Talk:Anal sex/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Structure of Article

I really think that the current structure of the first half of the article is a problem. Sectioning the article as Heterosexual/Homosexual is problematic for a variety of reasons. For one, 'Pegging' or something equivalent can (and I know is) performed by at least some couples who do not identify as one male, one female (or as both male, though toys definitely exist for this purpose too). Anal sex can involve penetration with toys and other things (fingers, etc.) that everyone has access despite orientation, gender, etc. Aside from the whole gender binary issues, people can engage in auto-anal-stimulation, which should likely be mentioned (in brief with a link to relevant articles), which doesn't fit into either of these categories. Perhaps the article could be reformatted so as to be by penetrating item/body part. Another option would be something like changing it to "when performed on women" and "when performed on men". Ideas? naturalnumber (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Male heterosexual pleasure

I disagree with the way that is stated that "Some male heterosexuals likewise can feel pleasure...". Men can take pleasure from anal sexual because of prostate stimulation, it's an anatomical issue, unrelated to sexual orientation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.187.6.252 (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is there so little reference to female sexual pleasure from anal intercourse? -November 11, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.144.179 (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

xnxx 36.37.184.251 (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that female pleasure should be given equal treatment, and wish to note that not all guys enjoy receiving in anal sex. (I don;t want to site personal research or anything but:) My personal experience being gay and not enjoying it suggests that even though prostate stimulation is nominally independent of orientation, due perhaps to quirks of physiology, deriving pleasure from anal sex is not universal. Thus I think it is logical to state that not all heterosexual men are capable of enjoying it, unless there is some research to back it up. There is more to anal sex then some magical stimulation of the prostate, after all. naturalnumber (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Fistula

I removed the claim that anal sex can cause fistulas. I did a pubmed search and I couldn't find a single claim that this was the case. Note: while I do not have a specific medical reference, it is widely known that careless or improper anal penetration can damage either the sphincter or the rectum. Done with proper relaxation from the receiving partner and care and patience from the giving partner, anal sex does not cause any negative effects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.76.196 (talk) 06:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Anal sex sans penis

Following up onto prior discussions about an assumption that anal sex, for some reason, involved a penis (wha-huhhh?), there's entire genres of pornography and medical literature that focus on female->male insertion, and even female-female insertions. I realize that all the porn links make this topic more challenging to fnd good references, but they exist, for example: [1] Ronabop (talk) 08:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's called pegging using dildos and yes there are references that would certainly confirm that .Benjiboi 19:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

...And that's already addressed in this article, was before this particular discussion about it on this talk page started. Is it that you feel a bigger section on that is needed in this article, Ronabop? Flyer22 (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Autosodomy

Why no mention and no reference to it? Now we have an article about it including links to verified images it's surely time.SelfAloneRequired (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No, that article has been deleted and did not in fact have any reliable sources Gwernol 13:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

How to

I found the following text in the intro a bit peculiar: "As the rectal mucosa provides little natural lubrication, a lubricant (such as a personal lubricant, for example) is most often required or preferred when penetrating the anus." It almost reads like an instruction manual, and seems to call for a {{howto}} tag. Haiduc (talk) 14:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. It's just facts. Beamathan (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it's encylopaedic. It's not telling people "if you want to have anal sex you should use lubricration" or worse giving step by step instructions on how to have anal sex. Instead, it's simply stating the fact that extra lubricration is usually required or preferred during anal sex Nil Einne (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Tobacco?

The alleged link to tobacco use sounds pretty fishy. Better be sure somebody isn't just spreading more dishonesty about tobacco here. Nobody's arguing it's not bad for you, but it's become pretty common lately for antismokers to try to link it to anything and everything bad even if the link is inappropriate or a flat out lie. This link is questionable because, among other things, people generally don't smoke with their buttholes after anal sex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.114.21.39 (talk) 00:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The claim is support by the cited article which is a WP:Reliable source. If you have another reliable source which disputes this claim, you are welcome to challenge it. And your claim "people generally don't smoke with their buttholes after anal sex" is irrelevant. There is no suggestion tobacco and anal sex are linked. However the increasing use of tobacco and increase in practice of anal sex are two of the major contributing factors to the increase of anal cancer according to the cited source. And if you understood cancer you would also know the fact that the smoke isn't going into your ass so to speak doesn't mean it won't increase your anal cancer risk. Even from a simplistic view point, it makes no sense that the substances you inhale including nicotine can make it to your brain (and it should be fairly obvious that nicotine does make it to your brain) but not your anus (and that is rather simple given the complexity of cancer) Nil Einne (talk) 16:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The article cited linking tobacco usage and increased risk of anal cancer is obviously garbage. First off, there is no direct link to the study results in which their conclusions were drawn. Second, it clearly places tobacco first in every list of potential causes and argues that the most important thing one can do to avoid the development of anal cancer is to quit smoking while disregarding other seemingly irrelevant factors such as sexual orientation, number of sexual partners and history of anal intercourse as at MOST a potential secondary cause. The scientific and statistical evidence supporting their "tobacco is more of a factor in the development of anal cancer than anal sex with a partner infected with HPV" theory is non-existent in this article and by using the same style of the rhetoric employed, one could also show that 95% of all anal-cancer patients surveyed at the time had worn cotton underwear in the last 7 days. (This is a jab at the article line "More than half of the anal-cancer patients studied were current smokers at the time of diagnosis, as compared to a smoking rate of about 23 percent among the controls."). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.55.116.190 (talk) 09:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Islam and Liwat, and the usage of 'sodomy'

Does the Arabic word liwat really refer explicitly to anal sex? As far as I understand, it specifically denotes gay sexual acts/ sodomy. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

So, what's the difference? Paul B (talk) 23:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Sodomy is not only anal sex, it could also be gay oral sex. Anal sex could also be performed by heterosexuals. From what I googled up, Liwat seems to correspond to sodomy, rather than anal sex, and not even the source seems to say what is cited. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

In modern English usage 'sodomy' is usually a synonym for anal sex. It is never used to refer to "gay oral sex". According to R Jackson Armstrong-Ingram Liwat does specifically refer to anal sex, not "The perpetrator, who must be male, of liwat performs anal or inter-crural sex on another who may be either male or female." [2] He appears to be a Bahai anthropolgist, though how notable his view is, I can't say. However, Khaled El-Rouayheb in Before Homosexuality in the Arab-Islamic World, 1500-1800 uses the word to refer to 'sodomy', which in he is clearly using in the standard modern sense as a synonym for anal sex. --Paul B (talk) 16:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, according to several dictionaries, sodomy could apparently refer to both anal/oral sex and bestiality. Merrian-Webster also seems to claim it could refer to heterosexual oral sex, and in american law, it could apparently mean forceful anal or oral sex. On the other hand, it'd not that relevant here, my issue is whether liwat could refer to heterosexual anal sex, or not, and how the term is generally understood. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * (talk) 11:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Historically the term sodomy referred to what was deeemed to be "unnatural" sex. Your reference to America apply to so-called sodomy laws, which varied depending on how "unnaturalness" was defined. I am talking about how the term is used in modern English. As I understand, from the better sources I have read, there is dispute among Islamic scholars about whether anal sex with one's wife or concubine is allowed. Some authorities say it is, some say it isn't. There seem, however, to be some Christian anti-Muslim editors who want to use this against Islam and some Muslim editors who want to suppress the fact that there is dispute, which means that the Wikipedia articles on the subject are a bit of a mess. Paul B (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, yeah, it needs some fixing. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

While in my personal experience I have to agree with Paul B, I know those who would disagree. A quick "define: sodomy" search will confirm that the word has a different definition in every source, and from what I read it tends to be quite regional as well. Because of that, and the fact that the legal definitions of sodomy differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, (see perhaps the laws of Virginia State,) maybe it would be best to either define how the term will be used, or avoid the term entirely. naturalnumber (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Photo

Should the photo be removed? I know that wikipedia is not censored, but a) a drawing would be just as infomative as a photo for this article and b) human anatomy photos are already available in human anatomy articles. Cambrasa (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. It was only very recently added by a user who has now been blocked, and whose sole interest was adding porn images to various pages. Paul B (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Untitled

Please remove either 'such as' or 'for example' from (such as a personal lubricant, for example) in the opening paragraph. That's a ridiculous pleonasm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.180.186.80 (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Incontinence Section

Citation #39 on incontinence is totally unconvincing. I would like to remove it and then reword the second sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brancron (talk • contribs) 21:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The studies you are referring to were published in peer-review journals. We'd likely need mot then just your opinion that they are 'unconvincing' to remove them Nil Einne (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you are too late! I already removed the citation I was referring to (the old #39) and I am perfectly content with the peer-review journal studies that you are referring to. Brancron (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Brancron

Requested edit

{{editsemiprotected}}

In the Prostate stimulation section, the following is stated:

The prostate is located next to the rectum and is the larger, more developed male homologue to the Skene's glands, also known as the "G-spot" or "female prostate", which are located around the urethra and can be felt through the wall of the vagina.

