentrate so much on the type of sex. Nil Einne 16:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

That's a rather peculiar response isn't it? The message posted contained no stated moral opinions on the subject (I don't know that even calling it "Sodomy" is evidence of that).

My humble understanding of that message was a request for the addition of evidence-based factual data, which seems reasonable; after all this is an encyclopaedia, and people read this to get evidence-based data, rather than subjective takes on things... ("knowledge is power")

The use of the word sodomy and the 'do the math' part suggests to me the person has a moral slant. This may surprise you but in general, sodomy is a word use by those who are opposed to the pratice. My understanding is that many who practice anal sex find the word offensive (I don't so can't comment personally). It is fairly unlikely that anyone who has any knowledge of the subject is not aware of this fact therefore, we can expect anyone who wanted a neutral debate would not use the word sodomy. This may seem unfair to some but really it's not. I am partially Chinese so I can provide an alternative example. If someone were to start of any discussion on Chinese with chink, I would assume they were not intending to be neutral on the subject. Indeed, if you actually read the linked article, you would notice a very strong moral slant in the article. Also the claim 'new figures' when it links to an op-ed piece which quotes old figures suggests the person has a strong moral slant. However I do agree figures would be useful, but if we want figures we need them from a better source. More importantly, if we are going to include figures, my point was, and still is that we should ensure we provide context, pointing out that even though anal sex is more dangerous then vaginal sex (which we already do) what's far more important is that you use condoms and use them properly, whatever kind of sex you are having! If we simply provide figures without a context, we are guilty IMHO of NPOV... Nil Einne 19:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

...which leads me onto a second point:

The title of this article seems not really NPOV enough. It should perhaps be renamed "Anal Intercourse".

There are some who could argue that the notion that "Anal Intercourse" is sex is based on a subjective sentiment rather than objective fact, because the anus is not strictly speaking an organ designed for procreation; and strictly speaking, "Sexual Intercourse" can only take place between members of the opposite sex by definition (this seems tautological?).

I'm tempted to create an article with that name and copy-paste this one across (there will always be edit-trolls on an article like this).

Let's stick to the guidelines on NPOV (and please no "not reading what I wrote and jumping to conclusion" type rebuttle-rants). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.178.184.77 (talk • contribs) .

Anal intercourse is a redirect to anal sex. FYI, copy and paste moves shouldn't be made. Create an account, and use the page move feature instead. Since the page you want to move to is already occupied, you'll need to request a move. And also, please sign your comments with ~~~~. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-10-23 T 15:19:40 Z

"FYI" is one of those Americanisms that British people tend to find really irritating because it sounds condescending. I very much doubt enough people would agree to such a name change, it would just be considered one of those factual discrepencies that have to be absorbed in the name of making wikipedia as big as possible in the belief that size relates to credibility. I mean I've just spotted that the article begins by stating that Anal Intercourse is "common" - why hasn't that been removed as an unqualified statement?! I'm not signing in, 'cos quite frankly, I can't be arsed.

The simple fact is, the tone of the message, the title and all that strongly implies that the poster had a moral slant. It's possible they did not but I doubt it. Furtheremore, if they had simply wanted a discussion of the figures, they might have said, something like, should we include these figures or something of that sort, rather then simply state new evidence for sodomy. Regardless, it's irrelevant. The original poster has not returned. If anyone wants to add figures they're welcome to but they should provide context! Failing to do so would not be NPOV Nil Einne 19:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

article is incomplete

i believe the section "The most necessary elements of a good experience are communication, lubrication, and relaxation." needs to be replaced. also, the article mentions it as existant, but it's not. has this page been forgotten about?

The Most Recent Up Date on Anal Sex

What are the Dangers of Anal Sex?

Question: What are the Dangers of Anal Sex?

Answer: Anal sex can be risky. Even when people use lots of lubrication during anal sex, there can be tearing of the tissue inside the anus, which is not as well protected as the skin outside the anus. Our external tissue is “kerotinized,” meaning that it has layers of dead cells that create a thickened protective barrier. The tissue inside the anus does not have this feature. Without plenty of lubrication, anal tissue can tear quite easily, creating openings where bacteria and viruses can enter and cause problems.

The first picture shows the anus, where the rectum ends and releases feces from the body. The anus is usually held closed by a sphincter, which is a muscle that goes around the opening of the anus. (There are many different sphincters in the body, and they all encircle specific body parts, keeping them closed when the sphincter muscle contracts, then letting things pass through when the sphincter muscle relaxes.) In this picture, the person who is going to receive anal sex is shown at the left, lying face down, and the penis is shown at the right before it makes contact with the anus.

The second picture shows the penis putting pressure on the anus as the man attempts to push his penis into the recipient’s anus. The extra pressure on the anus places the sphincter muscle around the anus to contract extra tightly. This tightening of the sphincter is a reflex and it happens automatically, as if the body was designed to keep things from entering the anus from the outside. The contraction of the sphincter makes it all the harder for the penis to enter into the anus—especially if no lubricants have been used to facilitate anal penetration.

The third picture shows that the penis has begun to be pushed into the anus. Note that the tight fight of the penis in the anus (which is closed by the anal sphincter) causes small tears in the interior parts of the anus, though there may not be any conspicuous external bleeding. The risks for tearing in the anus are higher if little or no lubrication is used, and/or anal penetration is done quickly, rather than slowly and gradually with adequate lubrication.

The fourth picture portrays a highly enlarged representation of one of the many tiny tears in the anus, showing that it is much larger than a virus. Hence, even a miniscule tear is like a “superhighway” for viruses such as HIV—the virus that causes AIDS. Viruses are among the very smallest of life forms, so a broken blood vessel is gigantic in comparison with a virus.

For this reason, anal sex is the riskiest form of sexual activity when it comes to the transmission of HIV/AIDS. Tiny tears in the anal tissue are like giant superhighways for the HIV viruses, allowing them to get inside the body and enter the blood system. Anal tears provide an opening for all the other STDs as well. It may be possible for repetitive anal sex to lead to weakening of the anal sphincter, which is the muscle that tightens after we defecate. Once weakened, feces can escape the anus against our will. However, on Dr. Drew’s website [[1]], it says that doing Kegel exercises can help strengthen the anal sphincter.. The Kegel exercises are usually used to strengthen the muscles near the vagina. The exercises consist of tightening and relaxing the muscles that you use to stop the flow of urine. These muscles also help stop feces from escaping the anus.

Even if the anus has been washed thoroughly, do not let anything that has touched it come in contact with the vagina or urethra. Lots of bacteria live in the anus and they can cause infections in the vagina or urethra. This is the reason women are taught to wipe front to back, to avoid spreading diseases to the front. Even if you and your partner have no STIs (sexually transmitted infections) or STDs (sexually transmitted diseases), he should always use a condom (with extra lubrication) for anal sex, then replace that with a fresh new condom before starting vaginal sex. The condom will protect him from bacterial infections from inside the anus.

To read more information about anal sex, please click here. --Sexperts

Just a second

The article seems to have been reverted to a previous, disputed version, or else someone has restored some disputed information, specifically in the "positions" section. This has been vigorously disputed above and remains unresolved. What is it doing back in the article? Exploding Boy 05:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Dangers of anal sex

The following text:

• In principle, anal sex with anyone known to have a sexually transmissible disease, and indeed with anyone whose disease-negative status has not been determined (and the process of determining one's disease status is notoriously imperfect, with many "false negatives"), should be avoided. This advice applies to all sexual activity that effectively transmits STDs.

seems to be biased or at least poorly written. To my best knowledge, the percentage of false negatives isn't high after the minimum period for detection which I believe is several weeks (obviously if the transmission occured recently within the time period where the test is not effective, this can't really be considered a false negative IMHO). Furthermore, what are the tranmission rates for protected anal sex (I mean with protection properly used and lubrication, etc to prevent condom breakage)? Is it really true that it is not recommend and by which organisations (Homophobes alliance etc will not be considered)? I know where I live (NZ), there has been a bit of a fuss lately with regards to vaginal intercourse. The courts have decided and this has been supported by a number of organisations that someone is not required to disclose their HIV status (this person knew they were HIV+ and did not disclose) provided protection is used. As said, this is with vaginal intercourse but the article (quoted paragraph) says this applies to all sexual activities that effectively transmit HIV. Also I suspect the same decision would have be reached for anal sex as well. Nil Einne 16:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree actually. At least with the observation that it reads as POV. The issue is, that it takes 2 well known facts, and combines them in a way that suggests a much stronger connection than should be. Let's have a go at a rewrite..... FT2 20:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Few people know how to use condoms properly. Even fewer actually bother with them. So it would be silly to talk about the risks of anal sex with the assumption that everyone uses condoms. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.111.225.61 (talk • contribs) .

You seem to be missing the point. Obviously people who fail to use condoms or don't do so properly are putting themselves at very high risk if having anal sex (or any form of penetrative sex really) with someone who his infected. However this does not mean you should not have anal sex with someone who is HIV+ or if you don't know if the person is HIV+, it simply means if you should not have anal sex with someone who is HIV+ or HIV unknown without using condoms properly. The text as above, suggest you should not have anal sex with someone who is HIV+ or HIV unknown. In fact, it implies that you should not have vaginal sex with someone who is HIV+ or HIV unknown. It has nothing to do with assuming people are going to use condoms. It has all to do with providing the correct advise (always use condoms and make sure you know how to use them properly, especially when having anal sex) rather then the advise which is unlikely to be followed and which should also be mentioned in the vaginal sex article (don't have penetrative sex unless you're sure the person is not HIV+ and you can't be sure so I suppose the advise should be don't have penetrative sex ever!) Nil Einne 19:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, HIV testing is much less precise than people think. False negatives do occur. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.111.225.61 (talk • contribs) .

Only an idiot would say false negatives do not occur. I never suggested they do not occur. This issue is what percentage of negatives are false negatives after the minimum timed need for the test to be effective (as I said, I believe this is several weeks). I am pretty sure the percentage is very low. If you have the precise figures from a reliable source, quote them. Then we can determine whether there are really many false negatives as the text suggests. If not, we will have to accept the conventinal medical wisdom which is that the false negatives are fairly low.Nil Einne 19:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

HUMANS CANNOT CHANGE THE DESIGN AND USE FOR THE HUMAN BODY

Why do you reader, believe there is so much sickness and disease? It is because people are Stupid, Ignorant, Self Willed, Rebellious and Arrogant. They believe they know more than the Creator about His Creation. Wake Up Stupid Humanity! You don't have to be like you are! Look around you...THINK - READ AND SEE HOW YOUR BODY DETERIORATES when you abuse it. ANAL SEX IS ABUSE TO THE BODY..while the soul is being Killed!

The true answer to this question is:

Anal sex is a Perversion. It is born of LUST of the flesh. It is written in the Torah/Bible "it is an abomination to God, our Blessed Creator".

Sex is a gift to humanity. It is the tie that bonds one heart and body to the other in "marriage", which is a committed partnership between a Man and a Woman. It is to co-create with God to create new bodies for the Souls He wants to send to this earth plane to learn and develop a family for the spiritual world.

