Talk:Sexual intercourse/Archive 10

Photo
Given the illustrations, the photo added here is probably unnecessary. --Neil N  talk to me 14:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it is not necessary. Johnuniq (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Source on Sexual Reproduction flat out incorrect
Sexual reproduction is much older than 385 million years. Jawed fish were not the first animals to copulate not to mention sexual reproduction predates the evolution of animals in the first place. The live science article is not a reliable source. I believe this should be removed. Xanikk999 (talk) 02:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC) Also if we are referring to the physical act of transfering of sperm I see no reason why the article thinks jawed fish were the first. There is a whole plethora of cambrian and edicarian fauna that presumably had some method of sperm transfer. Xanikk999 (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2018
add a picture Saintkatrina (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 21:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Objection
In the lead section, "Like humans engaging in sexual activity primarily for pleasure," as a user and also as a student of zoology, I can not agree with this, because as a learned and voluntary work in humans, which has been mentioned in the stimulation section, sex in humans can not be said to be primarily for pleasure, because human sex had a wide range of view and all the people of the world from historical past till now does not tend to view sex as primarily for plaesure, there are many aspects of sex besides pleasure, including reproduction, bonding etc. Identifying pleasure aspect as primary is not a worldwide view, we can say that according to stimulation section's quotations and references, "Like humans, engaging in sexual activity is mostly for sexual rewards such as pleasure or procreation   , this behavior in the aforementioned animals is instinctual/imnate   or habitually presumed primarily to be for pleasure". Also stating that, in marriage and relationship section," Sexual intercourse between unmarried partners and cohabitation of an unmarried couple are also illegal in some jurisdictions.". Is the word some appropiate here? I think, there should be used many, because to my knowledge, the number of governmental, religious and cultural jurisdictions which disapprove sex between unmarried couple and cohabitation of unmarried couple is mot stated as some, because still at present the number is worth-mentioning as many. Besides the questions, I have enhanced a liitle of the third section of the lead adding the marriage recuirements of some/many jurisdications and also added possible respestive references in the section. Hoping for other users reply, FlightTime, Flyer22 Reborn. Sharif Uddin (talk) 06:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What you personally object to does not matter in this case. What the WP:Reliable sources state does. Humans do engage in sexual activity, including sexual intercourse, primarily for pleasure. Sexual rewards are usually pleasure. Bonding is an aspect of that. Bonding is pleasurable/a reward. The bonding in the case of sexual intercourse is emotional and all that, but it's not like platonic bonding. It falls under a sexual reward. Humans do not engage in sexual activity, including sexual intercourse, primarily for reproduction. Reproduction is also an aspect of sexual rewards (many people find it a pleasure to procreate), but when a human engages in sexual intercourse...it is more often that than not for physical pleasure than to create a baby.


 * I reverted your changes to the lead (followup note here) because that was WP:Citation overkill. That material is already sourced. And per WP:CITELEAD, the lead, or every aspect of the lead, does not necessarily need to be sourced if sourced lower in the article. You added "Various jurisdictions have implemented marriage cultures through relative-laws and rituals to permit sexual intercourse." There is no "marriage cultures" Wikipedia article, and the source you cited states nothing about marriage culture. So readers would wonder want a marriage culture is. Marriage is found throughout the world. As for marriage laws or rituals in terms of sexual intercourse, it is not clear what is meant by "to permit sexual intercourse." Of course, sexual intercourse is permitted during marriage. If you are speaking of laws that state one should not engage in sexual intercourse until marriage, what laws are that? "Permitted during marriage stuff" is usually about religious views, and we already mention religious views on sexual intercourse in the lead and lower. Sexual intercourse in relation to marriage is covered lower, as you know. As for the wording "Sexual intercourse between unmarried partners and cohabitation of an unmarried couple are also illegal in some jurisdictions", what WP:Reliable sources do you have stating "many"? There may be "many" in certain regions. But as for the world as a whole? I'm not aware of many places stating that it's illegal for unmarried people to have sex with each other. One source for that sentence is a reference about Iran. Well, the world as a whole is not like Iran. Thankfully.


 * As for pinging, you pinged FlightTime, but my name was WP:Pipelinked with it; I fixed that. FlightTime hasn't edited Wikipedia since October 24th, though. Others that I know watch this article and who will likely weigh in if pinged are NeilN and Johnuniq, but NeilN hasn't edited Wikipedia since October 4th. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I started a comment for here soon after the OP but I discarded it as the topic seemed just too esoteric. Of course Flyer22 is correct that the lead is not the place to add thoughts. It is true that some academics earnestly argue that I can't know what you experience as "red" and similarly I can't know that what you do is for pleasure, but the ideas expressed in the OP would imply to a Martian that humans and other animals only have (and only want) sex a dozen times in their life because it's only required for procreation and a bit of bonding. Do we really need to argue over silliness like that? Johnuniq (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It does appear that most animals engage in sexual intercourse/copulation solely or mainly for reproduction, but we have the non-reproductive sexual behavior in animals cases. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't we atleast add the marriage in the lead section as per after seeking and having all the concerned users consensus about writing view and style? You all may make correction in my previous edit about marriage as you all wish and think how it should be. Otherwise it will seem to bo overpartial to western or west oriented users' and editors' view. Sharif Uddin (talk) 17:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I assume that is referring to text like "Various jurisdictions have implemented marriage cultures through relative-laws and rituals to permit sexual intercourse...". No, that is not suitable for the lead because there is no information about that claim in the article. Indeed, marriage does not have text like that in its lead. Johnuniq (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I assume his wording on that is about some things mentioned in the "Marriage and relationships" subsection of the "Romantic relationships" section, but his wording isn't clear.


