Talk:Sexual intercourse/Archive 2

Invite to sexual ethics

sexual ethics was redirected to sexual norms which I didn't feel was appropriate, so I was bold and made a new page. Perhaps someone here would be interested in editing that page since currently it's wildly POV(mine)? I really don't know much about the topic and need some help. Vesperal 21:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Vote to prohibit anonymous edits

This article is frequently vandalized by anonymous users. This vote is a non-binding poll to determine the Wikipedia community consensus on prohibiting anonymous edits as a method to reduce vandalism. The results will be forwarded to the WikiMedia Board of Trustees as a recommendation. You can copy and add this comment to other talk pages to encourage others to vote. Click here to vote.

If I understand correctly, the alternative to prohibiting anonymous users is to create a special 'censorship committee' of volunteers who must 'approve' each update and whose opinion decides if it is or is not 'vandalism'. The very concept of a select few people deciding who can or can't post their edits creates a culture of censorship and is odious. The socalled 'Recent Changes Patrol' is the worst of all possible worlds.

Also a censorship committee would have technical problems because of the delay in updating the article. The latest post by a named user can be overridden by the delayed anonymous update that was finally getting 'approved' only afterward.

If the only options were between restriction to named users versus a censorship committee, I would choose to have named users only. I strongly oppose a censorship committee that would delay updates.

Is maintaining vandalism really that big a deal? (The highest trafficked areas also have the most legitimate contributors to monitor them.) It seems ok to leave things the way they are.

Haldrik 19:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Haldrik

If you wish to make such a recommendation/proposal, might I suggest you consider following the normal conventions on wikipedia such as signing your post and adding new discussions to the BOTTOM of the thread? Nil Einne 00:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sex Evolving Beyond Reproduction

This comment is directed to Haldrik. The reason I reverted the paragraph in "Sex evolving beyond Reproduction" was that I feel you confused a primary effect and a secondary or side effect of the adaptation of concealed ovulation. You seemed to be stating that its purpose was to promote social sex, while I believe this was merely a beneficial side effect.

For evolution it's better to avoid the word "purpose" because the process is random selection. Mutations are accidents. They "happen" and may or may not be advantageous. If mutations tend to promote survival they tend to get passed on to future generations.

First comes concealed ovulation > then comes perpetual sex > social bonds > additional adults to care for children as well as larger social networks to organize clan activities

Thus concealed ovulation gets selected for. -Haldrik.

The purpose is more likely to confuse paternity in order to give all males with whom the female has sexual relations an added incentive to help rear the children, on the chance that they might be his own. Put bluntly, it gave our distant foremothers the ability to make cuckolds, which assisted females and the species as a whole to survive (though no doubt it was bad luck for some males who wound up supporting children not their own).

There is NO paternity; there are no fathers.

The problem is bonobos do NOT pair-bond, and bonobo females HAVE concealed ovulation. Any scenario that assumes that a bonobo female has a "husband" who is getting "fooled" is impossible.

Rather bonobos only have mothers. There are no known fathers. Instead, each female bonobo has sex with many other bonobos, both males and females, to form a network of social relationships. A female's sexual friends, including males and females, assist her in many ways, including raising offspring and acquiring food. The bonobos evolved concealed ovulation for social reasons. Ways to encourage these social bonds were selected for because they proved advantageous for group survival, by encouraging cooperation.

Like bonobos, so evolving humans.

Before the Neolithic Period, humans were not aware of the male's role in pregnancy. Thus the concept of a "father" - and thereby the concept of a "husband" - did not exist. Evolving humans only had mothers who seemed to spontaneously generate children.

Likely humans did not pair-bond as a rule. Nevertheless, sexual behavior probably varied greatly among individual humans, as they do today, and some humans tended toward monogamy.

It seems "orgies" were the rule for evolving humans. There is evidence women had sex with many people at the same time, one after the other. For example, the reality of orgies impacted human anatomy when male-female sex unknowingly impregnated the female. Women have multiple orgasm while men have few, to increase the female's number of male sexual partners and thus increase access to vigorous genes. (The modern archetype of the "prostitute" is a primal norm and never far away.) When the penis "pumps" inside the uterus, the phalanges of the penis - the barblike shape of the glans - vacuums out the semen of a previous male, thus increasing his own likelihood to impregnate the female. Males are visually aroused by other people having sex, like many animals are that have sex in groups (hence the appeal of modern pornography). Females who live together synchronize their menstral cycle so they can all have sex together at the same times. And so on. Orgies were an aspect of evolving humans and shapes who humans are today.

While scientists are still sorting out the exact roles of sex within evolving human clans, it is certain the sexual variation of humans today evolved as part of the clan's societal structure.

Bonobos are one of the primates closest related to humans, and are over 98% genetically identical. Both humans and bonobos share hidden ovulation, and both evolved sex for social strategies. Possibly, both preserved the trait from their common ancestor. In any case, both evolved the concealed ovulation, which encouraged perpetual sex, which promoted social bondings, whose cooperation had numerous advantages for survival. All these factors reinforced eachother. -Haldrik

Furthermore the lack of a visible fertility period dissipates a woman's sexual attractiveness throughout the year rather than concentrating it in one or more short spans of time, making a mate more likely to stay with her and defend and provide for her and her young, rather than only sticking around long enough to complete the sex act...