The anus is the doorway for the fecal matter; waste, filled with poisons and toxins, the ground and gestation space for sickness, disease and death to be alleviated from the gut, called the intestine. That waste matter is commonly called poop, dung, cocka etc.

I lolled quite hard at your comment in general. Not because of its religious nature, but because of your apparent ignorance at what comes out of vaginas and penises every single day. You seem to think the anus is alone in excreting human waste products. That's the best I can say really without biting your bait on the whole 'I'm straight, so's most the people I know, therefore anything else is wrong and immoral' thing. Peace 210.84.27.52 08:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

When a person has anal sex, two possible side effects are: poisons and toxins are speed to the other person, who penetrates the anus or who copulates (with the mouth) the anus. Germs enter and it may take a week, a month or a year or so to gestate in the intestines and go into the blood system of the person who is performing this act. Another side effect is "baldness" as the germs flow into the bloodline. It is written that "the life is in the blood", so when the blood is contaminated, the, blood is then polluted, cannot nourish the body, and it seems that the weakest place is the follicles of the head, eyebrows and sometimes eyelashes.

When a person allows another to penetrate the anus, the colon is affected. The danger is that the colon can be "torn" and the pain is horrific and blood poisoning can set in. Also as that person ages, the tissues thin and the elasticity becomes weak.

There are more colon problems today than ever before. More surgery to remove parts of the colon, or cancer of the colon. It is an un natural act. Even the animals don't indulge in such behavior. People who do that should be ashamed of themselves for destroying their body and others also. It is an un natural act, for those who are seeking a "thrill from lust".

There was a time when this was on the books in many states as AGAINST THE LAW. It should return to that once again. It is called Sodomy, one of the worst sins against ones own body. So, who ever you are, Wise Up, don't be as stupid as the trendsetters are who are publicizing such ignorant, abominal acts and promoting such things. Below is pasted from the WEB What are the Dangers of Anal Sex?

" Anal sex can be risky. Even when people use lots of lubrication during anal sex, there can be tearing of the tissue inside the anus, which is not as well protected as the skin outside the anus. Our external tissue is “kerotinized,” meaning that it has layers of dead cells that create a thickened protective barrier. The tissue inside the anus does not have this feature. Without plenty of lubrication, anal tissue can tear quite easily, creating openings where bacteria and viruses can enter and cause problems." Source(s) Check with the Bible, the Gastroenterologist, the Proctologist who themselves are not a homosexual." In men who have sex with men, the incidence of anal Cancer and /or anal tears climbs to about 100 in 100,000. It could be more as these figures are not updated. Read the Wikipedia "NEW EVIDENCE OF SODOMY" AND CHECK THIS LINK: http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/sexinfo/?article...

Animals do in fact engage in anal sex both in the sense that humans are animals and that non-human animals engage in anal sex. 71.237.226.28 02:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)anonymous

Though this Holier-than-thou user is gone, I could not help but point out to those that may be persuaded by his arguements, there are a number of guidelines to improve colon health (and just about every other part mentioned) that nobody follows (which were common sense some time past). For example, a daily bowel movement can greatly improve health. As I recall the number of persons that actually incur that is a lot smaller than you would think. Cheerio! Lass Lethe 01:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

—————————

You are so wrong about wikipedia is http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored Do note use bible as a source, do not talk about god.

I lol'd really hard at the religious wack-job 71.98.15.142 02:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think a few posters are going out of their way to downplay the fact that anal sex is a particularly risky form of sex. Sounds like some sort of gay agenda. Someone complained that the text "suggest you should not have anal sex with someone who is HIV+ or HIV unknown". Now why would someone suggest a silly thing like that? :)

Obviously you shouldn't have sex with anybody with HIV if you can help it. The point is anal sex is especially risky. That's biology, not an attack on gay people. 68.166.68.84 05:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Positions: And in summary...

I've probably opened a can of worms here. I did scan through and read some of the voluminous debate on the positions section. I rewrote it. I think it's neutral and it avoids jargon like "top", "bottom", "pitcher" and "catcher". In my mind, "penetrative" and "receptive" are descriptive without having one need to reach for a dictionary, look up obscure (to some people) jargon on the Web, or figure out how come the "top" is on the bottom in some positions. :) Although it is a bit awkward in spots with the his/her bits, picking one gender would get me into trouble, I'm sure. :) I also removed and completely replaced what I considered the bogus description of the missionary anal position. I didn't notice anyone here arguing in favour of it, and a lot confused by the description, including me. A cursory (I do admit) search on the Web only finds one reference [2] that implies a face-to-face position (and none attributing the title to a from-behind position), which makes sense since being face-to-face is the defining feature of the missionary position. However, the position described is valid, so I included a much briefer description of it that didn't make unnecessary allusions to porn videos. Your comments are welcome. --Craig 07:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Weasels

This article, especially in the "Anal sex among gay/bisexual men and lesbians" section, is full of weasel words. Phrases like "It should be noted…" and "Some have argued…" are even less useful than "Guanaco believes…". I'll try to clean some of it up, but I'll need help finding sources for all this. Some have argued that this weasel information may simply need to go. Guanaco 03:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Greek

The line '("Greek" has become a popular synonym for anal sex in the U.S., perhaps reflecting the perceived acceptance of anal sex in Mediterranean cultures' seems redundant since the next section explains it better.

Also (at least from my experience) more straight people refer to anal sex as 'Greek' than gay people so the line 'and in modern times, "Greek" is sometimes used as gay slang for anal sex' should omit the word 'gay' and just call it slang. GalaxiaGuy 01:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Women doing the man's ass picture

I think this is an encyclopedia, not a sexual instructions website. The picture of a woman inserting a strap-on dildo on the man is not suitable for an encyclopedia. I don't see how that picture can help the reader to understand the subject. I'm removing it. --Alberto msr 20:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Yet Wikipedia is not censored for minors, it's not a hentai 18+ website. It's a place where Granny wants to surf with her 7 year old nephew without fearing any shocking stuff appearing on the computer screen. Imagine how shocked Granny would feel about the anal sex article? But it's a SCIENTIFIC article, so there is no problem. Yet feeling shockful, Granny would take it easy. But if she saw that picture, she would have an heart attack! You don't wanna make Granny die from a heart attack after visiting Wikipedia, do you? The picture you re-added has no scientific use nor "how to do" explanation. It's too explicit for an encyclopedia. We don't wanna any government organ from some country to obligate Wikipedia to put a "minors warning" in its home page. If you are gonna use pictures, please use something more subtle, like the ancient pictures in the beginning of the article. Hope you understand it. Cheers. --Alberto msr 21:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)--Alberto msr 21:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Granny needs to grow up. The pegging image is no more explicit than the "Suzuki Harunobu" image. An ink drawing capturing only outlines hardly counts as explicit, especially when compared to some of the other images on wikipedia. This image is also used elsewhere on wikipedia (along with quite a few other sex-related line drawings), so it's ridiculous to say that it's too explicit for an encyclopedia. I don't find pegging an especially pleasant idea, but it's most definitely relevant. I've moved it to the "Anal sex among heterosexuals" section, though. -- Dpark 00:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

About the image, take a look at the http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Profanity . It's a page about the Profanity policy in Wikipedia. I'm not going to revert the page again, otherwise a revert-war could be started. Anyway, I'm going to call some mediation efforts here so that we can get in a consensus. --Alberto msr 00:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Alberto, I'd like to respectfully disagree with you on this subject. The article in question IS about anal sex, so the 'grandma browsing' argument you make above seems a bit of a stretch. Would you censors Fuck, Shit and Meekrob too, just because they are bad words? This _is_ an encyclopedia, like you mentioned, but your personal problems with that picture, especially in light of what seems to be pretty wide scale disagreement from everyone else with you, are not grounds to remove it. You are welcome to engage in mediation, and I applaud your willingness to avoid a revert war, but please don't censor Wikipedia. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how that image "would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers". Is the typical Wikipedia reader really a repressive conservative prude? Call in the mediation if you think it's worth it. I don't see that image as inappropriate, though. -- Dpark 01:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I would consider a photograph of a woman using a strap-on taken in the act of anal sex to be a little inappropriate, and verging on the pornographic. But what we have here is an illustration, rather than an actual photograph. The illustration is not overly detailed, and in a reasonably tasteful style, not excessive at all. Not so sure about the presence of the enema bag, though. Chris talk back 01:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd say the enema bag might actually be pretty relevant, especially since the discussion of whether or not an enema is/should be used is touched on in the article. In either event, it'd be hard to classify the illustration of an enema bag as offensive. -- Dpark 01:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking so much about whether it's offensive, but whether it's necessary to show the enema bag or whether it just distracts from the, er, act. But that's another story. Chris talk back 01:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• "wide scale disagreement from everyone else"? What you talking about Chairboy? Just 3 people so far have disageed. Listen, I don't have "personal problems" with that picture. Let's not stress here, ok? The picture can be interpreted by a lot of POVs (point of view), and we have to assure that this article complies with the NPOV (NEUTRAL Point of View). Maybe you are right, the picture is not offensive at all. Or maybe this is just a POV. We need mediation here, that means: We need MORE opinion. Wikipedians are here to enhance the encyclopedia, not to fight over personal POVs. Since Wikipedia is built by people, let's listem to them and discover what they really think and want in the encyclopedia. Opinions and suggestions are the key to built a great collaboration encyclopedia. --Alberto msr 01:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

This picture is stupid. A man doing a woman's ass is way more common than woman doing a man's. The article basically even admits this. Why would you favor a drawing of a highly uncommon act over a highly common one? Goaty 06:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It is also apparently gratuitous. What is there in the article which requires that picture in order to be clearly understood? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Not particularly offensive, just not a particularly suitable quality reproduction for this page (no offense to the artist, but it just seems out of place). The womans form is all off, the lamp looks too small (or the enema bag too big), my 0.02€ is to remove it until a better quality image can be found. - FrancisTyers 04:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

So, I looked at the Pegging (sexual practice) page and the second picture is of a much better quality. - FrancisTyers 04:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, if the 7 year old kid was the elderly lady's nephew, she would be his aunt, not his granny .... but whatever. :--) JackofOz 10:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Concerning Granny

The best way for an English teacher to expand the vocabulary of her students is to teach them the definitions of new vocavulary that they encounter in text. The Teacher may then resort to employing a dictionary to find an accurate definition of new words. The dictionary is a very large database of accurately defined words, similarly structured to wikipedia. It is organized for the purpose of retrieving data. The dictionary defined everyday vocabulary such as common nouns and verbs to obscure, newly introduced pieces of english language. It also defines explicitly words such as vulva, anal sex, rape, penis], and other "tabooed" words as such. However, the teacher knows well enough not to tread into those grounds, to the students, that is. Now, a student, once acquiring the skill of how to search for words in a dictionary, can search for words such as vulva, anal sex, rape and penis at his will. This is the situation for a dictionary, and for other informative text on paper.