 * Sharif Uddin, what are you stating? I argued against the marriage material you added and gave reasons why. For example, what is a marriage culture? And sexual intercourse between unmarried partners and cohabitation of an unmarried couple being illegal (which is noted with a sentence in the "Marriage and relationships" subsection of the "Romantic relationships" section) appears to not be widely practiced. Mention of marriage in the lead would be something that is better tied to religious beliefs than to illegality. But either way, the lead already states, "Various jurisdictions have placed restrictive laws against certain sexual acts, such as incest, sexual activity with minors, prostitution, rape, zoophilia, sodomy, premarital and extramarital sex." The words "premarital sex" and "extramarital sex" are there. And we mention adultery after that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Can we add the line of the section "marriage and relationship" in the lead with or without some respective change, "Sexual intercourse has traditionally been considered an essential part of a marriage, with many religious customs requiring consummation of the marriage and citing marriage as the most appropriate union for sexual reproduction (procreation)." . Sharif Uddin (talk) 06:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * But why? The current lead is already quite long. Sexual intercourse happened a very long time before marriage customs were devised. That is, consummation may be essential for marriage as commonly practiced in the last thousand years, but consummation is not at all an essential part of sexual intercourse. Johnuniq (talk) 08:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Replying to the pings, I really have no opinion about this issue, I only (as far as I can see) made these changes per my edit summary.  -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 14:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

___

Factual error

 * This assertion is incorrect; it does not match what is contained in the cited source, and it does not match what is accurately explained in the Wikipedia article, ratum sed non consummatum. An unconsummated marriage is valid, and may be dissolved, which affirms the existence of a marriage bond. No declaration of nullity is involved, because the marriage is, in fact, not void from the start. 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 04:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * IP, I've removed the text. I remember adding the source for that text, but I know that I did not add the text. Two pages are cited for the source. I can't see what the second page states. Are you sure that the second page doesn't support the text? Also, maybe I meant to add a different source for that text. Meaning to add a different source for material has happened to me before on Wikipedia, especially years ago. I'm not well-versed in religious topics. This 2018 "Religion and Law in Spain" source, from Kluwer Law International B.V., speaks of the declaration of nullity of a marriage and the marriage bond never having existed, and that "canon law has accepted for centuries that the Pope has the extraordinary power to dissolve marriages in exceptional circumstances, which includes cases of no consummation, i.e, lack of completed coitus between the spouses after contracting marriage." Are you stating that the text you've challenged is correct except for the assertion that the Pope can make it so that the marriage never existed? This 2013 "New Dictionary of Christian Ethics & Pastoral Theology" source, from InterVarsity Press, page 717 states, "Medieval marriage law contained references to many impediments which could give rise to dispensations and nullity suits. The Reformers believed that much of this practice brought the ideal of marriage into disrepute. Catholic churches today advocate the exploration of annulment after civil divorce, in order to demonstrate that in the eyes of the church there never was a true marriage at all. By such procedure, divorced persons may be brought back into the sacramental life of the church. The Church of Rome recognizes three elements to an indissoluble marriage: validity, consummation and sacramentality. A union which does not possess these three qualities 'may be said not to exist'. Non-consummated marriages between baptized people can be dissolved by the Pope. Marriages between two unbaptized people can be dissolved 'favour of the faith' if one partner is baptized in a Catholic church."


