Talk:Sexual intercourse/Archive 1

YIKES! I came here from the Prostitution page - surely we have to qualify the 'for reproduction' part of the statement if it's linked to prostitution! And what about all those - ahem - other activities. Not to mention homosexuality. If we keep this definition the way it is, prostitution should link to something else!

Seems to serve perfectly fine for that at least, although it DOES need some more content (notably homesexual intercourse). Feel free to add! :-) (oh, and by the way, it's dry and factual on purpose, in order to avoid bias)---Anders Törlind

Well, it's exactly that kind of attitude that had some people wondering what Bill Cllinton actually MEANT by sexual contact! --MichaelTinkler

I'm sorry that i have offended you, although i know not what i have done. Please accept my aplogies. --Anders Törlind

Not at all, Anders! I neglected to insert a smiley. The narrowness of Bill's definition of "what sexual contact is" is what it reminded me of. Procreation is obviously too narrow for the human, maybe the primate, and maybe even just plain mammalian description, homosexuality aside.

Sexual intercourse page revamped 5 November 2001

Shouldn't the use of fuck as a swear-word be mentioned here or somewhere else instead of just redirecting ?

The only reason I put that redirect there was because a vandal had created the page, the contents were subsequently deleted, and empty pages are an affront to my sense of aesthetics. It seemed like the correct article to redirect it to at the time, but feel free to change that.

I see from the article that "Health care professionals suggest that condoms should always be used...." I guess that health care professionals will soon be extinct. May I remind the writers that some perverts actually use sexual intercourse for reproduction?


 * Your point is taken, but perhaps the fact that issues of preganancy were discussed in the preceding paragraph while the one you mention discussed sexually transmitted diseases makes the point plain. Also, I think it's more helpful to other Wikipedia users to try to make useful rather than "cute" edits.

-

Removed the word "fuck" as, in my view, the usage I removed adds nothing to the article. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

- Removed the following:


 * Most people agree that sexual intercourse should only take place in a loving relationship.

As a counterexample, what fraction of the male population in Western countries have visited a prostitute? How about in Thailand (to choose an obvious example). In any case, it's a discussion that should be left for the sexual morality article. --Robert Merkel 00:33 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Passage about age of consent and rape gives only a vague view and should be rewritten to explain concept of statutory rape. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:53, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'm wondering about the statement near the end of the article:

"It is said that dolphins, bonobos, and humans are the only animals that have sex for pleasure."

Who says this? I've long been under the impression that most, if not all, animals have sex for pleasure.


 * I think the idea is that the three of us are the only animals that get the urge when babies will not result -- and humans at least will in fact often go to some lengths to ensure that. --&#9829; «Charles A. L.» 07:10, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * Except there are humans that do not know (a priori) that fertilization occurs through sexual intercourse. We didn't always have this figured out, so how could animals?


 * They don't have to have it figured out; it's evolutionary instinct.


 * This has created no less than three differant discussions on this talk page; the thing about dolphins and bonobos is an urban legend. cite Samboy 04:43, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * But snopes is now listing this legend as "true". I think there may be some truth to the point.  --Chinasaur 19:36, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

'Sex is only pleasurable...' to revise?
"It is said that dolphins, bonobos, and humans are the only animals that have sex for pleasure"

This seems inaccurate, on more than one ground.

1/ it seems to be rather human-centric (ie, we like it, but others don't).

2/ I'm not sure if neutral research has ever been conducted into questions such as "do dogs or other animals familiar to people enjoy sex" for example.

3/ Farm and breeding experience suggests that sex is indeed enjoyed by other species, when permitted.

4/ The fact that something is instinctual doesn't conflict with the idea it's also enjoyed. Eating is instinctive yet enjoyable for example.

Thoughts on whether this statement should be revised, or left more open?


 * Again, this is an urban legend. cite  I have corrected the relevant section of the entry. Samboy 04:31, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Removed sentence
Removed this:
 * It is said that only in humans and a species of spiders can sexual intercourse be forced.

This is untrue. Consider, at the very least, ducks, geese and frogs. -- Karada 10:48, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * and camels. -- Sundar 05:01, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Moved contentious para here
From the article:


 * In the case of circumcised sex, the immobile shaft skin requires constant lubrication. In the case of natural sex, a man's foreskin can move and glide within the vagina, while delivering and containing its own natural lubrication in addition to the woman's.  This effect has been debated by some, but arises from studies described in Kristen O'Hara's book Sex as Nature Intended It.