Yes, but a human female may have had many sexual mates, including males and females. -Haldrik

Monogamy and matrimony, not "free love", are the result of concealed ovulation. Casual sex took a back seat for long generations until the invention of reliable contraceptive measures in modern times.

Again, bonobos BOTH have concealed ovulation AND ONLY express "free love". There is ZERO monogamy among bonobos.

Likewise for humans, the concealed ovulation promotes numerous sexual relations for social reasons.

Among humans the discovery of fatherhood, and thus a social role for a "father", is a comparatively recent phenomenon since Neolithic times. The social role of a "father" is not a factor in human evolution. Nor in bonobo evolution. -Haldrik

Plus of course, this is all speculation, as is the entire field of evolutionary biology. Some theories are more likely than others, but we lack a time machine with which to view how our forebears evolved. Therefore all such discussion is conjecture and should be noted as such, which is why I used terminology such as "while it is likely". Wikipedia cannot make definitive statements on things we don't actually know. We need to make it clear when we are citing popular speculation and when we are citing proven fact.

Please reply here if you have any ideas on how to make this section of the article better. Cheers!

-Kasreyn

Image of humans having sex

The image does not bother me, but prudes have, in the past, gone on reverting wars over images. I suggest moving the image to the end of the article so that it should not enrage the prudes. Also, although missionary is very popular, among youth because horny young men literally jump on women, and is the only way American prudes are allowed to have sex, a much better way to have sex is with the woman on top because it allows for continuous kissing, caressing and embracing of the paramour:

File:Amazon-variant-sex-position.svg

The perfect position for kissing, caressing, and embracing of the paramour

I say, leave the images at the top of the page. The hell with the prudes. Wikipedia would do a disservice to its readers to behave as if their viewpoint were anything other than the extreme minority that it is. That said, the line drawings are definitely the way to go, as they are informative without being either ridiculous or obscene/prurient. This article needs neither porno nor puritans. -Kasreyn

I believe that the above image is better for the article.

Ŭalabio 01:15, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it's a good picture. I'm using them both and have removed the lions and the tortoises which aren't really much use for illustrating human sexuality. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:33, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

¡Woe now! Prudes get really upset about this sort of thing. In woman, the wikipedians by consensus that showing a nude woman is important because some people may not know how women look. The prudes reverted the image many times. The wikipedians finally moved the image beneath the fold (beneath the level at which it would load in modest browsers on most monitors). ¿Do you want an editorwar followed by protection? Out of sight, out of mind. If we move the images to the botom of the page, we can avoid trouble. IZAK is already on a crusade. Most people are against IZAK, and if IZAK will not calm down, the admins will have to ban IZAK, but IZAK could cause trouble by removing the pictures over and over again. IZAK already causes much trouble on the village pump. [1]

Ŭalabio 03:24, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

The subject of the article is sexual intercourse. I have removed two images of copulation and replaced them by two other images of copulation that are more appropriate for the article. I don't anticipate an edit war because I do not indulge in edit wars. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:45, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

¡Good for about avoiding editwars! The images do not bother me and seem appropriate to me. Hopefully all will workout well. We shall soon discover. I hope the prudes will stay away from sexual intercourse -- they already do.  ;-). Ŭalabio 04:33, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

Do we have another article about animal sex where the pictures could be used? Pcb21| Pete 06:38, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The old pictures have other articles linking to them.

--

Ŭalabio 07:19, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

"And is the only way American prudes are allowed to have sex" I am really starting to resent reading this type of stuff in Wiki. As an American prude, I can assure you your claim is highly inacurate. Haven't you ever heard the old sayings that the prudes are, in fact, the best lays? Now, as a mother and a Floridian and a prude, I would be highly pissed off if I saw indecent photos (Porn) of people having sex inside this encyclopedia. As a prude I find these images (The drawings that have been added to replace the animal copulation pictures) acceptable and just fine, as well as erotic, and I would not object to my children viewing.

There is a fine line between that which is decent and that which is profane, is it really so bad that some people do try to prevent Wiki from crossing that line of demarcation? It is called upholding integrity. CiaraBeth 15:00, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the lion and turtle images should be restored to the article as the lead pictures, with the pictures of humans following. This article does not claim to be specifically about Human sexual activity. There is another article Human_sexual_behavior that makes that distinction. Therefore, I think it would serve the reader of this article better to provide illustrations of both animal and human sexual intercourse. An added benefit of this is that the two pictures of human sexual intercourse could then occur "below the fold" where they are less likely to offend anyone, but where they are still readily available for interested parties. Johntex 17:22, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'll explain why I think the tortoise mating picture is out of context in the article at present. The tortoise penis is caudal--inside the tail, and copulation is cloacal--there is no tortoise vagina. Thus there is considerable physiological difference between this reptilian mode of mating and mammalian mating. Having said that I don't object to the picture being placed in the text, preferably at appropriate points (a section explaining reptilian mating perhaps).