 * What wording do you suggest we use in place of the text you disputed? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Re-added, but without the "Such an annulment declaration implies that the marriage was void from the start; i.e., there was no marriage in canon law." part. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Introduction
I find it extremely bizarre that the introduction omits any actual description of sexual intercourse in terms of reproduction. Specifically that sperm in semen are ejaculated from the penis into the vagina, swim into the uterus, and fertilize the ovum. The omission of this and inclusion of several references to anal sex, gay dolphins, dildos, and "non-penetrative sex"(?) in the introduction of this important article I believe undermines its objective quality and usefulness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IP 108.56.234.15 (talk • contribs)
 * What you see with the current lead is it summarizing the article, per WP:Lead. It already notes reproduction in the first sentence, states "possibility of creating offspring" in the second paragraph, and "reproductive sexual intercourse between non-human animals is more often called copulation, and sperm may be introduced into the female's reproductive tract in non-vaginal ways among the animals, such as by cloacal copulation" in the fourth paragraph. It does not need extensive material on sexual reproduction in the lead (or even "sperm in semen are ejaculated from the penis into the vagina, swim into the uterus, and fertilize the ovum"), which can then inspire us to go into unnecessary pregnancy detail in the lead. This is not the Sexual reproduction article, and it has a "Reproduction" section lower in the article. People commonly avoid sexual reproduction during sexual intercourse anyway, as the article makes clear. And as the article makes clear, there animals that reproduce in non-vaginal ways. The lead mentions (not goes into detail about) the other stuff you mentioned as well because that material is covered lower in the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Dirty sex listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dirty sex. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Plantdrew (talk) 05:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Penile sex listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Penile sex. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Plantdrew (talk) 05:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Making babies listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Making babies. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Plantdrew (talk) 05:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Sleeping together listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sleeping together. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Plantdrew (talk) 05:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Sex diet listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sex diet. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Plantdrew (talk) 05:44, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Horizontal Polka listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Horizontal Polka. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Plantdrew (talk) 05:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Neuken listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Neuken. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Plantdrew (talk) 06:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Twosome listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Twosome. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Plantdrew (talk) 06:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Inserting partner listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Inserting partner. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Plantdrew (talk) 06:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Receiving partner listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Receiving partner. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Plantdrew (talk) 06:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Dirty sexual intercourse listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dirty sexual intercourse. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Plantdrew (talk) 06:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2019
Please change "Sexual intercourse (or coitus or copulation) is principally the insertion and thrusting of the penis into the vagina for sexual pleasure, reproduction, or both." to "Sexual intercourse (or coitus or copulation) is principally the insertion and thrusting of the penis into the vagina or rectum for sexual pleasure, reproduction, or both."

(Add "or rectum" after "Sexual intercourse (or coitus or copulation) is principally the insertion and thrusting of the penis into the vagina" at the start of the article, so that the sentence states:"Sexual intercourse (or coitus or copulation) is principally the insertion and thrusting of the penis into the vagina or rectum for sexual pleasure, reproduction, or both.".) Additionem (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.Goldsztajn (talk) 20:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


 * For the record, stating "is principally the insertion and thrusting of the penis into the vagina or rectum for sexual pleasure, reproduction, or both" would be inaccurate not only because that is not the principal meaning of sexual intercourse (as demonstrated by what the literature usually focuses on when using the term), but also because anal sex is not for reproduction. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

"Vagina entry" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Vagina entry. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Eurocentric Bias
This article, like Wikipedia itself, suffers from a Eurocentric bias and an artistic bias. All but 1 of the human depictions of sexual intercourse in this article are European paintings or drawings. Yet less than 10% of Earth's population is European, and an even smaller percentage relate to European classical art (which is a fringe hobby). Many of these paintings need to be replaced with images of real people including a lot of non-white people. Also, some artistic portrayals from other cultures would help. - Hunan201p (talk) 02:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No more of this aimless activism please. Wikipedia works when people find content to improve articles, not by berating volunteers who have failed to find content. Make an actionable proposal to improve the article ("I propose that X be added" where X exists) or find something else to do. Johnuniq (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Indiaerotic8.jpg

"Gettin busy" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Gettin busy. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 6 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2020
Add both, the pictures of Édouard-Henri Avril's depiction of cunnilingus in the life of Sappho and his 19th-century erotic interpretation of Roman emperor Hadrian and Antinous engaged in anal intercourse, to the top of the page to fairly represent non heterosexual sexual intercourse Michael Murfie (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Is more pictures really necessary? See WP:NOTGALLERY, in the lead there should probably only be one picture which is the most representative... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  21:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I've found a significant error under "Prevalence."
The final sentence of the section "Prevalence" reads, "It said that women engage in anal intercourse less commonly than men, but that the practice is not uncommon among women; it was estimated that 10% to 14% of women aged 18 to 39 years old practiced anal sex in the past 90 days, and that most of the women said they practiced it once a month or a few times a year.[20]"

This last section is either misleading or incorrect. I thought it sounded a little high, so I checked the reference, and the actual wording used is significantly different: "The majority of women who engage in anal sex report doing it once a month to a few times a year." Emphasis mine.

I read the article as it stands as saying all women asked said they practice it with that frequency, rather than all women who said they do engage in anal sex. Perhaps that's what's meant by "the women", but I don't think it reads well.

118.210.41.52 (talk) 11:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)mikem
 * I see what seems to be an error, but not regarding what you've focused on. I'll get to that in a moment. But regarding what you've focused on? I see a difference in interpretation. While the "women engage in anal intercourse less commonly than men" text can be taken as speaking of women in general (meaning that it's also speaking of women who don't engage in anal sex), it's clear to me that the text is talking about women who engage in anal sex when reporting on women who state that they engaged in anal sex. Even a woman who engaged in anal sex once is a woman who has engaged in anal sex, but I guess one could state that she's not a woman who engages in anal sex since she only did it once.