This is a very POV paragraph: "natural sex" for example, the emphasis on having sex with women who are not aroused (why?), the foreskin "delivering and containing its own natural lubrication", and the appeal to authority argument. Hint: in uncircumcised males without over-tight foreskins, the foreskin retracts during sex to lie behind the glans, reducing the case to glans-and-shaft in contact with vagina as per circumcised males. -- The Anome 23:12, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I did not mention lack of arousal, only lack of lubrication which is commonplace for men and women even when aroused. I did not appeal to authority, but only mention the author INCLUDING those who dispute her findings.  I doubt we can remove every author who has a POV from every article.  Your point about glans-and-shaft is taken, so if you would add a reference to that, I would be OK with that.  But painful intercourse is still around, even if your POV denies it.  It still merits mentioning.  DanP 00:19, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The gliding actionof the præpuce like a rolling baring is real. I know from personal experience.  The præpuce does not get stuck behind the glans but can slide forward to the end of the penis or back over the shaft.  Cirp.Org  has a nice explanation of the gliding action of the præpuce with illustrations.  NoHarmm.Org has further explanation along with pictures of penii.  The pictures culminate with an animated Image/Gif of a man demonstrating the gliding action of his præpuce by taking matters into his own hand.  The movie also proves that intact men do not require petroleum-jelly for masturbation because he can use his præpuce.  Because John Harvey Kellogg believed that masturbation causes blindness and insanity (it does not), he started the American mutilation-fad.
 * &#364;alabio 07:42, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)
 * One must resist the temptation of inserting unconfirmed and purely speculative anti-circumcision propaganda into this article. The inclusion of this would be more credible if there had been some research into vaginal wetness and lubrication in largely uncircumcising countries. Further there would be facts available in relation to wetness/lubrication issues relating to condom useage. Failure to provide a wider context for the issue of lubrication renders this insertion merely POV propaganda and as such it should be removed. I suggest that those so anxious to have this inserted improve the context within the next few days or the applicable paragrapgh gets deleted. - Robert the Bruce 02:32, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Note bold inserts below by 24.238.217.126 It is confirmed. If you would regrow your præpuce, you would know. As much as I dislike you (you are not the most amicable person), I also pity you. [there some reason personal attacks are left here?] Oh well now, I imagine that you probably have sufficient sensation to orgasm from whatever sexual activity floats your boat, [who cares what insulting poster imagines?] but it almost certainly is not mutual lovemaking. [what does poster know about victim's love '''life? hello?]''' With your reduced sensation, you probably cannot have full-body orgasms. [victim's sex life is germane to the discussion of the Sexual Intercourse page in some way, I imagine, or this speculative attack would be removed, I would think?] Probably all you have is your paraphilia [personal attack]. It does not have to be this way for you: You could embrace your paraphilia and use the psychological excitement from it for compensating for reduced sensation or you could abandon your paraphilia and restore what sensation you can. I understand your need for validation. [someone care to explain why this passive-aggressive attack should stand here on wikipedia?]  ¿would not it be easier just to accept yourself? It was not your fault. You did nothing wrong. You did not deserve to be violated. Your parents were misinformed. The circumciser was greedy and perverted. It is not your fault. &#364;alabio 09:40, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC) (The above post by Walabio has been edited by Theresa Knott  (The torn steak) in order to  remove personal attacks. 13:30, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC) *Your comments are valid. You did note that the piece you questioned was the remnant of the original post that Theresa Knott edited? Theresa is an "admin" around here. Maybe you should take it up with her personally on her user page or lay an official complaint. Theresa has been asked in the past to resist the temptation to misuse her authority to push her POV and protect certain others from disciplinary action for the actions such as you highlight in your post. Wikipedia is imperfect an so one learns to live with blatant bias from certain sysop/admin types as part of the challenge to build accurate and truthful articles. - Robert the Bruce 03:59, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Indeed, this accusation of "propaganda" is completely without merit. Nobody indicated that O'Hara's work was beyond doubt or disagreement.  The entire sexual intercourse article is full of what might feel good for some, but not for others (ie. no absolute, unshakable proof is cited in most sentences).  Many men, such as myself, are well aware of dry rubbing and scraping of the vagina when a mutilated penis is used.  Stopping every 2 minutes to apply lube is perhaps what you'd prefer to have in the article?   Please, Robert the Bruce, instead of threating to delete every perspective you disagree with, why not add a different perspective to the article?   Or at least explain what evidence you have that O'Hara's work wrongly describes circumcised sex.  A demand for evidence works both ways.  DanP 22:20, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * The O'Hara survey is a meaningless and disgraceful piece of propaganda. The participants were recruited from an anti-circumcision newsletter. Talk about imported bias. Laugh it off, throw it out, whatever, it is garbage. - Robert the Bruce 17:21, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * You make very misleading statements. O'Hara's book covers participants from a variety of sources. I do not go around deleting every endless promotion of mutilation have posted, calling it "garbage", even when your source is your own imagination.  Yet, you have zero evidence that O'Hara's work is wrong in its findings.  The absurdity of comfortable intercourse while having circumcised genitals is clear enough to many guys with tight cuts.   Aside from that, your double-standard on evidence goes explained.  Provide scientific evidence that O'Hara's conclusions are wrong, or else leave the material up to the reader to decide for themselves.  You are not the thought police, "protecting" readers from their own ability to learn and decide.  DanP 18:15, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * The O'Hara theory is based on a biased survey which was based on the input from people recruited through an anti-circumcision newsletter. So its a case of biased garbage in, biased garbage out. With an input bias like that and the O'Hara theory being so fatally flawed one does not need evidence to prove anything about the results of the survey ... it just goes straight into the trash can. - Robert the Bruce 02:29, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Some contend that, in the case of circumcised sex, the immobile shaft skin requires constant lubrication. This contrasts with copulation with an uncircumcised penis, where a man's foreskin can move and glide " ..... As someone with experience of circumcised males, I can confirm the following: the shaft skin is far from immobile, it moves quite happily on its own or in the vagina, with or without lubrication. Indeed masturbation is based more on moving the supposedly "immobile" shaft skin, not the foreskin. So the article from personal experience is very inaccurate in this regard. It neither is immobile, nor does it "need constant lubrication". The only reason I havent removed it is that I would like more details of the highly dubious sources who make the specific precise claims that it is "immobile", and "needs constant lubrication", beforehand. Come what may these are inaccurate statements, as many circumcised males can confirm from their own masturbatory experience.