"Yet Wikipedia is not censored for minors, it's not a hentai 18+ website. It's a place where Granny wants to surf with her 7 year old nephew without fearing any shocking stuff appearing on the computer screen. Imagine how shocked Granny would feel about the anal sex article? But it's a SCIENTIFIC article, so there is no problem. Yet feeling shockful, Granny would take it easy. But if she saw that picture, she would have an heart attack! You don't wanna make Granny die from a heart attack after visiting Wikipedia, do you? The picture you re-added has no scientific use nor "how to do" explanation. It's too explicit for an encyclopedia. We don't wanna any government organ from some country to obligate Wikipedia to put a "minors warning" in its home page. If you are gonna use pictures, please use something more subtle, like the ancient pictures in the beginning of the article. Hope you understand it. Cheers. --Alberto msr 21:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)--Alberto msr 21:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)"

When granny shows her seven year old nephew how to use the dictionary, she hopefully doesn't search for words such as penis, vulva, and rape as demonstrative examples, therefore a sane granny would do the same when browsing through wikipedia.

Just as the young once did with dictionaries, they now use the internet to satisfy their curiosity with "tabooed" terms such as vulva, penis and rape. Adults have seen that vulnerability in the interet, and unlike the dictionary that defines any word with several lines of text, the internet hands you a boatload of video clips, images and sound bites of information at your command. So, parental control was invented. It isn't the responsibility of wikipedia to withold information, rather, wikipedia should contain the information, and a third party control what information is retrieved from wikipedia. That third party would be parental control. Personally, I have had parental control on, Norton and AOL parental control to be specific, and it DOES NOT block the wikipedia as a whole, rather, it only bars the viewer from viewing articles that contain material that the parental control software is scripted to censor.

For those who still feel that it is too dangerous to put out any image of anal sex or any other article that defined "tabooed" terms, wouldn't you be an advocate of book censcorship and the chinas own version of an Online encyclopedia "Baidu.com" ?

{Before you are quick to judge me, I will state that I am straight, and DO NOT take a liking for or advocate anal sex, however, I do take a liking for access to open access to information.}

Ottokarf 07:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

this is ludricus, this is an encyclopedia, not a childrens book, not a retirement home newspaper. bottom line pictures get people interested. Very few people are likely to read the entire article on the Potsdam Conference if the picture of stalin, churchill and roosevelt was not there. I am posting a picture up of pegging as it is clearly a form of anal sex Paskari 23:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

OK I can't find any pictures about pegging... Paskari 00:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The new feces line

Saying "feces often come out" is overstating things and although I think the point that some people do find it "disusting" should be mentioned the tone is a little, er, sudden... --GalaxiaGuy

What would be your suggestion to enhance that paragraph? Suggestions are welcome. --Alberto msr 20:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

What about below? "Many" is a little vague and the second sentence doesn't sound right still...

• Many people still view anal sex as "disgusting" because of the unavoidable link between the anus and feces. Actually having feces come out of the rectum is less like than most people think; the rectum is empty most of the time and feces only enter just before defecation. Many couples still use an enema before engaging in any anal activity.

GalaxiaGuy 21:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I've updated the line to reflect that some feces may still be in the rectum, but typically not a large amount. -- Dpark 00:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

It's gratuitous and unnecessary. The article isn't any better for it and some people may find it in poor taste, if not offensive.

Overview

I've added a one liner on condom and HIV use in the overview. I appreciate this is discussed later in health issues but IMHO we do need a one liner in the overview since it is such an important recommendation and afterall the overview does mention lubrication.Nil Einne 19:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I revised it, because I felt it implied that a condom is more important for anal sex than vaginal (which isn't strictly true). I also felt the mention of lubrication was redundant (since it's mentioned in the previous line), and that it looked like you were saying that lube is responsible for reducing STD risk (which isn't exactly false, but not exactly true, either). -- Dpark 22:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Using a condom is more important for anal sex than with vaginal sex, for several reasons that have been stated several times. 68.166.68.84 05:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Media Attention

This paragraph I find confusing:

Anal sex, though commonly practiced throughout the world, remains taboo in some cultures. In the United States, the ancestral taboo has broken down, and anal sex has experienced a recent surge in popularity, as evidenced by increased media attention.

Does this refer to some articles in 'Cosmopolitan' or what? I am not aware of any increased media attention unless it be some coded references in rap songs or the like. This claim should either be expanded or deleted. And what is an 'ancestral taboo'? Henry Miller has written of committing this type of act during the early 20's of the 20th. Cspalletta 05:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. On the one hand, it's easy to see than anal sex is more commonly spoken about; that some of the taboo is gone. On the other, it's hard to point out where that comes from. Maybe it shouldn't say "increased media attention", as this (unfortunately) implies the press, and should probably be backed up with references. Maybe if we could just rephrase it so that it's referencing general pop culture: music (yeah, some rap), television (I don't watch TV much; someone else come up with examples), movies (Monster's Ball?).

The fact that someone wrote about it in the 20s doesn't make it not taboo, though. Sade wrote his books, and there wasn't much in them that was (or is) accepted.

-- Dpark 14:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Nerves between rectum and vagina

I've editted the line, firstly because it looks like it was taken from sexuality.org[3] (or the original document; that one's actually a copy of another).

WP:

For women, pleasure may also be derived from anal intercourse because the rectum shares a wall with the vagina, and the sexual nerves are actually closer on that side, making the sensation different and sometimes actually stronger.

Sexuality.org:

[...]and on women it is because the rectum (sorry if you're not looking for technical terms, but I need to be specific) shares a wall with the vagina, and the sexual nerves are actually closer on that side, making the sensation different and sometimes actually stronger.

Secondly, I'm not sure it's at all correct. The strongest nerves are in the clitoris, which is definitely not between the vagina and rectum. -- Dpark 18:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't actually say "strongest"... Dan100 (Talk) 17:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

No, but it did say that the sensation can be stronger than vaginal stimulation. But it didn't really back that up, except to say the "sexual nerves" are closer on that side. Which sexual nerves? And are they actually stronger than those in the clitoris? I doubt it. -- Dpark 00:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I just desired to point out, that if i recall correctly it this has nothing to do with the clitoris, It mentioned that it was could be stronger than vaginal penetration, vaginal penetration does not automatically involve the clitoris; and as for whether or not it is stronger than those in the clitoris, I honestly have ignorance and apathy to that, though I will point out that biological variation may in some cases make anal stimulation stronger than clitoral. On a side note: this is the first comment I have ever made and I don't fully understand the rules of editing the talk pages, if you feel a desire to delete this because I forgot to do something, please, go right ahead. --172.161.187.118 04:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Cleaup Tag Removed -or- Cite Your Grievances

I've removed the cleanup tag, since we've got the weasel words tag, too. One should be enough. If there are any problems with the article that aren't weasel word issues, please cite them here, where everyone can see them. A lot of the discussions on this page are old, and seem to no longer apply. If there are obvious problems, please draw atention to them again. -- Dpark 21:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Ejaculation

It is not an uncommon practice for a man to ejaculate into his partner during anal sex. This is extremely dangerous, since the risk of being infected with HIV is very high. However, the risk of transmitting an STD is relatively low, if both partners are [monogamous] and if both have tested negative for HIV within the past six months.

I've removed this section to talk page as I believe it is covered elsewhere in the article and it does not seem to be sourced or written in an encyclopaedic tone. Please consider rewriting and sourcing, or merging into the article. - FrancisTyers 18:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

Cleaned up the article a bit, moved references in style with Wikipedia:Footnotes, moved huge list out into separate article, sectionned introduction -- the lead should be short. Might come back if I have any further ideas, I'm leaving the verify tag on for now as the article needs to cite sources. - FrancisTyers 19:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Positions

I deleted the section on Anal Sex positions because it didn't really have anything to do with the subject matter apart from the first link. The rest said "use a condom" and other such junk that had nothing to do with positions. The link should be included (in this article) elsewhere, but I'm not sure where to place it. If someone will do that it'd be most appreciated. Chooserr 00:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I shoved it in the See also section, seems to fit ;) - FrancisTyers 00:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Source

I listed the source it's page, and all the other stuff under the further reading bit. I can give a full quote if you like. Chooserr 00:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I've footnoted it. If you like you can provide a quote, but it isn't essential :) FrancisTyers 00:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Romanman and youth jpg

The image "Romanmanandyouth.jpg" at the top of the page seems inappropriate. These are not two consenting adults; one is a youth. This is of no relevance to a modern discussion on anal sex.

I don't know how one would determine whether the youth was of the age of consent for Rome of his time. Additionally, I believe the image was used because it's a pretty darn unobjectionable picture to use in this kind of article. I also don't think the article should be restricted to talking about modern anal sex. -GregoryWeir 13:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article on oral sex features a variety of tasteful illustrations. I think something similar would be far more appropriate for this piece. --AWF

First of all, I don't think any Greek or Roman pottery was decorated with images of rape, as the top poster here is suggesting. Second, you can't take your modern day convictions and project them into history; in the classical period sex between adult males and youths was acceptable and legal. Exploding Boy 21:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

i just don't think it's a very clear picture. perhaps one of those drawings that are featured in the other sex articles would be appropriate. -Joeyramoney 04:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

She doesn't look underage to me JayKeaton 03:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I readded the pic, it seems it dissapeared 2 weeks ago. Why was that? I added it back. If it is removed again, can I be provided wtih a reason for it's removal? Faris b 17:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Nonhumans

I notice that this fine article restricts itself to humans. A section on nonhumans could be added that mentions humans engaging in anal sex with nonhumans as well as anal sex in nonhuman species. Bird sex is always anal sex because their shit hole IS their sex hole. Species that INJECT sperm (like a hypodermic needle) provide another interesting contrast. WAS 4.250 17:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

With birds it's not anal it's cloacal 201.23.64.2 19:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Overview

The overview mentions the recommendations of sexologists for the use of lubrication for reasons of pleasure however afaik, most medical professionals and I guess most sexologists also recommend the use of (condom-friendly) lubrication (and condoms obviously) to reduce the risk of STI/STD transmission which the overview fails to mentions... Also, I'm skeptical whether there needs to be such a long section in the overview on US laws surrounding anal sex. This should probably be reduced with the extra content moved to a new legal section and information on the laws in other countries added. Nil Einne 11:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Heterosexual anal sex

Regarding this disputed paragraph:

For women, pleasure is derived from anal intercourse because the rectum shares a wall with the vagina and therefore shares some of the nerve endings associated with sexual pleasure. The anus itself also contains a number of nerves which can react pleasurably when excited.

Claiming that "most women do not find it pleasurable" is POV and unverifiable. What is verifiable is that heterosexual couples do indeed practice it (survey mentioned in 4th link below), and that some females find it pleasurable and can achieve orgasm. The presense of nerve endings in the areas described is also verifiable.