(emphasis mine)

Now, according to our own article on Skene's glands, it is not also known as the G-spot (though "female prostate" is supposedly correct), and indeed, we have a separate article on said G-spot. So clearly, there is a contradiction in there that needs to be fixed. 88.104.151.185 (talk) 02:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like technical hairsplitting to me. Can we have a medical expert (e.g., someone with an M.D.) comment on this? Jindřichův Smith (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, and I don't claim to be. All I'm saying is that one way or the other, one part of Wikipedia is incorrect on this, you know? This article claims that the Skene's glands and the G-spot are the same, while our articles on G-spot and Skene's glands claim they are different. Do you see what I'm trying to say here? There's a clear contradiction between these articles. 88.104.151.185 (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The female G-spot, if it exists, and has nothing to do with the male prostate (the analogous structure is indeed the Skene's gland), so reference to it should be removed. It contradicts the other articles because it is wrong here.Yobmod (talk) 09:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

There is controversy regarding the nature of the G-spot, as the Wikipedia article describes. Some (weak) evidence suggests that the G-spot is (related to) the Skene's glands. Axl (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

The articles referenced by the sentence did not actually equate the Skene's glands and the G-spot; they just suggested that they were related, so I've re-arranged those sentences to make that clearer. Hope that's satisfactory! Cheers,--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Judaism

Why does it say that between heterosexual couples, anal sex is permitted in Judaism? It is actually prohibited because it is considered "onanism," that is, "spilling seed" (anywhere outside of the vagina). This is very clear.

Can someone delete that sentence?

So Jews can't spank the monkey either? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.106.146.182 (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The relevant assertion is footnoted and supported. Paul B (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

No direct support

In the pegging section it says "It has been suggested males may acheive greater satisfaction than females in this manner". This comment is not directly supported in the reference I don't see it anywhere. This is opinion of the editor and is irrelevant. I also think askmen.com is not realible source as the person that wrote this article is a sex advisor and has no medical credentials. Wheather someone may or may not achieve satisfaction is based on the individual not weather there or male or female or on the prostate gland as only some men claim to enjoy this in reports this claim is not supported by sceintific fact or study. I would like to edit these comments only. Conductcode (talk) 11:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Some of the edits in this article are getting too...well, anal...

Why does the sentence "As the rectal mucosa provides little natural lubrication" need a "citation needed" tag? I tried to remove the tag, and an editor accused me of vandalism! It was a good faith edit, because it seems to me that since the anus was biologically intended to remove waste product from the body, that of course it does not produce naturally-occuring lubricant required for sexual intercourse. While I am someone who appreciates thoroughness and good research, in this case, I think it is being way too anal (pun intended) to say that this sentence, which seems pretty common sense, requires some sort of citation.

I have an idea...How about the people who keep putting the "citation needed" tag on, who seem to think this needs to be referenced with a citation so badly...YOU go take some time to find a citation somewhere and add it, instead of just slapping a "citation needed" tag on? Personally, I think it's fine the way it is, but for you all that seem so bothered by the absence of a citation, go find the information. Nightmareishere (talk) 05:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Per policy, fact tags may be added to articles when something is unsourced. In fact, editors are perfectly within their rights to removed uncited details. Fact tagging is a intermediate step when a contributor feels a citation is important but missing. Per policy it is the responsibility of those who want to keep uncited details in article to find fact tags not the responsibility of others to prove they don't exist. So I've added the fact tag back since whoever added it presuamably added it in good faith (IIRC someone dispute the statement because they found a ref which said the anus does contain lubrication which is of course true, even if the lubrication is not sufficient for sexual intercourse). It is of course easily possible something for removing waste may contain lubrication. It depends whether you need lubrication to aide in removing waste (and in fact you do, or at least it helps a lot). Of course the lubrication is not sufficient for sexual intercourse, but it doesn't change the fact relying on 'common sense' doesn't work since many things which are 'common sense' are in fact completely wrong (a better idea in this case is relying on common knowledge since any with an anus will probably know it doesn't have much lubrication but it's not our policy to rely on common knowledge either when a statement is challenged). Indeed by your logic the mouth, intended for the consumption of food and waters lacks lubrication suitable for sexual intercourse. Nil Einne (talk) 01:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

buddhism

So, I followed the reference link given for the claim that anal sex is "it is commonly considered within Buddhist teaching to be inconsistent with Buddhist precepts and principles." (btw if this were correct, the phrasing of the sentence would leave something to be desired imo). I wonder how come theres not an entire paragraph devoted to the contraversy over the HHDL's comments. The source given seems second-hand, for instance it states "the Pali Canon, which documents the teachings of the Buddha, do not include any direct reference to homosexual orientation or homosexual behavior" Apparently, the implication is that the Pali Canon is a generic name for the buddhist canon. As you can se on the wiki page on the Pali Canon, this shows quite low quality of the source, because "the Pāli Canon is the standard collection of scriptures in the Theravada Buddhist tradition, as preserved in the Pali language." And there's a canon in Tibetan and Chinese as well. Nevertheless, even the link given states: "Buddhism's basic teaching discourages sex, and particularly condemns adultery, rape, non-consensual sex, and unsafe sex. This would seem to apply to same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples equally. However, some groups within Buddhism condemn homosexual sex because of cultural teachings that have merged with their religious beliefs." Source for the last sentence is not really given, and I really cant imagine where in the canon did they find any reference to safe sex (above they seem to derive it by conjecture) but, irrespective of that, this doesn't seem to offer much support to the sentence stating that anal sex is _generally_ seen as inconsistent with Buddhist precepts and principles. Going further, the source states clearly and correctly: "From the Theravada Buddhist standpoint, all relationships: gay, lesbian or straight, are often considered personal matters of mutual consent. " On this basis, the fact that its pretty difficult to manufacture opposition (or find expressed on purely religious grounds) to anal sex from the teachings of southern buddhist, and that this is not supported by the link given to support it, I will remove the claim that anal sex is _commonly_ considered to be inconsistent with Buddhist precepts and principles.

Now, what I think would be a more interesting information is about the concept of 'improper orifice" found in (some? all?) northern buddhism, and referenced by those statements of HH Dalai Lama on homosexuality. This does clearly prohibit anal and oral sex, irrespective of sexual orientation or marital status. This prohibition is found in a commentary, not a sutra, but one central for Tibetan buddhism, and respected and studied also in east asian buddhism, the Abidharmakosha (perhaps there are some other text before it, that reference it as well, not sure, but this is typically given as central source), from 4th century CE, by Vasubhandu. I'm hunting for an exact quote where this is defined, then I'll add it. Aryah (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry correction, its also said by Ashvaghoṣa, and this mention is supposedly given as source for HHDL's claim? Now that makes me even more puzzled, i'll check further...Aryah (talk) 23:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I failed: google spews many references that say the quote does exist, but I can't find exactly where. Closest I get is in the koshabasyam commentary on the 74a-b. , point 2. "Intercourse with ones's own wife through a forbidden way" but cannot find the definition of 'forbidden way", or find reasons to consider it would also apply to anal sex with either a male or someone who's not your wife (and forbidden women are enumerated, and its not everyone who's not your wife, but only relatives and wife of another - and a young girl or nun). This quote must exist however.. Aryah (talk) 00:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Septic anus?

I've replaced the text reading "the septic nature of the anus." The lead sentence of Sepsis states: "Sepsis is a serious medical condition characterized by a whole-body inflammatory state (called a systemic inflammatory response syndrome or SIRS) and the presence of a known or suspected infection." That clearly doesn't apply to the normal healthy anus.

I've replaced it with a paraphrase of the relevant part of the first sentence under Health risks, which simply refers to the high concentration of potentially pathogenic organisms at the site. Kay Dekker (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No natural lubrication

Is it really necessary to demand a citation for the fact that the rectum doesn't self-lubricate? James Skinsale (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

including, but not limited to

"Including, but not limited to" is lawyer-speak and is unnecessary since "including" implies additional items already. --Unimath (talk) 12:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Editing needed

The introductory paragraph gives a misleading impression that anal sex requires purchasing a product. Boys have been getting fucked for thousands of years. I suggest, instead of the current “As the rectal mucosa ...” the following: “As the rectal mucosa provides little natural lubrication, a lubricant such as saliva, soap, an animal or vegetable fat, or a purchased personal lubricant is most often used.” “When penetrating” repeats the first sentence of the article. “Most often required or preferred” adds no information. Preferred by whom, the fucker or the fucked? Even rapists usually use spit for their own comfort. If completeness is desired, then the sentence might be: “As the rectal mucosa provides little natural lubrication, a lubricant such as saliva, soap, an animal or vegetable fat, or a purchased personal lubricant is most often used, except when the penetration is intended to cause pain as a criminal or consensual sadistic act”.

