Talk:Non-penetrative sex/Archive 1

Older discussion
Checking google, all sites said that anal sex and oral sex don't count as outercourse, so I changed the definition. AxelBoldt 01:57 Dec 28, 2002 (UTC)

Armpit, seriously?!?!? -- Anon


 * This is disgusting. Should this even be on here? Lizzy
 * "Whatever floats your boat..." Jeeves 22:26, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

-

I added a warning disclaimer to the external link. The link has good info, but I was startled by the graphics. Jeeves 22:26, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

-

I re-added oral sex with a cautionary note about it because according to Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, it can be considered a form of outercourse (also another dictionary (I can't remember which) has a similar definition). I got the stud(y/ies) information I talked about in the article, from WebMd (http://www.webmd.com) (note that some of the articles contradict themselves and sometimes even have incorrect information (example, one said virgins can't get BV, while it's true that one is a lot less likely to have it if one is a virgin, since it can be caused by one's own bacteria overgrowing, virgins can get it.), but most of it seems correct.)(Side note, I don't know how anyone would consider anal sex outercourse, considering its risks/what it involves, it has always been intercourse and always will be.)

I think maybe this statement: 'No bodily fluids are intended to be exchanged' should be edited out because with some of the outercourse pratices (not even including oral sex, if it can be included), it is very easy to come in contact with bodily fluids.

I'm fine with if someone reverts my edit as long as one posts here with a good reason to revert. Also feel free to phrase what I said better (sorry my phrasing isn't that great for the moment). (This addition wasn't to cause a arguement or anything like that, just to re-added some that *might* have not needed to be cut out.)--Knowi7 22:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

(Note)The history page shows the IP address (instead of user name) because Wiki logged me out.--Knowi7 22:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Oral Sex and Pregnancy
Why is this a useful thing?


 * The risk of pregnancy with oral sex is only through contact between sperm-bearing fluids such as semen or Cowper's fluid and female sex organs, though the sex organs aren't usually in close contact with oral sex.

--The Hanged Man 07:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

outercourse?
Shouldn't this be called "extracourse"? 24ip | lolol 23:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed the parenthetical statement after "there is a higher risk" because it was incoherent.

HIV
What are we basing this warning on? I've seen recent articles detailing studies done on at risk groups practicing unprotected oral sex that showed a 0 percent infection rate. I think the definition implies that this is at risk behavior for HIV infection and there is nothing I'm aware of that would support this. (I used to work at AID Atlanta and have tried to keep up with the literature)

removed link, inappropriate

Cleveland steamers
I don't intend to be yucky, but are Cleveland steamers classed as intercourse (because it involves feces) or outercourse (because there is no penetration involved)? Scott Gall 07:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * For those not aware of the definition, see Cleveland steamer. I would not classify this rarely-performed, fetishistic act as either intercourse or outercourse, because it does not involve either penile penetration (as in the case of intercourse) or genital stimulation (as in the case of outercourse).  In my opinion, it does not qualify as either.  Joie de Vivre 21:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Picture
Does anyone else think that the picture paired with this article is inappropriate for an encyclopedia? It seems like it would be more at place in an advertisement for a cartoon pornography site. I would recommend that the image either be deleted, or replaced with a more appropriate (read: clinical) illustration of the concept of outercourse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)
 * I kind of had the same reaction coming to this page, seeing the illustration as even a bit comical, but I wonder where one would find a better picture than this. It may be a bit more "active" than the usually static pictures found in encyclopedias, but it illustrates the point very well. Cybertooth85 01:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's appropriate for this page. If you're looking up mammary intercourse, fine, have a picture, but if you're looking at this page for a general definition of outercourse, it's certainly not necessary. Wikipedia's role is not to sensationalize. —Emiellaiendiay 06:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that this drawing does not belong here. Please see Wikipedia is not censored, Wikipedia Content disclaimer and Profanity.  If this image were a photograph of a sex act, I might be more inclined to agree with your opinion on this, but it is only a drawing.  Unless the user who removed this image is prepared to replace it with a better image, it should remain on the page.  Joie de Vivre 16:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I deleated some of the 'slutty and degrading stuff' and made it racialy neatral!--Bobie Alice Flinker 03:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I definitely agree this picture does not belong here. It's a)a poor drawing b)offensive. The act itself is not offensive, but the pose of the female is (looking lustily at the viewer while being covered in semen). I don't believe this belongs in this article. And considering it was added by the artist himself, it seems a poor attempt to pass his pornographic images around. Save it for your own porn site, please. I don't think the slutty and degrading stuff was a racial issue. 68.196.253.95 01:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not a very good drawing. No offense to the poster, but it should probably be replaced with a better one. --John Kenneth Fisher 02:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Frottage?
The proposed merge is already being discussed on Talk:Frottage. Please continue the discussion there. --Simon Speed 23:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)