• from soc.ucsb.edu
• from studenthealth.oregonstate.edu
• from sexuality.org
• "according to a 1994 survey, 25 percent of all heterosexual adults have engaged in anal sex." OhNoitsJamie^Talk 20:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

So what's the problem here? It doesn't say anything about the amount that find it pleasurable, but that pleasure could be derived from those sources. It could be that if you weren't a very good reader you would say that it says that all women find it pleasurable. However, it says nothing of the sort. Cheerio! Lass Lethe 01:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Digital rectal stimulation

I have redirected the wikilink on the term "digital rectal stimulation" on the Margaret Cho page to come here. However I am not sure whether or not that act qualifies as an act of masturbation of an act of anal sex. Pacian 16:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just have to say that it is terribly disturbing when I add something extremely humorous and then someone immediately removes it before anyone else has even had the chance to enjoy the absurd joke I just made. Very disturbing! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.7.204.12 (talk • contribs).

Go to Uncyclopedia for such edits please. (I personally didn't find your edit funny...) Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 21:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Not fool-proof in preventing pregnancy?

One of the predominant reasons for it is to prevent pregnancy, but this method is not fool-proof.

Is there a source for that assertion? 71.141.177.244 20:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, seriously. I'm removing the statement; that is just plain wrong. (81.236.190.33 16:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC))

What part is wrong? That people do it to prevent pregnancy, or that it is not fool proof? I think that within certain cultures (anecdotaly, brazil and mediteranean), the nonpregnancy issue has been a reason (perhaps the main reason) for practising anal sex. I did read once (not so long ago) that pregnancy from anal sex is very unlikely. I think that if references can be found, leave it in. It isn't fair to cut it just because this isn't your cultural experience. 58.107.87.183 05:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious why it's not fool proof: seminal fluids are fluids -- and fluids can move.

Granted, I'm not sure sperms can live long enough in that environment to cause any trouble of some of them do find their way into the place "nature intended", but I'm pretty certain that getting semen in the general vicinity of the vagina is a recipe for disaster when it comes to avoiding pregnancy without proper protection. -- 91.0.106.92 20:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

LOTS of work done by me (please don't hate me)

I came across this article today unexplainably and I was inspired to Be Bold with this page. I've moved around a lot of things, but I left almost all of the original information in the article. A lot of the problem with this article is that it has massive amounts of POV scattered everywhere, and a lot of redundancies. There were many times in this article that someone provides a link to another word and then choses to define it in detail on this page as well. The idea is to keep it as trim as possible on this page so that people who need small bits of information but know a lot about the subject already can come and read about it while people who don't know little nuances of the subject can go to other links and learn more. This is still evident with the sodomy stuff under the "western cultures" section, but I'm really clueless as to how I can fix that without deleting it all together. Some other things I tried to fix was the fact that random pieces of information were sitting in various places on the page (specifically, the stuff about sodomy and such). The main intro was also WAY too long, with information that should have been in the body of the article stuffed into the top.

I hope I've helped a bit with this article. Please post here if you have a problem or any questions about my assertions with this article. :-)

-Noneloud 09:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

anal lubricant

This article states that the anus does not produce its own lubricant (twice) It does though.

http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/1666.html

It may, but it's certainly not enough! Personal lubricant is an absolute must, and the article is right to insist so.

If the anus does in fact produce lubricant then the article is not only not right, I'd go so far as to say it's wrong... I'll edit.

Study?

At least one study has shown that when performed properly, anal intercourse may actually improve anal health. The theory goes that excessive anal tension causes conditions like hemorrhoids and fistulas. Practitioners of anal sex must relax the anal area for it to be possible, and this ability to gain conscious control over the anus allows that person to better control its normal everyday function. In the study, the anal health of approximately 300 "fisting" practitioners was studied, and it was found that lower than average rates of hemorrhoids and fistulas were present. One caveat of the study is the small sample size, however.

The study in question appears to be contained in a book. As a scientist, I'm quite skeptical of any 'study' that exclusively appears in a book. Unless this study has also appeared in a peer-reviewed scientific journal (in which case we should link there) IMHO this section at tbe very least needs to be reworked if not completely removed. Perhaps we should say something like "In a book by Jack Morin, it was claimed based on a study by the author (or whoever)..." Nil Einne 14:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is likely nonsense, I've removed the paragraph. The book is not by a medical doctor, either. --Xyzzyplugh 16:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Phallo-centric

This article is phallo-centric. Perhaps because public sexual discussion is itself phallo-centric. But NPOV requires better.

Lesbians (who don't do penis) engage in anal play. This involves tongue, fingers, hands, and other things, rimming, digital stimulation and penetration and fisting. Why should the sexual practices of lesbians be excluded? As far as I can tell, anal sex is about anuses, and everybody, male and female, has one. The penis is incidental.

I'm going to take to this article with an axe. The focus should be on asses, with penises just another tool, and not a central theme. 58.107.87.183 05:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you in that I believe a female "dominant" role should also be addressed in this article. I am more concerned personally with addressing the use of "strap-ons" and such by heterosexual couples, though, and the idea that a man doesn't have to be gay or bisexual in order to receive sexual pleasure anally. My main reason for not editing yet is that I'm having trouble with the semantics of "sex" ... a tongue or a finger would technically be Oral sex or Fingering (sexual act), and how exactly is the use of sex toys categorized? If someone penetrates someone else with any sex toy, is it always considered "sex", sometimes or never?

Anyway, I see how our interests in editing this page could overlap! If you (or anyone else reading this!) would like to brainstorm please leave a message in my talk page!

Hexwench 09:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

If sex is defined in phallocentric terms, then it denies female sexuality. It is the old chessnut: since lesbians don't use penes then it isn't really sex. I think that it is reasonable enough to say that lesbians DO have sex, and that sex is better defined in other terms. I would argue, and quite strongly, that if gay men can have anal sex, then so can lesbians. It appears that there are bigots and/or ignorant people, who are unaware of that lesbians enjoy sex, and (for some) including anal play.

I think the general idea here is that fingers/tongues are mere tools to stimulate sexually. In heterosexual sex, the penis is stimulated whilst it stimulates. Anal sex is about the anus being stimulated (prodded, probed etc), and it doesn't matter what is used. I do acknowledge that for most people when they think of anal sex they think of penes in rectums.

I would like in this article, added back to this article, an acknowledgement that lesbians do have anal sex, in the same way that lesbians have sex generally. -58.107.87.183 14:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I am agreeing with you here, but I would have to say the present article is worse than previous versions I have seen. Not only is it Phallo-centric, its also Homosexually biased - now all the pictures, and most of the text is biased that way. A great pity - needs a rebalance back to where it was. Rgds, - Trident13 21:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Moi again, i just needed to point out that while there is a lesbian section it is very small, stub-stature even, and while this is an improvement, it's not necessarily enough. However, I cannot suggest anything to improve it because you pretty much covered it with excellent generalization and listing, good job team! You Stubbed it. --172.161.187.118 04:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Anal sex in schools and military

Why does this need citation exactly? Ask just about anyone and they'll tell you they've heard of it. I know, you said it was needed to be proven but what do you mean by that? Proven online or proven by people's knowledge? If this didn't happen, why would the military need that don't ask don't tell stuff? Because they know it might/will happen. The navy has the most gay activities in it (and yes this is what I heard) because they're stuck on those darn submarines/ships for 6 months at a time with no women, at least none that they can have any anything with. It doesn't take an idiot to put 2 and 2 together like that. I say, just because a few people are complaining that it's not sourced on the web while 99% of the population knows this stuff, we should not need citations.

Faris b 19:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Human Sexual Behavior?

"Anal sex or anal intercourse is a form of human sexual behavior" I disagree with the lead line assertion that anything you do with your sexual organs is "Human Sexual Behavior". By definition Sex is the process of sexual reproduction. If you hit your penis with a hammer, even if it gives you (and/or your partner) pleasure it is not "Human Sexual Behavior". Some terms need revising here, I'm open to suggestions befor I start extensive editing.Tstrobaugh 19:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly disagree with the assertion that sex is the process of sexual reproduction. Would you therefore argue that there is no activity between two men or two women that constitutes "sex"? HalJor 20:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I would have to say that two men or two women would not be able to sexually reproduce (with therre own gametes). There is a problem with terminology here. Remember Clinton saying he did not have sex with that woman, many people believe that oral sex is not sex, the same for anal sex.Tstrobaugh 01:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You did not answer the question of whether two men or two women can have "sex" . If you think they can, then the article is correct. If you think they can't, please cite a credible reference that states otherwise. Incidentally, Bill Clinton said "I did not have sexual relations..." not "sex". There is an important difference. HalJor 01:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it is definitely sexual behavior unless you want to come up with a new definition of sexual behavior. Take a human sexuality course. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 23:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a degree in psychology if you are questioning my authority. That is a logical fallacy by the way. Exactly what is your argument? That I haven't taken a sexuality course? Well your wrong because I have. Now present a decent argument.Tstrobaugh 00:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• sigh* .Tstrobaugh says "By definition Sex is the process of sexual reproduction".

Wikipedia - "In humans, sex is conventionally perceived as a dichotomous state or identity for most biological and social purposes, such that a person can only be female or male." I don't believe that "gender" and "sexual reproduction" are the same thing.

Merriam Webster Main Entry: sex Pronunciation: 'seks Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Latin sexus 1 : either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures 2 : the sum of the structural, functional, and behavioral characteristics of organisms that are involved in reproduction marked by the union of gametes and that distinguish males and females 3 a : sexually motivated phenomena or behavior b : SEXUAL INTERCOURSE 4 : GENITALIA

Whoa!? Apparently "sex" means more than just one thing! Reproduction AND sexually motivated behavior.

Wikipedia - Human sexual behavior "Sexual activity (sexual function) in humans is an instinctive form of physical intimacy. It may be performed for the purposes of biological reproduction, spiritual transcendence, expressing affection, and/or having fun and enjoying oneself (known in this context as "sexual gratification"). The desire to have sex is one of the basic drives of human behavior."

"expressing affection, and/or having fun and enjoying oneself (known in this context as "sexual gratification")"

You said "If you hit your penis with a hammer, even if it gives you (and/or your partner) pleasure it is not "Human Sexual Behavior"

I would suggest that if hitting your penis brought you or your partner pleasure, that would indeed be "Sexual Behavior". I would also suggest that "sexual gratification" and "pleasure", in this context, are synonyms.

Atom 01:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

"AND sexually motivated behavior." I do not think that you understand what "sexually motivated behaviour" means if you think it is different than Reproduction. Everytime you read the word "Sex" you should think it means either the gender of the person or sexual reproducction and the behavior associated with it. That is my point and you have not said anything otherwise. The "wikpedia" definition is not admissible since it is wikipedia that I am pointing out the problem with.Tstrobaugh 01:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hehe. Timing is everything:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061012/ts_nm/environment_homosexuality_dc

It seems anal sex DOES exist in many animal species so I'd call it human sexual behavior, not some invention of mankind.