Also, reference 40 (www.studentaffairs.duke.edu) is used only for a minor point, but has a number of useful how-to suggestions and is more available than the cited monographs, and is more neutral than some of the “External links” where it might be added. Suggest adding a “Techniques” section with a survey of how-to references.

70.18.249.16 (talk) 06:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Judaism not against heterosexual anal sex

I think your section on Judaism being against anal sex is wrong. While the Torah has explicit rules against homosexuality, it is not actually against heterosexual anal sex if both partners are willing[3]. Maimonides actually discusses this at length. Anal sex is allowed if it gives pleasure BUT eventual ejaculation should be done in the "normal" way so that it leads to reproduction.

Did you read the section? The distinction is made between homosexual, and heterosexual, behavior. Ronabop (talk) 05:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I most certainly did but when you consider how the article is organized, how it is written, the section on Judaism conveys the wrong impression, the one I just mentioned, i.e. although it is against homosexual anal sex, it is not actually against heterosexual anal sex. Certainly any reader will get the same impression I did.

I think you are quite right that section should mention that it is permitted in married sex, if that can be cited to a reliable source, but I think it needs to be something other than the webpage you link to. If Maiomides discusses this, the relevant passage should be quoted. Paul B (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Reference to Maimonides is Rambam (Maimonides) Law of Forbidden Relations, Chap 21, Law 9 of the Mishneh Torah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.107.239.233 (talk) 04:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't remove {{citation needed}} tags

This has came up twice already [4] [5] and although I've told both editors directly and mentioned it before Talk:Anal sex/Archive 4#Some of the edits in this article are getting too...well, anal... I feel it's worth mentioning here again. Citation needed tags should almost never be removed when placed in good faith unless a reference is provided and definitely not without consensus (which means discussion). (Their may be some exceptions like when every sentence is tagged, in that case just tagging the whole article as unreferenced may be wise.) It doesn't matter if a another editor thinks the thing is 'obvious' since wikipedia operates on WP:Verifiability. In fact if something is 'common knowledge' then finding a reference should be trivial. In this particular case, a quick check of the talk page history will confirm that this is an issue which has resulted in confusion before and I presume the user who added it [6] was similarly confused. Strictly speaking, references are not really required in the WP:LEDE but that's because it's intended to summarise the article when in fact the article doesn't really mention the lack of natural lubrication thing except in the lede. My recommendation would be for a brief mention in the lead with further referenced explaination in the article which will avoid any further confusion. I think mention of the point raised here Talk:Anal sex/Archive 3#No natural lubrication? is key if it can be referenced and is likely one of the reasons for the confusion. (At the very least, we should avoid making the claim there is no natural lubrication which we don't now but used to, even though it's a commonly made claim it isn't really accurate and therefore causes confusion.) P.S. I have actually looked for references, the best I've found so far is associatedcontent.com/article/31814/a_beginners_guide_to_anal_sex.html which sadly isn't great and also on a blocked site and [7] which again isn't great Nil Einne (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Buddhist views

While I did find references to support that the Buddha did not specifically prohibit anal sex, he did prohibit sexual misconduct. A review of LGBT topics and Buddhism shows that anal sex is prohibited in most Buddhist traditions. I tagged the passages accordingly. The section needs to be revised and expanded. Stillwaterising (talk) 03:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

"Pegging"

A word (sense) that has existed for some (less than) three years can hardly be considered to have the culturally diachronistic presence necessary to elicit definitive statements about its relation to the practice being "referred" to. This is why volumes of slang come and go without ever entering dictionaries. For the same reason that if I call your mother a ptthtblahpthptht and snicker to myself, you are unlikely to be offended, the term "pegging" cannot be responsibly said to refer to an act that is certainly thousands of years older than this neologism. The word "pegging" should be on urbandictionary.com, not Wikipedia. I will remove the section and ask those who disagree to joust with me here on the talk page. 173.21.106.137 (talk) 08:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

See also the page Santorum_(sexual_neologism) where it is clearly referred to as a neologism. I propose, rather than promulgating this choice of word for purely ironic and discursive privilege norms, that we describe the practice generally ("anal penetration of a woman by another woman"). As it stands, the normative use of "pegging" is likely asoffensive to others, as its jocular connotation is to myself. 173.21.106.137 (talk) 09:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. While the terms may be new, they are in wide use and have references. Santorum_(sexual_neologism) alone has 29 references, including sections on "political impact" and "recognition in the media", as well as an entire related (and well-sourced) article on the Santorum controversy. If that doesn't meet notability criteria, I don't know what does. As for "pegging", the recipient of the act is a man, not a woman (as you state), and I doubt your claim that it is "certainly thousands of years older than this neologism". The term is also sourced and gets no more attention in this article than it deserves. HalJor (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

A woman's pleasing a man's arsehole is undoubtedly nearly as old as human sex, human homosexuality, human foreplay, human cunnilingus, human fellatio etc. etc. If I wrote "woman" twice by accident I excuse myself. My argument, however, still stands. Masondickson (talk) 10:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Um...

Why is heterosexuality only in this article? A8UDI 19:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Pregnancy and Anal

This website:

http://www.minou.com/aboutsex/analsex.htm

says that there is actually a kind of high rate for unwanted pregnancy due to leakage. Can anyone find any more concrete data on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pnkfleur12 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Female pleasure?

The arcticle currently describes only the mechanism whereby a male reciepent of anal sex gets pleasure from it.
There should be some explanation or at least statement on the pleasure mechanism (if any) for female reciepents as well.
Does anyone have anything related to this subject?
85.225.176.50 (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Islam and P.R. Octol...

PiCo added a paragraph on the realities of anal sex in the Middle East (diffs here [8]) quoting a reference by P. R. Octol, "Normative Sexual Customs of the Arabs", Journal of British and Imperial Medical Practise, Vol.12/1, pp.174-186. That's quite hilarious. The citation is non-existent and appears made up. Unless proven otherwise, I'll delete the edit. I'll give it a day or so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.252.219 (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"That's quite hilarious." You got it :) PiCo (talk) 03:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Dr. P.R.Octol has retired. I was curious about the entry because of my own experience (keep reading) in Iraq in the 1990s, when I was working with the UN oil for food mission. A Muslim boy in Irbil, aged 15, described to me how he had anal sex with his girlfriend so that she could remain a virgin, and an Egyptian colleague told me how he visited a prostitute in Basra and found that she was back door only. (He also told me that the Gulf Arabs have a reputation among other Arabs for being addicted to this - and a Lebanese described how the Kuwaiti men would wander the aisles of the shopping malls on the look-out for the pubescent sons of Westerners, who appeared in public in shorts with their knees bared). But what began as a whim has turned into curiosity, and I did a bit of research, and the results, properly referenced, are now in the page. Perhaps you'd like me to extend this further? PiCo (talk) 10:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat of a twisted bugger, then? Your inventing of sources to make a point is in direct violation of WP:NPOV. As to your current edits, you give undue weight to a polarizing view. See response to Schmitt & Sofer by J. Massad, "The Intransigence of Orientalist Desires: A Reply to Arno Schmitt", Public Culture, 2003 - Duke Univ Press[9]. Even your reference to Murray & Roscoe, I have no idea how you concluded that Murray & Roscoe found "[s]imilar sexual sociologies..." to what supposedly Schmitt & Sofer found. Point me to all the pages in Murray and Roscoe where they discuss "similar sexual sociologies" as Schmitt & Sofer. To top it off, you say: "As the fact that liwat is regarded as a temptation...". Are we to understand that this is specific and unique to Islam? One must believe that appropriate professional care is available down under. Al-Lawrence (talk) 04:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Al-Lawrence (talk • contribs) 03:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Massad's point is that homosexuality is an act, not a state - and I agree. Nevertheless, despite Massad's objections to the contrary, the works I've cited in the article are saying precisely that - I think Massad's problem is that someone else is saying it instead of him. But if you feel we need more examples about homosexuality in Muslim societies, we could start with [10]. PiCo (talk) 10:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Bias

