Talk:Doggy style/Archive 1

Protected
I've temporarily protected this page to stop people from edit warring. Please discuss here on the appropriateness of the image (unless, of course, it ends up deleted on copyright grounds). Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 03:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Good decision, really. I was considering doing it myself, but I'm rather unwillingly involved in this dispute now, so I decided against it. Hedley 03:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Per the previous section, I've unprotected the page and removed the image. Consensus seems obvious that it shouldn't be here. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 14:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Image again
I looked at the image, and noticed the text at the very bottom saying "I am federal worker" by the uploader. I'm guessing he may be dyslexic or english is not his first language, so don't go too hard on him. I corrected the wording so it made more sense and changed the copywrite tag on the image back. Maybe he can just simply change it to "public domain, released by creator of work" though.

As for whether the image should be allowed in the article, well. The only argument seems to be so far that it's "offensive"

It's not an offensive picture unless you find the natural act of human sex offensive...

Read What Wikipedia is not and Censorship before making comment please. --Mistress Selina Kyle 02:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, the other argument is that it adds nothing to the article. The text and two illustrations are more than enough to inform the reader what "doggy style" is. So that's two reasons. Reasons for so far? The breast is more tasteful, and the photo is less offensive(?!). I don't think the reasons for are very valid. Also, the image has uncertain copyright - The user marked it as a government image at first. I think it's a copyvio, and I'd like to see some proof of otherwise. The only reason I've left it on the article is because I couldn't care less. I just don't want another debate the size of the Autofellatio one to start. Hedley 02:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not offended by the image. I have two concerns, though. First, it is unlikely that the uploader owns the copyright to the image. He certainly isn't a federal employee, and even if he was, that only makes the image public domain if it was created as part of his official duties. This is being discussed on WP:PUI. Second, it's not a very good photo from an illustrative or artistic standpoint. If the copyright status is OK, then it's fine to keep it around until we get a better photo. Rhobite 02:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll also at this point note that it or any sex-related photos don't offend me. I'm here to try and prevent the future edit wars more than anything. I agree with what Rhobite is saying aswell, apart from even with copyright being ok, the photo doesn't add to the article. The illustrations make the act of "doggy style" clear. Hedley 02:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not a matter of offensiveness, it's a matter of copyright. Copyrighted images may not generally be used on Wikipedia. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 03:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The photo is unnecessary, given the presence of the two drawings which illustrate the topic far better. The chances that this image is free of copyright issues is close to nil. android  79  03:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I perfectly agree with Android79 above. Also, the picture is of unnecessarily graphic nature, and does not belong in the article. I don't see why anybody would want more than a diagram. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That image (assuming it's not ripped from porn of course) is pretty tame really, as it doesn't actually show penetration. But uh, while we do show images of a penis and a vagina on their respective articles, I don't think any article actually shows intercourse (penetration or not). So yeah, while WP:NOT protected for minors, also unencyclopedic. Picture should be out. —Locke Cole 09:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Very good point. Showing images of actual intercourse is 'worse' than showing just the body part. Hedley 14:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, that photo is pretty tame really. I find the line drawings unencyclopedic. They look like some childs attempt at drawing porn. The proportions are out and there's no colour or life to them. Could we find some more detailed artistic rendition of doggy style intercourse which would be revealing of the sexual act? Much along the lines of the Klimpt drawing [] or the Karma Sutra article. Some people just won't get doggy style unless you show some quality in your visual representations-- and photographs are more telling. This seems to be exactly the reason why some people find photos distasteful; because they convey the idea so entirely. So, if photos are much more telling, they are obviously more encyclopedic. If a detailed painting would be less offensive I'm open to that (as long as it's better than the children's book junk we have at the moment). Perhaps even a photo of one of various statues around the world depicting doggy style sex (there's plenty in The East). Which ever way we go, the photo being disputed is really tame and probably more so than the image used at the bottom of the strap on dildo article. I think the photo should be reinstated until a better quality one comes along. The copyvio accusations seem like wishful thinking masking as copyright paranoia. Has anyone outside of wikipedia actually come forward contesting the copyright? Peace. Metta Bubble 23:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with Metta Bubble above. Fantom 18:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I know I am late to the argument, but I just visited this entry for the first time. While I am not going to argue whether the picture is pornographic or not, I will state that I believe it is totally useless.  In no other entry discussing sexual positions that I have seen is there such a truncated picture or drawing that merely shows parts of the sexual ograns without a representation of the participants.  After all, when discussing sexual positions a picture just showing a close-up of someone's penis and vagina is worthless.  I suspect that the picture was included as a way for the person taking it to say "Hey, look at me, I'm having sex."  Furthermore, I suspect the only reason it has not been removed is because some editors are trying to ostentatiously display how anti-censorship they are.  I would be willing to bet the picture has not been removed because multiple people have huffed "But Wikipedia doesn't censor",(one merely need look at the comments to see evidence of this) and not because those same people decided it is is an excellent representation of the doggy style position, because it clearly isn't, particularly in comparison to the included drawings, you know, the ones that show the actual positions of those having sex(something that maybe, just maybe, is useful to show in an entry about a sexual position).

