Talk:Anal sex/Archive 6

Maybe cut the religious information down a bit?
As I and Aristophanes68 stated above, religious views definitely belong in this article. But perhaps it should be formatted similarly to the way we have done for the Sexual intercourse article? Dougcweho is not the first to feel that the religious content in the Anal sex article is too much. Should we summarize it more and point to the article on Religion and sexuality or is it necessary to leave it all here since it is specifically about anal sex and anal sex has traditionally been more taboo than other sex acts? Flyer22 (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should point to the existing information in other articles, and have less of that here. One point that is not clear here, or there though is that although some religions have viewpoints regarding sodomy, none of them really are against anal sex.  It is a very common misunderstanding (and not just religious people) that sodomy and anal sex are synonyms when they are not at all.  Anyway, as long and the other articles have sufficient detail about religious viewpoints regarding sodomy, we could put less here. Atom (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for weighing in, Atomaton. About none being against anal sex, how is that the case when some of them prohibit it? As for the definition of sodomy, all definitions I have seen include anal and oral sex. Flyer22 (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I added an "off-topic?" tag to that section; maybe that will spur more discussion/editing. Aristophanes68 (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Religions give guidance, so "prohibit" might be a strong term. They object to sodomy, or "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman".  SOme do define Sodomy to include anal sex, yes, but it is far from clear.  The original definition of sodomy is essentially "behaving badly, or idoltry, or mistreating guests".  The term originates in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. where in violation of the strict rules of hospitality, house guests were attacked.  Later in history that became construed to mean bad "sexual behavior/depravity", and then later after that, oral sex, anal sex and bestiality.  Essentially their is no biblical or religious source that equivocates Sodomy as Anal sex.Atom (talk) 04:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Prohibit" is the only word to use in some of these matters, and accurate. You say "some" define sodomy to include anal sex? I say every definition of sodomy includes anal sex. And the saying "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman" means sexual interaction. I highly doubt the saying simply means resting beside someone. "To lie with" back then meant to "have sexual relations with." And if men are not frotting together or using some other form of mutual masturbation on each other, then, yes it is oral or anal sex they are engaging in. Flyer22 (talk) 07:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

After our discussion I trimmed the section. My thought is that people interested can go to the other articles that hass all of the detail related to religion and sexuality, etc. Also, I removed the banner that redirected to religion and homosexuality. For one, I think my edits made it not necessary, and for two, the article is about anal sex, and not homosexuality. Anal sex is generally related to sexuality regardless of gender preference. More heterosexuals engage in anal sex than male homosexuals or lesbians do, and so if we were to go there, it would be more appropriate to discuss religion and sexuality in general, and not direct to religion and homosexuality. Atom (talk) 04:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the edits. I worry that you trimmed too much--I think for most churches, for instance, their views on anal sex are most influenced by their views on homosexuality--I'm not sure heterosexual anal sex gets discussed much. (I've heard plenty of preachers rail at gay men based on their disgust at anal sex--but they never tell their straight congregants to avoid it--how odd...) At the very least, we could look for sources that address how much a traditions' views on anal sex are focused on homosexuality. I also think your arguments about the numbers of people who have anal sex are a bit misleading. If there are more heterosexual couples having anal sex, it's because there are vastly more heterosexual couples in the world than homosexual couples. The real issue is the percentage, and I imagine gay couples are much more regular in having anal sex than straight couples. Moreover, I'd like to see your source about "most gay couples don't have anal sex"--I agree that many gay couples don't, but I find the "most" distinction dubious without verification. The article itself shows several figures that are at 50% or higher, and the ones with lower numbers are much older and, to my mind, less reliable for a variety of reasons. Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

artificial break

 * I tried to make an honest effort at addressing the issues, but leaving the details for other places. I am also of the opinion that religious groups have prejudice against anal sex because of their prejudice against homosexuality.  I think most people share that perception (that some religious groups feel that way).  For us to say that, we would need to cite someone though.  Othes can come along and make edits if they feel I have cut too much.  I'm not sure that I can cite my opinion that most homosexuals don't have anal sex.  But, consider that homsexuals are roughly 6-7% of the population.  Consider that more than half of those are lesbians.  (Yes, I know that some lesbians do have anal sex.)  Some homosexuals do not prefer anal sex, as their focus is not on sexuality, but is on having a loving relationship.  Others are too young or too old.  Others prefer being in a relationship before being that intimate, and are not in a long term relationship.  Others, who perhaps had anal sex with their partner when they were younger, now are in a long term relationship, and like some/many married heterosexuals who have been together for a long time, don't have sexual relations any longer.  Yes it is my belief that most anal sex is by heterosexuals, and that most homosexuals do not prefer anal sex.  Stating that opinion here, and putting it in the article are two different things.  The point is, if someone wishes to suggest in the anal sex article that anal sex is primarily a homosexual phenomena, then I would want them to provide reliable citations.  The implications that were throughout the religious section that anal sex is condemned by religion, because homosexuality is condemned by religion (in itself highly debated) just should not be in this article, IMO.  Atom (talk) 06:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * (This comment doesn't have much to do with what to leave in the article.) "Yes it is my belief that most anal sex is by heterosexuals, and that most homosexuals do not prefer anal sex." To my mind, that's like saying that white Americans eat more Chinese food than Chinese Americans--not because Chinese food is more important to whites, but because there are so many more of them. It might be more in sheer volume, but overall it's less important to whites, and they probably eat less of it per person. For your argument to make sense, you have to prove that heterosexual couples have anal sex on a regular basis; intuition suggests that heteros likely have anal sex every once in a while, perhaps very rarely, whereas gay men have it with much higher frequency. To put it numerically, 270 million heteros having anal sex once a week beats out 30 million gays having anal sex every day for a week. Now tell me which group is more invested with anal sex. And I've never heard anyone claim that more than half the gay population is lesbian. Everything I've always heard is that there are only half as many lesbians as gay men. Where did you hear the "over half" statistic? As for the article, I do think that the connections between anal sex and religious sodomy laws is significant enough to be included. Aristophanes68 (talk) 07:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sometimes in the interest of friendly conversation I am not succinct. The article is about anal sex, not homosexuality.  the fact (which can be supported by citations) that in terms of volume, more heterosexial people have anal sex than homosexual people do.

I don't really follow your chinese food analogy, and don't see how it applies. Your suggestion that gay men have anal sex with higher frequency isn'r really relevant, not supportable by citations I suggest. We were discussing homosexuals, and not just gay men. And if the religious objection to sodomy applies to anal sex, then the fact that every day more heterosexuals have anal sex than homosexuals suggests that trying to connect anal sex with homosexuality is not appropriate in the article. That's the point.

Can you give me a citation that discusses the number of homosexual men versus homosexual women? Since it is still a research point, and bringing bisexuality and transgenderism into the fray also affects that it is unclear. What is clear is that homosexuality is a smaller percentage of the population, estimated between 6-7% -- I have seen some claim as much as 10%. I have seen someplace where it is suggested that only a third of homosexuals are women, but then where some say that 90% of bisexuals are women. Conservative Christians consider bisexuals and transgendered people to be homosexual. So, go with whatever makes you feel good on that. My view is that as 51% of the population are women, and women engage in some form of same sex activity in roughly the same proportion as men.

What is clear is that in regards to anal sex -- it is behavior seen throughout all humans, is a normal part of sexuality. I think one could accurately say in this article that most people who perform that act are heterosexual. I am not sure what the point of saying that a larger percentage of homosexual men prefer anal sex than the percentage of heterosexual women who prefer anal sex. (even though more -- in terms of numbers -- women receive anal sex than any other group.) But, if you can cite that, it would seem to be on topic. Should we then discuss other slices of humanity that do anal sex? Lesbians who do anal sex? Hetersosexual men who receive anal sex? I'm not sure I see value in putting those kinds of things in the article. Also, one should keep in mind if they are trying to correlate homosexuality with anal sex, is that homosexuality is more about a person wanting a loving life partner (and prefering somneone of the same sex) than it is about any specific sexual activity. Consider that since more heterosexuals have anal sex than homosexuals, how ludicrous it would be to try classifying heterosexuality based on how much anal sex that group prefers. Atom (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "U.S. survey and other data suggest that, in terms of absolute numbers, approximately seven times more women than homosexual men engage in unprotected receptive anal intercourse." http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/apc.1999.13.717  DANIEL T. HALPERIN. AIDS Patient Care and STDs. DECEMBER 1999, 13(12): 717-730. doi:10.1089/apc.1999.13.717.