The lion mating picture is good and probably has a place in the current article. Not near the top, though. That should be reserved for a picture of human sexual intercourse, which is the primary subject.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so it is my view that it would be POV to make a placement of pictures on the basis that people might be offended. The pictures should be there because they add to the article. If they don't do that, they shouldn't be there. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:41, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with Tony on this. I do not believe the drawings of human copulation are indecent, nor do I believe they should be placed under the fold to protect more sensitive eyes. To do so would be out of place. I also agree that the lion should be replaced and pasted below the images of human copulation, near the section,"Biology of conception".CiaraBeth 18:03, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the image should be removed. I do think the image should somehow be tagged so that those with different values than ourselves should be comfortable browsing Wikipedia. To ignore the feelings of people with different values than yourself by calling them prudes is pejorative. There is also the entire work-safe issue. Samboy 19:57, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

CiaraBeth has described nobody as a prude but herself. The site disclaimer (which is linked to every page) says that Wikipedia does contain content that people may find objectionable. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not also spells this out clearly. We don't mark the article on the People's Republic of China with a warning so that people with other values than our own will know that it doesn't comprise unstinting praise for the heroes of the people's proletarian revolution--and that article contains material that people can be putin prison for reading. We don't put a warning on pages that contain pictures of women whose hair is uncovered (orthodox Judaism) or whose faces are bare (various Sharia laws in Muslim countries). It is simply wrong to claim that Wikipedia is about appeasing all strains of opinion. It isn't. It's about representing them fairly within the text. By all means write "pictorial representations of sexual intercourse are taboo in many societies". But do not act as if that taboo in particular were more special than the others I have mentioned here. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:49, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The site disclaimer is something most people do not read. It is not a sufficient enough disclaimer. All of the potentially offensive items brought up are straw men; there is not one single editor who has complained about showing women's flesh, not one editor who has complained about the blurry image of naked people in the Holocaust image, etc. There have been quite a number of editors bringing up issues in Wikipedia:Village Pump and Talk:Clitoris. And, quite frankly, I don't think we will see editors complaining about those things any time soon. Samboy 00:01, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The site disclaimer is there linked on every page. We can't make anybody read any part of the site, but that doesn't alter the fact that it's there for a specific purpose. I have no idea why you would suggest that the site disclaimer "is not sufficient disclaimer?" Its content seems pretty complete. What more should it contain? You mention straw men, and then you go on to say "there is not one single editor who has complained about showing women's flesh". Isn't that a straw man? We are talking about notices, not whether or not to display a picture. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:59, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A google search on sexual intercourse + animal turns up 175,000 hits. Many refer to bestiality, but many others make clear that sexual intercourse is an appropriate term to apply to other higher animals. For example, [Encyclopeia Britanica] uses the definition "reproductive act in which the male reproductive organ (in humans and other higher animals) enters the female reproductive tract." Therefore, I think Samboy is on the right track to re-insert (no pun intended) the lion image. However, Tony's explanation of why the tortoise picture is out of place seems to ring true. I am going to make an edit that leaves the lion picture at the top, but removes the tortoise picture. Johntex 01:41, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I think the current article looks pretty good. Good show in the lion pic, I was wrong. CiaraBeth 21:09, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think that the laptop depicted is important to reflect on today's modern technological culture. --larz 21:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I definately support any pictures of sexuality in an article about sexuality - or any other, in logical context, referring to it.--OleMurder 15:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The pictures are badly drawn

Let´s be honest: the pictures are ugly and horribly drawn. I think they are more there to arouse controversy wether they belong in wikipedia or not than to actually ilustrate anything. That´s almost a flamer in my opinion.--Alexandre Van de Sande 01:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Amen. And why do we need teddy bears and books by them? And why are they slightly anime style? Someone should do some less idiosyncratic artwork. I hate to sound prudish but this is not an art gallery, it is supposed to be an encyclopedia. And I find it quite unnerving viewing pubescent-appearing poorly drawn stick figures having sex around toys. Someone out there help this situation. Seegoon 21:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

As I've stated above, I disagree. The line drawings are informative without being prurient. I edit this article a good deal and it's a constant battle just reverting vandalism by goofball teens and prudish would-be censors. Having an explicit hardcore porn gallery on the page would make that struggle ten times more difficult. Better idiosyncratic than salacious, if you ask me. Worst of all, if enough people are stirred up by photos of sex on this article, they may manage to push a consensus of having no images at all, which would definitely detract from it. This is a compromise that works.

P.S. The images, if I recognize them correctly, are the original drawings from "The Joy of Sex", a world-famous sex handbook and guide by Alex Comfort. It's widely available for sale, and I see nothing wrong with its images. -Kasreyn 05:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The quality is just fine for our purposes. I think they're cute. I don't like the teddybear either, though. And could we have a) a couple at least gives the appearance of being older than 21 and b) one picture of a gay couple?