What is *not* inaccurate is, that an uncircumcised penis seems more sensitive than a circumcised one. But thats not what is stated. FT2 23:41, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * You would like to define the word "sensitive" in this context? - Robert the Bruce 02:29, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I state what I stated, which is that certain of the assumptive statements made are from personal experience inaccurate and misleading. Perhaps these apply to a proportion, but if so the statement does not say this.  It states the skin is immobile, the need for lubrication is constant, the implication is that these things are, and are necessarily, the case, and this is evidently false.  A few "can be"s or "for some peoples"s might have been a good idea in this quote.

FT2 23:41, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC):

"''"Some contend that, in the case of circumcised sex, the immobile shaft skin requires constant lubrication. This contrasts with copulation with an uncircumcised penis, where a man's foreskin can move and glide "'' ..... As someone with experience of circumcised males, I can confirm the following: the shaft skin is far from immobile, it moves quite happily on its own or in the vagina, with or without lubrication.  Indeed masturbation is based more on moving the supposedly "immobile" shaft skin, not the foreskin."

Robert Brookes would have us believe that all tissue on intact men becomes trapped behind the glans during erection.

"So the article from personal experience is very inaccurate in this regard. It neither is immobile, nor does it "need constant lubrication". The only reason I havent removed it is that I would like more details of the highly dubious sources who make the specific precise claims that it is "immobile", and "needs constant lubrication", beforehand.  Come what may these are inaccurate statements, as many circumcised males can confirm from their own masturbatory experience."

Basically, you are luckily atypical of circumcised men. ¿Are sufficiently lucky to have flaccid glans coverage? If so, you are very lucky the the doctors did not recircumcise you. ¿Do you honestly believe that most circumcised men have any mobility of shaft-tissue when erect?