 * "It is concluded that a non-trivial proportion of California heterosexual adults engages in anal sex regularly, most without condoms, and those who have anal sex are more likely to have other risk behaviors associated with AIDS and STDs" http://ukpmc.ac.uk/abstract/MED/8924345  Erickson PI, Bastani R, Maxwell AE, Marcus AC, Capell FJ, Yan KX Department of Anthropology, University of Connecticut, Storrs 06269-2176, USA. AIDS Education and Prevention : Official Publication of the International Society for AIDS Education [1995, 7(6):477-93]


 * "Conclusion: STD clinic patients were commonly engaged in heterosexual anal sex, and most of them never used condoms during anal sex. Patients who had anal sex tended to also engage in other risk behaviors that put them at risk of STD/human immunodeficiency virus." http://journals.lww.com/stdjournal/Abstract/2008/11000/Heterosexual_Anal_Sex_Activity_in_the_Year_After.1.aspx Sexually Transmitted Diseases: November 2008 - Volume 35 - Issue 11 - pp 905-909 doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0b013e318181294b


 * Atom (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Atomaton, anal sex is commonly associated with male homosexuality. This is sourced in the article. And many other sources can back up the same statement. It's a common misconception that all gay men have anal sex or that even most do, which is why it should be addressed in this article. That is why I made this revert. I also made that revert because your removal of it leaves out the topic of gay males engaging in anal sex altogether.


 * Other than removing information addressing the misconception, your edits to this article have been on-point, and I appreciate your help. Flyer22 (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * First although I also feel that culturally people have the conception that anal sex is more commonly associated with homosexual males, your and my opinion about it is not sufficient. When I looked through the citations, I could not find any quote from the citations that in fact, said that. "anal sex is commonly associated with male homosexuality"  Perhaps I missed it?  And, even if in popular culture that misconception exists, that does not mean that it should be in the article.  If it is not actually factual that homosexuals are the primary participants in anal sex, should we promulgate or reinforce the misinformation?  If we want to address the misconception, and correct it, then the sentence needs to be edited to dispell that, not to reinforce it. As for leaving male-to-male out of the article.   There is an entire section addressing that further down on the article, right?  Section 3?  Atom (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You must have missed this source and what was source 61 -- doctors Dean and Delvin on the matter (though you edited source 61, and source 61 needs an updated link, which I will look for now). The common misconception should most definitely be addressed in the article since it has to do with anal sex -- something most people think anal sex automatically entails. Various sources, such as ones found on Google Books, touch on the fact that the very mention of anal sex is equated to gay male sex. This aspect should definitely be noted in the lead, per WP:LEAD, which is why it is there. We are not promulgating or reinforcing the misinformation, we are addressing it and then clearing it up. It is dispelling that information, as far as I see. It starts out with the fact that anal sex is commonly associated with male homosexuality, which it is, and then it goes into the fact that not all gay men have anal sex. There's no way we can say "most do not," because there are no sources to back up that exact statement. I can go ahead and reword it a bit, though, by adding mention of the misconception.


 * As for our personal opinions on whether or not heterosexuals have anal sex more than gay men, as you know, that is irrelevant to what we include in this article. Currently, there is no research out there saying that without a doubt more heterosexual couples have anal sex then gay couples. There's what you cited above, and this: According to Dr. John Dean and Dr. David Delvin, "in absolute numbers, it is hypothesized that more heterosexual couples have anal sex than homosexual couples". But notice how they stated "hypothesized" and "in absolute numbers," meaning overall. Which could be due to the fact that there are more heterosexuals than gay people. To make clearer, there is still the question of whether or not heterosexual couples have anal sex on a regular basis and if gay men have it with much higher frequency, as Aristophanes68 stated above. I understood the food analogy well. And though I stated that "it cannot be helped that so many gay men are just not that into anal sex" above to another editor, I wouldn't say "that most homosexuals do not prefer anal sex." Flyer22 (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should put the citation with the quote? If we wish to discuss the mosconception, and dispell it, I am fine with that.  As it reads, it sounds more like it is establishing it as fact than it is dispelling it.  IMO it has too much prominence in the lead, giving it undie weight.  The article is about anal sex, not homosexuality.  Discussing it in the section on male to male is a more appopriate place.  Atom (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I gave a citation for where it said that, as does one of the existing citaiotns in the article. It seems common sense to me.  Yes, indeed it says absolute numbers -- isn't that the point?  Of course the primary reason is because there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals.  Although the citations and research do support heterosexual couples engaging in anal sex on a regular basis, what does that have to do with it?  Were we trying to find a place to say that homosexual couples have a higher frequency of anal sex?  I don't think so.  It would be great if we all got on the same page here.  The article is about anal sex, not homosexuality.  In the section about male to male anal sex, that is the place that is on-topic for discussing male homosexual frequencies or preferences, whatever they may be.  Why should gay male anal sex deserve prominence in the lead para?  You would think perhaps that STI's and HIV would be more important there.  As the research points out that heterosexual anal sex is much more regular that is commonly perceived, and that most of that is unprotected sex, those facts wouls seem more important for a lead.  Atom (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Per WP:LEAD, the most important or controversial topics should be in the lead. It is not undue weight to note a huge misconception in the lead. We summarize it in the lead, then we discuss it in detail in the sections. The way it is now is not establishing anal sex being more frequented among gay men as fact. It is dispelling it by starting out with mention of the misconception, then saying not gay men have anal sex.


 * In absolute numbers, heterosexuals do more of just about everything than homosexuals, since there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals. This does not mean that anal sex is more common among individual heterosexual couples than individual homosexual couples. That is the point. I touch on this more below. Mentioning gay male sex and the misconception in the lead? Per what I stated above. But I did remove this part, per your concerns. Flyer22 (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * My problem is with the way you (Atom) seem to be missing the point of this sentence: "U.S. survey and other data suggest that, in terms of absolute numbers, approximately seven times more women than homosexual men engage in unprotected receptive anal intercourse." There are two things you're missing here. The first is that the discussion is about unprotected intercourse. Given the AIDS epidemic, a large % of gay men who aren't in monogamous partnerships have protected intercourse, so their numbers aren't even included in the figure, and the proportion is skewed. At the same time, the sentence states that they're looking at absolute numbers, which (given the sheer discrepancy between straight women and gay men) is like saying that Americans consume more cheese than the Swiss, or that more Texans watch football than Rhode Islanders, or that more white Americans than Native Americans voted for Obama. Those numbers don't tell us very much because they aren't weighted to account for the vastly different sizes of each group. While it's important to acknowledge that anal sex is more common among heterosexual couples than most people would expect, it's also important to find out whether straight couples have anal sex at the same frequency as gay couples--especially given that straight couples have more options for penetration than gay men (that is, what is the percentage of straight couples who have anal sex as their main form of intercourse?). I'd like to see some figures on this, because my hunch is that straight couples who have anal sex by and large have it much less often than gay male couples who practice anal sex. If so, then we could reasonably say that anal sex is more important to gay men than to straight women, that is (in my view) that when the numbers are weighted, gay men are more truly the "primary participants" than straight women. Don't be fooled by absolute numbers--they can easily distort the real picture. Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * @Aristophanes, I respect your view an opinion. That is why I think we need to get on the same page.  I am not trying to play some math trick.  Yes, of course the reason more heterosexuals have anal sex than homosexuals is because they are in higher proportion.  That is the point, which is why I siad it.  If someone wished to make the anal sex article primarily about homosexuality, or inject homosexuality into most of the topics of the article, then that is not appropriate.  My point, again, is that the article should focus on anal sex, and not on homosexuals (or heterosexuals for that matter.)  In the male to male section, if you'd like to make a point that the frequency of anal sex is higher than with heterosexuals (not something I dispute) then go for it.  Why should that be pertinent in the lead?  I'm not fooled by absolute numbers.  I'm trying to point out that frequency is not really important, that absolute numbers is much more important.  If STI's including HIV/AIDS is most commonly being transferred by anal sex, and if heterosexuals have more anal sex in absolute numbers, and they use condoms less frequently than with vaginal sex (or than homosexuals do), and if homosexual males perform anal sex with protection more frequently then that suggests -- in absolute numbers -- that more heterosexuals risk HIV/AIDS infections.  If you want to make the point that gay males have a higher risk of HIV/AIDS infection than heterosexuals do because their frequency of anal sex is higher than heterosexuals thats fine.  I'm not sure it is true, but I can see that is where there might be some case for discussing frequency.  If more heterosexual women are participants in anal sex, and they have a higher frequency of unprotected anal sex, how could you make the point that homosexual men are the primary participants?  Could you be clear about what point exactly you are trying to make?  In any event, trying to write the article to try to spin anal sex to be primarily as gay male sex act is not desirable and not factual.  That is my point.  Atom (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Atomaton, when you say the article shouldn't focus on homosexuals or heterosexuals, you mean mean primarily, right? Because the article should definitely address/focus on anal sex among each type of couple, which is why I didn't understand your comment that you're "not sure [you] see value in putting those kinds of things in the article" when it comes to lesbians and heterosexual men who receive anal sex. It's about the fact that this practice is carried out by more than just the male-on-male and male-on-female aspects, and thus should be addressed in this article, even with the act being less frequently carried out on heterosexual males and presumably lesbian women. This source and this source, as well as various others, suggest that anal sex is the least performed sexual practice anyway. So, in the end, it is sort of futile trying to discern which group has anal sex more. The fact that there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals makes it a reality that heterosexuals do just about "everything more" than homosexuals. But it's deceptive at the same time. There being more heterosexuals than homosexuals doesn't mean that anal sex is more practiced by individual heterosexual couples than individual homosexual couples. The "absolute numbers" thing is deceptive regarding heterosexuals vs. homosexuals because it can apply to almost anything, since there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals. That is why I reverted you on that. I find the fact that anal sex is most often associated with gay male sex somewhat telling of how much heterosexuals engage in the act. Flyer22 (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources I gave above seem to indicate that research is finding that heterosexuals have anal sex much more frequently than has previously been known, and that when they do, there is a much higher incidence of it being unprotected sex. Other research indicates that younger people engage in anal sex much more commonly than in the past often as a substitute for vaginal sex.  And that anal sex is even more frequently unprotected sex.  Perhaps a side affect of the abstinence movement?  Speculation.   I am not asserting that there are data that support that heterosexuals participate in anal sex more frequently as a sex act than homosexuals do.  But certainly it is not some fringe, rare sex act that heterosexuals engage in rarely.  And certainly to say that it is a sex act engaged in exclusively by gay males is not even remotely accurate.  Atom (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Intro paragraph
I put the "...not the case" back. The intro quote that we have been discussing says "There is a common misconception that anal sex is practiced almost exclusively by gay men." Going to the citation, the full quote is:

"There is a common misconception that anal sex is practised almost exclusively by gay men. This is certainly not the case. An estimated one third of gay couples do not include anal intercourse in their lovemaking. About one third of heterosexual couples try it from time to time.

It is thought that about 10 per cent of heterosexual couples have anal intercourse as a more regular feature of their lovemaking. In absolute numbers, more heterosexual couples have anal sex than homosexual couples, because more people are heterosexual."

http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/sexandrelationships/analsex.htm

So, adding the more complete context of ""There is a common misconception that anal sex is practised almost exclusively by gay men. This is certainly not the case" may sound like "weasel words" but is in fact, the opinion of the cited author, not our own words. Also, it is important to make the point, also the authors own words, "In absolute numbers, more heterosexual couples have anal sex than homosexual couples, because more people are heterosexual." as it is important to put things in context, and this point has been debated on the talk page.

By putting the misconception so prominently in the intro para, it is important not only to raise the misconception, but to dispell it. Quoting the author of that in proper context, rather than limited context, is necessary to do that.

Probably this should go in the male to male section anyway, and not in the intro paragraph. Atom (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly how is the addition of "certainly not the case" needed in the lead, after we already make clear that anal sex being primarily or only practiced by gay men is a misconception? It is not needed at all. It is WP:Weasel wording, and sounds opinionated, which it is (speaking of that line, not the fact that there is a common misconception). The misconception is already dispelled without that line. I am okay with us adding, "However, this is not the case, and...," though.


 * And I already explained above why I reverted you on the "more heterosexual couples" have anal sex matter. I stated: There being more heterosexuals than homosexuals doesn't mean that anal sex is more practiced by individual heterosexual couples than individual homosexual couples. The "absolute numbers" thing is deceptive regarding heterosexuals vs. homosexuals because it can apply to almost anything, since there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals. That is why I reverted you on that." It is not important to note in the lead at all, and sounds positively ridiculous, since "more heterosexuals do this, as there are more" applies to almost everything. We don't put that "more heterosexuals play baseball, because there are more heterosexuals in the world" in the Baseball or other articles, and we shouldn't do it for this one either (no matter sourced). I also already explained WP:LEAD above, about what should be in the lead and what should not. The matter is covered in the Male to male section, but should be summarized in the lead. On that note, I don't even feel that the "more heterosexuals do it because there are more" mention should be in the Male to male section, for the reasons I stated above. For the same reason you don't want to give the impression that anal sex is mostly practiced by gay men, we shouldn't give the impression that it is mostly practiced by heterosexuals...especially when no source states exactly that. Flyer22 (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I tweaked the misconception part to this, to make it clearer. Flyer22 (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I quoted the author that you cited. If you don't agree, that's fine, but obviously the author felt that it was important to make that point.  I brought the authors words into the article because obviously there is some problem with people understanding it.  How can you (people in general) identify anal sex with homosexuals when anal sex is predominantly practiced (by larger numbers of people) by heterosexuals?  Why say it at all?  Because, as you point out, there is a misconception that anal sex is associated with homosexuals.  You yourself pointed out that the misconception should be addressed and dealt with.  Isn't a citation from a reliable source a good way to do that?  The reason that I put it in the article, was because I was quoting precisely the source that you put in the article.  So, I am not sure what you mean by "when no source states that".  I didn't make it up.  I am sure we could provide a number of other sources that say that too, like one of the three I added earlier in the talk page.  Atom (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As I stated on my talk page: ''It is weasel wording to say "this certainly is not the case," just as it would be weasel wording if we worded any information in a way that encompasses WP:Weasel wording. It doesn't matter if the weasel wording is cited; there is usually always a way to word material without including weasel words, and that is what I did just moments ago.


 * The other aspect of the cited text is saying that heterosexuals have anal sex more because there are more heterosexuals. This applies to almost everything, since there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals. It's like a "Duh" comment. That is why that addition by you is debated. One can easily state that more heterosexuals play basketball, since there are more. That is why such an addition is silly. It's not like that statement is saying that anal sex is practiced more by individual heterosexual couples than individual homosexual couples. No source exactly states that anal sex is mostly practiced by heterosexuals. "In absolute numbers" is ridiculous for all the reasons stated above. It's like saying, "In absolute numbers," more white people have sex than black people because there are more white people. Or "in absolute numbers," more heterosexuals eat pizza than homosexuals because there are more heterosexual people in the world. Flyer22 (talk) 00:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, as mentioned on my talk page: It is one of the same reasons that stating that most serial killers are white has been debated at the Serial killer article time and time again. "Absolute numbers" means nothing since it is quite clear that there are more white people in the world than black people or any other "race." The same applies to heterosexuals and sex. What you are stating can apply to oral sex and various other sex acts too, not just anal sex, since there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals. I do not get at all why you feel it is needed or logical to mention this "more heterosexuals do it because there are more" stuff. Flyer22 (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Look, I took the para out all together, and you reverted me and put in back saying that the misconception should be dealt with. I didn't argue with you, I politely asked for a citation, since I could find none.  You provided one and added it directly to the quote about the misconception.  The two comments I added, were directly from the the citation you provided, and quoted exactly.  So, your argument with the author of the citation.  The absolute numbers is appropriate within a proper context.  If someone made the statement "more pizzas are eaten by gay people than by any other group"  Then yes, making the statement that more heterosexual people eat pizzas would make sense.  In this specific article if the statement is made "anal sex is practiced almost exclusively by gay men." Then yes, suggesting that some other group practices anal sex in large numbers is appropriate.  That is all I have said.


 * And, BTW, white people are in the the minority in the world. With with Africa, Asia and South America all having overwhelming large proportions of non-white people.  The white people of the United States, Canada, Europe and Australia are only a small percentage of the world population.  China, India and Africa alone have a population of like 3.5 billion together and the U.S. and E.U. about 800 Million.  And that leaves out Indonesia, Japan, Korean, the Middle East and South America -- all non-white.  Speaking of which, do you know which country has the largest number of English speaking citizens?  China.    If someone made the comment that almost all English speaking people were in North America, England and Australia, they would be wrong.  It would be fair to point out that "in absolute numbers" China actually has the most English speaking people.  Atom (talk) 01:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what else to state on this matter, except that I disagree with you. I do not see at all how it is appropriate to state that "more heterosexual people do this because there are more heterosexual people," due to everything stated above. My argument is with you, not the author. This discussion is about what should be included in this article. I do not understand at all why you think that line makes sense to state, and instead do not view it as extremely trivial. It is inaccurate and irrelevant, as this fact applies to almost everything. More heterosexuals do almost "everything more," since there are more of them. It really is a "duh" mention. And this does not mean that anal sex is more practiced by individual heterosexual couples than individual homosexual couples. The matter is exactly what Aristophanes68 stated above. That line is not stating that heterosexual couples engage in anal sex at a higher frequency than homosexual couples. If it were, then this would be accurate about which group has anal sex more, according to that source. As it is, stating that "more heterosexuals do this because there are more heterosexuals" is the same as saying "more serial killers are white than black serial killers because there are more white people than black people." I am tired of repeating myself.