Peter ^Isotalo 17:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the page needs a gay couple picture. It's heterosexist as it is now. Towsonu2003 20:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Scenario to Consider

Wow, that is all I could say when I saw this page, didn’t expect that on a encyclopedia, but then again wiki is no normal stuck up encyclopedia. It took me awhile to think about it but I am not offended by the images, but then again I strangely find everything I should be offended by as humorous. But anyways, when I was considering the bizarrity of those crudely draw pictures a hypothetical situation came up in my mind, what if I was looking at these on a campus computer out in the middle of the public, yes that would definitely leave me feeling uncomfortable, but hey I’m a adult and many campus student do far worse things on campus on a minute basis… but what if a 10 year old was browsing wiki and came upon the word “coitus” and s/he wonders “I wonder what that word means” and bam! S/he sees several badly drawn pictures of people copulating in various position! Now I don’t have much of a problem showing kids the truth but now if a teacher sees this that kids got some explaining to do, worse it makes wikipedia look bad, schools might start blocking us, who knows.

Here is what I would do (you don't need to care what I would do): Get some picture of animals copulating up on top, people are not the only things that have sex, and I think “mating” and “copulation” have also be used to describe humans so I would definitly go for mergin those two into this one. We could start with a picture of some eukaryotic single celled critters getting it on, then maybe some frogs, then say two dogs/cat/birds (if we had on of bees and another of birds that would be hilarious) then below those near the bottom a picture of human intercourse, with real people, not some badly draw characters, maybe below that a cross-sectional diagram show what’s going on internally like its was some form of erotica MRI.

I would definitly go for having those pictures moved down the page (and replaced with more accruate pictures) maybe just low enough that when loading the page a warning at top in big red letters that graphic and controverisal pictures are just a scrolling below is all that is implied. --BerserkerBen 23:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what the problem is that people have with the current pictures. In any case, they're so similar in style to the kinds of pictures that are in common usage in popular educational and introductory books about sex, that they're certainly within the cultural norm for this kind of illustration, and to me that's the best justification for them. I certainly disagree strongly with the idea that there should be animal pictures here, since the article specifically distinguishes itself from the broader article about copulation. Jeremy J. Shapiro 00:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

That Begging_the_question: The only reason the distinction was made between animal and human sex on this article was so that a single user “2004-12-29T22:45Z” had a excuse to remove the photos of animal intercourse, why not (as his reasoning goes) move the issue of morality with sex be moved to human sexual behavior article, rather then change the definition of sexual intercourse to only refer to humans. I notice you didn't seem to understand the problem suggested in the final scenario I describe with the pictures, as you did not reply to it or blatantly ignored it, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and like you said you don’t understand so I’ll ask you to read it again and reply, as I don’t want to try dumbing it down. --BerserkerBen 00:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Line drawings were used in place of photos in "The Joy of Sex" to make them less pornographic. The line drawings in this article are inferior to those in "The Joy of Sex" but generally ok for purpose of illustrating positions. But I strongly recommend removing the teddy bear, since that seem a not very sly way of suggesting underage persons having sex, and might appeal to pedophiles. The Leonardo drawing is doubtless anatomically incorrect as to the routing of nerves and arteries, but again conveys the general idea of how it is done. The drawing of the uncircumcised penis in the vagina seems to focus on the prepuce and is too point of view in makaing some point about how circumcision is bad. Its depiction of the female anatomy seems sketchy and just plain wrong, showing a large void beyond the cervix. Maybe the artist is unfamiliar with female anatomy and should consult an anatomy book. It also lacks anatomical labels. Edison 13:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I've read the original Joy of Sex. I used to own that edition, until someone stole it. Those are the very images, as I recall. I don't feel that anatomical labels are really necessary, but if we could get permission from Rama (the person who made the images, as far as I can tell) to make altered copies, then we could have both versions, with and without anatomical labels. I wouldn't support having only anatomically labelled versions, though.

Regarding the top image, by Da Vinci, it's very well known that the image is inaccurate, and no one is claiming that it is. I was the one who added "artist's interpretation" to the image caption, because the errors in the image are well known. Da Vinci was working from flawed conceptions of internal anatomy. I've seen modern MRI imaging of coitus and it looks very different from that. So if you're talking about the lead image, don't worry - it's clearly marked as an artistic interpretation, so no one is going to think it is purporting to be scientifically accurate. (As for Signiore Da Vinci, I doubt he is capable of consulting anatomy books, having been dead for 487 years; however, he wrote some of the most admired anatomy texts of his day.) If I could find a copyright-free version of the MRI image I mentioned, I would gladly upload it, as it shows the exact shape of internal anatomy during coitus.

