Talk:Safe sex/Archive 6

Immunization

 * Immunization before initiation of sexual activity increases effectiveness.

I'm not sure that this is accurate. Certainly immunization before exposure is important, and one reliable way to do this is to immunize before the first sexual activity, but the fact remains that a solitary individual, or an uninfected monogamous couple, can engage in all kinds of sexual activities without the smallest risk of contracting a vaccine-preventable sexually transmissible infection, and if they later receive the vaccine, it will be no less effective for them than for the next person.

I'm also not sure that this sentence is especially relevant. Perhaps it might make more sense to say that health authorities commonly recommend that these vaccines be given to children. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Using two or more forms of birth control concurrently
This section is very poorly written - the reference is just someone's post on newsgroups - there is no actual reference. The math on the statistics is also wrong, the tables are mislabeled, and the wording in all of it is very non-wiki.

I suggest this section be removed or revised as it clearly does not meet Wikipedia standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.199.103 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 27 April 2010


 * Using two or more forms of birth control provides incredibly greater protection.


 * The typical and perfect risk numbers for condoms and birth control are given based upon 80-100 sex acts. For best case scenario in the chart, this is assumed to be based on 100 sex acts because that makes the risk less.  For the worst case scenario in the chart, this is assumed to be based on 80 sex acts because that makes the risk more.


 * The subsequent per year risk calculation of Condoms and Birth Control is based upon the per act risk of each times the other, divided by the number of acts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.30.178.236 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 6 May 2010


 * Yes, but it is irrelevant (Pregnancy prevention is not Disease prevention) and badly sourced. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Definition of Safe Sex
Shouldn't safe sex be defined as to include pregnancy prevention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.30.178.236 (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it shouldn't, because it's not so defined by reliable sources, which are what the content of this encyclopedia depends on. Deor (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Merged
Article merged: See old talk-page here. --Una Smith (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

File:Condom Usage.jpg
I'm removing the above image which has just been added. The image itself hasn't had a license added and so is liable to be deleted, it also has one subject (the woman) who is clearly identifiable in a very private situation and who has not (as far as we can tell) consented to this publication. These 2 facts will almost certainly cause the photo to be deleted in the near future even though it's a lot better than some sex pictures we get. What do other editors think? Do we need an illustration of condom usage on the page? If so what form should it take? The Wikimedia Commons category Commons:Category:Condoms has a lot of material that is free to use. --Simon Speed (talk) 09:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Legality
I think the fact that nonconsensual unprotected sex is illegal in certain jurisdictions is appropriate material for this article. I'm not sure why the reverting editor disagrees. Please explain.--Nowa (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether the general question of legality should be mentioned in the article, the statement you made regarding Assange is incorrect; "This is one of Sweden sex scandal charges against Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks". As yet, Assange has not been charged with any offence, and the issue of condom non-use may or may not be of relevance.
 * (And incidentally, I think that you'll find that "nonconsensual unprotected sex is illegal" in most jurisdictions, because it is nonconsensual.) AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Andy, you are right. There have been no charges.  My mistake.  Regarding the legality of unprotected sex, I had the sense from the article that there was something distinctive about the Swedish law that went beyond the nonconsensual part.  If I get more specifics I'll post on talk first.--Nowa (talk) 16:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

recommending using a condom when using a sex toy in multiple orifices
Over on the commons there is a discussion over whether or not to delete an image -- File:Masturbating with a toothbrush.jpg. Those favoring deletion have asserted the image does not fall within Commons scope, as they can't imagine an educational use. I suggested it could usefully be used to illustrate a recommendation that devices used in more than one orifice require protection to prevent infecting one orifice with the flora normally found in another orifice.

I am not an expert on human sexuality, but I was pretty sure that sharing devices between orifices -- definitely vaginal to anal, possibly vaginal to oral -- is considered unsafe, unless the device is sterilized between uses, or is protected from actual contact with the user's skin, through condoms or other barriers.

I prepared two derivative images of File:Masturbating with a toothbrush.jpg -- File:Masturbating with a toothbrush -b.jpg and File:Masturbating with a toothbrush -c.jpg.

Because I have no experience editing the wikipedia's articles on human sexuality I thought I would suggest the wording I thought was appropriate here on the talk page, rather than putting it directly in the article.