One of the lines in this article states "Women, however, rate anal sex as one of the least appealing forms of sex, due to its painful nature". This statement is very inappropriate. You can't generalise information like that on a neutral article. What about the women who genuinely enjoy anal sex? What about the fact that the nerve endings in the anus can produce some degree of pleasure? It seems like this article is subtley telling the reader to avoid anal sex. It is fair enough to include phrases like "a high-risk sexual practice" and "Some authorities judge that all anal sex is unsafe" but you must also mention the fact that some couples enjoy it and regularly engage in it, and the fact that not ALL people who engage in anal sex suffer from the potential health issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freena91 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

In Jusaism

The paragraph about Judaism, is referring only to man to man relations! anal sex between a married man and wife, is permitted, also by orthodox Jews. allthought there are some who prevent and restrict themselves but it is NOT forbiden, as the Babylonian Talmud Nedarim describes it with a parable:

"The halachah is not as R. Johanan b. Dahabai, but a man may do whatever he pleases with his wife [at intercourse]: A parable; Meat which comes from the abattoir, may be eaten salted, roasted, cooked or seethed; so with fish from the fishmonger"

Also on the same page:

"A woman once came before Rabbi and said, 'Rabbi! I set a table before my husband, but he overturned it.' Rabbi replied: 'My daughter! the Torah hath permitted thee to him — what then can I do for thee?' A woman once came before Rab and complained. 'Rabbi! I set a table before my husband, but he overturned it.' Rab replied; Wherein does it differ from a fish?"

http://www.israelect.com/Come-and-Hear/nedarim/nedarim_20.html#chapter_iii http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/america_5.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.45.193 (talk) 02:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

More on Religious Views and Sources

Thread originally on user talk pages, copied with permission:

I welcome your contributions as long as they have reliable sourcing. The term "sodomy" is not in the bible actually, it's a Roman legal term it seems. The term "sodomite" in the KJV OT has been translated to "shrine prostitute" in newer versions. See Sodomy#Sodomite. - Stillwaterising (talk) 02:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC) Actually it may be Church Latin circa 1300AD [11]. - Stillwaterising (talk) 02:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure I follow your logic. I edited the article to remove unrelated information, I did not add any new information, as far as I know. Your message to me suggested that I had put into the article that the bible forbids sodomy. Which I didn't say.

The primary thing I changed, which I will change again is that the article said (and says again since you reverted) -- without a citation) "+ Orthodox Judaism teaches that homosexual anal sex is a sin and an abomination. This teaching is from the Biblical passages of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. The injunction "Do not lie with a man the lyings of a woman; it is abhorrent" has led rabbinical scholars to conclude "these verses prohibit anal sex between men without any exception"."

First, Judaism teaches that Sodomy is a sin and an abomination, and there are a number of cites in the bible to Sodom and Sodomites. Regardless of when the term "sodomy" began being used, They do not teach that "homosexual anal sex" is a sin and abomination. If you can provide sources for that statement in some way, then it could stay. The citation given is an unrelated Leviticus quote that is interpreted by some as discussing homosexuality, and by others as something different. In any case not agreed by all, and does not directly discuss the topic, which is still "anal sex". If Orthodox Judaism interprets that quoted part of leviticus as "homosexual anal sex" then it needs to be said more clearly, and with citations. The quoted passages, summarized "Do not lie with a man the lyings of a woman; it is abhorrent" I think is one editors interpretation, and not necessarily precisely what Orthodox Judaism may say. If so, then lets cite it. Or, better yet, quote the citation accurately and don't summarize. I see a problem with a direct quote though, as it does not clearly say anything about anal sex, the topic of the article. SO, a citation of an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi or Scholar who says that it means anal sex would be valuable, but the speculation I removed is not.

I will excise this again from the article. When you have citations, please add them. Please remember that the topic is "Anal sex" and not homosexuality. Atom (talk) 12:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I also made changes to the Judaism and Christianity sections. Someone had their personal summarization of what they though the sections in Leviticus had meant to speak of. When Leviticus is quoted directly, it does not speak of anal sex or sodomy at all.

It is important to remember that homosexuality and anal sex are not the same thing. Homosexuality is two people of the same sex who love one another and want to spend their lives together, like heterosexuals do. Anal sex is a specific action, and one that is more frequently performed by heterosexual than homosexuals.

I think it is within the realm of belief that Conservative Judaism, and some sects of Christianity disapprove (abomination) of anal sex, and of homosexuality. If some sects of Judaism or Christianity disapprove of homosexuality, that should be discussed in a different article. If they disapprove of anal sex, then an accurate citation from a Rabbi or Biblical Scholar supporting that should be given and accurately cited. A paraphrase of Leviticus by a random editor is not sufficient to support that. If someone thinks the Bible or Torah say that (in Leviticus or elsewhere), then we should cite the appropriate expert who expresses that interpretation and cite that source accurately. Atom (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a sensitive topic and one that most people have a point of view upon already. It would be greatly appreciated if all revisions had "bullet-proof" sources written by people who are widely regarded as experts in their fields published in reputable locations. However, any reliable source is better than none at all, even if edits do reflect mainstream views or historical consensus it could be construed as Original Research WP:OR without verification. I would expect that any claim regarding the interpretation of the Bible (or Jewish scripture) could be backed up by multiple reliable sources from every viewpoint. - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree. Atom (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Anal sex between heterosexual couples is generally accepted (but perhaps frowned upon) by many authorities. See Rambam Mishnah Torah, Hilchot Isurei Bi'a, 21:10 י [ט] אשתו של אדם, מותרת היא לו; לפיכך כל מה שאדם רוצה לעשות באשתו, עושה--בועל בכל עת שירצה, ומנשק בכל אבר שירצה, ובא עליה בין כדרכה, בין שלא כדרכה, בין דרך אברים. ואף על פי כן, מידת חסידות שלא יקל אדם את ראשו לכך, ושיקדש עצמו בשעת תשמיש, כמו שביארנו בהלכות דעות; ולא יסור מדרך העולם ומנהגו, שאין דבר זה אלא כדי לפרות ולרבות. A man's wife is permitted to him; therefore everything that a man wants to do with his wife, he may do -- he has intercourse with her whenever he wishes, kisses any body part that he wishes, and has intercourse with her either normally (vaginal intercourse), not-normally (this term always refers to anal intercourse) or by means of one of her body parts (e.g. oral sex etc.). Nevertheless, it is an attribute of kindness that a man should not be light-headed in this matter, and that he should sanctify himself in the time that he has sex, as we have explained in Hilchot De'ot; and he should not deviate from the way of the world and its custom, because this thing (sex) is only for the purpose of procreating. Instidimina (talk)

Christianity section

I removed a fairly well written, and well meaning edit because it is about Sodomy -- not anal sex.

"Historically in European countries it has often been referred to euphemistically as the peccatum contra naturam (the sin against nature, after Thomas Aquinas) or Sodomitica luxuria (sodomitical lusts, in one of Charlemagne's ordinances), or peccatum illud horribile, inter christianos non nominandum (that horrible sin that among Christians is not to be named) ."

Sodomy is a very general term that roughly means "unnatural sex". Historical usage suggests that Sodomy is used to describe a broad set of activities. Indeed, anal sex has been one of the things that people have used the term sodomy for, but it also has been used to mean beastiality, masturbation, intercourse in positions other than what some call the "missionary position", oral sex and frottage. So when Thomas Aquinas is speaking of a "sin against nature" he could have been and most likely was speaking about sex with animals. See our own Wikipedia article on sodomy. The origin of the term is believed to be regarding the city of "Sodom" mentioned in the bible, known for it inhospitality to strangers, or by some as a place of grave sinfulness. Anyway, the quotes above are not speaking of anal sex at all, and so it would be incorrect to have it in the article suggesting that those things applied to anal sex. Atom (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reason that the Christian views no longer says See also Sodomy? I think this conversation has been had before and also whether to split Sodomy off into Christian views of anal sex. = Stillwaterising (talk) 16:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

As you say, there is an article on sodomy and much of it is devoted to medieval views, and modern views by Christianity. Christian views of anal sex sounds like it could be a good article. This article is about anal sex though, not sodomy or Christianity. Atom (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Buddhism and Dalai Lama