As for the teddy bear, I don't understand why you think this. Grownups can and do own stuffed animals, which often are kept on their beds. Grownups are depicted in the media buying and owning teddy bears (typically women) and having them on their beds. Whether they remain there during sex I don't know, but I suppose that sometimes they might. I really think you're making a mountain out of a molehill and reaching for reasons to be offended by the image. I don't think it's reasonable to say that such an image is somehow inappropriate. To my knowledge there is no Wikipedia policy requiring us to avoid at all costs possibly including an image that might appeal to perverts. Wikipedia policy only requires that images be notable and copyright-free with a verifiable source, which I'd say the image is. Kasreyn 21:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Penetration

File:Gliding action1.png

What happens in the woman during sexual intercourse

I added the an image about what happens inside the woman during sexual intercourse. --Ŭalabio 03:30, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

• I have restored this image of penetration, which was removed by another user on the pretext that it was propaganda. Perhaps the user who removed it will explain his viewpoint here. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:12, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Why the pretense? First the claim was that it was a "linedrawing about what happens in the woman during sex" (without showing any detail of "in" the woman) and now it is supposed to depict penetration. This while being nothing more than the cornerstone propaganda piece "theory" as promoted by anti-circumcision groups and other foreskin admirers. Pure deception. - Robert the Bruce 04:51, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Robert, I ask you to withdraw your false claim of deceit. The illustration shows a penis penetrating the vagina. The penis happens to have a foreskin, but pretty much the same thing happens when there is no foreskin. The penis thrusts inwards, and then withdraws, and the action repeats. This is not 'theory', it's what really happens. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:02, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• The first claim was as to "what happens in the woman during sex" and that by a person who knows that the illustration was created to depict the supposed gliding action of the foreskin. Once that was exposed, someone introduced the title "penetration" which with half the pics depicting what supposedly happens on withdrawal is also a false label. The question must be answered by those who deliberately changed the title of the illustration as to why they were doing so and to explain the obvious deception accordingly. - Robert the Bruce 04:42, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Note: I was not the user who removed the image, but I think I can explain why they did so:

Origin of the image - A few days ago, someone added a link on this page to Gliding action. Having never heard of "Gliding action", I followed that Wiki link. What I found was an article claiming that Gliding action creates a "frictionless" way for the penis to move within the vagina and reduces problems of vaginal dryness. Aside from the violation of the laws of physics with the term "frictionless", there were other problems with the article:

• The article had a POV against circumcision and there were numerous links to anti-circumcision material.
• Searching for "Gliding action" + "sexual intercourse" on Google results in ~300 links, so this is not a widely used phrase in the context of sexual intercouse.
• I did not look at all the links, but the top ones were all various Wikipedia mirrors, foreskin restoration sites, or anti-circumcision sites. Clearly the "Gliding action" term has been coined by people with a POV. This is the same picture used there to illustrate Gliding action. The edits on the "Gliding action" page has now been brought the article into a reasonably NPOV state, with links to both sides of the issue etc.

Why the picture does not belong here - Besides the POV origin and agenda behind the picture, lets look at what the picture shows:

• It shows an uncicumcised penis moving in and out of a vagina. The article already says this is what happens in sexual intercourse so the picture does not provide much new information.
• Unless you already know is is a picture of a penis moving within a vagina, you won't learn it from this picture, since nothing in the picture is labeled.
• The only other thing happening in the picture is the foreskin moving, which is not germain to the point of the article on Sexual intercourse.

My conclusion

• We can leave the link to Gliding action. It is a term coined by activists and not in widespread usage, but that does not mean there should not be an article on it so long as the article is NPOV.
• The picture should stay on the Gliding action page, but it fulfills no useful purpose here.

Johntex 05:16, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the supposedly dodgy origin, John, I think it's a pretty useful illustration. If the foreskin in the picture did not move, the picture would be inaccurate or at least rather untypical. The foreskin moves against the shaft of the penis during masturbation and sexual intercourse. I don't know, and don't want to know, what the activists on various sides are arguing about, but I'm satisfied that this is an excellent illustration of the physiology of vaginal penetration by an erect penis. To say that "the article already says this is what happens...so the picture does not provide much new information" would be a good reason to remove most of our illustrations! If Robert has a problem with the moving foreskin I guess he can edit it to remove the foreskin, but it seems perverse to say that an illustration of the subject of the article "doesn't provide much new information". --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:43, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

When it comes to including pictures, it is easy to illustrate extreme scenarios. On one end of the spectrum would be a purely text based encyclopedia with no pictures. On the other end would be articles with giant collections of images, each one showing something just a little bit different and therefore thought to provide value. Clearly, we are not talking about either extreme here. We have a case somewhere in the middle. The question is does this particular image improve the article as a whole. Other encyclopedia's are selective in their content partly because of space constraints, which is an issue we don't face here. However, they are also selective because they want articles to be focused on the most relevant subject matter. I think we should leave the image at Gliding action. Possibly it also belongs at Vaginal sex as well. But we do not need it here. The point of this one article is not to cover everything related to sex or sexology or anatomy in one article. Johntex 15:50, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you Johntex for the time taken to explain your position. I agree wholeheartedly. You appear to be newish so perhaps I should provide you with a little background as to the person who is instigating the insertion of the propaganda illustration into wikipedia. Here are two emails he posted to an anti-circumcision/foreskin admirer list with regard to forcing their POV down the throats of all those who may come across wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Robert_the_Bruce/Vigilance

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Robert_the_Bruce/Reimer

No doubt you will have the "pleasure" of meeting the other "full-time intactivists" shortly.