 * Anyway, the source, page 285, states, "[The] more recent NSSHB found a significantly greater proportion of men and women had engaged in anal sex (Herbenick et al., 2010). Although fewer women reported engaging in anal sex, it was not an uncommon behavior (see Figure 8.11). Approximately 10% to 14% of women 18 to 39 years old reported engaging in anal sex in the past 90s days (Herbenick et al., 2010a). The majority of women who engage in anal sex report doing it once a month to a few times a year."


 * In comparison to that last line of the source, the text in the article stated "and that most of the women said they practiced it once a month or a few times a year." I went ahead and added "women who engage in anal sex" (although I feel that it's unnecessary) to that sentence so that it now reads as "and that most of the women who engage in anal sex said they practiced it once a month or a few times a year."


 * Now regarding the error that seemed to be there? I considered changing "It said that women engage in anal intercourse less commonly than men" to "It said that fewer women reported engaging in anal sex than vaginal sex" because I think the source is stating the latter. It doesn't state "less commonly than men." But I opted for simply removing that part of the text entirely. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Looking at the text again, I see that it states, Although fewer women reported engaging in anal sex than other partnered behaviors, it was not an uncommon behavior (see Figure 8.11)." So, yep, the "engage in anal intercourse less commonly than men" text was an error. I don't know why my brain kept excluding the "than other partnered behaviors" piece, but I added that to the article. I added "sexual behaviors" instead of just "behaviors" to make the text clearer...although common sense should tell readers that we don't mean behaviors in general. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Life orintation
What life orintation teach Emihle joni (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


 * We do not teach a life orientation, we teach mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

"Dicking" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Dicking. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 30 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 17:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Sexual intercourse Muslim religious views
The discussion below is copied from my talk page. It is based on this edit, which I reverted. Both editors have agreed to move the discussion here for more opinions.

Previous discussion
You state that my edit of 8 January 2022 changed the meaning.

Original version: "Muslim men, both Sunni and Shia, are allowed to marry permanently up to four women. In Shia Islam, men are allowed to enter into an unlimited number of temporary marriages, which are contracted to last for a period of minutes to multiple years and permit sexual intercourse. Sunni women are allowed to enter only one marriage permanently at a time whereas Shia women both temporary or permanent" Revised version: "Shia Islam recognizes temporary marriages which are contracted to last for a period of minutes to multiple years. Although Muslim men, both Sunni and Shia, are allowed to marry permanently up to four women, women are only allowed to be married to one husband at a time."

Okay, so let's figure out what's the same and what's different:


 * 1) Suni and Shia men are allowed to marry permanently up to four women. (same)
 * 2) Shia recognizes temporary marriages.  Revised version doesn't explicitly state that sexual intercourse is permitted, nor does it explicitly state that Shia women may enter temporary marriages.  These are implied, i.e. marriage implies that intercourse is permitted, Shia's recognition of temporary marriages implies the recognition of temporary marriage between a Shia man and a Shia women.
 * 3) The original version specifies there may be an unlimited number of temporary marriages, while the revised version does not.  This seems to be implied by the fact that it's a temporary marriage.
 * 4) The last "string of words ending in a period" of the original version is not a sentence; the revised version does not have this problem.

Possible modifications to the revised version
 * 1) We could explicitly state that Shia permits sexual intercourse in a temporary marriage.
 * 2) We could clarify whether Shia recognizes temporary marriages only if the husband or the wife is Shia.
 * 3) We could explicitly state that Shia has no limit on the number of (presumably sequential) temporary marriges

Which of these modifications do you think would address your concern that my revised version has changed the meaning? Fabrickator (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Your personal conclusion that "marriage implies that intercourse is permitted" is WP:OR. Remember, Wikipedia is written for the reader, not editors who already understand the details; we often lose sight of that. Some readers may not realize that in a culture unfamiliar to them intercourse is always permitted, especially a culture that permits polygamy. Similarly, "temporary marriage" does not necessarily indicate "unlimited" number of marriages to the naive reader. "Shia women may enter temporary marriages": I agree this is implied. Sundayclose (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * How curious is this? The original version only points out that intercourse is permitted for the case in which the marriage is temporary.  A marriage in which intercourse is not permitted is the exception.  As examples, a "non-consumated" marriage may be (in certain religions, at least) subject to annulment, and in Islam, in a marriage to an underage female, intercourse is required to be delayed. Furthermore, you claim that omitting a statement that intercourse is permitted constitutes WP:OR, that really is original.
 * So the other issue you've raised is failure to state that there is no limit on the number of temporary marriages. The existing statement claims this to be the case for the man, though the fact is that we only know that there is not a limit on the number of such (presumably sequential) marriages (for a man), yet there is no reason to believe that there is not some other sort of limitation.  We are not obliged to provide total knowledge of a subject.  The source seems to suggest that there may be a requirement of a delay in time between marriages (e.g. following the end of the marriage), but is rather vague on this.  We cannot say something without a valid source to support it; the only really acceptable option, in the absence of a source to support it, is to remain silent.  Given the fact that the current text is ungrammatical, it is not an option to leave it the way it is.  I will be awaiting a constructive proposal from you.  Fabrickator (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 18:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand. I didn't state that omitting a statement is original research; I said that your assumption that it is implied is OR. Perhaps a better way to state that is, a naive reader will not necessarily assume an implication that you assume. What I am saying is that it needs to be stated that intercourse is permitted in temporary marriages. That is stated unequivocally in the original version, and I assume the source is reliable. Explain how your version states (except by implication) that intercourse is permitted in a temporary marriage.
 * You state: "The original version specifies there may be an unlimited number of temporary marriages, while the revised version does not. This seems to be implied by the fact that it's a temporary marriage." How specifically does the statement that temporary marriages are permitted necessarily imply that the number of temporary marriages is unlimited. There is a difference in saying that something is permitted and saying that it is permitted with no limit. How does your version make that distinction? Sundayclose (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