Faris b 09:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you think this proves. I never said animals don't express the behavior, I certainly never said humans don't express the behavior. My point is that it is not "sexual" behavior. Tstrobaugh 15:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the animal thing is either, but in regards to your other comments, certainly you, as someone lettered in psychology, know that what is sexual to a person is mostly in their mind. "Sexual behavior" therefore is whatever actions someone takes that brings themselves, or their partners sexual pleasure. As for other animals expressing sexual behavior, well, that's perhaps not as complex, but how would you have any idea what animals pursue sexuality for pleasure, rather than reproduction? Certainly it is not only concievable, but highly likely with higher apes, whales and dolphins, elephants and other sentient forms besides us human animals. Atom 15:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes exactly, we are finally getting to the crux of the argument. Is this encyclopedia going to be subjective or objective? Are you saying that anything I personally believe, God, Astrology, elves whatever is therefore valid because it is in my mind? How do you get to the point where something is valid because someone believes it? I agree that some people believe that anal stimulation gives them pleasure. I have no argument with that, only that it is not "sexual pleasure" by definition.Tstrobaugh 19:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

What I meant is that as was stated above by Tstrobaugh is that anal sex was unnatural and was the idea of humans and shouldn't be listed as human sexual behavior but in my defense that it does count as HSB is that if animals do it and animals don't just do things like humans do if you know what I mean then it is natural, why was that so hard to understand that anal sex is HSB (HSB = Human sexual behavior incase anybody was wondering)?

Faris b 19:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you are saying, I did not say it was natural or unnatural. Only that by definition, "sex" means "sexual reproduction", it is not sex.Tstrobaugh 19:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Look, no offense, but every now and then, someone like you comes along, demands that things be changed, there is a debate then it's over, I'm not saying this will happen this time but my point is that I believe the article is fine in the section you are referring to.

Faris b 20:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

point out my error then, before an edit war startsTstrobaugh 17:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe your error has already been pointed out, and in addition, I'd like to point out that threatening to edit war is unlikely to be taken kindly (not to mention violating our policies).

I suggest you educate yourself about what "sex" and "sexual behaviour" mean, as well as thoroughly reading the talk page archives of this and related articles, before attempting to make fundamental changes to this article. Exploding Boy 19:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I never said that I would start an edit war, I merely stated that you would probably be alone in your believe of editing the page and would be reverted by the majority, not me. As you probably already know, this page gets a lot of traffic. I've seen it happen many times, someone changes it and makes a big deal about being right then everyone else reverts it. If you could have your way, nothing but dick in pussy would count as HSB so basically, it's hard to explain but I think that everything's fine in the current way and before you get any ideas, I'm not threatening anything at all over you so just chill.

Faris b 20:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Exploding Boy's comment was directed at you, Faris. HalJor 21:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well ok never mind then. Thanks for the clarification.

Faris b 06:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well call me dense then because I don't see where anyone addressed my concerns. Please repeat where my "error has already been pointed out" because I don't see it. As for educating myself I have already stated my credentials so that point is moot.Tstrobaugh 13:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I think you may be dense.  ;)

To address your point specifically to help make it clearer, You said: "Anal sex or anal intercourse is a form of human sexual behavior" I disagree with the lead line assertion that anything you do with your sexual organs is "Human Sexual Behavior". By definition Sex is the process of sexual reproduction."

Anal sex, and anal intercourse are, in fact forms of human sexual behavior. As myself and others said, Human sexual behavior in humans is an instinctive form of physical intimacy. It may be performed for the purposes of biological reproduction, spiritual transcendence, expressing affection, and/or having fun and enjoying oneself (known in this context as "sexual gratification").

As anal sex or anal intercourse often brings physical intimacy, spiritual transendence, expressing affection and fun or pleasure, it is, in fact a form of sexual behavior. You are correct that sexual reproduction, (or biological reproduction) is one form of sexual behavior.

As for "educating yourself", I think he mean't something like "look up and determine what the actual facts are, rather than your mis-perception." I don't think that a college education or degree in psychology necessarily credentials you for anything in particular. Obviously it taught you little about sexual behavior. I'm assuming that you focused on other aspects of psychology.

Atom 18:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

On your advice I'm going to look up and cite "actual facts". This page shows that the view you espouse is a certain philosophical view and not objective:"[4]". If you can show that your definitions are objective and not subjective then please cite a source. Tstrobaugh 19:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the source I quoted was, of course, wikipedia, Human sexual behavior. I'm guessing that you won't find that authoritative.

"Instead, human motivation to engage in sexual behavior is due to a complex relationship among several factors." "As mentioned earlier, pursuit of erotic pleasure is a primary reason to engage in sexual behavior (Abramson et al., 1995; Hatfield et al., 1993). Kinsey and colleagues (1948; 1953) found that children between the ages of 2 and 5 years of age spontaneously touch their genitals. At this age, one could not argue that this sexual behavior is learned or designed to contribute to reproduction. Abramson and Pinkerton (1995) point out that the pleasure of sexual behavior is physiologically and psychologically-based and that the sex organs do not exist merely to guarantee reproductive behavior." [5]

• Abramson, P. R. & Pinkerton, S. D. (1995). h Pleasure: Thoughts on the Nature of Human Sexuality. New York, NY: Oxford University press.
• Hatfield, E., Walster, G. W., Piliavin, J., & Schmidt, L. (1988). "Playing hard to get": Understanding an elusive phenomenon. In: L. A. Peplau, D. O. Sears, S. E. Taylor, & J. L. Freedman, eds. Readings in Social Psychology: Classic and Contemporary Contributions. pp. 123-132.
• Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Philadelphia: Saunders.
• Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., Martin, C. E., & Gebhard, P. H. (1953). Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. Philadelphia: Saunders

Your cited reference (above) says: "With the beginning of our own century, and under the growing influence of psychoanalytic thinking, the concept of sexuality became even more inclusive. It now referred not only to procreation and the pursuit of erotic pleasure, but also to the need for love and personal fulfillment, i.e., to the "lust for life" itself. "Magnus Hirschfield Archive for Sexology

I can find a few more if these aren't suitable. Atom 21:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The psychoanalytic viewpoint exists, obviously. As do all the references you cited. I can't believe you quoted Kinsey. Anyway, it is a viewpoint and not objective. That is my point. You can certainly find others with that viewpoint, but it is a philosophical viewpoint, not objective knowledge.Tstrobaugh 01:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Tstrobaugh, did you actually READ the source you provided? It essentially disproves your point which, as I understand it, is that anal sex cannot properly be described as a "human sexual behaviour" because, although it is engaged in by humans when they are having sex it doesn't lead to procreation. Sorry, but you're simply not going to succeed in inserting that narrow, heterosexist and anti-commonsensical point of view into this article. Exploding Boy 02:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the ad hominems, it shows you are a rational reasonable person with which to have this discussion. Please quote the part where you think the article that I didn't read disproves my point. Because the article is about different philosophical viewpoints and how they use language to persuade people to their viewpoint, which is my point. The language is wrong. And if by narrow you mean scientific, then thank you again.Tstrobaugh 12:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Conclusion Reached. Based on new information I withdraw my objections. It seems you can get pregnant from anal sex. Apparently I am my own best debater. I propose a line and the reference be added. From:"http://www.teencarecenter.org/index.php?s=vital&p=unsafe". States:

"The anus is a delicate area, and skin in the anal region can tear easily. Bodily fluids, including blood and semen, can enter the body through tiny cuts in the anus, increasing the risk of HIV. While most people are aware of the risk of contracting HIV/AIDS and hepatitis B and C through anal sex, many don't know that you can contract a number of STDs through this behavior including herpes, gonorrhea, HPV, and chlamydia.

Despite copious misinformation to the contrary, you can get pregnant from anal sex. The anal opening leads to the rectum, which is part of the large intestine, a part of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. The GI system is not directly connected with the reproductive tract, thus sperm entering the anus cannot swim through the GI tract to reach the egg. However, semen can and does drip from the anus after ejaculation. This semen comes in contact with the vaginal opening, which is lubricated with slippery mucus. During certain times of the month, vaginal mucus acts as a conduit to usher sperm into the vagina and uterus, ultimately to a waiting egg. So, anal sex should not be considered "safe" as it puts couples at risk of both STDs and pregnancy.

Condoms are often recommened as safer sex option for couples practicing anal sex. However, condoms are more likely to break during anal sex than during vaginal sex. Thus, even with a condom, anal sex can be risky. [3]". Reference:"[3] Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention, "Can I get HIV from anal sex?" December 20, 2002 http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/faq/faq22.htm". Thank you for your tiime.Tstrobaugh 14:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, what do you know? I was right. Regarding the whole "come in, demand changes then it's over and nothing happens" thing. No offense. Faris b 16:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Duh, What does getting pregnant have to do with it? We are talking about Human Sexual Behavior, which has to do with sexual pleasure, among other things. People have anal sex because it is pleasurable, not because they are trying to get pregnant. Human Sexual Behavior is multi-dimensional. Reproduction is only one aspect of it. And obviously not the aspect that is predominant when having anal sex. Atom 16:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think my favorite part of this argument is that his definition of sex would include going to a fertility clinic or donating an egg. And if you include the bit about "sexually motivated behavior" (which he interprets as reproductively motivated), it turns out that every time you make a pass at someone or buy a nice new pair of underwear, you're getting laid. Makes my sex life look a hell of a lot more active. 71.193.152.63 14:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd wager this is another example for the horrors in human thinking a college degree can cause. Most humans know it right intuitively: they don't have sex because it may result in offspring, they have sex because they like having sex (or because their partner likes having sex, whatever). Just as we don't instinctively fall in love to reproduce, but because it feels like the right thing to do. Now, getting a child, in turn, is motivated by an entirely different instinct altogether (namely, wanting to care for and raise a child, then realising you lack a child, but know how to make or get one).

Animals don't have sex to reproduce, they have sex because they like having sex. I'd wager many animals have sex without even knowing they'll reproduce if they do it "successfully".

Of course reproduction is the (evolutionary) reason we like having sex, but it's not the motivation for us to have sex. In this sense, most human (and some animal) sexual behaviour (especially masturbation) is a mis-firing of what's supposed to lead to reproduction, but that doesn't mean all sexual behaviour is reproductionarily motivated -- most likely only a fraction is, namely, that between two adults of opposing gender who want to have a child.

Only when you try and think too much about the evolutionary reasons for why we like sex and then happen to listen too much to archaic morality preachers you end up believing that sex can only be used as a term to describe (potentially) reproductive behaviour.

As a linguistics student I have to fundamentally disagree with that notion from another direction: obviously "sex" means different things to different people, so a prescriptive statement such as this one is not only imprecise but quite likely fundamentally wrong.

As a pragmatic OTOH I say that the most accepted most general use of the term is the one the articles should focus on. And that is, in this case, "sex" as "anything a substantial fraction of people consider sex", including non-productive or even non-penetrating forms (e.g. frottage, most BDSM practices). -- 91.0.106.92 20:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Christianity, Islam, etc. section

"Virtually all Christians confirm the importance of accepting and welcoming homosexuals into their communities and protecting their civil rights."

What about the people in Texas (as stated above this passage, the lawsuit)? Aren't they christians, I mean, alot of them? I don't think it's correct to say "virtually all"!!