Image
Image shows clearly better than line drawing. I refer to Autofellatio, there they also say "Image better than line drawing, clearly". This is common opinion. It has been discuss before. Shall we do again? This message was by User:Paeris. —Preceding undated comment added 00:29, December 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, I don't think the image shows anything better than the line drawings. Autofellatio needs the picture to prove it's anatomically possible, if improbable. The same does not apply here.--SarekOfVulcan 01:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with SarekOfVulcan that the photograph just doesn't illustrate the position any better than the line drawings. Evil Monkey - Hello 01:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Line drawings are not showing the appropriate proportions. They are not accurate in showing the real procedure. They also are more "obscene" if such exists, as they are showing drawing of parts not in photo. Photo is showing very well what it is, is showing real couple doing so showing it is not demeaning but good as was suggested, and is showing very well that is done by people. Photo is also showing better than drawing because photo is real and is less "obscene" if such exists. This message was by User:Paeris —Preceding undated comment added 01:21, December 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * How is a photo less obscene than a line drawing? I have no interest in this topic, article-wise, but I know that anyone with even a little intellect can tell what doggy style is from the illustrations. A photo isn't necessary. If it's not needed, then it's not got much need to be there. I don't think a photo is needed to show it is "done by real people". That's obvious. Hedley 01:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Is less "obscene" if such exists because is not showing breast in photo is more tasteful. Photo against illustration, by this maybe we need replace Orange with Orange line drawing. "but I know that anyone with even a little intellect can tell what *ORANGE* is from the illustrations". Also applies. So your logic is bad, no wrong meaning towards you (you seem have good intelect), but if applies here also applies Orange, and Penis and Vagina, and others that are the same but a little different. This message was by User:Paeris —Preceding undated comment added 01:26, December 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Nobody has ever been offended by an orange, but many are offended by sexual photos. And the breast being "more tasteful" doesn't mean it's better than an illustrating. It's not meant to be illustrating the breast, nor is it meant to be tasteful at all. It's meant to illustrate doggy style. That's done by the illustration. There's no need for the photo. The photo also has no copyright tag and I assume it's a copyvio. If you think you're right, you can add the photo back, but I expect it will be removed again. You've reverted three times already, meaning that adding it back will violate WP:3RR, as I told you earlier. Hedley 01:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

People are offended many times in some places by Penis and Vagina, but still they have photo. As for copytag, Mr. David Johnson already talk to me and we fix issue very much, so is ok. Yes Orange not offend, but Penis yes. This message was by User:Paeris —Preceding undated comment added 01:43, December 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Just because something happens once does not mean that it should happen several times. Penis is best illustrated by the image because the Wikipedia community said so. The Wikipedia community has not even began to discuss the inclusion of this image here. Until they do, it shouldn't be included on the article. You should let the community speak. If you add the image to the article again, you do so at your own risk, having been warned of the consequences already. Hedley 01:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you sound antagonize. You keep saying "Don't add again" and I do not add again, I make case for my point and against yours. You make sound like I ignore your warning not add again, when I not add again and listen to you warnings. Please clear it up here, I have not add again and I listen to you warnings. Do not make case for straw man against me, this is rude severly. This message was by User:Paeris —Preceding undated comment added 01:48, December 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * I know you haven't added it again, which is good. Hedley 01:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I point out you say I am not consensus, neither are you, so who says who gets place it there. Be bold? Not for me? This message was by User:Paeris —Preceding undated comment added 02:04, December 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * I reiterate again that I don't think this is a very good image to illustrate the position. I couldn't care less about the "censorship/obscenity" issue that might surround it. The image does not better than the line drawings in showing the concept. In fact, the photo fails to show what is going on. You can't actually tell what the man is doing at all. Also Paeris, can you please sign your comments by adding ~ at the end of them. Evil Monkey - Hello 02:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Consensus is when most people think the image should be there. I've spoken to a few people who say it adds nothing new to the article. Therefore I don't personally think that it should be there. Reverting each other will get us nowhere - everyone involved needs to discuss it first, and agree on something. Until then, leave it out of the article. Hedley 02:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The photo is clearly better than the stroke-book line drawings that are there right now. Or, rather, it would be if the copyright and license issues are cleared up. If the license issues are resolved, I'll support restoring the photo. The issues about whether the image is "offensive" or "obscene" are complete nonsequiteurs, of course, because Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. Nandesuka 14:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I personally think that when dealing with a subject matter such as this, images should be as explicit as they need to be, but no more. I agree with the above statement that with Autofallacio, an actual photograph is needed to show that it is indeed possible. When dealing with a human body part, photographs are very appropriate because of the medical and phisiological context (see Anus, Vagina, etc). However, a photograph of two people having sex in this position does no more to increase the knowledge of the reader than the line drawings in the current version of the article. Jrkarp 20:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Similar discussion: Images or not?
A similar discussion has begun at Talk:List of sex positions. Go over there if you want to put in your two cents. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 06:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