And, yes, our Tony. He pretends to be neutral on the issue and not too concerned while working behind the scenes to fight for the insertion of the illustration [2] Its all smoke and mirrors around here. - Robert the Bruce 16:33, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You state that I am a member of a "anti-circumcision/foreskin admirer list". That is a lie. I am a member of a group trying to protect children from sexual abuse. One of the things we wish to do is protect children from genital mutilation. It is true that many of us wish to make certain that people with prurient or monetary interests do not make WikiPedia into a referral service for them. You mention David Peter Reimer. The fact is that he is very important to both of us because he is an example of the genital modification gone out of control:

He was born a normal male infant, one of identical twins, in Winnipeg, and was named 'Bruce' and his brother 'Brian.' At the age of 6 months, after concern was raised about how Bruce and Brian urinated, both boys were diagnosed with phimosis (which is an inappropriate diagnosis for infants). They were referred for circumcision without ever trying less radical therapy at the age of 8 months. On April the 27th, 1966, the Surgeon Jean-Marie Huot and Anæsthesiologist Max Cham performed the circumcision with the aid of a Bovie Cautery Machine (which is not intended for use on extremities and genitals). Bruce's penis was destroyed. After this, Brian's circumcision was cancelled, and he made a full recovery from his condition without further treatment. This indicates that Bruce's circumcision was necessary. [3]

Then, taking advantage of Brian being intact, doctors tried to make him into a girl named Brenda. All of this genital modification failed. Brenda tried to become a man named David. Most accounts of this cautionary tale about medically unnecessary modification of the genitals of unconsenting minors do not mention circumcision at all, referring merely to an accident or if they mention circumcision, do not mention that it was medically unnecessary. I merely wish to keep that article honest. As for anticircumcision, we do not care what adults do to themselves, we merely wish to protect children from sexual mutilation.

By the way, it is not nice to personally attack people, or revert more than three times. ¿How many times did Robert the Bruce revert the article? Robert the bruce accused me and Tony of pushing an agenda. That is two personal attacks and three reverts.

The interesting thing is that this is all straw men and ad hominid, because the picture is accurate. Robert the Bruce writes about agendas. I believe what bothers him is the movement of the præpuce -- by all means, he could create a præpuceless version to accompany the image. Some do not want people to know that the præpuce reduces friction in sex and masturbation. A woman can no more lubricate continuously for an hour long bout of sex than a man can spit every minute, on the minute for an hour. Masturbation and prolonged sex require artificial lubricants for circumcised men. ¿Could it be that some do not want it known that intact men do not require artificial lubricants for masturbation and prolonged sex? ¡The very accuracy of the image might hurt the agenda of some people!

--

Ŭalabio 01:57, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

Poll about image accuracy

---

The below image causes controversy. A poll should solve the question. The weekend should be sufficient time. ¿How about we close the poll on 2005-01-15T00:00:00 UTC when the weekend will start?. --Ŭalabio 10:24, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

I don't think we need a poll. I think we need to decide by rational argument whether the picture depicts vaginal penetration by an erect penis to a level suitable to illustrate this article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:46, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

File:Gliding action1.png

Action of the penis during sexual intercourse

¿Is the above image accurate?

Yes

1. Ŭalabio 10:24, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

No

Hi Tony Sidaway - I appreciate your efforts to reach a consensus here. I also don't think a poll is the best way to go. That is an invitation for people who have an agenda to flock to this page. Also, I think it is misleading that the proposed poll is a "Poll about image accuracy". I don't think the image is inaccurate, just that it does not belong here. For me, the key phrase in your question is "...to a level suitable to illustrate this article." For all the reasons stated in my earlier argument, I think this picture adds little or nothing to the understanding of the subject of this article and it is an exact duplicate of a picture found on a page that is already linked here. Therefore, it distracts from the other content here without making a commensurate contribution. Johntex 15:36, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's an important enough picture to waste much time over. I just feel that it illustrates the primary activity in a way that would answer a lot of doubts from people who were not in a position to test it out for themselves: for instance you can see that the penis is engorged and stiff but not necessarily fully erect, that the vagina is well able to take a normal-sized penis and there are no obstructions (all things that aren't easy to make clear in text because they're mostly negatives and hard to anticipate.

For me having just one person suspect that it could be some kind of pro-foreskin propaganda is enough to make me think it's better not to have the picture. In my country it is the norm for men have foreskins but in other countries this diagram with its depiction of movement in the foreskin may seem a little alien, even though it gives a pretty good picture of the action of the prepuce over the shaft. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:48, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

¿Have you asked yourself the inverse question?:

None doubt the accuracy of the picture. Robert the Bruce writes about agendas. I believe what bothers him is the movement of the præpuce -- by all means, he could create a præpuceless version to accompany the image. Some do not want people to know that the præpuce reduces friction in sex and masturbation. A woman can no more lubricate continuously for an hour long bout of sex than a man can spit every minute, on the minute for an hour. Masturbation and prolonged sex require artificial lubricants for circumcised men. ¿Could it be that some do not want it known that intact men do not require artificial lubricants for masturbation and prolonged sex? ¡The very accuracy of the image might hurt the agenda of some people!