I looked for references to substantiate that authoritative sources recommend using condoms to protect sex toys from cross contaminating multiple orifices. Here is one I found:

I'd like to request input as to whether the contributors working in this area thought either of these images were appropriate to use on this article, for this purpose.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The image is of pretty low quality - needs cropping, dark, and you would pretty much have to know what it showed in order to understand it. (The sex toy and any condom on it are pretty much obliterated by the censorship).  I don't see it as particularly useful here.  Zodon (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, here is a cropped version, with a different caption. Would it be possible for you to consider offering alternate wording for the caption if you are not happy with the caption I drafted?


 * For what it is worth, it only required blacking out a fraction of a centimetre of the tip of the toothbrush.


 * Are you happier with how this alternate image is cropped?


 * Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The point is not "how can we use this image," it is "how can we improve this article." I don't see any way in which the image would be an improvement for the article.  It is not clearly unsafe sex (coverage with a condom is only one aspect - it could only be used by one person, or could have been sterilized, etc.  Can't tell from a picture.)  It is not particularly illustrative of safe sex (any more than any other sex toy would be).  It is not of particularly high quality image.  (They could be holding a tooth brush by their elbow for all one can tell). Zodon (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, I think the image would improve the article. You seem to disagree, but I don't understand why you disagree.


 * It doesn't matter if just a single person used the toothbrush, employing it for dual uses, even by just a single person, is innately unsafe. You suggest the user could be sterilizing the toothbrush, between switching from using it for its primary purpose of oral hygiene to using it as a sex toy.  Just as most sex toys aren't designed to be sterilized, toothbrushes aren't designed to be sterilized.  Do you know what the recommended sterilization procedures if for sex toys?  Boiling.  Glass sex toys can be boiled.  Stainless steel sex toys can be boiled.  Expensive sex toys, made of silicone, are designed to be sterilized by being boiled.  Sex toys made of rubber or ordinary plastics have pores and cracks which can hide bacteria.  Even ones that seem smooth have microscopic pores and cracks.  And they are not designed to routinely survive the heat of boiling.  Even if the shaft or head of a toothbrush was designed to use a plastic that could survive being boiled, the socket that encloses the bristles is not amenable to convenient sterilization.


 * You have asserted, in two comments, that these are not high quality images. I want to be sure I understand you.  What aspect of the images makes you describe them as not high quality?  I don't mean to be insulting, but could you please confirm that, prior to challenging the images' quality, you did click on them to see them at their full resolution?


 * You say the image is not any more illustrative of safe sex than any other sex toy. That is backwards.  The image illustrates an UNsafe sex practice.