The last line of the article reads "... The Dalai Lama is largely uninfluential outside of his own community." This is untrue. Millions of People around the world read his books, listen to his teachings, and read about his life and the China-Tibet conflict. My recommendation is that the line be stricken. Additionally, it is claimed that "the Dalia Lama holds no authority outside of Tibet." The implication is false: In fact, the Dalai Lama holds no authority _within_ Tibet. His influence is most prominent in the Tibetan diaspora around the world, but especially in the Tibetan refugee community in Dharamsala. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.195.146 (talk) 03:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This is absolutely true. I live in Cambodia, and he's completely unknown. He's also unknown in Burma, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Vietnam and Laos. In China he's known as a political figure, likewise in Japan. Only in the West, and among Tibetans, is he regarded as a religious leader. PiCo (talk) 08:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I restored my sourced quotation from the Dali Lama while moving the reference that he is a spiritual leader. I didn't catch who removed it or why, any further revision of sourced material in this section should be discussed here first. - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Stillwaterising, you should remove the quote from the Dalai Lama from the article - Buddhism simply doesn't have authoritative figures like the Pope or Muslim Imams, it isn't the same sort of religion. The Dalai Lama can instruct his followers (i.e., the followers of the school of Tibetan Buddhism of which he is head by virtue of his status as a reincarnated teacher) in the correct interpretation of the Teaching, but he cannot invent Teaching which doesn't exist. As the Teaching contains no mention of anal sex - or any other form of sex - he is here speaking purely as an individual. Plus, of course, he has no authority outside his own school i.e., the tradition of which he is the reincarnated leader), and is completely unknown to the majority of Buddhists. We must beware the mistake of treating Buddhism as if it shares the nature and structures of Judaism, Christianity and Islam - it's utterly different. PiCo (talk) 05:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I've edited your new addition and added back the Dalai Lama's (DL) with revisions. For most Westerners, the DL is considered the "Pope of Buddhism". He may not be popular nor representative of Buddhism in general by doing things like eating veal. Regardless, his views are valued, respected, and highly relevant in modern Buddhism. They also round out the view that anal sex is "a-ok" to all Buddhists. - Stillwaterising (talk) 10:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The whole of reference [83] is out of date and a complete missinterpretation. Clearly using this transcript as a base reference is in need of reconsideration. Most of the basis extrapliated from was contained in the words of the Interpretor, ? , not the Dali Lama. I have heard his true views more recently and fully, this source is a missinterpretation. He was referring to celebasy or celebate people. Not people in general. If one is familier with the way the Dali Lama adheres to the thread of a conversation absolutley, the missinterpretation is obvious. Read the source again, and you will see it clearly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.145.204 (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It would only be out of date if he had changed his position since then, and then this statement should be still there to reflect his older views. I selected this quote and realize how awkwardly it is presented. I could not find another interview in which he mentioned anal sex specifically, however there has been several in which he has mentioned homosexuality. In this interview he seems to back up the in celebacy not even masturation is acceptable, but anal and oral even between man an wife aren't acceptable either. He clairifies later that same sex isn't acceptable even for lay people. - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The Dalai Lama is an inspiration to many, and highly respected by people of all religions, and other sects of Buddhism. As leader of the Tibetan Buddhism, his role is marginal within Buddhismas a whole. In order for there to be proper NPOV, it would not be right to give people the impression that all of Buddhism was represented by his comments on one occasion to a select group of people, about a topic in a different context than this one. This would be roughly analogous to quoting Katharine Jefferts Schori the primate of the Episcopalian church on this topic as representing all of Christianity. Atom (talk) 19:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I will go review the citation for the comments in the article attributed to Dalai Lama, and be sure they are accurate and in the correct context. Also, I will look for where he has discussed the matter more recently and try to quote and cite that also. Atom (talk) 19:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I felt that the comment attributed the Dalai Lama followed the reference pretty closely. I added comments from the sexuality and Buddhism article to give that section more balance. Atom (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The section on Buddhism was clearly written by someone who did not understand Buddhism. I've replaced it with a shorter paragraph from a respectable scholarly source (the author is a professor of Buddhist studies). I've also included a reference to tantra, a strand of Buddhism which includes anal sex among its ritual practices, and dropped the reference to the Dalai Lama, which is irrelevant - in the reference quoted in the original passage, the DL is speaking as an individual, not as an interpreter of the Scriptures. PiCo (talk) 08:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

We should not argue about who "understands" Buddhism. I added a large section previously to give the Dalai Lama comments balance, so that it did not appear to be authoritative for Buddhism. Also, the Dalai Lama is a teacher, and as Dalai Lama his comments are always as a teacher. He does not suggest that others should follow his view, he is not making rules. Like all Bodhisattva, he offers his viewpoint and experience for others to follow or not. The article does not claim his view as authoritative for Buddhism. The section is balanced, with two differing viewpoints, both representative of differing views within Buddhism. Atom (talk) 13:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm a Christian Gnostic who has been exposed to many different religious belief systems. I used the term "Buddhist Pope" (my own term) because The Lama is commonly referred to as the leader of Buddhism by the American press and has quite a few fans. Our feelings about The Lama, or Buddhism aren't what the article is about though, it's about anal sex. There's already Sexuality and Buddhism and some of the ideas in Anal Sex may be best kept there as to they may be only tangentially related to the topic (again Anal Sex). Wikipedia is well-known for it's point/counter point take on controversial issues and this topic should not be treated differently. Remember, it's not what's "right" or "true", it's what's verifiable.

There seems to be two sides to this debate and neither is "right". Both sides of this issue need to be treated fairly, and if personal beliefs get in the way it may be best to refrain from editing the Article rather express yourself here on the talk page instead. - Stillwaterising (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course no ancient documents speak directly about "anal sex" to my knowledge. Hence our discussion of "Sexual Misconduct". That term is also not defined within Buddhism. With Buddhism having no central authority or dogma or articles of faith the definition of what is sexual misconduct is determined by each individual for the laity. The topic of Sexual Yoga and Vajrayana is very interesting and quite complex. This article topic is anal sex. I do not think any reliable source will be found for supporting that anal sex is a key component, or even an optional component of Tantra. Atom (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

'Barebacking'

"Among gay men, anal sex without the use of a condom is referred to as barebacking." ... Strait people use this too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.28.30 (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for your comment. The article has been changed to reflect this and a source was added for verification. - Stillwaterising (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The intro text: funny stuff

Paragraph 2 says that "most experienced recipients of anal sex find it pleasurable" but the book cited in note 3 says something else: "anal stimulation is pleasurable for many people". Nothing there about experience, and nothing about "most". Check it out for yourselves. P.R.Ogtol (talk) 00:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I tweaked it. Flyer22 (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You did good. Now at least it fits what the man said. P.R.Ogtol (talk) 00:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Where's the authority?

Where's the authority for saying: "the penetration of the anus causes tearing and bleeding of the soft tissues,[9] and can damage the sphincter muscles, causing incontinence and anal prolapse."? All of these thing MAY occur but most often never do. It's like saying: "Driving a car can result in horrific crashes where everybody dies by being beheaded by their seatbelts." This sort of writing insinuates that extremely rare occurences happen all the time. They don't. To my mind, this is just homophobia disguised as reportage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.239.61 (talk) 07:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It should be "the penetration of the anus may cause tearing and bleeding of the soft tissues." The word "may" should be in there, seeing as this does not happen with every incidence of anal sex, and not with people who are performing it with care.

As for the authority, it is going by the source. Flyer22 (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed it to "may." Flyer22 (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal To Change Main Photo for Anal Sex

I'm proposing we change to intro photo (right) to one that is more illustrative and less pornographic. It seems off-putting to the casual reader to have this as the first thing they will see when they browse the page and not representative of the article as a whole. - Stillwaterising (talk) 13:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a particular replacement image in mind, or is this a general request for an image that you find "more illustrative and less pornographic"?--SeedFeeder (talk) 08:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to an alternative image. I placed this image there because there was no image at all. I looked in commons and that looked like the best one. When I put it in, then I noticed it was in the Heterosexual section. It did bother me that now the Heterosexual section has no image. However, the lede is higher priority. Another, better image for the lede could allow this to go back to that section. I feel that this image is pretty good as lede though. Since most people think of "anal sex" as penile-anal intercourse, and not anal masturbation, and since in numbers most occurrences of anal sex are heterosexual, this image fits. It is artwork, and seen as more tasteful, rather than a photograph. It does not focus on the specific act of penetration, but a more holistic view of the people. For instance a close-up photograph showing only a persons anus being penetrated would probably be seen by many people as non-artistic, possibly as obscene or pornographic. Despite it being educational in value we would be fighting many revert battles.