 * White people are the minority? That's the first I have ever heard of such a thing. Whenever do you hear white people being referred to as a minority in discussion of "race" or in reliable sources? By white people, I was going off of what is stated/shown in the White people article, and many other up-to-date sources. And, really, "white," which includes Caucasian race," can include Asians as well. Flyer22 (talk) 01:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * People from Eastern India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and the area vary in skin pigmentation from extremely dark to very light skinned. In any case, as one of the biggest representatives of Asians, they do not consider themselves "Caucasians" as far as I know.  The many different regions of China also has people whose skin color goes throughout the range from light to dark, as Asians, they also consider their race to be distinct, and not Caucasian.  So, I guess it depends on how you look at it.  The Wikipedia article Color_terminology_for_race discusses this topic, including suggesting the "Western Classifications" of the five color typology for humans: white people (the Caucasian or white race), more or less black people (the Ethiopian or black race), yellow people (the Mongolian or yellow race), cinnamon-brown or flame colored people (the American or red race) and brown people (the Malay or brown race).  I'm not saying I agree with that.  Some people base this on individual skin color, and others by racial ancestry.  All I know is if you could develop a "melting pot" composite of all human properties to get sort of a "median Human", she would be Asian, dark skinned (not white) with brown eyes and black hair.  This reminds me of many of the people who live in India. Atom (talk) 04:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Flyer22, I think your cool. I don't want controversy with you.  I think you are thinking too much about the concept of the larger number thing.  What should be our focus?  If the statement made in the article "anal sex is practiced almost exclusively by gay men"  is not accurate, how does one best go about proving that it is not correct?  I submit that showing that some other group (other than gay males) participates in anal sex in larger numbers than gay men would do that.  This disproves the "exclusively", as well as establish that there is no reason to identify anal sex with gay males.  What does the citation that you pointed do say about this?  Atom (talk) 04:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * On the race bit, I admit that I was wrong to state "more than any other race," as I was/am aware of just how overpopulated China is (for example). But, really, there is no definitive data out there on worldwide racial demographics; sources on the matter vary. Whites being the minority? I have yet to see a reliable source stating that whites are at the very bottom. And I'm not speaking about America. I'm speaking "worldwide." Various reliable sources state that there are more white people in the world than black people. But that could be due to how "white" is defined by some sources. "White" does not always mean "European only." Some sources on worldwide racial demographics define "white" differently, and this is what the White people and Caucasian race articles address. But on a side note, you want to know why I put "race" in quotations mark so often? It's because scientists state that there is no such thing as race regarding humans, and I am of that same belief.


 * I am not thinking too much about the concept of the larger number thing. I believe you are. The lead is already clear about the misconception and that not all gay men have anal sex, without making it look as though more heterosexuals have anal sex than gay couples. If you want to make it look as though more individual heterosexual couples have anal sex than individual homosexual couples, then you should cite a study showcasing that. But even then, that would just be one study. And the lead already cites one study on how frequently some heterosexuals have anal sex. What you are arguing for is disproving one inaccuracy with another. How is it news to anyone that because there are more heterosexual people in the world, of course ("in absolute numbers") there are going to be more heterosexual couples practicing anal sex? C'omn. How many times do I have to state that the "more heterosexuals do this because there are more heterosexuals" goes for almost anything? That is not news to anyone. It is a trivial mention at best. A common sense addition. Again, I do not understand why you do not understand how silly it is to mention. Unless you want people to read the lead of this article and think that anal sex is more frequently practiced by heterosexuals than homosexuals. You already stated you believe this to be true. I ask that your bias not get in the way of how this article is carried out. And because I am beyond tired of debating this, we are at a standstill, and it is clear that you will not let up on it, I am starting a RfC on the matter below. Flyer22 (talk) 07:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * First, with the recent changes you've made, I am just fine with the article. It is clearer than it was before.  The second is, I am not sure where you got the idea that I have wanted to inject any deception into the article.  It is not like I have suggested adding anything false to the article.  That more heterosexuals have anal sex is merely a fact. If you have a pool of all people who have anal sex, and you break it down by sexual orientation, most of them are heterosexual.  Whether you were to look at the it from a viewpoint of whether someone has had anal sex at some point in their life, or whether if you had a way to analyze the amount of anal sex that occurred over a time period (such as daily).  I didn't make the statement up, I took it from the source you cited in the article.


 * Why say it at all? There is only one reason.  To dispel the inaccurate perception that anal sex is a homosexual "thing".  You insisted that rather than remove the statement that discussed the misconception that it be left in and dealt with.  When you asserted that, I didn't argue with you, I supported you, and tried to back you up.  In the serial killer article, it would not make sense to add "Most serial killers are white."  However, if someone added a paragraph into the article that said "There is a misconception that most serial killers are black."  It would be appropriate to add "But, in fact, more serial killers, are white." And one could even go further and say "...Due to the fact that a larger percentage of the U.S. population is white."  What would make the most sense would be to remove the misconception form the article altogether and not have either statement there.  But, if you did that, and someone put it back into the article and cited it as fact, you'd feel that it it needed to be there, and needed to be addressed that you point out why it is not correct, right?


 * I'm not sure where you got the idea that I am biased in any way, when you and I have the same view. I don't believe that as a percentage of the sample group that heterosexuals practice anal sex more frequently than gay males.  It may be possible that heterosexuals practice anal sex more frequently that homosexuals as a whole, but that is only because that group includes lesbians, that only practice anal sex infrequently. I suggested that was possible earlier, but I do not have any data to show that, nor am I asserting that as fact, nor is there any need to assert that in the article.


 * Atom (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If you are just fine with the article, I doubt you would have continued this debate as vigorously as you did. Where did I get the idea that you wanted to inject any deception into the article? Read above, I already explained above why the line is deceptive and trivial. That more heterosexuals have anal sex is NOT merely a fact, without any qualifiers. It's like saying that more heterosexuals eat fruit because there are more heterosexuals is merely a fact. On something like sexuality and various other things, when people want to know what percentage does this or that, they are not thinking in terms of which group of people there are more of. Because if they were, heterosexuals would win almost every time. Thus, that is no answer. It is an "Of course they are" common sense reality.


 * Why say it all? To dispel the misconception, which is adequately dispelled without that line you are fighting so hard to include in the lead. And in the Serial killer article, no, it would not make sense to state, "But, in fact, more serial killers, are white." in your scenario. The reason is...it would be going off of the overall population in the world -- the fact that there are more white people than black people. Which is not an answer. Percentages are what matter -- the percentage of white serial killers who commit murders versus the percentage of black serial killers who commit murders. That is what researchers go off of. And, no, it would not make sense to remove the misconception altogether from the Serial killer article, and we haven't. It's addressed in the Characteristics section. And to take it a step further, there being more men in the world (I'm not sure if there are, and I ask that you do not assure me that there are unless you provide a reliable source to back it up) is not the reason that more men are serial killers and pedophiles than women.


 * I got the idea that you are biased on the matter due to what you stated above about your belief. A lot of people have a bias on subjects they work on. To me, your belief that more heterosexuals have anal sex than gay couples (and, no, I'm not talking about "because there are more") is getting in the way. You don't believe that as a percentage of the sample group that heterosexuals practice anal sex more frequently than gay males? Well, it seemed that way from your earlier comments, and still seems that way now. To insist something so trivial be in the lead, and as though the lead is severely lacking without it, and especially when it is already noted in the Male to male section. Flyer22 (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Should the lead (intro) say more heterosexuals have anal sex because there are more heterosexuals?
There is debate about whether or not to state that more heterosexuals have anal sex because there are more heterosexuals. One view is that the statement should be there, that it should relay that "some other group practices anal sex in large numbers" to help dispel the misconception that anal sex is practiced almost exclusively by gay men. The other view is that the statement is deceptive and trivial, as the saying "more heterosexuals do it because there are more heterosexuals" applies to almost anything, since there are more heterosexuals in the world than homosexuals (disregarding people who identify as bisexual). The talk page discussions above this RfC posting showcase the thoughts on the matter, starting with the end of the "Maybe cut the religious information down a bit?" section. Flyer22 (talk) 07:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

As I have said before, the article brings up the common misconception that "anal sex is practiced almost exclusively by gay men." I took that out of the lead para, but it was put back in and a citation added. Since it is in, it should be addressed and corrected.