You are very lucky to have a loose cut. Generally, Ob/Gyns remove >½ of the inner mucosa. >½ of the frænulum, all of the outer præpuce, >½ of the shaftskin. These men have no mobility of the shaft-tissue. They require lubricants for masturbation. If the female partners of these women cannot continuously lubricate (asking a woman to lubricate continuously for over an hour is like asking a man to spit once a minute for over an hour), the couple will have to use artificial lubrication. Women with intact partners --  and men lucky to be loosely cut like you  --  need only have sufficient lubrication for penetration, despite what Robert Brookes says about intact men having no mobile tissue when erect.

Some men are the victims of real sadists:

Some circumcisers remove >2/3 of the inner mucosa, all of the frænulum, all of the outer præpuce, and >2/3 of the shaftskin. These men suffer from tight painful erections. They have hairy penes from skin from the scrotum and groin riding up onto the shaft. When erect, their groinskin tents into a cone around the penis. When erect, the tissue on the shaft is tight like a drumhead. Sometimes, the shaft splits and bleeds at the circumcisionscar during erections. You are usually lucky for a mutilated man, just as he is unusually unlucky. He is your mirror image. I was him before præputial restoration.

Unfortunately, some are even more unlucky. ¿Have you read about David Peter Reimer?

"What is *not* inaccurate is, that an uncircumcised penis seems more sensitive than a circumcised one. But thats not what is stated. FT2 23:41, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)"

The paragraph is not about sensitivity, but one cannot cut off tens of thousands nerve-ends and then bury those remaining under calluses without reducing sensation.

&#364;alabio 04:23, 2004 Oct 7 (UTC)

Ok, this article is not the place to discuss the benefits or harms of circumcision. Also, personal attacks on its talk page (or anywhere else) are against policy. If valid content is removed from the article for reasons of disagreement with one PoV, it may be locked. Pakaran. 18:51, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I do not see how the paragraph can be contentious. Let us go back to first principles:


 * With normal intact men, the woman produces sufficient lubrication for penetration, and then, the man can slide around in his own skin/mucosa-system.


 * Most mutilated men have insufficient skin/mucosa-system for sliding around in it.


 * If the woman does not continuously produce huge quantities of lubricants with mutilated men, sexual intercourse literally grinds to an halt.

Since circumcision leads to sexual intercourse grinding to an halt, it seems appropriate to include in this article. This is simple principles of applied engineering.

¿Any questions?

&#364;alabio 04:52, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)

I agree. Even aside from lubrication, women simply have more orgasms with intact men. The whole section on orgasms in general (intercourse does not equal orgasms, by the way), should be taken out as "contentious wild speculation" by Robert's theory. However, merely noting in the article that some people believe lubrication, sensitivity, and orgasms are severely impacted by mutilation is not POV! It is true enough that some people know first-hand and believe it. Others may believe otherwise, and they do not have to force us to believe such nonsense. They can believe in flying unicorns, leprechauns, or whatever, but they'd rather believe a guy with dry immobilized skin and a thick scar can have "comfortable" intercourse. Nobody is forcing them not to believe in their fairy tale, but they should not use it to censor the article. Apparently many of these experts on circumcision were not even fully circumcised, as they admit to having loose skin. Even Robert would probably not say there is "no effect" on intercourse, but he would probably say it's better. So be it, but I wouldn't call a statement on "improvement" contentious, it just some guy's personal experience. Unfortunatly, many guys in the U.S. are not in that situation. DanP 18:19, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia NPOV: The notion of "unbiased writing" that informs Wikipedia's policy is "presenting conflicting views without asserting them."

I don't think it would be hard, with mutual understanding, to formulate a common opinion something on these lines:

"Male circumcision is a contentious issue. In some parts of the world, and some religions, it has the force of history and tradition, whereas to others it is barbaric and akin to mutilation.  What seems common ground is that a degree of sensitivity and of lubrication is lost as a result, and a egree of hygiene gained, advocates of both sides differ as to the extent.  Some people claim circumcision can all but destroy much of the intensity of sex, or even the ability to perform sex satisfactorily, on the other hand many people who are circumcised will when asked state they find their sex life more than acceptable and attribute only minor negative effects to it if that.  With religions which circumcise very young, scarring may be anecdotally minor compared to the more common hospital procedures employed secularly. A lot probably depends on the reason, the individual, the amount of foreskin removed and the quality of surgery, so a range of experiences is perhaps to be expected."