• 
  Interesting -- but has three people, and is no clarity on what is happening
• 
  Again three people. Anal sex is clear, but penile-vaginal could confuse someone
• 
  Again, three people -- which part is the anal sex?
• 
  Pegging -- technically is anal sex -- does not fairly represent the topic IMO
• Well, two people, does show anal sex, but explicit enough that it will cause revert wars.
  Well, two people, does show anal sex, but explicit enough that it will cause revert wars.
• 
  Poor image, bad choice, no clarity
• 
  Poor choice, Does not give clarity to what anal sex is

The three person images cause confusion because someone who does not know what the topic is and come to the page may identify that it involves, or usually involves three people. The image showing vaginal as well as anal intercourse confuses because there is no clarity as to what, which, or both are the topic. The illustration is dark and unclear, even te fact that it is anal is not really identifiable. The pegging photo is anal sex, but since pegging is a very small percentage of all anal intercourse, it is not very representative. The Japanese Onnagato photo is artistic and non offensive, but someone unfamiliar may wonder if anal sex is uniquely Japanese, or has to do with two males, where one is dressed as a woman, or originating in ancient Japan, etc. The Pompei image has three people, and the specific portion where the anal sex is taking place is unclear, and so lacks clarity. Atom (talk) 13:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the current image is fine. More straight people engage in anal intercourse than do us gays, so it doesn't seem strange to have a straight couple as the lead photo.

The photo is not pornographic, nor is it offensive. It might be more useful to explain just what, exactly, one objects to than to just use terms like pornographic. Are your objections on the grounds of feminism? Political Correctness? That avril managed clear illustrations? That conservative American Christians want to force their views on the rest of us?Panthera germanicus (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The current image is fine. I also like the one with the chick in the white shirt since there is no nonsense. However, the quality is only OK.Cptnono (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding. If I had to pick from the current selections I would choose the Japanese print. It's interesting because it seems to show a heterosexual couple, but if the description is accurate it actually portrays a transexual couple. It does not show genitalia or penetration and I wouldn't feel embarrassed if my grandmother saw it. The current photo then could be moved back to the heterosexual section. My thought on that is that if somebody has read the intro and is interested in more detailed information then they should be ready to see more explicit (or illustrative if that's your point of view) photos. Another solution would be to find a completely new image.

I'm not a conservative Christian and I'm actually very against censorship. I'm also a major (positive) contributor to this article. I'm concerned that the causual page browser will see the intro and be offended by it. Sure, we can go "balls to the wall" if we want to be and put the real life photo up (#5). This would not be in violation of guidelines, but is it the right thing to do? As a former member of WikiProject Pornography (again as a positive contributor, not a deletionist) I don't have anything against porn. However there's a time an place for everything, and I'm personally uncomfortable with the current image. I can only imagine how my mother would react to it...

I made a cropped version of the Miyagawa Isshō painting called File:Miyagawa Isshô-Spring Pastimes-C-cropped.jpg - Stillwaterising (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the response, Stillwaterising. The constant and hateful attacks upon the human status of gays and anything which conservative American Christians don't like is the reason I always assume these disagreements are motivated by such a lifestyle choice. My apologies for classifying you with the people who deny my humanity.

My opinion of the matter is that illustrations are important and they should be as clear and detailed as necessary to help readers understand the entry. My personal preference is that they also be as pleasant and well executed as possible, though that is, of course an "eye of the beholder" aspect. The picture opening the article as well as the others in the entry are very clear and very detailed. Personally, it's not my absolute favorite style, but I will take it to the sometimes confusing line drawings of "The Joy of Sex" any day. Yes, I can well imagine the topic of anal intercourse - as many other sexual topics here on the encyclopedia is not one you'd care to discuss in great detail with your mother. That is not, however, the point of this encyclopedia. We need clarity and we really have to accept that anal intercourse is an activity which falls solidly within the range of normal human sexual behavior. As a gay man, I find it especially useful to see the illustration be of the most prevalent form of anal intercourse: Between a man and a woman. Were it up to me, we'd have an illustration of equal quality showing a woman "pegging" a man but the edit war that would start is beyond imagination, see conservative American Christians above...

Anyway, please leave the picture alone. We go through these discussions constantly and should the picture be replaced with a less clear representation of the prevalent form of anal intercourse (or any of the other pictures) I'm ready and willing to defend it, in line with the enormously confusing and far-too-overly complex wikipedia guidlines, of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panthera germanicus (talk • contribs) 11:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Panthera germanicus (talk) 11:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, that's what I get for not carefully composing my thoughts. I'm sorry, Stillwaterrising, I should have added that your cropped picture is quite well done but absolutely useless as an explanation. Goodness, I have 100% gen-u-whine heterosexual male friends who wrestled in school and often were in such positions. No, we need to make perfectly clear what this is about and, covering reality up because it might make someone uncomfortable is just no the way to do it.Panthera germanicus (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The picture at the top of the page pornographic? That is a matter of opinion. Looks normal to me, but that might be because of where I come from. I'd leave it there, it is pretty clear what is going on and who is doing what to whom. P.R.Ogtol (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

There's another option that was not discussed, which is to find another image other than the one's above. I'll keep an eye out while I'm working on my Commons:Commons:Sexual content proposed policy on sexual images. - 66.68.60.210 (talk) 12:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Watching for other images is a good idea. However, the proposed policy you refer to on Commons is not going to fly. For one, it is based on 18 U.S.C. § 2251, which does not apply to Wikipedia. And you do really think that the Wiki project will turn around 180 degrees and start censoring sexual content? Atom (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Section 4.3, and too much negativity in this article?

Wow. OK, I note a gradual shift towards presenting a more negative view of anal intercourse throughout the article, but this is totally unacceptable. I checked the footnote, #57, because the claimed physical harm struck me as another subtle attack. The source cited absolutely does not support the claims made in the text, in any way, shape or form. The article is currently locked and I am not good at editing, so request that whoever put in this false information take it back out or a responsible editor do so. I don't have the time right now, but am going to read through and check several others of the "facts" and citations now in the article. Somebody has either been extremely careless or this was intentional. Panthera germanicus (talk) 22:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Panthera, I do not get what you mean. But then again, I have not been paying attention to this article as closely as others have. With the cleanup and recent additions I have made to the article, that may change. But regarding physical harm, I know that has been in this article for some time. Did you not mind it before? The thing is...anal sex can cause physical harm and does quite often. The anus was not designed as a sexual organ, and therefore is a lot more sensitive (than the vagina, for example). The vagina, with its walls and layers, was designed to take a lot of pounding (excuse the crude way I worded that). This is addressed by sexologists such as Sue Johanson and Dr. Drew Pinsky as well (though Dr. Drew would not simply be called a sexologist). I feel that this article is simply trying to get across that definite care is needed when performing anal sex. Reference 57 supports the fact that anal sex can cause anal fissures and may exacerbate hemorrhoids. Is that not harm? If you want better sources for how anal sex can cause physical harm, I can get those. If you would like me to help in making sure this article does not become too negative, I can help with that as well. Flyer22 (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

And, oh, with the rearranging and most recent additions I have done/added to this article, reference 57 is now reference 12. Flyer22 (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Unfortunately, my time right now is very limited, so briefly. No, I didn't notice the misinformation until recently. Source #57 does not support the contentions made in the article. Many of the claims made by these "sexologists" are either exaggerated or have since been found to be totally false. I just am going to have to get through a mountain of work before I can better look at this so hope someone else who has time (and better writing abilities than I have) can tackle this. What I would like to see is a neutral presentation. For instance, there is no statistical data on the incidence of these health problems. Do they occur to 99% of practitioners? To 1%? How often, how serious, how seldom? We must never use personal research, but can surely mention here on the discussion pages that when you reach orgasm through anal intercourse as the receptive partner and the same hormonal and bonding benefits accrue between the partners as occur in vaginal intercourse, then it is not true to say the anus is not a sexual organ.

As written now, it is clearly negative and, as I noted, your reading of the source is to some extent just plain wrong. Show me stats which are relevant, not just a list of can-be, might-be and obviously biased (not a sex organ) entries. If you have facts, present them. A table showing that one in 10,000 incidents of anal intercourse causes a fissure.. or one showing one in two incidents or whatever...then the same for vaginal intercourse. Nobody argues that the anus is more sensitive than the vagina, but that is not the proper approach to the topic. The uncircumcised penis suffers, relative to the circumcised a very high level of micro-fissures during vaginal intercourse. That's a fact. Does that mean it is a "real" fissure or just something which normally happens? Should we require all men to be circumcised because there are fewer tears that way? I hope you see what I am saying.