RFC
I've listed this page at Requests for comment/Society and law. Themindset 08:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think this photo is probably doomed so debating it specifically is probably a moot point. However, although I like the photos a lot I think that a clearly presented photo would be useful to wikipedia. Public domain photos of different sex positions could be a good educational resource for the pedias and elsewhere. Kit 11:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That is the more general question of the RFC here, should drawings be sufficient, or do we need full on photos of real people having sex? Themindset 17:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The more general question is what's the most encyclopedic image? Should we settle for sufficient? If we are discussing a line between informative and pornographic, photographs cover the whole gamut. Surely to promote the idea that drawings are "sufficient" and photographs are "over-sufficient?" is to promote wikipedia censorship? I concur with Kit. It would be great to source some public domain photos for this and other sex position articles. Although, I think the missionary position article already has a great artwork. Peace. Metta Bubble 19:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Doesn't this bring to the question of what is Encyclopedic? Most would not consider borderline pornographic material to be encyclopedic, some would consider drawings not only sufficient, but fully descriptive. I am actually undecided on all this, and that is part of the reason I initiated the RFC. Themindset 20:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * RfC response: the drawings are more informative than the image. They show more of the body postures of both parties. There might also be an issue about whether both subjects gave permission to have their picture taken. Durova 03:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Another RfC response: My thoughts on this best align with Locke Cole a couple sections above, who said, "while we do show images of a penis and a vagina on their respective articles, I don't think any article actually shows intercourse (penetration or not)." I find the drawings to be much more encyclopedic (especially with respect to this particular live image, which I don't find to be very descriptive at all). If people believe the current drawings aren't descriptive enough, then hopefully someone will be kind/talented enough to make some different ones. However, I don't feel that live pictures are the way that Wikipedia needs to go in this kind of situation. Just because Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors doesn't necessarily encourage us to make pages unnecessarily obscene/pornographic. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 19:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Good call on the idea of getting better quality drawings (or photos). To classify the image in question as obscene porn is to bias our discussion. I'd be surprised to hear anyone finds it titillating. But like has been said many times, photos are either encyclopedic or not. There's no need to throw in emotional superlatives. Peace. Metta Bubble 07:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Regarding the RFC, as long as it's mechnical in nature (ie two people having sex doggy style), and nothing superfluous added, I support the inclusion of such a picture in the article. MSTCrow 09:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Upright doggy position?
This is referenced in the List of sex positions and redirects to this page but there is no expanded mention of it. Could someone with knowledge of the position add it please? --Tyciol 11:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Beard stimulation insertion in benefits
Humm, I can not see that this is facual, nor relevant. --KimvdLinde 22:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Drawbacks
One drawback of this position for some is the difficulty of maintaining direct eye contact. Some consider the position humiliating or degrading.

This is an opinion and his no place here. Some people don't want to make eye contact. User:Mattgreen on 13:28, 3 January 2006


 * Please sign your comments in the future. And it's not opinion; it is a fact that this is a drawback for some. --Prosfilaes 18:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps what the person was trying to say is that to say "some" is weasel language, and as such in introducing in an opinion. Mathmo 03:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Too many images
the article looks like a mess right now, can we please settle on just one image? Themindset 19:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The line drawing subtitled "possible variant" (185px-PS-sur-le-lit.jpg) seems to be a different position to me and contradicts the "crouches on all fours" description. -RJFerret 20:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Submission
Under Drawbacks: "Some consider the position humiliating or degrading because of its perceived link to animal copulation, or more generally, because of its perceived submissive (or receptive) nature." - surely this is a benefit for many people using this position? Unlike the other drawbacks, which are things I imagine few people actively want, the submissive aspect is for many people one of the points of using this position. On the other hand, people who didn't like the submissive aspect surely wouldn't be using this position at all. Shouldn't it therefore go under benefits (or at least elsewhere)? Mdwh 03:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Although I agree with you that the percieved humilating/degrading nature of the position can be both a benefit or a drawback, I think that on the whole most people would consider it a drawback. As for the point about people not using the position if they didn't like the submissive nature of the position, that doesn't strike me as very logical.  A drawback doesn't become less a drawback because it causes more people to not partake in an activity, it's evidence of the contrary. Charles (Kznf) 18:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Surely the emphasis should be reasons why people do a particular thing, rather than reasons why people don't? At the least, Wikipedia should not be casting an opinion on whether something is a drawback or not, so I'll move it to a more neutral section for now. Consider Woman on top sex position, where it is phrased "Proponents of the cowgirl position say there are these advantages" - it may be true that there are more people who don't perform that particular position because they don't like those features, but we don't list reasons from their point of view.


 * A drawback doesn't become less a drawback because it causes more people to not partake in an activity - whether it's a drawback in the first place is POV. Mdwh 15:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