2004-10-14T07:39, FT2:

"Male circumcision is a contentious issue."

This article is suppose to be about sexual intercourse.

"In some parts of the world, and some religions, it has the force of history and tradition, whereas to others it is barbaric and akin to mutilation.

Since circumcision fits the definition of mutilation, it is mutilation.

'''That isn't the issue. What is the issue is that you need to read up on Wiki's NPOV policy and what NPOV actually means, before adding further. It does NOT mean "put your view and win". It means "represent each view in a balanced representative manner". Which you need to learn to do before postting more to this talk page.''' FT2 02:44, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

"What seems common ground is that a degree of sensitivity and of lubrication is lost as a result, and a egree of hygiene gained, advocates of both sides differ as to the extent." FT2 02:29, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Removal of the præpuce is as hygienic as removal of the eyelids.

May we have an authoritative source for this incredible statement? FT2 02:29, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

"Some people claim circumcision can all but destroy much of the intensity of sex, or even the ability to perform sex satisfactorily, on the other hand many people who are circumcised will when asked state they find their sex life more than acceptable and attribute only minor negative effects to it if that. With religions which circumcise very young, scarring may be anecdotally minor compared to the more common hospital procedures employed secularly. A lot probably depends on the reason, the individual, the amount of foreskin removed and the quality of surgery, so a range of experiences is perhaps to be expected."

This is interesting, but the issue is whether reduction of mobile tissue on the penis (from our point of view, we do neither in this paragraph care about pleasure or pain or where one removes the band of tissue on the penis, such as from the end, base middle) increases friction. From an engineering point, removal of tissue of the penis increases friction. As an aside (from the point of view of this paragraph, this is an aside), Reduced friction leads to less pain, more comfort and more pleasure for both the man and the woman. Since the tissue removed by circumcision is erogenous, circumcision reduces pleasure for the male in this manner as well. After we establish that circumcision increases friction, we can include information about decreased pain, increased comfort, and increased pleasure for men and women. At any rate, we established that circumcision increases friction. &#364;alabio 07:28, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)
 * Well you are going to have some trouble getting past first base on this one as the lube/friction issue is a mere anti-circumcision myth. So maybe if you share why the promotion of this myth is so important to you people can can have some empathy with you position and understand why the emotion and psychosexual fantasy level is so high. The simple logic that you present is infantile in its naivete and you will probably find that the average adult would be offended by the nonsense of it all. This trolling of yours is getting tiresome. - Robert the Bruce 07:39, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * We established that the corpus cavernosa os not fused to the shaftskin, and therefore, if one has sufficient mobile tissue, the two can move independently. FT2 a lightly circumcised man concedes this. so spake Walabio
 * And the earth shattering importance of this is? You are pursuing a line that may hook some sad people who have not experienced sufficient hertrosexual sex to recognise nonsense when they see it. I appreciated this may be difficult for you but would you like to explain to explain the importance of such a "slip bearing" situation during herterosexual vaginal intercourse? Be sure to factor in the whole nine yards of penile and vaginal (and foreskin) variation. I can't wait. - Robert the Bruce 08:21, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * A rolling bearing reduces friction. This reduces the need for lubrication.  The result is that couples can have sex for hours, without stopping.  Asking a woman to lubricate continuously for hours is like asking a man to spit every minute on the minute for hours.  We have covered this before. &#364;alabio 10:35, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)
 * I realise that your experience of insertive heterosexual vaginal intercourse is somewhat limited but do try to understand that some contact and pressure is necessary during coitus. Women are quite able to provide adequate lubrication naturally for the normal period of intercourse. How many people have sex for hours on end? In addition for the uncircumcised man to contribute to lubrication during intercourse he would have to allow smegma and other slime to accumulate for a considerable period of time and then wait a further considerable period for another accumulation of the necrotic debris to provide enough slime for the "slip bearing" to operate like in your fantasies. Yes indeed this has been covered before and the nonsense you are trying to sell here has been exposed as mere figments of an over excited imagination. - Robert the Bruce 16:32, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * It is pointless interacting with you and your sockpuppets. You know perfectly well that the skin/mucosa-system is mobile on intact men.  I place the paragraph back.&#364;alabio 19:10, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)
 * You are just regurgitating anti-circumcision junk science. There is no scientific evidence that the foreskin is anymore than a loose sock flapping around on a ankle. Foreskin restorers may well be able to close there eyes and dream of the actions of the "magic prepuce" but the resulting nonsense should stay there in their heads and not find its way onto the pages of encyclopaedias. In other words and in the nicest possible way foreskin restorers should keep their psychosexual fantasies to themselves. - Robert the Bruce 04:36, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * That is not real neutral stuff there. Seems that early promoters of American circumcision didn't quite share your view, circumcising infants against parent's wishes left-and-right certainly not because of some "loose sock" theory.  Actually, I think it's great that the pro-circumcision agenda is represented in an encyclopedia.  Doesn't it reflect the world around us to some extent?  You should be encouraging all diverse views, Robert. DanP 19:31, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry you don't like my theory Dan, but you need to understand that it deserves at least equal exposure to yours. So where ever you insert your theory about "gliding" mechanism you will find my along side. This is what you mean by encouraging diverse views isn't it? - Robert the Bruce 17:33, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