 * Again, I don't mean to be insulting, but from your comment about how the toothbush may have been used by just a single individual I hope you will forgive me for wondering whether the reason you don't recognize the image as improving the article is that you don't understand why a single individual using a toothbrush, or other sex toy in more than one orifice is not a safe sex practice. Geo Swan (talk) 03:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The article is about safe sex. Therefore any image used is to enhance the coverage of that topic.  Now it is possible that an illustration of unsafe sex practices might be useful, but it has to clearly illustrate such practices.
 * There is nothing from the image that makes it clear that it is being used in multiple orifices. (Presumably that is under the blackout.)  All it shows is a toothbursh, which may be being used as a sex toy.  All this about multiple orifices is pure supposition.  The picture doesn't clearly show it.  There are no WP:RS indicating the history of this individual toothbrush, and even if there were it would not be a clear illustration.
 * I already indicated some of why it is not a high quality image in my previous comments. Has nothing to to with pixel depth/image size.
 * There are lots of clearer ways of illustrating safe sex than this. Zodon (talk) 04:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I hadn't noticed the non-blacked out variants before. They make it quite clear that it is not being used in multiple orifices.  Zodon (talk) 04:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you really disputing that the primary purpose for a toothbrush is oral hygiene? Even if, for the sake of argument, it is possible someone could purchase one toothbrush for oral hygiene and an identical one to use as a sex toy, I suggest images where someone uses a toothbrush as a sex toy so strongly suggests dual use, unsafe sex we should treat all such images as images of unsafe sex, unless the image shows the device was used with a condom.
 * As to whether this article is solely about safe sex, so illustrations of unsafe sex don't belong -- if you look at the article's history you will see that there was once an article on unprotected sex and the decision was made to redirect readers here, presumably because contributors then understood that a discussion of safe sex practices also requires a discussion of unsafe sex practices.
 * I accept at face value that you think you adequately explained your concerns over quality. I took your suggestion the image needs cropping at face value.  You suggested it required more explanation.  I cropped it, and changed the explanation.  Given that I made an effort to take your suggestions seriously would it be possible to consider whether my efforts satisfied your concern?  If you feel some of your quality concerns remain unaddressed would you consider making an additional effort to articulate them?  Geo Swan (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry if the comments on quality mislead you into thinking that if the quality was addressed it would be useful - it is the content that makes it basically unuseful. The quality is just an aside.  As far as quality.  The watch definitely detracts - it is excess visual clutter.  But the main thing to improve it is to use a more typical sex toy with a condom on it.
 * The first thing that comes to mind when seeing the image is, why is there a toothbrush in it. This distracts from any consideration of safe sex, unsafe sex, etc.  An illustration should show what is to be shown with a minimum of other baggage.
 * If you really want to use this image someplace. Find references in reliable sources to support that toothbrushes are commonly used for masturbation.  That would open up various avenues for this image.  In the safe sex area the thing would be to provide sources that indicate what sterilization is possible between uses.  Then an image of sterilizing it, e.g. boiling a toothbrush head, might be apropos to safe sex.
 * Otherwise, if using a toothbrush is inherently unsafe sex, then beside being fringe, this might be a case of "don't stick beans up your nose." Telling somebody not to do something that would not have occurred to them to do might actually increase the likelihood of them doing it.
 * Of course one would use a different toothbrush for ones teeth. They come with multiple heads so you can replace them when the wear out, or so that people in the same household can each have their own toothbrush.  Most people would have old toothbrush heads around, either throwing them out or reusing them - there are lots of uses for a worn out toothbrush.  This is apparently one of those uses.  If it is common for people to use the same toothbrush for sex as for dental care, again a reliable source to establish this would be in order.
 * Zodon (talk) 05:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You might also wish to look at WP:MEDMOS and the manual of style on images. The principal of least astonishment would suggest that if we depict a sex toy it should be a typical one.  Zodon (talk) 06:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I numbered the points above to ease responding to them.
 * Responent asserts the watch is a distration. Really, isn't it a trivial distraction?  Respondent asserts "...it is the content that makes it basically unuseful  [sic]", but without explaining why.
 * Respondent asserts that a toothbrush being used as a sex toy is so distracting readers would fail to comprehend any points made in the caption. I accept at face value that respondent's astonishment is genuine, but I suggest it would also be untypical.
 * Respondent asserts that references that confirm that toothbrushes are commonly used as sex toys are required. If there are suggesting these references go in the article I would have to disagree.
 * With regard to sticking beans up one's nose -- I think we should count on our readers being clueful and intelligent, and assume that if they came to an article on safe sex it was to learn how to practice sex safely. Therefore I don't think we should exclude valuable content because someone might stick a bean up their nose.
 * I believe respondent is correct that older electric toothbrushes did come with multiplie detachable heads, for use by nuclear families. Modern battery powered ones don't come with multiple detachable heads.  Respondent again claims references to confirm that using a toothbush as a sex toy is common are necessary.  Again I disagree that such references are necessary for this image to be used.  The first hit from a google search for toothbrush and "sex toy" was http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/2012/01/11/a-sex-toy-inspired-by-the-sonicare-toothbrush/  I am going to suggest that this reference is sufficient to establish the technique is commoly used, and that no further substantiation is required.
 * Respondent directed my attention to WP:MEDMOS and asserted that the "... principal [sic] of least astonishment would suggest that if we depict a sex toy it should be a typical one."  First, this use is not that surprising or untypical.  Second, as I had already observed, the use of a toothbrush as an improvised sex toy strongly suggests the device has been used in both the mouth and vagina -- which wouldn't be clear for an image of other sex toys.  Geo Swan (talk) 17:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if Geo Swan is trying to extend the deletion discussion from the Commons. I certainly think the original image (not the censored one) is illustrative and useful and should not be deleted. But I have to agree with Zodon, that it doesn't have a use here. --Simon Speed (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The individual who nominated the image for deletion hinted that they thought there was something wrong with my initiation of this discussion. I started this discussion because I genuinely thought the nominated image or a derivtive thereof, could usefully illustrate the important point that sex toys should not be used in multiple orifices.  I continue to think both that the image would be of value here, and that there was nothing wrong with my saying so.  I asked Simon to weigh in here.  This is a cooperative project.  We all need to accept that sometimes our best efforts to convince others will fail, and, even though their efforts also failed to convince us, ours is the minority opinion.  Cheers!  Geo Swan (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

update File:Masturbating with a toothbrush.jpg was kept. The derivative images were deleted. Geo Swan (talk) 06:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Research
Could anyone help lwhite 12:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Le9911 (talk • contribs)