What if it was a photo of me and my girlfriend?
So what if it was a photo of me and my girlfriend? --CylePat 00:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If you can make it as informative and representative as the line drawing (that is, more so than the previous image), I, for one, would support using it. I wouldn't support it all that strongly, as the line drawing is perfectly sufficient, but a photo does convey the subject matter, as it occurs in reality, just a smidgen more accurately. And no, I don't believe this article differs all that much from Penis or Armadillo. We could understand either perfectly well through a diagram or pencil sketch, but a photo is simply that much truer to life. As for the matter of obscenity, I fail to grasp how someone reading an article on a sexual position might be offended by a photographic example of that position. 89.0.93.99 05:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In other news, I seem to have responded to a seven-mohth-old post. That'll teach me to browse Wiki after staying up for 20 hours straight. 89.0.93.99 05:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I wouldn't recommend such a thing. As the furor over Publicgirluk has shown, WP editors don't seem to know how to handle good-faith sexually explicit self-pic uploads. You would likely be labelled a "troll" and blocked, from what I can tell. Kasreyn 12:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Kasreyn stop trying to stir up trouble. It's clear that Jimbo offended you when he said you were "suckered", but that doesn't mean you should go around spreading FUD. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right. I shouldn't have dragged that into this discussion, at least not in such a bitter way. Sorry about that. CyclePat, ignore what I said - but it's still probably not a wise thing to upload. Kasreyn 23:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well more than a year later. It's probably better to keep such a picture as a violation of WP:OR and probably stick to well published and reliable source! But, the issue is still interesting. I mean, what if we have some profesionnal photographer that really wants to give away some of his images. Let's assume it's clean, nice, picture! Or take for example the free educational video's that exist all over the net or like 89.com. etc... Which media to chose? There are principales in taste, culture and even sexual preference. Then the issue of "even if it meets all the rules, it may not necessarilly be included because it's such a minor view point." Humm.... asside, you know this article could probably be improved with links to comic books, popular culture and more exemples in history, the issue of it bein illegal in some cultures (Canada) or how it pratice (if) in other countries. But then again. All I started talking about was the inclusion of an image. (Distastfull... perhaps. Rude... probably. But would it meet wikipedia inclusion... probably. Would it meet exceptance... I doubt it - or maybe it could, I mean I don't usually go reading sex education books... what is the norm?) (perhaps we should base our article on the norm within sex education books?) --CyclePat 17:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Édouard-Henri Avril
I was perussing the media commons for image of "doggy style" and I found a that was created, apparently by an artist in the 18 hundreds by Édouard-Henri Avril. (no article here on wikipedia yet and I've never heard his name) Anyone interested in adding this research here? --CyclePat 17:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: In the see also, we just added the wiki commons category "doggy style" to the article. Thank you! --CyclePat 19:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge Leapfrog into this article
I propose merging Leapfrog sex position into this article. I think that:


 * The name "leapfrog" has no general acceptance
 * The article cites no references for it (it has no references at all, for that matter)
 * I have never seen it outside of Wikipedia and certainly not off the web
 * I think most people would consider it to be a type of doggy style rather than a whole different position
 * There is not much to say on the topic of the "leapfrog" position which couldn't also be said about doggy style

--Strait 00:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OPPOSE
 * the name naming of various positions is fairly regional, but leapfrog is the best one available.
 * the lack of references is a problem in itself and will not be solved by merging it into doggystyle
 * if there are references in doggystyle that also apply to leapfrog they could be added to leapfrog aswell
 * even tho some people may find it similar to doggystyle, it is in fact a different position. There could be a section of internal links to similar positions with a brief explanation
 * the point of neckstrain is only valid for leapfrog.
 * diversity is a great good.


 * maybe we should let the project human sexuality have the final say? (after reviewing the pros and cons, and the amount of support, oppose) Martijn Hoekstra 00:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, I understand that it is not the same position as doggy, but it is very similar. And I'm not saying that we should remove the content of the page from Wikipedia, as you seem to imply in your last two points, only that it should be put on the same page with similar content.


 * As far as naming goes, I do not agree that "leapfrog" is the best name available. As far as I know, it is only used by one person anywhere (whoever added that page and the entry at list of sex positions). And even if there is a small population of English speakers that call it "leapfrog", I bet there are many other small populations that call it various other things. Given the lack of any consensus, I think the best name available is "the variant of doggy style in which the receiving partner angles their torso downwards". --Strait 03:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and feel free to solicit opinions on this from the sexuality project. I don't know what it would mean to let them have the final say, though. The project members are just whoever puts themselves on the project page, and that includes me. --Strait 04:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I might have worded my oppose a little too agressive. Furthermore my remark about the sexuality project is indeed nonsense. The notablility I will leave to the native english speakers. I had seen and heard the term before, but as I don't speak english natively I have little to say on that issue. I'm looking forward to hear what other people have to say about it. Martijn Hoekstra 17:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * A google test on leapfrog sexual position indicates notability Martijn Hoekstra 22:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. I searched for "leapfrog sex" (without the quotes) and looked at the first 60 hits. Excluding hits which are Wikipedia mirrors or clearly derived from Wikipedia, the first relevant link looked like our leapfrog. The second, from Cosmo, is a completely different position. The next is from Urban Dictionary, a completely unreliable source, and says that "leapfrog" is "When two are having doggy-style sex, and the giver hops over the receiver and farts in their face." The fourth mentions it in a list, so you can't tell what position it means. Then there's a duplicate Cosmo hit, then one that says "half leapfrog v. To have sex in the doggies (qv) position." Most or all of the rest of the hits are accidental, having nothing to do with a position called leapfrog. --Strait 21:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected. I google on leapfrog "sexual position" and it turned up a quazillion hits. I checked the first one and it was the position described here as leapfrog. I assumed the rest was the same. My personal familiarity seems to be coincidental. However, on the other grounds mentioned, I maintain my oppose. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martijn Hoekstra (talk • contribs) 01:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Just for completeness, I duplicated your search. The first two hits were Wikipedia itself. The next two were clearly derived from Wikipedia. The next two I strongly suspect are derived from Wikipedia. Next is irrelevant, then there's one from Urban Dictionary describing something else sexual, then two Wikipedia mirrors, then one that is probably the same as ours and probably not influenced by Wikipedia, then some irrelevancies and then something which defines it only as an "Inconventional and possibly illegal sexual position". It continues in this way. --Strait 17:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * For Merge - I looked at the article carefully, and I have to say, as experienced as I am, I had never heard it called "Leapfrog position". I've always called it, and other similar variations "Doggy style". After reading the discussion so far, I was willing to consider that maybe my terminology is/was relgional, and that other places it might be called other things. I looked through my personal library (only 50 or 60 sex books) and could find no reference to leapfrog immediately visible. Checking google, and the google scholar did not clarify. Google had numerous references, every one of which was derived from Wikipedia. Looking for "doggy style" I found numerous references unrelated to Wikipedia, on both. I would be hard pressed to be convinced that this was not just a local invention, or term used by some high schoolers in Nebraska that heard a rap song by Snoop-dog. I'm thinking I could make an article on the "Ass-high sex position", and in two months it might have more references on google than "Leapfrog sex position". BTW, your quazillion turns out to be 0 references to "leapfrog sex" on google scholar, and 948 references on google for "leapfrog sex". This is opposed to "backdoor sex" with 29,900 entries, "butt sex" with 824,000, "ass sex" with 1,140,000 entries, and of course, "doggy style" with 1,260,000 entries. As I couldn't even find an Internet porn site that referenced "Leapfrog", I'm pretty sure this is a very isolated term. Using ghits can be a useful tool, in a limited way, for assisting with making a decision, but can't be taken at face value. My editorial opinion is for merge, in this case. Atom 11:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