I quoted the source more completely with "There is a common misconception that anal sex is practised almost exclusively by gay men. This is certainly not the case." The full quote was: "There is a common misconception that anal sex is practised almost exclusively by gay men. This is certainly not the case. An estimated one third of gay couples do not include anal intercourse in their lovemaking. About one third of heterosexual couples try it from time to time.

It is thought that about 10 per cent of heterosexual couples have anal intercourse as a more regular feature of their lovemaking. In absolute numbers, more heterosexual couples have anal sex than homosexual couples, because more people are heterosexual." http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/sexandrelationships/analsex.htm

But my attempt to clarify was rejected/reverted also. I could have been upset, and argued saying, "if the misconception must remain in the article because it is cited, then why is it that putting the misconception into fuller context using the identical source is not appropriate?"

SO I quoted the source again, with "In absolute numbers, more heterosexual couples have anal sex than homosexual couples, because more people are heterosexual." This was also rejected/reverted. Again I didn't argue, I could have said "Look if citing the source as they pose the statement that it is a misconception is appropriate for the article. Then why isn't the same source, when they explain why it is a misconception not appropriate?"

I understand that this statement does not address the percentage of heterosexuals that practice anal sex, versus the percentage of gay men who engage in anal sex. We are only trying to directly address the misconception, nothing else. There would, of course, be no purpose in making the statement otherwise. As there are more heterosexuals than gay men as a percentage of the population, it only make sense that there might be, in absolute numbers, more heterosexuals that engage in anal sex. (The cite indicates this is factual.) But, by stating this, we disprove the assertion "anal sex is practised almost exclusively by gay men." By showing that it is practiced by some other group in larger numbers. Clearly if more heterosexuals practice anal sex than homosexuals, it is not practiced exclusively by gay men.

If someone reads this to mean that as a percentage, heterosexuals practice anal sex more frequently than gay men do, then they are reading it incorrectly. We aren't trying to address that. If we have concerns that someone may misunderstand, we could try and find a source that cites that gay men have anal sex more frequently than heterosexuals (as a percentage of the population.) I have no problem with that.

Atom (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Goodness, Atomaton, this section is supposed to be for others to weigh in. Why bring our same debate in this section too? I'm not sure if you like continuously repeating yourself. But I don't. You say the part about anal sex being practiced almost exclusively by gay men should be addressed and corrected. It is! And you already (after I posted this RfC) stated above that you are okay with the way the article currently is. The lead clearly states, "There is a common misconception that anal sex is practiced almost exclusively by gay men. This misconception is dispelled by researchers, as not all gay males engage in anal sex, and anal sex is not uncommon among heterosexual relationships." After that, the lead even cites a study about how often some heterosexuals engage in anal sex. That is all that is needed!! We don't need some deceptive line in the lead about heterosexuals having anal sex more than gay couples. It is deceptive because "heterosexuals do it more because there are more heterosexuals" applies to almost everything...which I've stated time and time again now. Of course the line is accurate. Because there are more heterosexual couples in the world. Everyone knows that. That is why it should not be mentioned at all. It does not, as you stated, address the percentage of heterosexuals that practice anal sex versus the percentage of gay men who engage in anal sex. If it did, I would see your point. But because it does not and states something that is extremely trivial and obvious to anyone, I disagree.


 * I ask that you let others weigh in now, and do not drag out the same debate here in this section too. I already know what you are going to state, and I really do not feel like seeing the same lines again and again, with only marginal qualifiers. Flyer22 (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you. You stated your view in the header of the RfC succinctly, and I stated mine.  Yes, we can see what others say, but as we both like the article the way it is now, I am not sure what the point is.  I originally quoted the citation by adding "This is certainly not the case."  You reverted.  Recently, you added/reworded with "This misconception is dispelled by researchers", which, although it is your own words, and not the words of the cited author, read just fine and as you say, "is allthat is needed."  Neither I nor any editor has reverted that, nor brought up discussion.   Atom (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I am just frustrated. I'm not trying to attack you. But my view in the header? The header is quite neutral, as it is the exact question at hand. The same goes for how I worded the RfC. Flyer22 (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You are great, and I think the way that you edited it is just fine. I know we have had discussion regarding your perception about the heterosexual large number issue, but really -- the way you have it is fine.  I am not objecting or suggesting any changes.  Atom (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The "dispelled by researchers part" is backed up by the two doctors/researchers in that source, and the Go Ask Alice! source in the Male to male section. That same Go Ask Alice! source is not in the lead, but that's because I don't feel it is needed. And I do apologize for sniping at you at times, if it seemed that way. There are times where I can get beyond frustrated (not truly angry, as angry is a whole different matter for me) and have that frustration leak out a bit. Flyer22 (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I would say when an editor admits that he wants to "directly address [a] misconception" my spidey-sense starts to tingle. It's not our job to address misconceptions, and it's certainly not our job to guess what misconceptions might or might not be out there in the world. Our job is to present data, pegged to reliable sources.


 * The question of what is meant by "more" is a difficult one, but generally speaking percentages rather than absolute numbers are more telling. It does depend on the context, but, generally, percentages tell a more true story. It's tricky. For instance, compare "More working-class people eat caviar than very rich people do" (true, I suppose) to "Working-class people eat caviar more than very rich people do" (misleading at best). It's tricky. I'd stay away from it, especially in the lead. If you want it in the lead, present figures from the CDC studies unvarnished and let the reader draw his own conclusions. Herostratus (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for weighing in, Herostratus. The whole debate, if you read all of it above, started because of the simple mention that anal sex is commonly associated with homosexual males. Atomaton felt that it reinforced the idea that anal sex is mostly practiced by gay males, and that mentioning that not all gay males engage in anal sex was not enough. This is where I decided to address the misconception in better detail, by outright stating that there is one. I definitely feel that information should be in the lead, per WP:LEAD, as it is a significant aspect of anal sex -- people commonly associating it with gay males more than any other group. It's the "more heterosexuals do it because there are more" issue which I felt/feel should not be mentioned in the lead (or even in the Male to male section), for the reasons given above (including yours). Flyer22 (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that if the statistic is presented in a percentage form, then you would receive an accurate survey (which are almost always presented in percentage forms). There is no real necessity for an argument of numbers, as previously stated. It would be akin to saying that more people in China drink tea than people in Australia because there are more Chinese than Australians. Numbers do not tell a story between two separate groups: percentages do. Above all else, neutrality must be observed, and anything other than percentage is simply false reporting. Truth be told, I do not think that it belongs anywhere other than a general mention in the heterosexual section, most certainly not the lead.Ampersandestet (talk) 06:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Choices in Relationships: An Introduction to Marriage and the Family
I removed the citation. It was used in a context of saying that a study showed that 24% of heterosexuals had engaged in anal sex. But, looking more closely, the demographics of the study given show that the study only involved undergraduates (a young and narrow age group - the average age was 20.1) and that 75% of the study participants were women, and the study included homosexuals, and not just heterosexuals. Other studies show different numbers. I think we should find a solid source for these data. Several sources suggest somewhere around 8% of heterosexuals "regularly" engage in anal sex, while more than 60% had engaged in it in the past at some time. Atom (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The inclusion of it mentioned that it was referring to undergraduates, but, yes, it seems better left out of the lead and article as a whole. Flyer22 (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Weintraub coverage, and anal vs. frot in the gay male community
Today's rework of the male/male section has greatly reduced the POV that was previously present, but I am still not quite settled with how we cover Weintraub. Okeh, he has barked repetitively and loudly enough to get some interviews and writeups, so from that standpoint he might be worthy of mention. However, from what I see his is essentially a one-man crusade against anal sex. I do not see (or find) any kind of scientific, rigourous, peer-reviewed support for his claims of the deleterious psycho-emotional effects of anal sex. There is no indication of the size of the self-professed group he created, so I don't know that he merits the moniker of a "frot advocacy group". Perhaps his group has some members, but aside from them, the only substantial agreement I find for his claims comes from assorted bigots -- the standard assortment of anti-gay groups, SPLC-listed hate groups, etc. That being the case, it seems to me we must proceed carefully lest we unduly legitimise Weintraub's POV; it looks to me as if his position warrants only minimal coverage unless and until it can be shown to merit greater weight and coverage.

