Talk:Missionary position/Archive 1

Name for homosexual equivalent
Interesting article. What would the equivalent position in homosexual (male or female) sex be called? A question of curiousity --Sketchee 11:06, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * In regard to male-male intercourse with one guy's legs over the other's shoulders or spread to the sides, I generally call it "facing", as in "I prefer to f*ck facing.", but I have often heard others refer to it as missionary. perhaps it ought to be added to this article. --24.91.43.225 May 20, 2005


 * Hmmm...I never thought of that. Presumably gays and lesbians have their own separate range of sex positions, to suit the different anatomy, of which us 'straights' know nothing.  Perhaps that would be an interesting new article in its own right if we could keep the illustrations 'moderate' to avoid scaring the horses. ChrisPR (Sep07,2005)

Advantages
Won't women object to the man controls the pace being an advantege, it's more of a fact, itsn't it? -Samaraphile
 * Indeed, although some women like that aspect. Sarsaparilla (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

But How
Did missionaries teach this?--220.238.43.167 05:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC) this is another person and I must give complements this gave me quite the boner


 * It's very common for missionaries to teach basic health instruction, but I doubt explicit sexual techniques were ever or currently are taught. At least, that is what I know of Protestant missionary work;  I can't speak for the Catholic or Mormon missionaries.  I doubt they did or do either.


 * From a anthropological perspective, it is true that the position was rare in sub-sahara Africa and SE Asia until Europeans arrived (many of whom were missionaries).


 * Having said all that, I don't have the foggiest as to how the term actually came about. Perhaps someone else can answer your question.

stats
"The missionary position is a common human sex position, the most common one used by 100% of married females surveyed by Kinsey in Kinsey's Sexual Behavior in the Human Female and the only one used by 9%."

the only one used by 9% of... what?

12.208.179.119 00:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * of married females surveyed by Kinsey in Kinsey's Sexual Behavior in the Human Female.--Prosfilaes 01:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

no other species has been observed to use it
Statement is false. Lobsters (Homarus americanus) do. I would like that statement changed. After the female lobster molts the "male will raise himself on his claws and tail, then use his legs to flip over the female and get on top. The male has a pair of hardened swimmerets, or fins on the bottom, that match a pair of swimmerets on the female which have an opening between them." (Wiki, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_lobster)

The name "Missionary" position joke
It is said that the name "missionary position" arose because this sex position was supposed to have been taught by Christian missionaries as the only "proper" sex position. The term is believed to have originated sometime between 1945 and 1965. Another possible explanation is that the term was coined by indigenes when first saw missionaries having sex in this position, unusual amongst them.

This is a joke, and should be edited, or deleted. See the discussion of this reference here: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/050617.html

This is a joke, but a very successful joke, and that is rarely taken for a joke indeed. So I guess that this article should developp about it. The explaination mentionned may only be the soft one, I guess that it as if not more widely beleived that missionnary not only adviced this sex position but taught it by daily practice... I guess it is successful because it carries two implicit ideas : that "indigenous people" sexuality was originaly very similar to the one of the animals - and that missionary, altought their official rule was not to have sex (or excepted with their wife if so) generally and very usually had sex with the people they were supposed to teach about religion. So this explaination is very pleasant for people that have anti-clericalist and may be some litle ground of racist or at least ethnocentric feeling.

Wikipedia "mission" should be to give that kind of explaination (if it appears right) rather than let people keep this kind of idea. Astirmays 17:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

other land animals
The article says that "no other land mammals have been observed to use it," but no citation was given. I don't believe that's true, and I'm pretty sure i've heard about (non-human) primates doing it face to face. I'm gonna remove this until a source can be found. ENpeeOHvee 06:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

So now the first sentence includes "also used by bonobos and armadillos". My comment would be that putting this factoid in the very first opening sentence is distracting and ... oddly placed. It's not a critical piece of information. I think it should be moved to somewhere further down in the article. 65.92.174.212 03:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Image
Please keep discussion of the image under this heading. --Strait 21:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

"The sketch"
What's with the teddy bear? Are readers supposed to take this seriously? --Doradus 23:02, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * Heh. It is a bit distracting, isn't it. To tell the truth I thought that myself when cleaning up User:Rama's pic, but I didn't want to modify his pic more than was strictly necessary to turn it into the PNG format. Perhaps we should remove it. Aris Katsaris 23:10, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The teddy bear is kind of weird. Better to get rid of it... The Recycling Troll 18:25, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I see it's gone now. I never had a problem with it; people need to expand their sense of humour occasionally. --Craig (t|c) 01:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't mind the teddy bear, but I'm a little worried about the woman's grimace. Does she even like the guy? --♥ «Charles A. L.» 03:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the teddy bear, makes the whole imagery a little light-hearted. If you look at the large picture, it seems more like contentment than a grimace. Manasl 02:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The Teddy Bear to me seems to suggest that this is a mentally disabled woman with a child's mind being raped, perhaps by a relative. Grimace? Contentment? She looks pained and uncomprehending to me, bewildered by what is being done to her and not liking it much. User:Rob Torrance


 * Why does the teddy bear suggest rape? Even if she were mentally disabled, that doesn't mean it's rape; the mentally disabled have sexual desires like the rest of the world. And frankly, many of us who are adults have teddy bears.