How about we begin by my laying my cards on the table - I am a gay man and very much not a fundamentalist, American, Christian. I am willing to strive for a NPOV and know that my life-experience and culture bias me towards seeing sex, including anal intercourse between consenting adults as a good thing. I am not going to ask you about yourself as it is none of my business, but I do question why you are only presenting negatives, especially ones which I know don't represent the norm. I'll do my best to get back to this as soon as I can.Panthera germanicus (talk) 23:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Panthera, I am not only presenting the negative. Did you not see the Anatomy and stimulation section I created, where I added detail about orgasm through anal penetration? In fact, the only negative I have added to this article so far has been a little to the Increased risk of HPV section. I assure you that I have studied sexual topics extensively, and nothing Sue Johanson or Dr. Drew Pinsky have stated about sex has been wrong or proven untrue (as far as I know). When I say that the anus was not designed as a sexual organ, I mean exactly that, in the same way that the mouth or hand was not designed as a sexual organ. Just because people use the anus (anal sex), mouth (oral sex), and hand (handjob) as sexual organs...it does not make them actual sexual organs; it makes them organs/body parts which are used for sex. If the anus was designed as an actual sexual organ, it would be better built for sexual penetration (three layers of tissue and sufficient natural lubrication, like the vagina). It is not as though it serves purpose for sperm. Yes, people can have an orgasm through anal sex, but the majority don't; the reason some men are even able to is through stimulation of the prostate. For women, if they are lucky, it is through their clitoral legs (but most women can only orgasm through direct stimulation of the clitoris). I say all this not as a homophobe or some kind of hater of anal sex, but as someone presenting a factual/technical point of view. I am far from homophobic, and a few of the fictional character articles I have created or expanded (such as Lena Kundera and Bianca Montgomery, and Luke Snyder and Noah Mayer) should display that. I do not mean to offend you in any way, and ask that you do not automatically always assume the worst when you see something negative in this article about anal sex. While I don't discuss my own sexual orientation on Wikipedia, I will say that I discuss sexual orientation and sexuality with my gay and lesbian friends (and I have many). I know even more about what pleases the human body from their tales.

I am not sure what you mean when you say a "neutral point of view." The article looks fairly neutral to me. It is important to present all the risks that come with anal sex. Do you not want us to present the fact that "the risk of HIV transmission is greater than it is in vaginal intercourse because the lining of the rectum tears more easily than the vagina does. The resulting skin breaks and bleeding increase the possibility of the transmission of bodily fluids containing the virus that causes AIDS," as this source says? These are facts. Fissures during vaginal sex? As I stated before, the anus is far more sensitive than the vagina, and an anal fissure is far more likely to occur from anal penetration than a vaginal fissure is to occur from vaginal penetration. But if you want, we could add information about vaginal fissures, and the uncircumcised penis suffering "relative to the circumcised a very high level of micro-fissures during vaginal intercourse," to the Sexual intercourse article; I might do that anyway. Or do you want some kind of statistic on how much more often an anal fissure is to occur from anal penetration, in contrast to vaginal fissures during vaginal penetration? If we do not have statistical data on the incidence of these health problems, all we can do is report them as the reliable sources report them. The same thing with statistical data is sort of going on right now at Talk:Rape. But regarding this article, reliable sources say the risk of HIV transmission is greater with anal sex than it is in vaginal intercourse, reliable sources say frequent anal sex is associated with hemorrhoids, anal prolapse, leakage, ano-rectal pain and ulcers and fissures, reliable sources say the increase in HPV is attributed to changing trends in sexual behavior (such as a history of multiple sex partners, fifteen or more, or receptive anal sex) and smoking. This information is all from reliable sources, not simply personal research. It should be in this article. What is it that you feel I am misreading? This information is not an attack on anal sex, but merely to present fact. And when the words "most," "more," or "frequent" are used, that is answering a lot of the number problem; not everything is going to be reported in exact number data. We can try our best to get that, though. I always try not to biased on Wikipedia, and I hate being accused of bias. So, yes, I am willing to help you as much as I can, but chill on the semi-attacks. Flyer22 (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

From what I can see, everybody is in agreement that this article has to be fair and accurate. I think so too. Also, I do not think that it makes any difference what sexual orientation we are to want this to be free of misinformation. Everybody does anal, gay and straight. I have read the article a couple of times and I have learned a bunch of stuff I never knew before. I think the article is really useful and educational, and will help a lot of people make up their minds whether to do it or not, and if they do it to do it safely. But having more stats on the incidence of disease I think is a very good idea, I am with Panthera on that. I will do what I can, I think I have to wait four days before signing up so I can edit here, I am almost ready to get to work. P.R.Ogtol (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Good, P.R.Ogtol. Appreciate your help with this article. Flyer22 (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Flyer22talk, thanks for the quick response. I'm filling in for a colleague and what was to have been an easy few weeks has turned into sleep a bit-work-sleep a bit-work, repeat and rinse.

I've had frequent though monogamous anal intercourse for decades, have several gay friends who have, too and none of us suffer from any of the silliness which is purportedly linked to it. Now, personal experience doesn't count on the main page, but when you know that the purported research is wrong from your own and others' experience, than you want to see it called into question. As for the whole "what is and what is not" a sex organ, I think we can happily get into that - you are basically arguing that anything but the penis and the vagina with ejaculation into the vagina for the purpose of procreation is non-natural-law use of human body parts, right? I shall present evidence of people being able to orgasm despite the spinal cord being severed at a level which prevents any nerves working in the pelvic area - and the biological cascades which are also triggered by nipple stimulation. You are going to have a stiff fight from me if you want to define sexual organ as reproductive organ. Where, for instance is the orgasm experienced? In the penis, in the vagina or in the brain?

I'm not attacking you though I freely admit that I tend to be very strong in my wording when dealing with these matters. There is, as you know, a concentrated effort on the part of fundamentalist Christians, especially Americans to destroy all information in this encyclopedia which does not support their hateful perspectives.

As for statistics, well - I am a firm believer in presenting them. I fought hard (and was laughed and scorned for it) here in Europe for Aids awareness in the early '80s. I joined a group which did our best to persuade newspapers and journals to present the risks of un-safe sex to both straights and gays (we failed pretty much until the epidemic reached the point people couldn't ignore it any more. Sheer luck that my partner and I are monogamous.

So yes, surely - let's present the differences between the vagina and the anus. Let's discuss mucus membranes. Let's point out very thoroughly that vaginal orgasms are extremely rare - clitoral, however, relatively easy to achieve. Then let's point out that the prostate does happen to be located in an optimal position to be stimulated by anal intercourse. By your current argumentation, only those few women who do experience vaginal orgasm are having true sexual-organ orgasms. Just as you have gay friends, so do I know straight people and if there is one thing the women constantly feel is poorly handled by their male sex-partners, it is this.

Forceful penetration is damaging, vaginal or anal. Period.

As for your researchers, their hetero-normative bias is definitely subject to explication and should clearly be mentioned.

So, sorry that I don't yet have time to tackle this, sorry that I come across so strongly on topics which are affected by hate groups. Am really thankful to you and anyone else who tackles these topics, just, I think we need to be very careful here. We all remember how Paul Cameron biased his samples to produce the anti-gay results he wanted.Panthera germanicus (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Panthera, I appreciate your passion. Though, yes, I have felt attacked by you. Try to understand that I am not some homophobe. The purported research? It is not wrong, I must say. Yes, you and your friends have never dealt with these problems, but many others have. Two of my gay male friends, for example, have dealt with damage to the anus due to anal intercourse (though I won't go into details about it). As for the whole "what is and what is not" a sex organ, yes, I am arguing that sex organs are exactly what the Sex organ article states they are. I am assuming that article says "as narrowly defined" because of how some people may personally define a sex organ (like yourself). But we learn this stuff in school (middle school) when we are little kids. Are you really arguing that the school text books are wrong simply because they don't include the anus as a sex organ? Are you really arguing that the brain is a sex organ, simply because what sexually arouses us starts there? Yes, Brain wave patterns have shown distinct changes during orgasm, which indicate the importance of the limbic system in the orgasmic response.[12] But that does not make the brain an organ that was designed to be penetrated during sex. That is what we were talking about here. We were talking about the anatomical design of the anus. I said that it was not designed to be penetrated by the penis or anything for sexual acts. That is demonstrated by its design and the response of the penis the very moment the act is usually over (ejaculation; sperm only serves one purpose). It is not fair that you then take that and turn it around to something that is vital during sexual intercourse or any type of sexual act -- the brain. Of course, the brain plays a large role in sexual stimulation. The brain plays a large role in everything the human body does. With orgasm, researchers are trying to see just what size of a role it plays there. And, yes, breast and nipple stimulation can cause some women to have an orgasm, though it is very rare and some researchers debate it being possible at all (whether or not certain experiences should be called an orgasm). But breasts being sensitive in that way does not mean that they were designed for mammary intercourse. These are all sex acts created by man. What are you so offended by when I say that the anus was not designed as a sex organ? That the penis was designed for the vagina? Technically it was. Its complete anatomy shows that. But that does not mean that I feel it should be restricted to vaginal sex. The thing about mankind is that we are always finding ways to improve our lives, including our sex lives. Man discovered that we do not have to only be restricted to one type of sex act and position, that the anus, for example, has all these nerve endings, which can make penetration and movement in the anus pleasurable. There are more than a few things on the human body that are erogenous zones, but it does not mean that all those things are sex organs. By your definition of sex organ, everything on the human body is one. It is okay for you to define a sex organ in that way, but that is not the way it is typically defined. For the Human anus article, for instance, we do not define it as a sex organ in the lead (intro). Instead, we say, "The anus plays a role in sexuality..." This is as opposed to what we say for the lead of the Penis and Clitoris articles. We are just going to have to agree to disagree on what sex organs are.