I have put a citation around this - certainly unproven, potentially verging on POV. The biggest christian group are the catholics, and they don't approve of use of the condom at present. It would probably be better written as "many churches" as opposed to "virtually all christians" - unless there's a pole of most of the chritians in the world out there some where. Rgds, - Trident13 23:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion. It is common for people with a prejudice to assume that others think the same way they do. Christian communities, as a while, tend to follow the teachings of Christ. The passage does not say that Christians accept or feel that anal sex is fine. It says that they respect and accept homosexuals, not anal sex. "Virtually all" does not mean "all". It means that the narrow minded anti-homosexual christians are a very small proportion of all Christians. As the section has been there for quite some time, maybe you'd like to provide evidence (other than your doubt) that it is contrary? Atom 11:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this article on the recent U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops sorts out the proven case for removing the term "Virtualy All" - it does say that those with a homosexual tendancy don't lack human dignity. This also brings up the question as to why the article doesn't mention in the same section the proven fact that the Catholic Church teaches that homosexual inclination is "objectively disordered" and that homosexual acts are "intrinsically disordered", and hence preaches abstinence? I am a Christian but not a Catholic, and personally can't agree with the Catholic church on this, but as an encyclopedia we should state a balance of provable fact - which we clearly are not doing at present in this section of this article. Can we now agree text which removes the terms "virtually all" churches, and reflects the factual Catholic Church position? Rgds, - Trident13 23:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

We should let the person who put it in come up with a citation. One should not confuse acceptance of homosexuals with acceptance of honosexual acts. Two different things. Most churches propogate the teachings of Christ, and that is forgiveness and acceptance of others who are different. Even Catholicism has large numbers of homosexual members and homosexual clergy. Only recently has the catholic church decided to not allow homosexual priests, but still accepts homosexuals as members of their church. The catholic church is as misguided and anachronistic as it has always been. But, even so, the quote you give says that it accepts homosexuals as "human beings created in the image and likeness of God", and "The Catholic Church condemns "unjust discrimination" against those with deep-seated homosexual tendencies." Perhaps if the statement were to say something like "The large majority of Christian denominations recognizes the importance of accepting and welcoming homosexuals into their communities and protecting their civil rights." Only a conservative few believe that persecuting homsexuals is acceptable. Atom 03:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• The person who put it in has had several weeks now to put in a citation. In the absence of one, it really needs to go. Remember, it's not about truth here -- it's about verifiability. (More to the point, I'm not sure I understand the relevence of the sentence at all; even if it's verifiable, I'm not sure it belongs.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I can but agree Jpgordon! And Atom, as a statement which says "large majority" can't be verified and substantiated from a reputable source, the whole thing needs to be removed. I can think the Catholic church is biased on a number of issues, but unless its verifiable from a reputable source, you can't write it here on wiki - those are the rules! If we can't comply with that, then the statement is POV, and can resultantly be removed by any editor. Rgds, - Trident13 00:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's use a dose of common sense here. Don't let Will & Grace and Queer as Folk fool you. There's still a large portion of the population (christian or otherwise) that disapprove of homosexuality. PR moves by the Christian community's representatives are a far cry from suggesting that most, or even close to half of practicing Christians approve of gayness. And it's not just those Christians down in Texas.

This may come as a surprise to most of you, but many Christians are not American. (I'm a non-Christian who is British.) I would guess that the number of conservative African Christians blows the number of US Liberal Christians out of the water. Before making any more assertions about what most Christians or most churches believe, it would be an interesting exercise to try asking a sample of Nigerian Pentecostalists (or indeed Anglicans) about the acceptability or otherwise of homosexuality. The responses are likely to come as a disappointment to mainstream educated-ish secular US ears. Regards, Notreallydavid 06:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Page error?

Am I the only one who has this page's text appear on their browser seem to go on to the right forever? I have to scroll right to read most things, is there a way to fix this? It drives me crazy.

Faris b 17:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Many, many thanks for fixing the page!

Faris b 20:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Females...

The article has been exclusively about the aspect of anal sexuality that involves a human penis. I thus removed the section which one sentence: Two women may have anal sex by using a strap-on dildo. Many females have replaced the strap-on with such objects as their fingers, fists, tongues, and many other various sexual toys such as double ended dildos, citing the first paragraph of the article: The insertion of a sex toy (dildo, butt plug, vibrator) or other object, the finger or the hand (fisting) as well as the tongue (anilingus) counts as anal stimulation and is not considered anal sex. Faris b objected, and decided the solution was to retain the section in question, and add ...but may be considered as such if both participants are female to the definition. I'm not convinced this is the solution to the problem. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Anal sex implies sexual intercourse or sexual action which involves the human anus, a statement which I think is is obvious to most people (without myopic world views or bias). Therefore, I overhauled the female participants section. If you have any objections please note them. aubreyclark 11:02, 13 January 2007 (AKST)

Mess

Once again, this article has become a total mess. Who on earth came up with the definition in the opening paragraph?! Exploding Boy 17:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• That would be this change. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Right, well that's a pretty major change to be made without any discussion at all, so I'm changing it back. Exploding Boy 17:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the one who added the female section but I believe it deserves to stay. Sorry I wasn't too articulate but I can try to re-rewrite it unless someone else would like to.

Faris b 00:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Well, then, we also need to add lots of material for anal play in general; other than the availability or lack thereof of a penis, I don't really see a lot of difference between female-female anal play and the other possible combinations. Am I missing something? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I find that change constructive. It offers much more insight than stating it is "practiced by heterosexuals or homosexuals". Also, I prefer the originality. Wikipedia articles must not always be dry. Please put it back into the intro. - GilliamJF 07:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Can you provide a verifiable reliable source that declares that the insertion of a sex toy (dildo, butt plug, vibrator) or other object, the finger or the hand (fisting) as well as the tongue (anilingus) is included anal stimulation and is not considered anal sex? "Originality" isn't exactly encouraged at Wikipedia. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The latest illustration

I dunno about anyone else, but to me, the newly added illustration (Image:Illus wp 2006-10-12 cc-by-sa.gif) is really indistinguishable from a quarterback and his center, other than the dangly parts. That is to say, I don't really think this illustrates anal sex in any way that actually might edify the reader. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears to have been uploaded by a user who has no history of vandalism. The two men in the picture are obvious caricatures of the hosts of Mythbusters. I've deleted the image, both from the database and from the article. I'm puzzled. - Richardcavell 12:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Damn! That is sick and funny?! And yes, I do like the Mythbusters show though. It should not be in the article though.

Faris b 18:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Everything about that image is disturbing. Why does the one guy have protobreasts? And why are they both staring at me?! Exploding Boy 18:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The picture was of 4chan origin, we wondered how long it would be before you notice, sorry for the disturbance.

ottoman custom of anal sex?

during the ottoman period it is known that anal sex was an ordinary exercise among the bureaucratic and academic circles of time.. although islam has prohibitions over it, influenced by the roman culture through the inheritance of byzantium; ottomans were considerably tolerant to anal sex (in line with homosexuality) with respect to other islamic cultures.. quite a few ottoman sultans are known to have boys as lovers around them.. an expansion should include this fact under ancient cultures title i guess..Agnostic2694 01:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

interesting theory. Aside from the fact that Ottoman sultans had the largest harems of the world with more than one thousand women, I suppose if you brought some solid research on this by serious academicians, it might get a mention in the article. Baristarim 02:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Parts too US centric?

Does anyone else feel parts of the article are two US centric? For example, US legal issues are discussed in both the Western cultures and legal issues sections. However there is quite a lot of legal information for other countries in Sodomy law. Ironically Sodomy law doesn't talk much about the situation in the US, much less then this article. IMHO, US legal issues should be completely removed from the Western cultures section. The section on US specific laws in legal issues should be trimmed down to one or two sentences at most. Nil Einne 16:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Judaism and Anal Sex

In the article it says that Orthodox Judaism permits heterosexual anal sex. I don't think this is true, for the same reason that fellatio and male masturbation are not allowed: all "seed" has to be directed towards childbirth or something like that.

Actually the article says "Orthodox Judaism teaches that sodomy is homosexual anal sex, and so, a sin and toevah," Where did you get the idea that the article said that it is permitted? Atom 00:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed extraneous description of hazzards of spermicidal lubricant use.

However, since spermicide is an irritant to both the vagina and the anus, it can make contracting STDs easier for either partner, and can cause complications such as irritation, vaginal E. coli infection, and urinary tract infection. It can also damage the lining of the colon over time and should be avoided in condoms and lubrication.

I removed this sentence for two reasons; first, it is unclear what the contrasting statement is being made about (howver). A semicolon would have made it clearer. Second, it does not belong in this article to begin with. It might belong in an article about vaginal/anal lubricants or sexual hazzards. Jerry lavoie 06:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Photo Request

there are not pics of not penis to anus anal sex, nor between two men, nor any actual photographs, i think they are lacking and would make the article better illustrated and more well rounded and informative.

I think photographs of actual anal sex would be cause for constant edit wars and endless debates. If someone can not get their head around the idea of anal sex from the two images of both male-male and male-female anal sex currently in the article they need a lesson in human anatomy. Further images can be found at Wikimedia commons, which is linked to in the See also section. Though images are necessary to illustrate a concept, and Wikipedia is not censored, it is also not a porn site. Richard001 23:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This article needs a real photo. You can leave the historic depiction in the article, but you really should have a proper photo. 86.130.184.169 02:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't have a photo because if it does, there will be a bitchathon about it being "too graphic".

Faris b 04:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

i don't think there is a need for a photo ;p you don't see a photo under sexual intercourse or sex. soo....why would you need one here?71.232.108.228 10:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think everyone will agree that, as per Wikipedia:Profanity, the decision to include pictures should revolve around whether images better the article or not. According to the policy:

Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available.

Currently, the only images in this article are various works of art depicting the act, all based on the artist's visual perception of the act to begin with. As "the impetus for art is often called human creativity" (according to the article), one can hardly argue that the presentation of creative works serve as a substitute for firsthand, concrete pictures of the act itself (also see caption: "Ancient Indian art; Man and woman copulating, possibly anally [my emphasis]".

In order to have a picture suited for the article, it must answer the most basic question one could have while viewing this article—What does it look like? While paintings or illustrations can be of limited help in visualization of the act, they certainly don't showcase all aspects of it: the way the skin stretches, the positioning of the parties involved, etc. Pearl necklace (sexuality) exemplifies this: the reader is able to see a high-quality example of the lady's semen-covered neck, while the rest of the body is left unexposed—keeping the focus on the subject of the article. Anal sex should present a similar photograph: one that focuses on the penis (or other phallic object) being inserted into the anus of the other party.

It is certainly true that Wikipedia "is not a porn site", but as WP:NOT states, "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive." For this reason, "endless debates" isn't justification enough for keeping an image off.