So far so good; the coverage of Weintraub's position has been whittled down considerably, but how shall we best adjust it? The current text reads Bill Weintraub, a frot advocate, denounces anal sex…. I'm not sure Weintraub is sufficiently notable to warrant named coverage in this article (perhaps in frot). So far, alternatives I've thought of include An American frot advocate disparages anal sex…, or At least one frot advocate disparages anal sex…. Other suggestions? Thoughts? —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 23:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As you know, I already thanked you for making that section seem less negative. You make some valid points on this. Some of these same concerns have been brought up on the Frot article's talk page. And, yes, of course Bill Weintraub is already mentioned in that article. As for this article, I reverted you again on singling out Bill Weintraub. As the sources show, he is not the only gay man who prefers frot or denounces anal sex. There are other pro-frot website sources in the Frot article if using one of the two sources in this article on the subject is unacceptable. Plus, a Go Ask Alice! source does mention mutual masturbation being preferred by gay men in long-term relationships. Therefore, it makes more sense to say "some men," not just "Bill Weintraub prefers frot." If you point out why you dislike this next sentence, we can work from there: "Some gay men prefer to engage in frot as an alternative to anal sex, while other frot advocates, such as Bill Weintraub, denounce anal sex as an unnecessary health risk and degrading to the receptive partner." I tried to make that information as neutral as possible, as not to suggest that all gay men who prefer frot denounce anal sex. Flyer22 (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * How about something like "Some men prefer to engage in frot as an alternative to anal sex; while other frot advocates denounce anal sex as an unnecessary health risk and degrading to the receptive partner." Atom (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with that, and was going to suggest something like that in my previous comment -- about leaving mention of Bill Weintraub out altogether, as was done before Scheinwerfermann's rework of that section. Flyer22 (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My beef with Some gay men prefer to engage in frot as an alternative to anal sex… is that it bizarrely names just one of an enormous number of sex acts some gay men favour. Some gay men prefer fellatio. Some gay men prefer fisting. Some gay men prefer masturbation. Some gay men prefer getting restrained to immobility, gagged, blindfolded, and having hot melted wax dribbled on their nipples. Some gay men prefer celibacy. Some gay men prefer hauling themselves up in the air with a pull-up bar and repeatedly banging themselves, penis-first, into an adjacent wall. How many of these men prefer these activities to anal sex specifically, and how many of these men simply prefer these activities, full stop? Some gay men—some people, for that matter—have a favourite sex act. Some don't. Some definitely dislike some sex acts; some are indifferent. D'you see what I'm getting at, here? The comment that some gay men prefer frottage to anal sex is problematic because it is spurious and/or insufficient, depending on whether one thinks a canonical list of sex acts some gay men prefer to anal sex belongs in this article. I really think the assertion is a distraction and a POV bias, however unintentional, towards Weintraub's advocacy platform. I think the assertion Some gay men prefer to engage in frot as an alternative to anal sex… belongs not here but in frot (if it belongs anywhere).


 * I definitely favour omitting mention of Weintraub by name; my use of his name was sort of a placeholder pending something better; it's got this discussion going, which is a fine thing. The difficulty is how to phrase it without using his name. Is there reliable evidence that others than Weintraub go beyond mere advocacy to disparaging anal sex as unnecessarily risk and degrading to the receptive partner and championing frottage as an alternative to anal sex? If so, that makes it easy for us; we can say some frot advocates disparages anal sex as unnecessarily risky and degrading to the receptive partner and be done with it. If Weintraub's the only notable one, then if we want to avoid mentioning his name we'll need to say something like one frot advocate disparages anal sex as…. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 02:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The thing with mentioning frot, Scheinwerfermann, is that some gay men quite clearly promote it as an alternative to anal sex. I don't see this done with the other preferences in regards to gay men. I don't know of any gay male group saying oral sex should be had instead of anal sex, for example. There are, however, frot groups who denounce anal sex, and thus there is a clear Anal vs. Frot debate, which is why it should be at least touched on here. The Frot article already covers the more in-depth information. As for reliable evidence that others than Weintraub go beyond mere advocacy to disparaging anal sex as an unnecessary risk and degrading to the receptive partner and championing frottage as an alternative to anal sex, are the frot websites not reliable to use in this case? If not, they need to be removed from the Frot article. But it is clear that more than just Weintraub disparages anal sex. There are also the groups Man2Man Alliance, Heroic Homosex, the g0ys, and maybe more. I'll see what, if anything, I can find on Google Books about gay men specifically discouraging anal sex in favor of frot. But frot is also seen as a safer sex alternative, which can be backed up by medical sources. Furthermore, displaying some sort of alternative to anal sex in the introduction of the Male to Male section seems rationale to me, given that we state that many gay men do not engage in anal sex. Some readers will ask, "Then what do they engage in?" Not that it is our duty to inform them, but for heterosexuals, we already have the vaginal sex comparison (even though enough people already know about vaginal sex), and for lesbians, we mention other sex acts there. If it would help, we could move the sourced mention about gay males in long-term relationships engaging in oral sex and mutual masturbation more commonly than anal sex to the tidbit about frot; mutual masturbation can include frot, after all. Flyer22 (talk)  13:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. In an anal sex article, discussing what people view as an alternative to anal sex seem appropriate.  The fact that it is viewed as safer sex in a time when anal sex is considered to be risky behavior also makes it notable in this article. Atom (talk) 14:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I have gathered what some sources say on the matter. One from About.com, and the others from Google Books (social sciences and stuff like that). Most of the sources on frottage in the gay male community I have found thus far are not denouncing anal sex, but they are specifically speaking of a preference for frottage over anal sex...for either pleasure or health reasons. One source says anal sex isn't as common as oral sex and masturbation, etc., and another source backs up the Go Ask Alice! information about frot being more common among gay men in long-term relationships than anal sex. So it definitely seems as though frot or some other form of mutual masturbation are the default alternatives to anal sex. I also came across a The Advocate source citing gay or bisexual men, including Bill Weintraub, disparaging anal sex in favor of frot, and an Out source backing up Bill Weintraub's websites (Man2Man Alliance and Heroic Homosex) as providing testimonies from other gay or bisexual men who prefer frot over anal sex, or outright discouraging anal sex. Here are all the sources I just mentioned:


 * 1.Myth: All Gay Men Have Anal Sex. Despite the common myth, not all gay men like anal sex. There are many ways men can be intimate with one another without having anal sex. Two very common ways are intercrural sex and frottage.


 * 2.Gay men and anal eroticism: tops, bottoms, and versatiles. Thankfully, gay men don't abide by the general (and boring) heterosexual assumption that sex is not sex unless it involves some form of genital fucking... Although butt-fucking is not as commonly practiced as sucking or jacking off, it's still very popular.


 * 3.Gay Perspective: Things Our Homosexuality Tells Us about the Nature of God & the Universe. Many gay men don't particularly care for anal intercourse; and these days, awareness of sexually transmitted diseases and the need for condoms discourage penetrative intercourse. This source goes on to say that frottage and mutual masturbation may be one of the most common ways gay people make love -- especially in long-term relationships where sexual affection is a nightly event and so gets simplified to the easiest and most affectionate. And that It is also the safest.


 * 4.The Advocate, 2005. Perhaps most sensational among the new AIDS activists are those who campaign against anal sex. Bisexual blogger Jim Lynch describes it as "shit sex" and says the way to avoid the "supervirus" includes no longer depicting anal sex as erotic. "It's truly unfortunate that some folks perceived [me] to be antigay when nothing could be more pro-gay than keeping gay and bisexual men alive and healthy," Lynch says.


 * 5.Out, 2004 Activist Bill Weintraub runs a site called HeroicHomosex.com that contains hundreds of messages from and articles about men who prefer frottage (a word of French derivation that means "rubbing") over anal sex.