--

Ŭalabio 02:23, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

Could it be that an encyclopeia article is not the place to have a war between agendas? There is no effort to stamp out either viewpoint here. The image in question is available at Gliding action, which is linked from this page. Johntex 03:51, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My thought on this issue...it is not Wikipedia's place to promote a given agenda. Yes, discussion of foreskin may deserve a brief paragraph followed by a link, but I don't think we want an entire image. This isn't the place for every single political group or small business to but banners for their ideas/businesses in encyclopedia articles. Samboy 05:53, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm saddened that what I regard as an excellent picture of the fundamental part of sexual intercourse--the penetration and reciprocation of the penis in the vagina--has become a football like this. I think those who fight over the subject of circumcision should reflect on the harm they both do to this encyclopedia--apparently the one thing they can both agree on is that this completely accurate and useful picture of penetration serves an agenda. I must reject it, despite its obvious intrinsic merits, solely because it has been portrayed in this light. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:58, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you agree that it is an excellent picture of the fundamental part of sexual intercourse -- the penetration and reciprocation of the penis in the vagina -- ¿why not use it? Those wanting universal nontherapeutic circumcision of unconsenting minors do want parents to know that circumcision is unnecessary, it is wrong to cut off pieces children without medical necessity, the præpuce has sexual functions, et cetera. I recommend that you read this:

Circumcisers: ¿What drives their knives? -- Michael Glass, 2000-10-14

After you read glass0, one can go onto 1, 2, 3, … ∞ .

--

Ŭalabio 03:28, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)

Inaccuracy of the image

The image above appears to be seriously inaccurate, as it does not show the most dramatic anatomical feature of coition, namely the penis bending during vaginal insertion. Actual NMR imaging of sexual intercourse shows that the penis bends into a rather surprising boomerang shape inside the vagina. See [4] for a comparison of previous visualizations of sexual intercourse with actual NMR images of coition.

Given that this major feature is completely missing in the image makes me wonder about the accuracy of the more minor features in the image, and what, if any, actual evidence was used as a basis for creating the image. Comparison of the image above with the NMR images shows that it is mostly a work of imagination.

Note that NMR imaging is accurate enough to resolve the prepuce: actual clinical imaging should be able to resolve this issue once and for all.

Reference:

• W. W. Schultz, P. van Andel, I. Sabelis, E. Mooyaart. Magnetic resonance imaging of male and female genitals during coitus and female sexual arousal. BMJ 1999;319:1596-1600 ( 18 December ).

-- The Anome 09:39, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Good point. I don't think it was intended to be as accurate as a NMR. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:49, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The degree and angle of direction and extent of bending depends on which position and the specific angle at the hips -- I do not know about you, but reverse cowgirl hurts me. All and all, the neutralness of the bend does not effect the accuracy of this image. if the couple in the NMRI could have one of them go into a more vertical angle (impossible in the imaging chamber), then the bowing would be less. As it is, the bowing can hardly be called "boomerang-shape." I see no reason not to restore the image.

--

Ŭalabio 16:46, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)

---

It seems that this issue is best debated over at Gliding action. Regardless of whether the picutre is accurate or not, it present on the Gliding action page, and it has not been present here since there was a rough consensus to leave out the picture here and instead to link the Gliding action. Johntex 17:04, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have seen a picture of two gay lions shagging in an old copy of New Scientist that my boyfriend has, how do I put it in the article?

You should first obtain permission from the copyright holder to license the image under the GFDL or on compatible terms. Then you would need to scan the image to a local computer. You can upload image files to Wikipedia using the "Upload file" link in the "toolbox" on the left. -- Beland 03:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Image suggestion

I would like to suggest an additional image for this article. I find it to be honest, psychologically true, and moral. Opinions? Haiduc 05:19, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Husband and Wife Making Love
Shunga print by Yanagawa Shigenobu; Colored ink on paper; ca.1820; Private collection

There appears to be a consensus that drawings are acceptable. Also looks lovely to me. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:48, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I vote to Exclude the picture. Including the picture is too risky compared to the potential benefit. The risks are:

1. In many jurisdictions, sexual abuse of a child includes "Deliberately exposing a child to the act of sexual intercourse". I can imagine arguments that this child is too young to understand the nature of the sexual act and therefore is not meant to be included in such a prohibition. But who can tell for sure what the age of the child is from this drawing? The risk that some may understand this drawing to depict or encourage child abuse or child pornography is a grave risk.
2. Further, the picture does not seem to anatomically correct, given the angle and position of the limbs of the "paramour". This could be misleading to the reader.
3. I also would challenge the veracity of the depiction. Can any reference be found for a woman engaging in sexual intercourse while coddling a child to her bossom? Surely it is physically possible, but we do a disservice to our readers by showing rare or unknown acts as if they were commonly illustrative of the topic being discussed.

Even in the most charitable interpretation, this picture does not help the reader understand sexual intercourse better than the pictures we have already included.