More weasel words
"Some partners may encounter vaginal flatulence when practising this position. This can be considered either a benefit or a drawback, depending on the couple."

What the benefits and drawbacks exactly are should be mentioned. You'll appreciate that I am not being bold in this particular circumstance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehotelambush (talk • contribs) 02:51, June 6, 2007 (UTC)


 * Someone with an account should delete that whole paragraph. Not only is it not referenced, but it is a worthless sentence. PLUS! some one will eventially cite it as evidence of pro vaginal flatulence bias on wikipedia.--24.15.9.67 06:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

More 'groomed' image
Why does the woman have a big squiggle of arm-pit hair? Let's give the guy a big beard and stink-lines while we're at it. Ugh. -Jackmont, march something, 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.13.41 (talk) 00:11, March 29, 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe the guy should have a beard?--24.15.9.67 06:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Naming
there's a redirect from Coitus more ferarum to here. Please explain on the page what this alternate name is. Also, if that's the technical name, the article should go live there. -- Tarquin 10:09 May 12, 2003 (UTC)


 * I think the Wikipedia convention is to use whatever term is most familiar to speakers of the English language. Somehow I doubt that it's "coitus more ferarum". ;) -- Oliver P. 10:23 May 12, 2003 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... latin name isn't ideal, but many people find the name "Doggy position" a little crude. It's fine in the pages of Viz, but I don't think it's brilliant for a serious encyclopedia. Like the difference between "arse", "bottom", and the latin medical term which I can't think of. Wikipedia should use "bottom" -- Tarquin 11:40 May 12, 2003 (UTC)


 * Gluteus maximus? Anus? Nates? Karada 12:52 21 May 2003 (UTC)


 * It is a little crude, yes, but at least people will know what they're getting before they come here. If they see a link to a Latin phrase, they might follow it expecting to get an article on some obscure legal procedure or some such thing, and they might get a bit of a shock... -- Oliver P. 00:12 May 13, 2003 (UTC)


 * Quite. We need the middle ground, I think -- Tarquin —Preceding undated comment added 07:58, May 13, 2003 (UTC)
 * Is it not Wikipedia policy to be formal in writing and tone? -- Felipe Aira 08:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil ryans (talk • contribs)


 * Is English automatically informal? If there is only one English phrase for this, I think that is the one that should be used. Switching to a different language isn't formality; it's obscurity. --154.5.118.227 (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Terminology
I'm not convinced by all the terminology in this article.


 * 'Doggy style' is not a 'sex position'. It is a way of having sex which uses a particular sex position.
 * The picture caption says that oil lamp depicts 'the practice'. Neither 'doggy style' nor the doggy style 'sex position' is itself a 'practice'. Having sex 'doggy style' or in the 'doggy style' sex position is.
 * Is 'kitty style' really an important alternative term?
 * Surely 'retrocopulation' refers to all sex from behind, not just 'doggy style'. So, 'doggy style' is an example of retrocopulation, rather than the latter being an alternative name for 'doggy style'. See List of sex positions.
 * Was 'coitus more ferarum' really 'its Latin name'? i.e., 'coitus more ferarum' was genuinely a term in general use in Ancient Rome for this act? If so, can we get a reference? It sounds like made-up Latin from more recent times to me! Is it a commonly used term?