 * So, clearly, there is something to say about gay men, not just Bill Weintraub, preferring frot over anal sex or denouncing anal sex altogether. For the most neutral stance, I would say we should keep the wording that is there in the Male to male section now, without mentioning Bill Weintraub, but with using a few of these new sources as simple backup (as additional citations) and mention of frot being seen as a safe sex alternative to anal sex. Flyer22 (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I tweaked the Male to male section, per everything stated above. Among a few other things, I added additional sources (the ones from above) for backup. I added a quote from a psychologist about anal sex being just as important to gay men as vaginal sex is to heterosexuals, for neutrality (though, of course, he is not speaking for all gay men). I removed mention of Bill Weintraub (though he is still used as a source). I made the mention of frot less trivial by mentioning that frot or other forms of mutual masturbation are seen as safe sex alternatives to anal sex. And the line about frot advocates denouncing anal sex is still there because it is a notable aspect of the gay male community and has reliable sources attributed to it now. Flyer22 (talk) 02:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Pain
Thanks, Flyer22 (and all other participants in this discussion). The improvement in this section over the last few days is large. Before, a naïve reader would get the impression that male/male anal sex is necessarily dangerous and painful. Now, such a reader wouldn't necessarily get that impression, at least not so strongly as before, but the text is still somewhat slanted. Fact is, a great many men genuinely enjoy hygienic anal sex without pain. We'll need some sturdy, reliable citations to continue improving this section; perhaps someone has this book or this one, and I'm sure there are rigourous sites akin to this one. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 08:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, Scheinwerfermann. Glad you approve. So it's the Pain section unbalancing things you're worried about now? I understand. Yes, I am not opposed in the least to adding some information about gay men, and men who have sex with men in general, enjoying anal sex without pain. I would say we don't need a new section for that, though, and that it should be added to the Pain section, or we should title the Pain section Pleasure and pain instead. Flyer22 (talk) 14:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, we needn't fragment the article into numerous small sections. Better to let it grow organically; if enough relevant information accumulates within a section to warrant a sectional split, great. I agree with you on "pleasure/pain". —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 20:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Another reason the Pain section stands out or seems a little "off" is because the other pairing sections don't have sections especially dedicated to pain. I mean, I know why you made the Pain section and put it last -- to split all that negative information away from the general information -- but, surely, men who have sex with men are not the only ones who can experience significant pain during anal sex. Thus the Pain section gives the idea that anal sex is especially difficult for men who have sex with men. So once enough pleasure information is added to balance things out, I feel that all that information should be added back to the initial section introducing male to male anal sex. We do the same for the Male to female section, tackle pleasure and pain there. It would also make that area of the Male to male section longer, instead of being so short. Flyer22 (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 02:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Anal sex / anal cancer
I would like to request an edit in this article. It is very important to make the distinction that anal sex alone does not increase the risk or cause anal cancer. From what I have read, it is from HPV infection that is contracted THROUGH anal sex that creates an increased risk for anal cancer from anal sex. Healthy couples will fear that they will give each other anal cancer from anal sex after reading this article. The point that should be made more clear is that HPV infection leads to an increased risk of anal cancer NOT the act of anal sex.

FrodoCloud79 (talk) 04:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not get that impression when I read the article, however a slight revision could be made that touches on this. However, going too in depth on the matter would perhaps be more appropriate on the Human papillomavirus page.Ampersandestet (talk) 07:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * FrodoCloud79, the section states early on that, "Most cases of anal cancer are related to infection with the human papilloma virus. And that, "The incidence of the disease has jumped 160% in men and 78% in women in the last thirty years, according to a 2004 American study. The increase 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. If a current smoker, there is a fourfold increase in risk, though independent of other behavioral risk factors, such as sexual activity. Receptive anal sex increases the incidence sevenfold... This and other studies also indicate that gay or bisexual sex among men is on the rise, which may account for the increase in anal cancer.


 * But with text such as that only, I can see how people would leave thinking that anal sex alone causes anal cancer, even though the article is actually saying that engaging in anal sex increases the risk of anal cancer. Because of this, I tweaked that section with this line. I'm not sure if an editor will ask for a source for the part where it says "Anal sex alone does not cause anal cancer." Flyer22 (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Religion and Anal Sex
This section needs a lot of work. Judaism does not have any citations. It is essentially a stub and needs to filled out with more information on the broader religion and anal sex not just one sect. Christianity and Islam same issues with no citation. I recently put an entry in for Christianity and it was deleted whole sale. Granted there are very valid issues with what I wrote; however I just wanted to put some clay on the table to be shaped not swept off completely. Yes my style is not wikipedia snuff. I also put sarcastic humor in there too. Shame on me.

I am so new here that I am not sure what to recommend. Though this entire section is out of sorts, and on the same premise of other contributors assertions about my edits most of this section should be removed. Honestly the current blurb about Chistianity which I wholly quote here:

"In Christian 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)"

...is a little rank. I have never in protestant, catholic, and any denomination heard someone say, "You know so and so used to do the "peccatum contra naturam" in college. This is not a very good portrayal of Christian views on anal sex. It is anecdotal at best, and only if it references the past. It's not even cited.

Consider getting rid of all of it or completely rewriting the section. To be fair the Buddhist section is descent if not relying on interpretation itself.

On a side note the only odd reason I care about religion and anal sex so much is because I was reading Vonnegut and wanted to know what buggery meant. I let curiosity fly a little high tonight.

Cheers. (I am not English, but realize I was throwing out some phrases that could confuse as one.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Requiesit (talk • contribs) 04:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The religious information was cut down almost two months ago now, per the discussion at the top of this archive: Talk:Anal sex/Archive 6. You were reverted for these reasons: . Flyer22 (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Full citation needed tags
Scheinwerfermann, with this edit, I don't understand what is meant by the full citation tags in the case of most of these references. If the book, author, and specific page number is given, that is the full citation. Often, as long as the book and author are cited, that's accepted too. It's no different than the citations given on the Lesbian article or various other Wikipedia articles mainly using books as sources. I understand about consistent citation styles. But when we're dealing with book sources and website sources, they are of course going to be formatted differently citation-wise. It's not as though this article will mostly be made up of book sources. Flyer22 (talk) 00:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that title, author, and page number is a full citation. A full book citation includes at least title, author, publisher, date, and source. There's even a template to facilitate full, uniform book citations. There's no good excuse for omitting the citation parameters that ensure readers can access the cited book and allow editors to check the validity of the citation; s/he who has the actual paper book in hand has its publisher, publication date, ISBN, and other such info in hand. S/he who finds the book online has all of that and an access URL, too. Halfaѕѕed refs are certainly better than none, and I do agree with you that this is far from the only article that contains them, but that doesn't make them okeh. I added those tags on the principles that the state of most Wikipedia articles is incomplete, and that tags are used to focus attention on aspects of articles that need work. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 00:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Templates are not always filled out completely, due to some of the information being unavailable or not viewed as necessary. By "full citation," I mean the essentials. The title, author, and page number are the essentials. That's why so many people on Wikipedia do not use citation templates when citing books. Well that, and because citation templates take up a lot more room, making the article open slower. I understand about the date, and that is also given in most of the book sources in this article, but the publisher and ISBN are not often seen as essential in accessing the material. And as for the "source," I am not sure what else you mean other than a url. If you mean urls, as you know, not every book citation is going to have a url. In fact, most don't. It would be better if they did...so that we could verify the text for ourselves, but it seems for most book citations, we just have to assume good faith in the editors who added them. My main point is that book citations that have the title, author, page number, and date are not considered incomplete and are viewed as acceptable by Wikipedia. If they were not, the Lesbian article would not have its GA (Good Article) title.


 * I understand about wanting to improve Wikipedia, but I'm not seeing how insisting that this article's book citations are up to these standards will make other articles follow the same lead. Would you rather I use the citation templates for all the book references you marked? Would you mind if I removed the "full citation" tags as long as the removals are only for the references that have the title, author, date and page number?


 * On a side note, I see that you posted on your talk page that you have retired from Wikipedia (though will occasionally drop in). I am sorry to hear that. You have really been a great help with this article. Flyer22 (talk) 03:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I made this edit (which also includes a "new" Go Ask Alice! source), and will of course do more to tackle your concerns at a later date. Flyer22 (talk) 05:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words regarding my contributions. I still don't agree that author-title-page number is a full citation, nor do I agree that the GA status of an article with incomplete citations means incomplete citations are good enough. We're tapdancing around nebulous terms like "acceptable" and "good enough" here, but I believe my pointer to WP:CITE supports my view on that matter. Article-loads-slower…? Perhaps in theory, but not practically, not discernibly. I respectfully submit that if that's how far you have to reach to object to proper full citations, you've no solid basis for the objection. If the templates really slowed down article loading to any practically discernible degree, there'd be warnings and protocols about using them sparingly for that reason. There are none. And while working with templates in plain text can be a little unwieldy, there's a handy tool that automagically generates and populates the template; all the editor needs to do is enter the info in the relevant fields. Of course not every parameter will always be used; that's not my argument.

By "source" I do indeed mean URL. Not necessarily for the text of the book itself, which is sometimes but not always available; it's often easy to find a page about the book, whether it be an Amazon page or some other. I agree this is a less important parameter, but surely you would agree it's better with than without, no?

You write the publisher and ISBN are not often seen as essential in accessing the material. I'm not sure whose opinion(s) you are subsuming in this surprisingly broad statement, but again, WP:CITE seems not to agree.