Intentionally pulling off the condom
I just corrected some of the grammar in the last paragraph of the lede. I notice that it was added some time ago in this edit by. I wonder what part of the article it is summarising or introducing. While these things can, and I'm sure do, happen, it seems a little like an editorialised 'morality tale', that is not in the usual style for a Wikipedia lede. I just wonder if other editors here see some purpose in it that I'm missing. --Nigelj (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested move
Safe sex → Safer sex – As noted in Safe_sex, the term "safe sex" is inaccurate, because any form of sexual contact is riskier than abstinence. Thus, "safer sex" is becoming the more frequently used expression. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose, for now anyway, per WP:Due weight. The vast majority of sources refer to the concept as "safe sex," not as "safer sex." Furthermore, some WP:Reliable sources do indeed believe that certain non-penetrative sex acts are safe sex. That stated, if most medical sources are now using the "safer sex" terminology instead of the "safe sex" terminology, then, per Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles, I don't mind much if this article is moved to Safer sex. I will alert WP:MED to this discussion. This move matter is similar to why we have not yet kept sexually transmitted disease under the Sexually transmitted infection article title, instead keeping the article titled by the aforementioned name (you can see that talk page and its archives for the debates about that). Flyer22 (talk) 00:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, seems petty and counter-productive. We all know condoms are not 100% effective -It still gets called "Safe" and "Unsafe Sex" regardless. Also remember to consider the world view - something may be called something somewhere; but not in the rest of the English speaking world. Per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, the current name is the WP:COMMONNAME, the most recognizable and the most natural. -Rushton2010 (talk) 01:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - though I can understand the rationale, the term is widely known as "safe sex" - wikipedia reflects usage not creates it (however well-intentioned), sorry. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose I do HIV education and in my community we use the term "safer sex". People who work in HIV prevention in Western countries tend to prefer the term "safer sex". However, many other media and educational outlets still use the term "safe sex", and I feel that is the most familiar term and term most aligned with Wikipedia's naming policies. Incidentally - abstinence is one of the riskiest strategies for promoting safer sex. Persons using abstinence as a protection against infection or undesired pregnancy are as a demographic much more likely to have their abstinence fail than, for example, anyone is likely to have their condom fail. This is not a medically controversial claim, but in some places it is politically controversial in opposition to all available evidence. See Intention-to-treat analysis for the theory behind this.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   14:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, are there any studies on using SSRIs as a medical support for abstinence? DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I just did a quick search with WP:COCHRANE and could not find anything, or anything which seemed analogous. There are papers on the relationship between depression and anxiety and STIs, but nothing about intentionally inducing sexual dysfunction as a safer sex public policy. Most research on safer sex is intended to reduce the public health burden, and as no one recommends abstinence programs as being cost-saving in comparison to other options, I doubt that any research would exist on ways to increase abstinence. Increasing abstinence does not correlate with decrease in health costs.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   19:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per, above. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment: The question also begs: If everything (sex act) but sexual abstinence (true sexual abstinence, not this "but it's not real sex" behavior that people, especially teenagers, engage in) is safer sex, then what is safe sex? I gather that the point, in this regard, is that no sexual activity is safe. But it's odd for "safer" to exist when "safe" does not. Flyer22 (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm closing this for now, as it is clear that isn't going to pass anytime soon. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Ktr101 (Kevin Rutherford), isn't it best that you close it with a "Please do not modify it" template and an official "No consensus to move" commentary; yes, you removed the requested move template, but it seems like the close should be more official. Flyer22 (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right, so please fix that as you want, as I felt like something was missing, but couldn't figure out what. Sorry about that! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Safe versus Safer (name of article)
Although it has already been discussed, I'd like to weigh in on the side of renaming the article "Safer sex", of course with reference from "Safe sex".


 * If someone is looking for information on safe sex, it is socially beneficial, and in their interest, to direct people instead to safer sex.
 * Most of what is dealt with under safe sex is in fact not totally safe sex, it is safer sex, so sending the reader to safer sex is intellectually accurate.
 * There are activities where the risk of sexually transmitted infection (not that there aren't other risks, at least sometimes) is zero. Phone sex or solo masturbation, among others. But for most people, rightly or wrongly, these activities are not "really" sex. Sex by definition, in this view, involves physical contact of some sort between two living beings.
 * The subset of activities that are, like phone sex, 100% safe (from STIs), could better be dealt with as a subcategory under Safer sex. They aren't what the typical seeker of safe sex information has in mind.

deisenbe (talk) 13:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources to present which take a position on this? Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what the reliable sources do. What kinds of sources use each of those terms?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  13:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Offhand I don't, but I'm hoping others do. deisenbe (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)