I invite comments/suggestions before I go in and fix up some of these issues. Mooncow (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Response
 * 'Sex position' Seems like splitting hairs (!) to me
 * Oil lamp depicts 'the position' possibly better?
 * I agree that 'kitty style' doesn't seem to be a well-known alternative term. Needs removing
 * Obviously 'doggy style' is just one type of retrocopulation.
 * 'coitus more ferarum' sounds rather unlikely. Should be removed unless a reference is found
 * 86.161.71.214 (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

'Wrong hole' hoax
In the Variations section: 'This could also lead to unintended misplacement of the phallus into the anal cavity'. This is surely simply conjecture or even a joke. This is not an easy mistake to make (to the extent of actual penetration) in any position (with a human female!). More seriously, I have removed this statement. Centrepull (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

A la negresse
This term was used in the first Joy of Sex book from about 1977, and I would have thought it had been dropped as politically incorrect for the revised version released recently. But now, it STILL uses it, and the French and Spanish still employ the term. True, in terms of aesthetics, "a la negresse" is at the very opposite of "doggy sex", but it does indicate that Africans are more likely to favour this position. This would make sense of the term "missionary position" too, but of course it would mean that black people had sex more like animals than did Europeans. Funny none of this is mentioned here, and the List of Sexual Positions" page goes out of its way to steer around this notion. What if Africans DID have more rear end sex? Who cares! It's a great position. Shouldn't a la negresse be mentioned somewhere on this page. Notthere (talk) 05:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Union of the Cow
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but didn't the different animal-titled Unions in the Kama Sutra have to do with relative sizes of genitalia? Ie., large penis in snug vagina was considered a "higher" union while smaller penis in a looser vagina was "lower"? What does position have to do with it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.32.161.15 (talk) 09:01, February 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Nope, while many of the Kama Sutra's headings denote "This is best suited for a man with a long penis, whose partner can become a human pretzel" (paraphrase), those are simply guidelines related to the ease and anatomical preference of the suggested position. As an exaggeration, "To try the Standing on opposite sides of the room like a Wolf and Sheep Position, it is best if the man is at least 14' long" :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherurcij (talk • contribs) 16:32, August 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yep, the original poster is wrong. That practise is from Native American culture. Wrong Indians I'm afraid. OzoneO (talk) 07:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Doggy style in animal kingdom
there should be a section about doggystyle in the animal kingdom. it is widely used by animals and perhaps the only position for a lot of species. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.73.201 (talk) 03:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I can say for a fact that it is definitely used by doggies. --FormerIP (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

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


 * Perhaps it indeed must be, but until it is, and that name is commonly used, Wikipedia has no place in proposing nomenclature. To do so would be OR. —Wiki Wikardo 01:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

A tergo
"a tergo" Latin term is missing. Also being the only or mostly used position in much of the animal realm is not mentioned. Pavel Vozenilek 18:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This is neither Latin nor French Wikipedia, and as such, I propose these non-English names be deleted. —Wiki Wikardo 01:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Too many images - addressing User:Prosfilaes reversion summary
In this edit: 02:06, January 8, 2007 Prosfilaes (Talk | contribs) (I disagree; the length of the article does not determine number of images, and historic images are good for giving a larger perspective). This argument contravenes established policy. Please read: Image use policy. Themindset 18:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You mean the part that says "it is often a good idea to temporarily remove the least-important image from an article and queue it up on the article's talk page."? That is, don't just delete it from the user page.--Prosfilaes 20:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think I deleted anything from a user page, but I did fail to move it here. So here it is. Themindset 21:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I certainly don't think the article is too short for two images, and I note that User:Strait, above, also pushes for two pictures.--Prosfilaes 13:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think Strait was aware of the policy I've referred to, but simply edit-warring your way around policy is not the correct approach. Scanning your user talk page, I can see that this is not an infrequent approach for you - and I would suggest that instead of just reverting against policy that you look towards dispute resolution processes. How about submitting this for RFC? Themindset 17:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Trying to wield policy like a sledgehammer is not a good idea. The policy you're quoting does not say what you want it to. It leaves the questions of how many images is too many unspecified. It also speaks in terms of suggestions, "it is a good idea", rather than imperatives, and suggests removing "the" singular least important image, rather than deleting multiple images. You're welcome to take to an RFC, but this is not a policy issue.--Prosfilaes 18:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether or not I had read Image use policy when I made my previous comment, but I still think that two images is the right number for this page. It has enough text to support them. --Strait 17:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Themindset is right about the image use policy. This article is too short for three pictures. The lower-quality ancient pictures should be removed from this article. Only the high-quality computer-generated picture should stay.--Ephert (talk) 02:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Images
The user-generated image here seems superfluous to the article. Any objections if I remove it? --FormerIP (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Instead of removing it, how about creating a new picture that is not superfluous? I don't mean one that shows more, but one that shows better what the article is about. --213.60.152.32 (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The user-generated picture is the only clear picture out of the three. The other two are hard to make out.--Ephert (talk) 02:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The beginning of this piece is flawed
doggy style is primarily a sexual position, not a means to attract a partner! So why are the first few sentences about that? Perhaps it should be noted as an aside that it can also be used as body language with which to attract a sexual partner, but this shouldn't be the very first part of the article. Someone revise it please, i just don't have the time right now. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.199.45 (talk) 09:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Proof
This page is proof that Wikipedia is the single most dumbest thing to have ever existed on the internet, and that the people managing and updating it day to day are equally as stupid. Also I still don't understand what "Doggy Style" is. Please post up more pictures including vaginal secretions so I may clearly understand for my ... report. Thanks.