 * This is a simple rule, which is generally understood about marriage even in different cultures:
 * Ordinarily, you may have intercourse with those to whom you are married, at least if both parties are agreeable.
 * Assuming the only thing preventing you from marrying is the fact that you are already married, then when your existing marriage ends, the objection that you are already married ceases.
 * Now the fact is, Islam may have rules imposing some other constraints (e.g. a man must be able to properly support all his wives), but in this context, we are not obliged to provide all possible details. When one temporary marriage ends, that certainly suggests that one would be eligible to begin another temporary marriage, same as if it had not been established as a temporary marriage.  Maybe the man doesn't even have to wait, and can have multiple temporary marriages concurrently.  We don't need to go there. If someone wants to know all the rules, they will need to get involved in further study of the culture and religion, there is no pretense that all possible scenarios are presented here.  Multiple spouses and temporary marriages are on point here precisely because these are likely to be distinct from what the reader is accustomed to. Fabrickator (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * With your permission, I would like to copy this discussion to the article's talk page. I think we need more opinions. I feel that we disagree on some points, and that one or both of us is misunderstanding the other. Sundayclose (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Please do. Fabrickator (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

New discussion
In looking over the preceding discussion, I notice there is potential for confusion about allowing for an unlimited number of temporary marriages. It could either refer to an unlimited number of sequential temporary marriages or to an unlimited number of concurrent temporary marriages. To clarify, the intended meaning is that this refers to sequential temporary marriages, not concurrent temporary marriages, except as otherwise specified. Fabrickator (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I notice that earlier on in this article, it states Sexual intercourse has traditionally been considered an essential part of a marriage, which supports my position that it's redundant to explicitly state that intercourse is permitted in a temporary marriage. It's not as if temporary marriage is being described in some way that it's not a marriage, it's just that it's a  marriage which is limited in duration. Fabrickator (talk) 05:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a general statement that doesn't necessarily apply to every specific culture as it is worded. My position is still that a naive reader with no knowledge of Islam may not know how and when such a statement applies. There are cultures which have religious prohibition against any intercourse, even in marriage. For example, Shakers. That's something many people who know nothing about that culture would not assume based on the general principle that marriage always permits intercourse. I see no harm in including such a statement about Islam. I realize there may be issues of wordiness, and there may be ways to address that problem without changing the meaning. But even if that wasn't possible, accuracy and informative value for naive readers is more important. I'll reiterate, we write for readers, not for editors. In any event, lets wait to see if there are other opinions. I always respect a clear consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If this were an article about marriage in Islam, we should surely want much more information, such as duties of husband and wife, treatment of children, so many other things.  But this isn't an article about marriage in Islam (there is a separate article for that), it's an article about sexual intercourse, and I would suggest that if Islam has a form of Islamic marriage that doesn't authorize sexual intercourse, then it probably doesn't even belong here.  At the same time, I'm left to wonder how these temporary marriages are really perceived.  Some Islamic sources characterize them as prostitution.  Of course, we need to be wary of going too far afield from the topic of the article.
 * That leads me to another thought. In the west, we generally outlaw prostitution, and we have a general expectation of sexual exclusivity for a "committed" relationship, that's not strictly tied to religion, but our mainstream religions support this.  Even our historical common law makes adultery a crime.  So why is this mentioned only under LDS church?  It seems to me that it's highly misleading to mention it with respect to one religion, while failing to mention it for other religions.  Of course, the typical consequences for violations are extremely different as well.  In Islam, if this is zina, then it may be punished with lashes.  In the west, it is generally considered a breach of the marriage vows and could be the basis of a divorce.  This seems to be about the same for LDS as for others.
 * Meanwhile, can you explain why you've never expressed any objection to the existing non-grammatical content? Fabrickator (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We need to wait for other opinions. You and I could go back and forth endlessly because we disagree. It's OK to disagree, but that's why we need more opinions. I wanted to move the discussion here for that very reason, not so you and I could continue an endless debate. As for the non-grammatical content, it is not necessary that I express an objection to grammar in order to address the issue of whether your edit removed important content that changed the intended meaning. If the grammar issue was as simple as fixing a misplaced modifier or incomplete sentence (for example), we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. The crux of our disagreement is not grammar; it's how each of us views whether your edit removed important content. We can discuss grammar (if necessary) after that dispute is resolved with input from other editors. Sundayclose (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * While I am certainly interested in hearing the views of other editors, I don't believe that means you and I must cease and desist from making any further pertinent observations. You say the crux is not grammar, but it strikes me as unfair to ask others to participate in this discussion while leaving the bad grammar in there as it is. Fabrickator (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Anyone is welcome to discuss grammar. I never said they weren't. But my point was in response to your question asking me why I "never expressed any objection to the existing non-grammatical content". To briefly reiterate: I had no obligation to discuss grammar to raise the issue of content. And I never said that either us had to "cease and desist making any further pertinent observations". Either of us is free to discuss or not discuss without additional editors' input. But that doesn't mean we are required to continue discussing if we feel that the two of us have reached an impasse and need to wait for other opinions. I am not required (nor are you) to respond every time one of us makes an additional comment simply because an additional comment was made. There is no point in my repeatedly stating that I disagree. Sundayclose (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2022
PERCYJACKSONFAN1234 (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC) please delete all articles relating to these and other types of innapropriate thing https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sexual_intercourse&diff=next&oldid=1064432448 every single article that relates to innapropriate activity
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not censored. Sundayclose (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Dated images
As a more pictorially inclined reader; are there any depictions of sex on this article within this century? On deeper inspection yes; it looks like a pair of lions have committed the act no longer than 18 years ago. I may be a bit naiive in asking but does this act still occur between humans? If so, would it be constructive to include a more contemporary visual aid to dispel any misconceptions that the act has faded into obscurity. Perhaps in the leed? Pabsoluterince (talk) 02:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , there has been a longtime consensus that this article should not include photographs, but of course, consensus can change. Do you have any freely licensed images in mind? Cullen328 (talk) 02:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I took a look back, hmmm I am not the first person to notice this eh? Well I have some pictures in mind, my dislike of the current lead image is that it's A) Not relevent or accurate i.e. people didn't stop having sex 100 years ago and representations of sex through art don't capture the expression of humanity possible with a more realistic depiction. B) The image don't really show what's happening. Missionary has been identified as the inclusive interpretation of sexual intercourse. Therefore some missionary position images that explicitly show the penile-vaginal interaction (penetration) not just the front-to-front positioning of bodies should be considered more informative. My preference from left to right is:


 * The first three images are all more relevant, accurate and informative than the current lede. Pabsoluterince (talk) 04:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I know that pornography on the internet has distorted perceptions regarding what is "normal" but you do realize that the first two pictures are for the gratification of a viewer and are not actually typical of sexual intercourse in humans? Johnuniq (talk) 04:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi . I assume you mean penis size? If that's the case I'd just say that on the whole, the images are more realistic. They're certainly not perfect but are they better than the alternative? Pabsoluterince (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

, I do not really know what you mean about the "gratification of a viewer" but I am old enough to have been engaging in sexual intercourse for almost 52 years and back then, I had never once viewed any explicit pornography. The first image, to me, illustrates the uninhibited mutual pleasures of this act, that goes back long before Homo sapien to our pre-human ancestors. It looks more like art than porn to me. That image is "typical" of my personal experiences for over half a century. Cullen328 (talk) 04:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The main shortcoming of the first image is that it depicts the woman much more than the man, but few images are perfect. The benefits are that it is not an explicit photograph and is quite artistic and sensitive, in my opinion. The second image conveys an impression of cheap pornography. The third is by a well-known illustrator of sexuality on Wikimedia Commons (long retired), and to me, it is just too clinical and formulaic. Cullen328 (talk) 04:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. That's a good point. I think the first picture still improve the page in a different position though. For example, under Stimulation, Risks or Adults? Pabsoluterince (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The act of sexual intercourse can't be dated, nor seem dated by images. It transcends time. Art images of sex acts dominate in Wikipedia articles, and it seems they will continue do so as a result of past discussions. The lead image at this time is satisfactory and better than all your proposed images. The third one you proposed conveys the position more than the act anyway. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 11:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you think the first one would improve the page if place in a place other than the lead? Pabsoluterince (talk) 11:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Pabsoluterince, please don't take my silence as a concession. Silence was my answer, but it wasn't a "yes." If I decided to say more, I was also giving others an opportunity to comment before I did. Maybe the first image in your proposal improves the first section, but it doesn't improve the section educating people on risks and safe sex. I think sections like those should be dispassionate and straight to the point of educating. The reproduction and prevalence sections have images, but they're technical. This image conveys nothing about safe sex, but it shows vaginal penetration and pleasure quite well. The stimulation section is small and crowded. So, as the first section discusses vaginal penetration, I put this image there. The image I replaced it with shouldn't be missed. If it is, we can discuss. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 07:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not take your silence as a concession, I took it as a lack of opposition to my proposition and therefore assumed consensus. You were silent for the three days I was trying to gauge consensus, yet it only took you two hours to remove my edit. I can't read your mind Enlightenedstranger0. To save time in the future, please collaborate on the talk page by replying to my questions rather than removing my thought-out additions.
 * I added it to the section educating people on the risks of sex, most of which outlines sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy which can occur, notably, from vaginal sex and unprotected sex. You said it conveys nothing about safe sex, yes, in fact I would argue it shows unsafe sex. An activity that makes you susceptible to certain risks. Therefore my photo is very relevent to that section, showing unprotected (without a condom) vaginal sex, and outlining the increase in risk of a sexually transmitted infection. That is very educational in nature. This section is additionally devoid of pictures and could be improved with a visual aid. I think it is much more informative where I put it, let's discuss. Pabsoluterince (talk) 08:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * See the WP:WEAKSILENCE section of the supplement page you cite. To assume there's consensus for your suggestion because editors may have decided to move on after your arguments have gotten adequate responses doesn't mean there's an actual consensus for it. I don't see strong support for even including the image. Yet I didn't