It's true that if people can't get the concept of anal intercourse from the current pictures, "they need a lesson in human anatomy". And what better a way to give it? --CA387 06:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

commons:Category:Rear-entry positions includes a variety of images, one that's a more explicit is Image:Doublepen.png. Would that work? If it wouldn't work because it depicts additional things beyond anal sex, someone could possibly edit the second penis out... --Interiot 01:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

That might be a good secondary option I think. I think it might be better to use a homosexual picture, as it can be more clear what's going on without a closeup. As to censorship issue, several pages include way more graphic images than the examples given for inclusion here. They have been debated heavily, but that's part of WP. Of course, religous people and homophobes seem to be particularly incensed by sodomy, so it might attract more anger than others. It just means more anti-vandals are needed. Example: Pearl necklace. VanTucky 00:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

A2M redirect

Ass to mouth recently failed an AfD, and was replaced by a redirect to Anal-oral contact. I feel that this page is more appropriate for the redirect, if the subject doesn't deserve its own article, and have changed things accordingly. Tevildo 00:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. HalJor 00:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of information and hedging of bets

Any reason why the references provided were judged unsatisfactory, leaving parts of the article unsupported and vaguely worded? Haiduc 16:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the idea seemed good, that heterosexuals have "more" anal sex than homosexuals, but I wondered how it was that they had determined that. I suppopse a number of other Wikipedians may have thought the same thing. I went to the reference, here[6] which appeared to be a U.K. health site. The reference suggested the same thing there, but there were no facts, no references, no studies there. I did a general google scholar search, and was unable to find anything meaningful that supported the claim there either.

By taking the number of homosexuals, estimated as 7% to 10% of the population, and suggesting that a third of the homosexuals don't do anal sex (but no source for where that came from) and estimating that comparing that to 10% of the heterosexual population regularly enages in anal sex (no source for that estimate) suggests that perhaps in gross numbers, heterosexuals have more anal sex than homosexuals seems like guesswork. I felt that it is fair to suggest that someone thinks it is the case, and might be the case, but as far as I can tell, there are actually no studies or research that suggest that it is the case.

Besides, does it really matter in overall numbers if more heterosexuals have anal sex than homosexuals have anal sex? Is there some kind of competition I am unaware of? Is heterosexual anal-sex less risky? Or, if heterosexuals engage in anal sex in larger overall numbers, than homosexuals, does that mean that homosexuals are now "O.K."? (referring to societal/religious disparagement of homosexuals).

Anyway, probably what I should have done is delete the statements altogether, rather than rewording them. Atom 19:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Part of an even handed presentation is not catering to stereotypes, and perhaps even paying special attention to including information that debunks common prejudices. It seems to me not a hypothesis but a truism that more straights than gays have anal sex, and while I would not have ventured to make that claim unsupported, despite its obviousness (as a purely intellectual experiment, about 30% of straight couples engage in it, so even if we posit 100% incidence among gays - patently false - the numbers are clear), I did cite it. No, there is no competition, only preconceptions that are unsustainable. No, it neither excuses nor condemns. It is simply an observation that we can report if cited.

And why did you remove the PlanetOut reference that documented the greater vulnerability of the receptive partner?! There may be better sources out there, and I will look for themmyself, but until either of us comes up with a more authoritative citation I think that needs to stay.

I am surprised that you should be imputing ulterior motives to my contributions here. I will, diplomatically, not characterize the state of the article as I found it, but I will say that it is more informative and balanced as a result of my contributions. I could not care less who does what as long as it is legal, but I do care that people should be informed. Haiduc 20:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I didn't know who put the material in, sorry to step on your toes. I agree that changing incorrect perceptions and breaking stereotypes is important. Intuitively it makes sense that maybe from a numbers basis, a majority of all people who have anal sex are heterosexual, since heterosexuals are theoretically 90% - 97% of the population, and gays are 7%-10%. Also, gay males may have anal sex more than 30% of the time, and lesbians less than 30% of the time, reducing the overall average among homosexuals. But, there are so many unknown factors. Too many to make an assumption, or to make a claim that it is true without hard data. If 40% of the heterosexual population has had anal sex, but it is rare (once a year?) that would skew the numbers. We can't responsibly make the claim unless we can back it up with data. Certainly people who have a sterotypical view that only gay males have anal sex, and "normal" people don't need to have that view challenged. The way it is said now, or before is not convincing. We have to present facts based on research.

The Planetout reference was weakly supported too. I think that everyone knows that the receiving partner in sexual intercourse is more vulnerable to disease. And Anal sex is higher risk than vaginal sex in that regard. I find that the google scholar page usually has very strong references. If we can support the facts with articles from there, that would be solid. Atom 23:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, regarding you comment about motives. First I had no idea who had put that in there. Second, I was, between friends, trying to hypothesize what the value of making that point would be to the article. I wasn't even remotely trying to suggest that the person who put it in (apparently you) had ulterior motives. I'm only interested in presenting the facts accurately, as I assume you are too. (but we have to give good cites too) Atom 23:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)\

Thanks for the explanation, sorry to be hypersensitive. I'll look for some more solid refs. As for the vulnerability figures, I was shocked when I read them -- I had no idea the risk disparity was so great. Haiduc 23:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it. What great myth or stereotype are we trying to "debunk"? That gay people have anal sex? That gay people are more likely to have anal sex than straight people? Yeah, it's important we crush these lies before they spread any further.

Pointing out that more straight people have anal sex than gay people overall is like pointing out that the world as a whole kills more people than Al Qaeda. Pointless. 68.166.68.84 06:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

unreferenced tag

This tag on this page seems unwarranted it has better research and citation than a lot of other articles. Can anyone point to something directly, as I am finding all the details cited by following links and reading references. I am considering removing the tag due to lack of evidence.--Matt 11:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did not add the tag, but I think it is refereing to that specific section (Anal sex among heterosexuals). I read through it, and see this:

In several cultures female receptive anal intercourse in a heterosexual context is widely accepted, especially as there is lower risk of unwanted pregnancy via unprotected anal intercourse (though this is not an absolute guarantee, since semen can leak from the anus, across the perineum, and enter the vagina). Anal sex is even sometimes seen as preserving female virginity, because it leaves the hymen intact. Another reason is that the anus is considered to be "tighter" than the vagina (especially right after a delivery), therefore yielding more tactile pleasure for the penis. The taboo surrounding anal sex is likely to do with hygiene but also may have its roots in supposed psychoses deemed responsible for such "deviation." Some argue that a male heterosexual attraction to the practice has a basis in patriarchal mythologies surrounding a fear of the vagina and suspicion of women's sexual enjoyment and appetites (see succubus). Additionally, they argue that the appeal of anal sex to many male heterosexuals is a fetish of the taboo, sometimes associated with feces and human waste, as well as of violence and domination, as anal sex practices can result in the bruising and tearing of tissue. Others have argued that the avoidance of the anus is essentially human escapism, a facade whereby man denies his excretory functions, and that, ergo, the practice of the act is merely a form of disillusionment (cf. Ernest Becker's The Denial of Death). Moreover, the social taboo surrounding anal sex could potentially be seen as an example of political and religious dogma affecting modern culture, whereby the taboo itself is materialized through initial observance of religious morals, for example those held by some branches of Christianity or Islam

.

There seems to be alot of speculation here, and a number of things that coul dbe documented.

Atom 15:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been thinking about it overnight and two things occur to me one is considering the references already included a citation needed at the specific disputed phrase might be more appropriate and the other is that all of this is referred to on one of the see also links. Therefore the question is one of reputable source. --Matt 22:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Aretino's Lust Sonnets discuss heterosexual anal sex extensively. There is a lot of published research on this, and the reasons for it, in the Renaissance period. Paul B 22:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

images

Of the three current images, only one clearly depicts anal sex (the shunga). The others are just as likely to depict vaginal sex performed "Doggy style". None of the latter should be presented as the main image. Paul B 22:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The image change has been reverted with the bizarre claim that the red figure image is "normative". Why? Because it is heterosexual? Or because it is Greek rather than Japanese? The Japanese are not normative then? What kind of Eurocentric logic is this? There's no reason to assume that the red figure image even depicts non-vaginal sex. Paul B 00:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It is more appropriate to begin with a more representative image - same sex relations are simply not as frequent as man/woman couplings. I will contribute a confirmed image of Greek ceramics as soon as possible. Haiduc 00:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Your reasoning is incomprehensible. It is absurd to have an image standing for the topic that may not even portray it. I don't care whether it is hetero or homo. It should indisputably depict the act. I don't want to engage in an edit war, but I can see no merit at all in your argument. Paul B 01:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The Hindu image has been in the article for eons. I have no idea what has gotten you so exercised. And I did not even want to get into the mechanics of the Greek images for fear of offending you. But I have found another that has received scholarly blessing as a clear example of hetero anal sex among the Greeks, and will upload it when I have a free moment. Haiduc 01:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hindu image? I am discussing a Shunga and a Red Figure (Greek) image, not a Hindu one. Nor have I any idea what you mean about being offended. I have no problem with the idea that Greeks engaged in anal sex, just that there is no good reason to believe that this picture depicts it. I think vaginal sex from the rear is far more common. The offense is entirely in your mind and you seem to have some sort of agenda - to show that anal sex is common among heterosexuals. Well, that's not much of a shock to me, or to my sexual partners, I can assure you. Neither, however, is vaginal sex from the rear, which is commonplace. If you have a clear image of heterosexual anal sex, then use it. This is not it. Paul B 01:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

imo

149.167.98.195 17:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

REading through its obvious This article has been subject to copious amounts of spot editng and needs to be cleaned up for continuities sake.

Incontinence

I find the supposed statistics on anal sex and incontinence somewhat dodgy. The referenced article states, "forty anoreceptive (AR) male homosexuals were compared with 18 age matched non-anoreceptive (non-AR) heterosexual males." Can one really generate reliable statistics on such a common sexual act from a sample of only fifty-eight men? Here in this wikipedia article it is stated, "A 1993 study published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine found that 35% of individuals receiving anal intercourse experienced episodes of frequent anal incontinence." I find it somewhat misleading; it suggests a finality to a statistic that seems overall inconclusive.

This part of the article should be removed or made more specific as to its limited scope and questionable factuality. --69.217.90.168 13:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course people lie about sex, but that does not mean that it is impossible to construct worthwhile statistics. The section seems to be well phrased. If you think the size of the sample should be mentioned, do so. Paul B 13:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I just feel that if one wants to construct a worthwhile statistic on something that a fairly large portion of the population does, the sample should be way larger. Using 58 people to draw a conclusion on something hundreds of thousands or maybe even millions of people do or have done seems fallacious to me. I will modify that section to make more specific. --69.211.149.142 00:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a bit more precision there would be useful. Also more data from more studies, if anyone can find them. Haiduc 05:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not falacious. Obviously more would be better, but 58 is not a trival number of participants by any means. Paul B 10:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Just a note that I've added a line in italics directing people to the article on animal sexuality if they wish to read about anal sex in animals. The article had previously not mentioned the topic at all, which I felt was unsatisfactory. Richard001 23:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Male-Male Image

Is there anyway we can get a non-transvestite image for the Male-Male section, the article has a bit of a heterogender bias right now visually. Androphile.org has a picture of an Etruscan vase depicting two men having anal sex, and a cameo of two nude male torsos in an anal sex position, maybe a more modern image might even be alright. I dunno, I think the Shunga image might better illustrate the Ancient Cultures section. Velps 18:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It dates from the 18th C, so it's hardly "ancient". I has the advntage that it depicts the actual act of anal penetration clearly. Most images do not, including the vase. It is not even clear whether the hetero images even depict anal sex at all. They may or may not be intended to. Paul B 23:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Anatomical homologies?