- I love how you call Wikipedia the "single most dumbest thing to have ever existed", you're English skills show that you are pretty much equal to your assumption, plus you can not call something dumb and then request more pictures that just show nudity, it's like you are a little kid who's parents have blocked all the pornographic sites from your internet access so you resort to Wikipedia for your pornographic fix. Quite sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.98.201.211 (talk) 04:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Women who take it from two dongs...
...are usually in the doggy style. That isn't vandalism. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 02:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Of chronological order and other things
With this edit I put sections in chronological order, added indentation and removed a comment which read as follows: "This page has gross images! Someone, remove this filth from Wikipedia!!!" I hope the indentations I added are the appropriate. Also, I should remind everybody editing this page to start new sections at the bottom. Comments asking for images to be removed just because they somewhat offend you are unnecessary. Seriously, of the images used, only this could be considered arousing. Nite-Sirk (talk) 04:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Totally useless image
having that drawing tells the viewer just about nothing about the subject, is waaaay to abstract. several suitable photos are very much so needed in this article. Mathmo 14:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * went back and search through the history to add back two pics, left out the other one because it is not doggy position (merely is an example of her taking it from behind, and that does not make it automatically doggy style). still could do with a good photo Mathmo 14:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Two is enough, three too many
I have, for the second time, cut the number of images down to two. This number seems reasonable to me when one is a modern line drawing meant to clearly illustrate the position and the other is a historical artifact meant to show that the position has a long history. The third picture did not add anything to the article. Indeed, it did not even illustrate the position, but only the female half of it.

If someone can find a third image which adds new information to the article, perhaps I would be ok with that. However, for an article of this length (short), having even two images is already edging up on being cluttered. --Strait 20:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Once again there are three images on the page. I agree with the above arguments about three being too many. d20 (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I second this. Not only are three too many, but there is currently an imbalance in terms of genders of receptive partners. There are plenty of ancient depictions of homosexual male 'doggy style', why aren't any of those included? --  TyrS  chatties  01:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

term "rear entry"
Previously in this article the term "rear entry" was listed as a synonym of, and used interchangeably with, "doggy style" (with, by the way, no citations to support the claim of synonymity). Since the term "rear entry" is used colloquially by some to refer exclusively to anal sex (obviously due to use, in North America, of the word 'rear' to refer to gluteus maximus). Of course, there is no independent authority in existence who would bother trying to dictate what people must mean when they use a term like 'rear entry', so finding a source for a definitive definition is not an option. Since we don't want to be confusing, and we also don't want to say (or imply to many people} that "doggy style" means specifically anal sex, it's probably best to avoid the term "rear entry" in this article altogether. Usage of "rear entry" will only lead to confusion between editors who assume that it means specifically anal sex and those who don't.--  TyrS  chatties  07:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Imbalance in article
I propose the addition of (with a caption something like: "Doggy style" rear penetration with male receptive partner) to provide balance, since the term in question doesn't always necessarily refer to a male-on-female (or even heterosexual, for that matter) position.--  TyrS  chatties  23:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, there's an overall lack of balance, especially in terms of the images. The current images show ONLY heterosexual couples AND only female receptive partners. This is very obviously unbalanced. For now, I'm adding, which, of course, should not be removed without discussion.--  TyrS  chatties  07:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Not so neutral
This line is in one way advocating anal sex:-

Many people do not regard this position as demeaning in any way for either partner, and enjoy the position for its own merits

Does anyone have any statistics to back up this statement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.111.148.169 (talk) 08:03, July 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * First off, this sexual position is used for both vaginal and anal sex. Second, there is unlikely to be an appropriate source for this information. However, the fact that it is a widely used position (we can find surveys from Maxim and Cosmo if you would like) seems to imply that it is enjoyable on its own merits. Jrkarp 20:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Statements and claims like the quoted one above do require citation, and this is very simply a matter of basic WP quality standards (see WP:NOR). Moreover, the use of weasel words ("many people do not regard...") is discouraged (see WP:WEASEL). --  TyrS  chatties  07:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Stating that many people enjoy doggy style is not advocating anal sex. And by the way, wiki should maintain a neutral position on anal sex. - J.G. (Ma, USA) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.19.102.15 (talk) 01:13, December 16, 2006 (UTC)

'definition' vaginal only (vs anal also)
I'm moving this paragraph here for now, it previously appeared at the end of the Variants section. Given that no supporting evidence has been provided for the earlier claims that "doggy style" refers only to vaginal penetration, this inclusion makes no sense. Furthermore, its own content is totally uncited, and given that there's a separate and lengthy article on anal sex, surely a simple link would suffice.

"Anal penetration can also be performed in the doggy position. Most anal sex positions are similar to vaginal penetrative positions. Doggy style penetration maximizes the depth of penetration, but because of that can pose the risk of discomfort or of pushing against the sigmoid colon. The penetrating partner controls the thrusting rhythm. The receiving partner may also lie flat and face down, with the active partner straddling their thighs."

--  TyrS  chatties  02:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There is an obvious lack of any authoritative support for various claims that are made in the top section of the article, and this is generating self-contradictions in the text. The 2nd para of the top section states (without citation) "the term "doggy style" is most often used to refer to doggy style sex, meaning sexual intercourse, and particularly male/female penetrative intercourse."
 * The next (also insufficiently referenced) para says "This position has been used since antiquity...To this day anal sex is sometimes referred as "Greek" sex or "sex in the manner of the Greeks"."