On a divergent note, I edited the mention of circumcision to read "male circumcision". No need to confuse the reader with female circumcision, and in the process attract more fuel to this oddly hilarious debate. --Knochelbiter 06:49, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea. I combined the penis-related stuff into the "problems of intercourse" sections.  Those sentences all relate to potential problems, so it doesn't make sense to have it scattered.  Robert's personal commentary has been removed, since the reader can decide whether he is correct in his opinion. DanP 22:33, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Robert, please explain what you're trying to do. Nothing in the article should advocate the reader one way or the other.  DanP 18:00, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Disputed section on circumcision
Jakew, while I believe both views are relevant, the reader should not be guided one way or the other but given the option to review the material. They can view the sample size as too small, perhaps, but this article should not qualify any opinion in advance as to accuracy or merit. DanP 20:43, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dan, if we're not to guide the reader, perhaps we'd better just leave this (and every) page blank, except for a polite note suggesting that the reader search Google for the term. No, that's not a serious suggestion, but it is intended to make the point that some guidance is inevitable and indeed part of the function of a page. The very act of giving a link is a form of guiding the reader. So let's give them the link and allow criticisms to be voiced (without necessarily endorsing either view). As in the current form. - Jakew 20:48, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I actually agree with you about allowing criticism. But the criticism shouldn't just say "because of small sample size,etc." because those are opinions in themselves.  If you can make it clear that the "small sample size, etc." is opinion from the prospective of the critic, that's fine. But the article should not imply that those potential faults are inherently true, and that the criticism follows as a natural result.  DanP 20:58, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dan, I believe I have the perfect solution with my latest edit. I've reduced all mention of circumcision to a single paragraph mentioning the controversy, and have directed readers to more appropriate pages for the discussion. The result: NPOV and closer to the topic as a bonus! Since on the circumcision and medical analysis of circumcision pages, we're already going over the same information, this seems the most effective, neutral and readable approach. Incidentally, the authors of the study agree that the small sample size is a limitation, so it's unfair to say that only critics have this view. In another report, they say: "Much larger representative samples are desirable." - Jakew 21:21, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC) Jakew, I wish you could present that idea in discussion, instead of just doing it. The medical analysis is not a sexual analysis. This article is focused on intercourse, and I wouldn't call O'Hara's work "medical" in a broad sense. I'm sure you know what I'm getting at. Plus, babies don't have intercourse, and circumcision is often done to babies. So why don't we discuss NPOV without a total redirect. DanP 21:15, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC) (Edit conflict - 2nd reply) The medical analysis does contain a lengthy discussion of the sexual effects of circumcision, which is entirely appropriate. What's the point in repeating ourselves? - Jakew 21:21, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