remove it. I moved it. It only took me two hours to move it because you made an edit. I can't read your mind either, Pabsoluterince. So I wouldn't know what is a "thought-out" addition by you unless you express it here. Now that you have, my conclusion is the same. Unlike the caption you added for the image, the image conveys nothing about safe sex. Many couples who know their STI status have sex without a condom while on birth control and so don't consider the act unsafe. Cheating is always a possibility, but these couples assume their partner is being faithful. Other images in the article also depict unprotected vaginal intercourse. Readers will have seen them before reaching the risks section. So I disagree that this specific image improves understanding of the topic of that section. If you believe this and other sections in the article that don't have an image need a visual aid, this isn't true. Even if it were true, that image isn't it for a section about health risks. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 10:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Why isn't this image for a section about health risks? Pabsoluterince (talk) 11:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not yet commenting on which images are appropriate, but I strongly agree with Enlightenedstranger0 about consensus. The WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS is the article as it was before this discussion began. This discussion isn't even close to establishing a new consensus. Silence does not bestow an editor with authority to declare a change in consensus, and changing the article as if there is a new consensus was inappropriate. Sundayclose (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Abbreviation as "PIV"
This revert (Undo media source. WP:MEDRS.) removed a claim citing an article in Slate, which I had been using as a reference that "penis-in-vagina" is abbreviated "PIV". Said revert led directly to this revert (Undid revision 1071609799 by Damian Yerrick (talk). Removed an entry where the abbreviation is not used within the article, as per MOS:DABACRO.) Searching PubMed reveals no uses of "PIV" to refer to "penis-in-vagina". What search engines other than PubMed cover articles that meet WP:MEDRS? --Damian Yerrick (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I searched google scholar and found what I would consider MEDRS' that discuss "PIV sex".

"She was able to manage digital insertion and owned a small vibrator but it was specifically penis-in-vagina (PIV) sex that was the source of her difficulty." "They argue that relationships are assumed to be heteronormative and mononormative with sex being collectively implied to mean “penis in vagina” (PIV) intercourse including an orgasm." "Advice books also assume a coital imperative (Tyler 2008) whereby penis-in-vagina (PIV) sex is clearly assumed to constitute ‘proper’ sex."
 * Pabsoluterince (talk) 05:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Damian Yerrick, when I cited WP:MEDRS, I focused on the vaginal stenosis sentence you added. For information about alternative terms, there's usually no requirement for the source to satisfy WP:MEDRS. I didn't remove your sentence about PIV. Pabsoluterince did because I removed the media citation. Using a media citation even for that should be the last option. Also, WP:OTHERNAMES says, "If there are three or more alternative names – including alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historic names, and significant names in other languages – or there is something notable about the names themselves, a separate name section is recommended." I think "PIV" doesn't need to be in the lead. The other alternative terms in the lead are more significant. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 08:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "PIV" can get space in the definitions section. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 08:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , you removed the PIV sentence after adding it back. But otherwise I agree with everything you said, it doesn't appear to be as significant as other terms.  it can go in the definitions section (and then also the disambiguation page). Pabsoluterince (talk) 10:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It should be plain to an observer that I removed it because I added it back by mistake when undoing a change made by another editor. I went past the target version of the article I meant to return the article to. The only reason I removed the PIV part is because you challenged it after it was left without a source. I didn't have a source on hand or the motivation to look for such a WP:BLUESKY alternative term at the time. But I did say I had intended to source it after I first removed the media citation. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 05:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

"Genital sex" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Genital sex and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 2 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