 * This problem seems to be at least partly attributable to a lack of references. Anyhow, detailed information on anal sex specifically (and that is not 'doggy style') can be found at (or added to) the anal sex article, and doesn't need to be included here.--  TyrS  chatties  02:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

That picture is a bit too racy and also is too close up so one loses perspective. Recommend replacement with a better picture.George Tupou VII (talk) 03:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * George, this section is not about a picture. You need to post your comments where they might be relevant.--  TyrS  chatties  07:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Detailed information about sex positions is covered at the Sex positions article. We keep that information there, as to not turn any part of the main sexual activity articles into a list of sex positions/a sex guide. For the Doggy style article, which is about a sex position, a small list of the doggy style sex positions is fine, but the extensive detail should stay at the Sex positions article unless it's going to be formatted the way that the Missionary position article is. 202.113.64.219 (talk) 12:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Removal of female-female image and removal of Variants section
Zumoarirodoka, regarding this edit you made, that image was there because, like I told an editor before, this article only shows male-female and male-male doggy style without that image; doggy style can be performed between females as well. Doggy style is also about the position, not necessarily about whether or not a person is being penetrated by a penis. As for this and this edit you made, see what I stated in this link. At first, I thought you were arguing WP:NOTHOWTO, and I was reminding you that WP:NOTHOWTO allows describing how people do or use things, as long as it is encyclopedic. A sex position article, just like the Sex position article, is obviously going to explain and possibly show how people engage in a particular sex position and/or address whatever variants it may have. I understand your need to remove unsourced material, but, like I told you in the edit history of the Human sexuality article, you need to keep the WP:Preserve policy in mind. That policy is tempered with the WP:Burden policy; they balance each other out. When it comes to those two policies, you should not ignore one and only pay attention to the other. Flyer22 (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Very well; re-add the unsourced information and images. I just really think it's unnecessary to have them all, or to go into that amount of detail (especially when unsourced). – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 19:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not arguing that they should be re-added while unsourced. I'm arguing that, per WP:Preserve, you should try to fix the problems before obliterating the material...if the problems can be fixed. That policy clearly explains what should be done. Instead of restoring all that unsourced material (since I don't like unsourced material in Wikipedia articles), I made this edit with regard to the images.


 * On a side note: Regarding what I stated about WP:Offensive material, I know you were already aware of that guideline. You seemed to think that a real-life image is needed for this article. I don't think that it is. Flyer22 (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, but the unsourced material had been on the article for some time. As can be seen in my previous edits, I did add cleanup tags and do copyedits to the article, so it's not like I completely disregarded WP:PRESERVE. However, I thought that this looked untidy and confusing, so I deleted it.
 * With regards to the Footjob article: Neither do I, but whenever anyone removed the images in the past on that article, WP:NOTCENSORED was always cited. So I made a compromise by only removing one image, hence "I think one image will be more than sufficient for this page ...". I couldn't find any appropriate illustrations in Wikimedia Commons; if you can, then add them to the article.
 * P.S.: As per your edit summary "...we do not use real-life images when drawn or computer-animated images exist as equally suitable alternatives", I haven't added any real-life images to this article, nor do I intend to; as I've said, there are no illustrated images to suffice for that article. If you're referring to this edit summary, then I was just explaining that a number of images were already linked (via the Commons link in this article), therefore it seemed unnecessary. But I understand the confusion. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 20:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, by this edit summary, I thought you were suggesting that we add some real-life images to this article. I don't see the need for them, even if someone argues that we need to see a penis clearly penetrate a person. This article is about a sex position and its variants, not about focusing on sexual penetration (which may or may not be involved while engaging in the doggy style position). Anyway, I now know what you meant. And, yes, I understood your reason for cutting images at the Footjob article. Flyer22 (talk) 21:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Elbows and elevation
In the two classic art examples the elbows are resting on an elevated surface. What criteria should we use to draw the line between doggy versus quickie fix? So long as recipient is kneeling? What if their torso is entirely upright? Unsupported?

I also wonder if we should introduce "leapfrog" slang mention for when the shoulders are dropped below the hips for recipient. This is done by bending the arms, usually resting on forearms on non elevated surface.

Women's Health (magazine) mentions it after doggy at http://www.womenshealthmag.com/mom/pregnancy-sex-positions/ but BabyCenter calls this posture doggy at http://www.babycentre.co.uk/l25017307/sex-positions-for-pregnancy-photos so the distinction is not universal. Ranze (talk) 13:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you mean by "doggy versus quickie fix." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Doggy style. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120905011902/http://www-psych.stanford.edu/~knutson/ans/faix02.pdf to http://www-psych.stanford.edu/~knutson/ans/faix02.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Why it was not removed?
Why is there a painting of a monk having sex with a woman? I thought it would be considered offensive material in Wikipedia since there are a lot of Catholics in Wikipedia who would be shocked to see the painting, the monk is naked and having sex with a woman which is against Catholicism. --Eddiitt0 (talk) 16:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is the third article you have posted this question on. You've already received answers on the other two.  We don't care what the rules of Catholicism are, Wikipedia isn't a function of the Vatican, it is an encyclopedia.  Now stop it.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Suggest a video for site
— Preceding unsigned comment added by NudistPhotographer (talk • contribs) 16:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

NudistPhotographer (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Please stop trying to add photos and videos of yourself to Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Tagged as { { globalize } }
See my recent comments at Talk:Missionary position. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 03:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Unbiased language possible?
The article starts with the sentence "Doggy style is a sex position in which a woman bends over, crouches on all fours, etc". But as the rest of the article states, including some of its imagery, the person "bending over" can be of any gender. Could you please correct this? Thank you! 31.201.84.64 (talk) 11:59, 13 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Done GimliDotNet (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)