Under the Anatomical homologies, it says the following:

Having anal sex physiologically alters a woman's hormonal makeup, creating deviations in the L5SI sector of a maturing ovum. This slight change in the nucleic acids can result in roxinuclobia, or, an alteration in the chromosomes which causes a fertalized egg's DNA to change slightly. Roxinuclobia causes the fetus to have sharper facial features and a faster metabolism. As a result, Roxinuclobic children tend to be more healthy, have more defined jaws, and have what people describe as a "Model-esq physique."

Where is the reference for this? I've never heard of this and it sounds kind of false to me. Can anyone get a reference/source for it?

Faris b 15:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a load of gibberish added anonymously yeasterday. Paul B 15:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Transexual anal

I know, this probably doesn't need it's own section but should there be a mention of M to F (male to female) pre-operative transexuals and anal sex? It would be the same as male-male anal sex I guess but I'm just throwing it out there.

Faris b 15:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Receptive anal intercourse is also important to gay (attracted to men) female-to-male transsexuals both post-op and pre-op, (but especially so for pre-ops for obvious reasons). The introduction says that people of all different orientations and gender identities can enjoy anal sex (or it did last time I checked), that covers transgenders as well, though I see what your saying here. The problem would be that transgender sexuality would need its own section because it wouldn't fit neatly and logically into any of the others (both straight MtFs and gay FtMs are anally receptive transgender androphiles but do they belong in the heterosexual section or the homosexual section?, then you've got anally insertive FtMs both gay and straight, and MtFs lesbians, so where do they all go?) and, as you said, there wouldn't be a whole lot of stuff to fill it out with that wouldn't just be a repeat of other sections. Velps 19:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean. How about "Anal sex among transexuals" then for the page?

Faris b 03:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it would have to be its own section like that, then you could just include all the different variations, maybe dif subsections for MtF and FtM, but I think that title sounds more like its only reffering to anal intercourse where both partners are transsexual, maybe "In Transgender Contexts" or "Involving Transsexuals" or just "Transgender Sexuality" could work though.Velps 17:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I created the section. It needs some improvements but I think I got the point across.

Please do not remove the section anyone, I believe it should be included.

Faris b 16:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Why should it be included? All it says is that transexuals can have anal sex. We may as well have a section saying that wheelchair users can have anal sex. Anyone can have anal sex. It is uncited and uses inappropriate slangish abbreviations (M2F). If there is support for the assertions about attitudes then maybe some is worth keeping. Paul B 16:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

How about because it is worth mention? If gays can be mentioned then why not transexuals? And where would I find citations for such things anyway? Most transexual (non porn) sites don't make much mention of anal sex. Faris b 18:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

So what is the verdict then? Can someone help make this section a reality?

Vala M 14:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the sections are no longer orienation based now, so there's no place for it Velps 19:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've noticed that. Who's idea was it to redo the page?

Vala M 14:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, they just changed the titles without moving very much around, but I think it works better this way Velps 16:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Anatomical homologies

this whole section is unnecessary and has overtones of demeaning anal sex between women. 'however only men have penises' WHAT? what kind of sentence is that? the whole addition is irrelevant to the article and is just disjointed and random.71.232.108.228 10:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

1.The section is about anal sex between men, the subsection is about how anal sex between men is biologically different from heterosexual or lesbian anal sex. I would say that the basic biology of a sex act would be pretty relavant to an article about it. 2. Thats not a sentence its a sentence fragment you've taken out of context.Velps 23:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"Anatomical Homologies"

I have an issue with the "Anatomical Homologies" section of this article. The way the facts are presented in this section gives the false impression that the prostate and Skene's gland purpose is to provide pleasure, and that the prostate's location near the male anus suggests a homology between the male anus and the female vagina... As if the male anus is supposed to be penetrated and men are supposed to garner pleasure from it the way a woman garners pleasure from vaginal penetration. This is wrong. While there are anatomical homologies between the prostate and Skene's gland, they both have nothing to do with pleasure and the homology certainly does not lie in the coincidence that both "spots" can be stimulated by the penetration of certain body cavities.

I suggest that the article notes how the placement of the prostate can provide pleasure for men being anally penetrated, but say nothing of the homologies between the prostate and Skene's gland as they are completely irrelevant to anal sex. Berserk798 20:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually the Skene's glands are believed to be the source of female g-spot orgasms (regardless of whether the penetration is vaginal or anal), you can read more about this at their entry, furthermore the type of orgasm each delivers is essentially the same, which is no surprise since they're basically the same organ, you can read more about this in "The G Spot: And Other Discoveries About Human Sexuality by Alice Kahn Ladas, Beverly Whipple, and John D. Perry". As for the homology I think its clear that its the prostate and g-spot being discussed, not the orafices Velps 22:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand that the Skene's gland is believed to be the g-spot, and that the prostate is its homologous organ. The problem is the implication that is sent by mentioning this fact in the anal sex article, when it is not relevant to anal sex. All that is relevant is the pleasure that can be garnered from stimulation of the prostate. Berserk798 22:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The facts are what they are, if some people don't like certain conclusions that may be drawn from them then thats their problem. There's no reason to cover up the fact that the prostate, or male g-spot, is essentially a larger version of the more well known female g-spot; its the simplest and most straightforeward way to explain how males get off from receptive anal sex. How can that not be relavant? It would be strange not to mention it.Velps 18:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I never said we need to cover up the fact. I said that the fact is irrelevant to anal sex, and the way it is presented in the article leads to a colorful and inaccurate interpretation of male-male anal sex. It is not the most straight-forward way to explain pleasure from male receptive anal sex--it is factually and logically a roundabout way to do it, and it is misleading. Really, that's what the issue is. As I have several times mentioned, the only thing that is relevant to anal sex is that prostate stimulation can be pleasureable; it's homology with the Skene's gland is completely irrelevant. Also, do you think that the psychological factor plays no role in receptive pleasure? I personally think that it plays a larger role than the prostate does, but it isn't mentioned once in the article. Berserk798 23:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what anyone personally thinks, the two are homologous and thats just the biological reality of the situation, regardless of whatever "interpretation" it does or doesn't lead to. If we didn't state the simple fact that the two are homologues then it would raise the question of why the prostate is also known as the male g-spot and why do they respond so similarly to intercourse. Those questions are perfectly valid and relevant to any discussion of male anal sexuality and people desrve an honest answer.

Just because a point of fact bothers you, that doesn't make it misleading or irrelevant, so far your main argument has been your own anxiety about opinions others may form based on the knowlege that the prostate and g-spot are homologous, thats simply not enough justification to censor out basic anatomy. Velps 17:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, well you're ears are obviously closed to everything I'm saying. Maybe someone else will eventually come along and try to explain it, but if you're just going to brand me as trying to hide things or cover them up for personal reasons, then I'm done discussing it with you. This point of fact does not in any way bother me, I never suggested such, and you have no reason to say so. You're completely ignoring my point, or it's sailed right over your head (I'm not sure which). If it's the former, I might suggest you read this once you finally stop crying "censorship!". Berserk798 22:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I can't make any sense of your "point" either, so Velps is not alone. Paul B 12:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

South Asian art; Man and woman copulating, possibly anally

This image is irrelevant. I'm sure there has to be a better image...

I agree, but see the discussion under "images" above, in which an editor works himself into a frenzy over the idea that it might not be appropriate as the lead image since it may not even depict the subject of the article. Paul B 11:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Incontinence section

There is a strange juxtaposition of hard medical fact (that anal sex can create incontinence) and a quote from a sex book authored by someone who is not a medical doctor. Tristan Taormino may indeed be "self-styled anal sex 'sexpert,'" but her opinion appears to be somewhat in error. Unless there is a really good reason retain the quote from the book, it really needs to be dropped. ~~~~

Its true that, like Sue Johansen, she's only a nurse not a doctor, but thats hardly nothing, I mean we can assume former porn star would know a thing or two but she does have some medical credentials as well.

As for the study it wasn't clear (to me, maybe I missed something) whether the subjects who developed symptoms of incontinence were involoved in fisting, unlubricated sex, heavy drinking or if they had been raped, so I wouldn't assume that they're right and she's wrong Velps 21:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

moved from article

Feminist point of view

The outspoken feminist Camille Paglia noted that anal sex is not the same thing as vaginal sex because the vaginal canal goes right to the womb, to the heart of a women's sexual identity, the heart of nature itself.

It has been argued that a male heterosexual attraction to the practice has a basis in patriarchal mythologies surrounding a fear of the vagina and suspicion of women's sexual enjoyment and appetites (see succubus). Additionally, it is argued that the appeal of anal sex to many male heterosexuals is a fetish of the taboo, sometimes associated with feces and human waste, as well as of violence and domination, as anal sex practices can result in the bruising and tearing of tissue. Moreover, there have been arguments that the avoidance of the anus is essentially human escapism, a facade whereby man denies his excretory functions, and that, ergo, the practice of the act is merely a form of disillusionment (cf. Ernest Becker's The Denial of Death).

From a utilitarian perspective it is also argued by some that the anus is a highly sensitive area with erogenous potential, providing ample opportunity for sexual arousal; that anal sex is a natural permutation of human sexuality, little different from oral sex or other noncoital contact; and that women can derive as much pleasure from the violation of taboos against non-traditional sexual practices as men can.

Most of this seems to be quite bizarre, and is largely unreferenced. The one reference is to the very idiosyncratic Camile Paglia, and even that does not really explain what her opinion is actually supposed to mean, beyond the blindingly obvious point that anal sex, like all non-vaginal sex, does not connect to the womb. It is not at all clear what this fact is supposed to imply or why this somehow separates it from "the heart of a woman's sexual identity". Paul B 00:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It's also worth adding that the section was created by now-banned user:quickerection [7] Paul B 09:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Move to Anal Intercourse?

Why did this happen? Isn't there usually a discussion about moves like this first? HalJor 22:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

See the edit summaries of user:Promsan,

12:04, 23 March 2007 Promsan (Talk | contribs) (NPOV... Wikipedia is not the Gay lobby, we strive for objectivity and accurate descriptions that acceptable to all.; 12:03, 23 March 2007 Promsan (Talk | contribs) m (moved Anal sex to Anal Intercourse over redirect: NPOV. Describing this as Anal Intercourse is a neutral, scientific, and accurate and objective description. Calling the article "Anal Sex" is entirely subjective and biased to a particular point o)

I can't make any sense of these claims. The primary meaning of "intercourse" is discussion, conversation or exchange. It's simply a euphemism for sex, not remotely 'scientific' or 'accurate'. It's not appropriate to use euphemisms as article titles. Mr Promsan also added his own pet (and seemingly personally invented) theory of "Ethical Patriotism" to the article. Paul B 22:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

lets

get this featured. work hard everyone! 71.62.10.130 03:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)