 * I look at the picture and don't comprehend where you're getting pained and uncomprehending. Given the limited detail of the drawing, I don't think we can tell exactly what her expression is. She has her eyes closed, which rules out uncomprehending and bewildered to me.--Prosfilaes 19:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * First, I suspect you of being a troll, since your claim is so unreasonable.


 * Second, I think it clarifies her expression considerably to look at the full sized image and not just the thumbnail that appears on the page.


 * Third, it is not at all uncommon for adults to have stuffed animals. My wife and I have many.  Often, there is one or more in the bed.


 * Fourth, as noted below, this discussion has already been listed in Lamest_edit_wars. We've already settled on this version.  The only way you are going to get a change in the image is to submit a completely different drawing. --Strait 22:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

"The annoying teddy"
Even though I am an administrator (but not here), I still can't understand how can that teddy be visible on the thumbnail, but not on the picture itself when you click it!? --B. Jankuloski 10:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't understand it either, but I managed to get rid of it. Changing the template from "Image:Missionary Sex Position.png|thumb|The missionary position" to "Image:Missionary Sex Position.png|thumb|200px|right|The missionary position" seems to have done the trick. Bizarrely, "Image:Missionary Sex Position.png|thumb|180px|right|The missionary position" gives one an image with the teddy bear. Wikipedia formating is a truly odd process. Peter G Werner 17:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. I shall remember that, should anything similar occur.

What I find really difficult to grasp is why on earth would someone draw a teddy bear on a picture describing a sexual position?! What is it supposed to be there for? Sorry, but I see nothing humourous in it and I certainly shan't consider getting one beside me next time I want to have fun with my girlfriend --B. Jankuloski 05:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Because it's not meant to be a strictly diagramic picture; it's got details showing the area around the people. Which happens, in this case, to include the teddy bear.--Prosfilaes 16:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

"Picture"
I've restored the teddy bear to the picture. I don't think there was ever concencus to remove it. And unless there is, I think we should respect the original artist by leaving it there. I personally think it adds to the picture by giving it more setting, making it more real that way. Some said that maybe it made it seem like she was a child but I don't think so. I've known lots of women college age and older who slept with teddy bears. ENpeeOHvee 05:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Teddy bear must be gone now. 24.175.10.61 06:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

"Let's remove the image"
1- It's not really needed. Aside from the whole teddy bear thing what if little Johnny hears about the missionary position and not knowning what it is has a look on wikipedia. If an image could be inappropiate for some age groups AND doesn't really add anything to the article why not delete it?

2- Yes, the teddy bear does possibly suggest ( at least to some people) that one or both of those pictured is underaged, we don't want that suggestion.

3- If there must be an image of the missionary position it should be geninuely informative or be from a famous work of art or something like that. The image as it is is just taking up bytes and load time and doing nothing aesthetically or educationally.

Timothy J Scriven 12:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This is already on the Lamest edit wars so I would say no. First off wikipedia isnt meant to take in consideration of age groups otherwise articles on the human body, and ceartain function would not also include pictures. Secondly,  the teddybear really doesnt do anything, and a picture is needed because it aids to the article. I probably would be inclined to agree with you, if Wikipedia wasn't already set in its ways. 74.137.230.39 23:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Where's this teddy bear?
Where's the infamous teddy bear? I've gone through the history and looked at revisions where it was supposed to be there but I can't find it. I had though perhaps the image itself had been changed but the revision history only shows one version of the file, the original uploaded by Rama. So where the heck is the infamous teddy bear? All I see is a pillow near them no teddy... Nil Einne 19:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's apparently an older version (deleted?) that does not show up on the commons gallery of uploads or user contributions. But there's always the disturbing image of the sci-fi reading couple ;) Scoo 19:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I was getting curious after checking Han-Kwang 19:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge "Side entry missionary position"
I propose merging side entry missionary position into this article.


 * It is not very clear exactly what position the author(s) of the page had in mind from the text which is there
 * The image on the page does not relate to the text in any obvious way
 * There is nothing terribly interesting about this position, so I think it fails WP:N
 * The page has almost no content
 * It is not popular enough to have gotten a common name (such as "doggy style")
 * No one has cited any references for it either in popular culture or serious literature

--Strait 01:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, a merge sounds good, e.g. a "Variants" section. MMad 00:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Strait 21:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge "Butterfly sex position"
I propose merging Butterfly sex position into this article.


 * It is very similar to the standard missionary position, with the only difference being that the man is rotated 90 degrees
 * Having them on the same page allows for less redundancy and better comparisons
 * The name "butterfly" has no acceptance
 * I have never heard this position called "butterfly" outside of Wikipedia and certainly not off the web
 * There is no reference for the name
 * I have a book which calls a completely different position by the same name
 * (I don't think that that position needs its own page either)
 * The page has no references (except for the one which contradicts its name)
 * Most of the page's content is pretty clear original research ("very relaxing for the woman", etc.)

--Strait 01:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Since there have been no comments, I'm going to do it. If you disagree, please undo my merge and we can discuss. --Strait 07:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge "legs up missionary position"
I propose merging legs up missionary position into this article. Most of that article violates WP:WEASEL and/or WP:OR and would be better suited to being a short as a paragraph under "variants" in this article. Comments? --Strait 08:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)