Talk:Sex as exercise

At present, this article isn't anywhere near long enough to do any justice whatsoever to the topic. I'm not sure why people bother creating these pages if they're not going to put some basic effort into doing something with them.

I considered nominating this article for deletion, but theoretically it COULD be a valuable and interesting article if a significant amount of effort were put into bringing it up to some sort of workable standard.

The notability of the references is also questionable, they seem particularly arbitrary, and would benefit from being replaced with something of more encyclopedic quality. In particular, the metronews link is really a lifestyle/puff-piece. Surely a great deal of more credible information is available on this topic than has been included here to date. Debate (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Seconded. As it stands, this article contributes only the idea that sex might be viable for exercise purposes. The Dinah Project article actually winds up explaining why sex is not actually ideal for excercise (it's not sufficiently strenuous), and also alludes to typical sex being too short to contribute to adequate exercise.
 * Should we start a new article on Sex as warm-up prior to exercise?
 * I'd recommend this article be merged into sexual intercourse. The references here would be second rate, but just sufficient to verify a sentence or two to say that the question has been asked, numbers have been calculated, and a negative answer returned -- fit young people, spending an hour on vigorous sex, several times a week, achieving orgasm and taking it in turns to "be on top" would still require other forms of activity to reach recommended levels of exercise. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I would support a merger. At the moment I don't see any significant benefit from leaving the article as it stands.Debate (talk) 10:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Added a merger tag. --Christoph.sta (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Re-creation of article
I notice that this article has been recreated, and I'm struggling to see the reasoning behind that. Could the editor recreating it provide some explanation about how the article might be further developed? As discussed above, current references are extremely problematic, per WP:RS, and there seems to be no clear reason why the article can't be easily integrated into sexual intercourse, as has in fact already been done, per the clear consensus above. Debate  木  23:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)