While sexual health is related to medicine, not all sexual effects and behaviors are inherently medical. Wouldn't it make more sense to include only diagnosed conditions and true medical findings in the medical article? Whether or not a couple has good sex (part of O'Hara's work) probably shouldn't be in a medical article, as I don't see it strongly connected to that discipine. Any thoughts? DanP 21:28, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you in part, though not fully. A "scientific" or "academic" analysis might be a better title. But I think we have to go with what we have. The choices seem to be to work with the current medical analysis doc, or possibly create a 'sexual effects of circumcision' article, moving the appropriate content from ''med. anal.'' and linking from it. As for your comment about a couple having good sex, how would you read this: "Whether a person has good bowel movements probably shouldn't be in a medical article"? - Jakew 21:38, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * (going with your analogy) By "good bowel movements", do you mean just that there are no problems that specifically involve the field of medicine, or do you mean it's a rewarding and fulfilling experience? (Again, I'm just going with your analogy, since intercourse has more than just procreative function)  I don't believe a whole article related to intercourse impacts of circumcision is warranted in Wikipedia, but I'm not against it either.  I just don't believe mentioning lubrication and dryness potential is very hard to do in a single paragraph.  This article is about sexual intercourse, and whether effects are related to medical diagnoses, orgasms, masturbation, or physiological function in general is kind of outside that scope.  Personally, I think it's kind of unusual to have a "medical analysis" article, given that other Wikipedia articles seem to weave science and other academic discipines into their articles without such special treatment.  I could do without "analysis" articles, given that analysis is inherent in study of any topic.  But that is just my opinion.   I am open to your ideas on what to do.  DanP 22:04, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dan, you say that intercourse has more than just procreative function - you obviously haven't had a really good bowel movement! Joking aside, I do see your point. I'd like to make a few:
 * Sexual effects of circumcision should be discussed somewhere (and preferably only once, to avoid maintainance problems)
 * Vaginal dryness is an effect worthy of discussion (and, indeed, arguably a medical aspect, in extreme forms at least)
 * I don't believe dryness impossible to discuss in a single sentence, but why restrict discussion to that one aspect, and why not discuss it in an appropriate place (whereever that may be)
 * Circumcision (and indeed this discussion) is at best incidental to the topic. A good article should discuss a topic fully, but without straying off that topic. A link to comprehensive discussion is wise.
 * I agree that a "medical analysis" article is somewhat unusual, but is arguably necessary given the controversial nature of the topic.
 * I propose that we link to circumcision and/or medical analysis of circumcision and/or a new Sexual effects of circumcision page, and elaborate there. I'd also suggest that we continue this discussion on that page, since we're taking over this page somewhat. - Jakew 22:23, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * You raise some good points. My concerns about a "sexual effects" page is that intercourse is a narrower focus than all of sexuality (masturbation, orgasms, and all), and intercourse problems are in this article already.   Also, just because the impact of circumcision is tied to several topics (sex, medicine, politics, etc.), creating a special "circumpedia" seems kind of counterintuitive to encyclopedia structure.  Imagine if we broke encyclopedias into "overlap" articles with "medical implications of tongue piercing" or "social impacts of prostitution".  Of your ideas, I like just linking to the circumcision page, but I would leave the O'Hara-related links here since they focus on adult intercourse, not on circumcision of babies.  Maybe some other users can chime in on what is best structure-wise.  DanP 23:05, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wiki has a circumcision article, the debate belongs there. If its relevant to sexual intercourse, then a one sentence summary and a link to that article's good enough, and thats what we have. Those who care that much about it will follow the link. FT2 08:53, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed. It is however difficult to control the rampant activities of zealots. Why not (instead of just talking about it) get involved in deleting the propaganda where they try to spead it? - Robert the Bruce 17:31, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Urban legend
The following sentence is urban legend:
 * It originally started as a law enforcement acronym in the medieval times meaning 'For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge’ and was written on the forms cops used to process the criminal acts of prostitutes, rapists, and pedophiles.

See Origin of the F-Word -- DanBlackham 08:58, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

POV
The article seems to be heavily biased against animals other than the humans (except for the lead picture). -- Sundar 06:06, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)


 * Now that there is a separate article for Human sexual behavior, I recommend we remove all human-centric issues to that article and keep this article strictly about the biological phenomenon. The entire heading "The Act" should probably be removed.  Sex (dab) should point both here and to Human behavior with a clear explanation of the different focuses.  This seems like the obvious right move to me, coming into this fray so recently from the outside.  If there are issues I'm missing, please add them here, otherwise I will begin to be bold within the week.  --Chinasaur 19:44, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Animals only? We should rename the article "mating" then? - Robert the Bruce 17:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For pleasure
The heading is Sexual intercourse. I do it for pleasure with my husband. End of story. That's why most do it. Let's drop all the fancy chit-chat and say it plain and simple "SEX is good"