I don't understand your comment about tags on this article vis-à-vis other articles. I don't seem to have made myself clear: my purpose in applying the tags to refs in this article is to encourage the improvement of the refs in this article. At the same time, you're probably right that we could adequately call attention to the need for improved refs with fewer instances of, and I won't press the point if the tag is removed from the less-incomplete refs. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 15:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem about saying I appreciate your help here. It's true -- you have simply been great at this article (tweaking things, suggesting things, reverting vandalism), and I don't want to be without that help. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on what is a sufficient citation. I feel that as long as the title, author, page number and date are given, that is a full citation and is sufficient enough. What more does a person need to access a book? I don't understand how the publisher and ISBN are needed. I have never needed that to find a book. As long as I have the title, author, and page number, I'm good. I'm saying that Wikipedia generally seems to work this way as well, and I completely understand why. In many articles here, simply the title, author, and page number are given. Sometimes, like on the Lesbian article, just the author and page number. And, yes, citation templates cause articles to open slower. See Talk:Vegetarianism/Archive 14 for an example. Don't get me wrong, I prefer citation templates and use them when I am citing books, such as in this article, but plenty of Wikipedians don't. Nor do they feel they are necessary when citing books. We are tapdancing around nebulous terms like "acceptable" and "good enough,"I agree, and while WP:CITE may support your stance, I am saying that WP:CITE#Books is often not used and is not considered necessary to cite books. And when it is used, all the fields are not always filled in. To me, if an article reaches GA or FA status while citing some books by only their title, author, page number and date, that is good enough. You can be certain, though, that when I cite books in this article, it will continue to be by use of citation templates, and I usually do try to include a url. Flyer22 (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 20 October 2011
Please change lutiyinin to lutiyin in because the text need a space between on the page it appears as lutiyinin which is an error.

90.213.78.109 (talk) 09:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Will you point to where this word is? I would look, but am currently busy. Flyer22 (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Quick fix; missing a space between two words. Done. – Luna Santin  (talk) 00:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Relative riskiness of anal sex vs. vaginal sex in spreading AIDS
I have read both (1) that it is a "discredited notion" that having anal sex is more likely to give you AIDS and (2) that it is 40 to 100 times more likely. Let's consider the sources.

Sources concerned with rights and discrimination and attitudes tend to emphasize the first point. Articles by doctors tend to make the second point. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." So, which sources should be cited? --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no sex act (or any other act or event, for that matter) that "gives you AIDS" or "spreads AIDS". HIV is transmissible; AIDS is not. It's a very important distinction. With that said, as a first step to this discussion you'll need to please point us at the sources you say you'd like us to consider. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 19:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Commentary by medical professionals should certainly be given priority, but first we need the evidence that this is indeed what they say. Since HIV is what causes AIDS, I don't really see the relevance of User:Scheinwerfermann's comment, but of course we should use language as precise as possible. Paul B (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The relevance of the distinction is obvious: HIV causes AIDS, yes, but not everyone with HIV has (or will develop) AIDS, so there is no such thing as "transmitting AIDS" or "spreading AIDS".


 * As for what the sources say, yep, let's see 'em. One editor's summary of what he believes he has understood of what he recalls having read is not good enough. Not only do we need the actual sources, but we need to make sure we're understanding them correctly and that whatever assertions we might apply them to are actually supported by their content. Consider this, which was used to support the assertion that anal sex causes rectal prolapse. In fact, under the 'Etiology' section of the document, we find that most cases of rectal prolapse are idiopathic, i.e., they have no specific direct cause. Anal sex is the last listed potential cause. We need to be especially careful not to introduce bias into the article by misusing sources.—Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 19:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say that "anal sex is more likely to give you AIDS." We are talking about context here. As the article notes, "[U]nprotected anal sex is the riskiest of all forms of sexual intercourse, due to the vulnerability of the rectum and sphincter tissues. Because of this, "Unprotected receptive anal sex is considered the sex act most likely to result in HIV transmission." That is all researchers are talking about when it comes to there being an increased risk of HIV/AIDS transmission. I also don't at all mind these edits by Scheinwerfermann, since his edit summaries are pretty valid for the changes. Flyer22 (talk) 20:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course not everyone who has HIV gets AIDS. Soon, I hope, no-one will. But it's what leads to the disease. I think we have to be careful not to confuse pedantry over choice of words on the Talk page with the important real issues. Distinctions need to be maintained, but we should be careful to be clear. Paul B (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

pedophile image
The article currently features a pedophile image of man on boy, taken from Warren Cup. In my opinion the image is gratuitous. Apparently this article is not about anal intercourse between consenting adults. In that case an image on bestiality would also be appropriate. Why is there no image of a man penetrating an animal? Surely you can find one out there. That would put the pedophile image in an appropriate context, I think. Eyeless in Gaza (talk) 02:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Your concerns look baseless to me; there appears to be no evidence to back your assertion that this is a "pedophile" image or one that depicts any act that was unlawful at the time and in the place the image was made (i.e., ancient Rome). Your invocation of bestiality is bizarre and inapposite; it creates the appearance of homophobic POV-pushing. You're welcome to try and build consensus around your apparent distaste for the image of an ancient Roman artifact and desire for it to be removed from the article, but you're very unlikely to gain much traction until you stop with the hystrionics, calm down and behave more like a grownup coöperatively working toward the betterment—and not the censorship—of an encyclopædia. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 02:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Is the article about anal intercourse between consenting adults? If it is, the Warren Cup image does not belong here. The Warren cup image certainly shows a slave boy being penetrated (Romans and Greeks considered sodomy between citizens to be wrong but slaves and non-citizens were considered fair game). If however non-consenting partners are included in this article, images showing bestiality and gang-rape are just as valid, and they should be included here as evidence that this article is not promoting sex with minors. That's a logical argument, not a hysterical one. Now it's your turn to come up with a mature reply. Eyeless in Gaza (talk) 05:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello, Eyeless in Gaza. Are there any reliable sources that confirm that this image is a portrayal of pedophilia? Whether there are or aren't, I want to point out that pedophilia is accurately defined as the sexual preference for prepubescent children...even though the term is also used in a wider context (mostly by non-experts). Pedophilia is also more about what is going on in a person's mind than the act of child sexual abuse, which is why some child molesters are not diagnosed as pedophiles. Further, the image may not actually be of an adult man and a prepubescent child, but rather one of an adult man and an adolescent/pubescent male...which, in that case, falls under pederasty. But either way, I understand your concern if the image is of an adult man and a minor (whether prepubescent, pubescent, or post-pubescent). And since we already have an image there in that section, I don't mind if this image is removed. It hasn't been in this article as long as the aforementioned one anyway. So, Scheinwerfermann, do you mind if it is removed? Flyer22 (talk) 05:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

In fact there are two images of the Warren Cup here and you certainly don't need both. Pederasty is an unfortunately elastic term and it opens the way for pedophiles to wrap themselves in the banner of gay rights, unless we are vigilant. I'm not a homophobe. Eyeless in Gaza (talk) 06:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact, there are three images from the Warren Cup here and while we don't need all three, at least one ought to stay. Which one(s) is or are meeting with your disapproval? As for not being a homophobe, no, certainly you're not, which is of course why you were on about bestiality and suchlike. Right?—Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 06:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You're cross with me for using words like bestiality? I suppose you are suffering homophobia-phobia. I'm not a homophobe. I would like to see a clear understanding that this article is about anal sex between consenting adults. According to that focus, there are a number of images here that look questionable (the ancient settings certainly depict slaves as the recipients of anal sex). But the image of the boy is the most questionable and that's the one I think should go, if I coiuld pick only one. Thanks for asking. Eyeless in Gaza (talk) 06:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Eyeless in Gaza, while some pedophiles may hide under the term pederasty, it certainly is not meant to equate to the same thing as pedophilia with regard to prepubescent vs. clearly pubescent and/or post-pubescent males, or else it would just be merged with the Pedophilia article or called a subset of it directly. I don't know any LGBT person who supports pederasty, by the way, at least not when talking about adult men and males under the age of majority. But on the topic of how many Warren Cup images there are, I only see two. What is the third one, Scheinwerfermann? Flyer22 (talk) 06:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The Warren Cup image depicts act of anal sex between human participants, and any speculation that it may be pedophile, pederasty, non-consensual, etc. is irrelevant. You said, quote "Apparently this article is not about anal intercourse between consenting adults." And indeed, this article is NOT about anal intercourse between consenting adults, it's about anal sex as a human sex act regardless of whether the act arises out of pedophilia, rape, sexual slavery, etc.. The image is pertinent to the article as it provides insight into the historical context and the social circumstances under which anal sex was practiced, and the participants (forced or not) thereof. To say that it does not belong because it depicts pedophilia in addition to anal sex when the article is not about pedophilia is as moot an argument as saying that the picture of Mao Zedong doesn't belong on the Man page because the article isn't about politics (which was actually put forward on Talk:Man).Chevrox (talk) 11:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)