IABot edit rescuing 194 sources
In the 4 March 2022 edit of Sexual intercourse, IABot reported that 194 sources had been rescued. By my count, 153 of these were for Google Books, but so far as I can tell, none of those Google Books archive links actually work. I would suggest that either the whole edit should be reverted or alternatively, that the Google Books archive links ought to be deleted. Thoughts? Fabrickator (talk) 05:49, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll remove them after work today. I never considered the possibility that the links wouldn't work. I'll be more careful from now on. Scorpions13256 (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Fabrickator, it seems that Scorpions13256 forgot about this task. So I made the edit. I edited between the intermediate edits. I also returned File:Couple having sex.jpg because of this discussion and because the section focuses heavily on penile-vaginal sex. Better to demonstrate it well in that section than to use File:Wiki-sitting-sp.png. Even if the image was redundant, as claimed, it's not on us to display a variety of different sex positions in this article. We have an article for that. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 00:32, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. You should have just pinged me and asked me to do it. Sorry about that. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Scorpions13256, it's okay. I didn't mind. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit 'Safe sex and birth control'
Under this section is the line "In the predominantly Catholic countries Ireland, Italy and the Philippines, fertility awareness and the rhythm method are emphasized..." The rhythm method has not been advocated by the Catholic Church in decades, NFP is the only modern method that is encouraged within marriage. This last part mentioning rhythm should be removed. It should say "In the predominantly Catholic countries Ireland, Italy and the Philippines, NFP (Natural Family Planning) is emphasized..." 216.196.217.34 (talk) 13:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The passage you mention does not refer to the Catholic Church, so their stance is only tangentially relevant. The passage is concerned with the practical reality of sex education in those countries, not with the official stance of the Church or the Vatican. Actualcpscm (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Homophobia
The use of "typically" to describe heterosexual sex is wrong and shouldn't be used. 2601:242:8202:8C40:90E3:6AB2:2D71:7ADE (talk) 20:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I thought so too! This article was clearly made by a homophobe Melonmelon1 (talk) 07:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2023
spelling and grammar mistakes Biswasgee150 (talk) 14:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. You're very welcome to fix them. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 14:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Add a notice that "Doing it" redirects here, and a link K to the disambig page for Doin' It 62.165.249.182 (talk) 07:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: I've just listed the redirect at WP:RFD as I'm not sure if this is the most appropriate target. The discussion is here. Liu1126 (talk) 11:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Homophobic article
This article should be edited as it was made a homophobic author. Sexual intercourse is not limited to heterosexual sex. Melonmelon1 (talk) 07:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you read well past the first sentence, all the way through the article. As for "a homophobic author", you should know that 2229 editors have contributed to this article through the years, and the most active editor (now deceased) worked hard to be sure that LGTBQ perspectives were included. Cullen328 (talk) 07:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, then the title should be changed to "penetrative intercourse" not "sexual." Melonmelon1 (talk) 07:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * While reading the article, it appears that penetrative intercourse is the main subject. Melonmelon1 (talk) 07:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * As should be obvious, many LGBTQ people engage in penetrative sexual behavior. We have an article Non-penetrative sex describing other types of sexual activities anong people. Article titles are based on common usage and "sexual intercourse" is far more common in formal contexts than "penetrative intercourse". How many people would search for that term? Cullen328 (talk) 07:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sexual intercourse is not limited to penetration. Many people engage in non-penetrative intercourse as well. This is misinforming anyone that searches for "sexual intercourse." Melonmelon1 (talk) 08:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Well-written Wikipedia articles summarize what reliable sources say about the topic. The majority of reliable sources that discuss "sexual intercourse" are referring to penetrative sexual behaviour. The article repeatedly includes other views from other sources as well. I believe that it is fair to say that most English speakers are not thinking about non-penetrative sexual behavior when they talk about sexual intercourse. Cullen328 (talk) 08:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * An editor changed the wording of this article to be more trans-inclusive, but this edit was quickly reverted. Jarble (talk) 17:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No rationale was stated for that, but in any case "male" and "female" clearly refer to sex and are correct. Crossroads -talk- 17:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's be sincerely grateful for the contributions of those editors. But can we pause for a moment and note the results – and how they are sometimes, well, rather queer?
 * I mean, take the first sentence of the article. It tells us what sexual intercourse is by articulating something looks just like a genus-differentia definition of the term. But then the third sentence tells us there are "other forms" of sexual intercourse as well, and lists them.
 * It's almost as if we had an article on "sexuinters" in geometry that ran: "A sexuinter is a plane figure with three straight sides. There are also sexuinters with two or four curvy sides."
 * A genus-differentia definition, Wikipedia tells us, is a type of intensional definition. An intentional definition, according to the same article, "gives meaning to a term by specifying necessary and sufficient conditions for when the term should be used." If sentence number one in an article on sexuinters gave having "three straight sides" as a necessary condition of being a sexuinter, then could a sexuinter be a sexuinter if it had just two sides and the sides were curvy? It would seem not.
 * Appearance, reality – what ultimately is the true nature of sentence number one in an article like that? Does it have a nature? It looks just like an intensional definition – but if it is one, then the following sentence contradicts it. If it isn't one, then what is it doing? Is it trying to pass as one? To arouse our expectations of logical normativity? Hmm... ~ Aingotno (talk) 10:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay so, compromise suggestion, would it make sense to mention in the hatnote that the article focuses on penetrative sexual intercourse and add a wikilink toNon-penetrative sex? Konstantina07 (talk) 12:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)