Panthera, it just seems as though you take anything negative about anal sex in this article to have been written by homophobes, as if these problems with anal sex never happen and are made up. I doubt that these researchers (including the two I mentioned) are stating these things due to hetero-normative bias, and we cannot state that they have hetero-normative bias without a reliable source stating that they have said they are biased in such a way. You act as though only heterosexual people would have something against anal sex, when, really, plenty of homosexual people have something against anal sex as well. Have you read the Frot article, for instance? I am female, and if consensual adults want to perform anal sex on each other, I am not one to protest that, but I could have easily been a gay man who hates anal sex. Plenty of gay men either hate it, find it disgusting, or it to be a mimic of heterosexual vaginal sex...as the Frot article makes clear. I know that you have reason to be suspicious of some negativity in this article, but try to focus on the content instead of whether or not the editors may be homophobic or haters of anal sex. Yes, we can present a few differences between the vagina and the anus, and their mucus membranes. I encourage that. But I feel that I already sufficiently pointed out that most women can only orgasm through clitoral stimulation. I wouldn't say that vaginal orgasms are "extremely rare," though. And I did not say that "those few women" who do experience vaginal orgasm are having true sexual-organ orgasms. You see, the clitoris is a sex organ as well. In this case, no, not only the reproductive organs are sex organs. But if you go by Australian urologist Dr. Helen O'Connell, "The vaginal wall is, in fact, the clitoris" anyway.[13] Forceful penetration is damaging, vaginal or anal. Period. (If the woman is not "loose," that is.) But that does not stop the fact that the anus is much more likely to be damaged from anal intercourse than the vagina is from vaginal intercourse. The vagina is simply better equipped to deal with pounding and thrashing. Other than vaginal fissures from vaginal sex, which is not so very common, the vagina was designed to be very resilient to pounding and thrashing. As noted in the Vagina article (though that source needs to be updated), its elasticity allows it to stretch during sexual intercourse and during birth to offspring.

Anyway, as long as you provide reliable sources and be aware of your own bias (by your own admittance) while editing this article, we will get along fine in working on this article together. Since you still have a relatively small number of edits to Wikipedia, and only recently got the Wikipedia welcome page, I advise you to read up more on how Wikipedia works, however. The welcome page on your talk page has some helpful links.

Sorry that it took me two days to reply. But I am also very busy with work outside of Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I have expanded the Anatomy and stimulation section a little more, as well as the Homosexual section. But the Homosexual section needs more positive information about anal sex. Right now, and even before my addition to it (on gay men who would rather not perform anal sex), it seems that most gay men hate or dislike anal sex. That section definitely needs to be more neutral. Up for expanding that section with positive information, Panthera? Flyer22 (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I feel like a drive-by commentator, really this is ridiculous - the very moment I made my first comment here an email came in demanding all of my attention be focused on work. This has to be brief...

First, I appreciate your efforts, Flyer22 and, yes, your edits are an improvement. Second, I won't make any changes without discussing them here first - I am not new to professional writing and editing. I have, however, never found a way to master the many, very many, daily increasing (and increasingly contradictory) rules involved in writing for the encyclopedia. I do think, though, that you will find it acceptable if we proceed thusly (assuming I ever get back to normal work and nobody else improves things first, including you. Your style is quite good. Third, I really don't agree with you on your basic assumption that anal sex is a human invention. I am aware that it was only recently that valid scientific studies have confirmed that homosexuality, replete with bonding and mating, exists in virtually the entire range of mammals as well as many birds. Unless we wish to attribute anthropomorphic tendencies to dolphins and lions, non-violent anal intercourse among animals apart from our species is quite common. I believe I mentioned that the same studies regarding antibodies and the positive influence of one other man's semen in one's own body also apply to males. I want to find English language resources and include this.

I'm fine with your bias against anal intercourse, and we can both cite all sorts of anecdotal evidence from people whom we know who do and not have health problems, just, an awful lot of the medical studies are not valid in this matter.

By the way, some paraplegics (male and female) have reported that upper-body areas can become sensitive to stimulation leading to orgasm, it is not only women who can experience it through breast stimulation. Hate to do the personal research thing here, but I know this to be true. Finally, could we maybe set aside our disagreement on "sex organ" by differentiating between "reproductive organ" and "sex organ"? Thanks for your efforts, totally bummed that I am over both ears right now...had I known, I would have waited.

Oh, one last thing. It is established fact that orgasm through prostate stimulation is possible. We are in agreement that orgasm is sexual in nature. As the only easy means of stimulating the prostate is through the anus, I don't see why this is not sexual?

Panthera, I was not trying to say that anal sex is a human invention. I am quite aware that it takes place in the animal kingdom, and I doubt that all other animals learned it from humans. I only meant that, from a "Mother Nature" point of view, the penis was designed for the vagina...in how it reacts, trying to impregnate anything/everything/something during sexual intercourse/sexual acts. I meant that man, of course, discovered that the penis does not only have to be restricted to the vagina; we do not know if man or other animals discovered anal sex first, but I would go with other animals (LOL). I really do not believe that I have any bias towards anal sex. But if you mean from a sex organ point of view, vagina versus anus, then I suppose I do. To me, it is just being logical, in which organ was better designed for sexual activity. And, yes, I was also asking that we put aside our differences on what a sex organ is, but since you asked one last thing about it, the prostate... I look at this way: Calling the anus a sex organ means that it was designed for sex and that everybody was meant to engage in anal sex. If I were to tell a typical heterosexual man that he was meant to have sex or experience an orgasm through his anus, I am sure he would look at me as if I were crazy. Heck, some gay men would as well. But no one would look at you crazy if you were talking about the penis, vagina or clitoris. Everyone feels you needs one of those things when having sex. Not everyone feels that you need the anus for sexual pleasure. And I wouldn't say it is all due to hetero-normative bias. Plenty of proud gay men, who feel they have rejected hetero-normative bias, also do not feel the anus is usually needed during sex. I feel that if the anus was definitely designed as a sex organ, everyone would feel they need it for sexual pleasure; we would at least be able to become anally aroused. As far as I know, there is no scientific evidence that the anus becomes ready for sex...like the penis, vagina and clitoris does. I am definitely in agreement with you that a lot of people can experience sexual pleasure from the anus, but that is because of the abundance of nerve endings. Those nerve endings are there for a reason, but I don't believe it is because the anus was designed as a sex organ. And the prostate? I believe orgasm is achieved through it due to its connection to the penis. I wouldn't say it was meant to be sexually stimulated, though. We disagree there, however, I know that...and that's fine.

I look forward to working with you. Just provide the reliable sources for whatever you want to add, and you'll be fine...as long as we have WP:Consensus. Thank you for expressing your thoughts so well. Yes, I felt a little attacked in the beginning, but I understand where you were coming from. Flyer22 (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The information in this article is all true. However, it's one sided and the outcomes are at their worst. Many of us know the boundaries of anal sex and use it wisely. Most of this just won't happen to us as we are educated enough to understand the limitations and procedures that follow. Be careful and just have fun! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.26.62 (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

IP:, how is it one-sided? I understand how the Homosexuality section could be viewed as such, as I mentioned above, but I am not seeing the one-sided...ness of the entire article. It's not necessarily about people knowing the boundaries of anal sex. It's about these things (STDs, anal cancer, etc.) being more likely to happen through anal sex. Sure, most people may not subsequently suffer from any of that, but we still have to report it. If you or others have any suggestions, along with reliable sources, to make some parts of the article "more neutral," I am all for it. Flyer22 (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Anal Cancer

It's written that if one smoke this increases the risk of anal cancer fourfold. Then after it says that receptive analsex increases the risk sevenfold.

Does it mean that if you smoke and receive anal sex the risk is sevenfold or does it mean that the risk increases wether you smoke or not?

It doesn't seem very clear to me judging by the current text? 90.225.108.28 (talk) 10:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Cpt. Rhodes. 2010-05-21 12:49.

The cited source says: One of the most surprising findings, Daling said, was that smoking appears to play a significant role in anal-cancer development that's independent of other behavioral risk factors, such as sexual activity.. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and tweaked it. Flyer22 (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)