In Summary: On the reward side, by including this picture, we would be gaining a picture of some artistic talent, but which does not go any distance to better expalin the act of human sexual intercourse than the pictures already present. Therefore, the reward does not merit the risk of (a) showing something that could be interpreted as child pornography or abuse (b) misleading the reader with respect to anatomy (c) misleading the reader as to the prevalence of a form of sexual intercourse.

This picture should not be shown in this article. Johntex 18:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

One Further remark - it is very difficult to tell from the style of the drawing, but the more I look at this drawing, the more it looks like it might be the child who is being penetrated. I hope I am wrong about that. Either way, it makes this picture even less beneficial to include if there could be such an interpretation. Johntex 20:02, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

John, if you look you will see that the child is being breastfed, not abused. Some people make love during breastfeeding, it isn't abusive, sexual or otherwise. Your rather legalistic interpretation seems to be based on the idea that some benighted jurisdictions *may* regard breastfeeding a babe-in-arms as sexual abuse. Well there are places where a woman with a bare face is breaking the law. So what? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi Tony. Thanks for your reply.

1. I've looked at the picture quite closely I agree it looks like the child is being breastfed. I'm not disputing that. However, in addition to that, the penis seems to be lower in the drawing than the body of the woman. The penis is parallel to the child. Click on the image to enlarge it and ask yourself "Does it look like the penis is in position to penetrate the mother?"
2. You asert "Some people make love during breastfeeding". Can you find one reference saying that they do? If it does not occur, it should not be pictured here. If you do find a reference, is it common? If it does occur, but rarely, it could be misleading to show it unless it is labeled as being unusual. I could probably find a picture of a two-headed goat, but if I put it up on the "goat" article with no explanation, it would be misleading.
3. I do not claim or imply "breastfeeding a babe-in-arms [is] sexual abuse". I claim, "Deliberately exposing a child to the act of sexual intercourse" is considered abuse in many jurisdictions.
4. Your argument that a "woman with a bare face is breaking the law. So what?" is not directly applicable to child pornography or child abuse. For one thing, the later two things are illegal almost everywhere, not just in a handful of countries. For another, the later two things are illegal where Wikipedia is based.
5. Finally, since you did not speak to it - I restate my objection that the picture is anatomically misleading, due to the awkward position of the man's legalegs. Johntex 21:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant "breastfeeding a babe-in-arms while having sex". No, I don't think he's raping the baby. It seems to me that his penis can be clearly seen buried in the woman's vagina. As for "misleading", it clearly isn't intended as an anatomical representation but a work of art.

You ask "Can you find one reference saying that" people make love while breastfeeding. My wife and I have coupled on occasion while a baby was suckling. While that's not encyclopedic, I don't intend to put my earlier claim into an article. Just take my word for it. You both grab what sex you can when there's a demanding little baby in the house. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think your best point is "grab what sex you can" - I think that applies in many situations.  :-) Seriously though, if we agree that the picture is anatomically incorrect, does it belong as an illustration on this page? Or would it be better at erotic art, where it is also to be found currently? Johntex 22:07, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Primarily it's a picture of sex as part of human eroticism; those line drawings are informative but they completely miss out the erotic element. I'd like to see it pretty high up, preferably displacing those lions. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:00, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This picture may belong over on some art page, but not here. U$er 00:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see we meet again. I was amused, Johntex, at your claim that the image would not be instructive to readers. Less instructive than the image of two lions fucking? What exactly are you trying to teach here?! Or do lions read the Wikipedia? But seriously, if we lay aside the notion that all illustrations here should be of the mechanistic sort (which at any rate they are not) the only thing left to say is that . . . I won't say it. But by your argument, Rembrandt's Ganymede should be immediately removed from the site because it shows a young child being endangered and molested by a bird of prey, etc, etc, etc.

The main reason that I am offering Japanese art for the articles on sexuality is that there is a quality to this art, unencumbered by notions of sin or guilt about sex, which brings a real sense of innocence and purity to many of the representations, and especially the one I presented here. I'll tell you what else I see in the picture. I sense a wisdom there, each person is doing their natural part, giving and receiving, and the three participants to this act of love share not only their mutual love but the experience of warmth and bliss. There is also a dimension to it, of course, which points to Oedipal feelings and to that whole complexity. I do not see that as detracting from the value of the work here, as if things had to be preserved in formaldehyde in order to be useful. It provokes thought and leads one further. It would have been easy to post here a run-of-the-mill picture, but I wanted to offer something exceptional. Make of it what you will, but be careful you do not fall into an ethnocentric trap. Haiduc 03:02, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Haiduc. I am glad to have provided some amusement for you. I will address your points one by one:

1. The lions are having sexual intercourse. They are relevant to the article because they illustrate the fact that mammals, not just humans, reproduce by sexual intercourse, as stated in the article.
2. Your argument about Rembrandt's Ganymede makes no sense. There is no law against depictions of animals endangering children.
3. Why do you say that Japanese art is "unencumbered by notions of sin or guilt about sex". Did 17th century Japanese people not have these concepts? Were they unable to express them in their art? I would find either statement very difficult to believe. Perhaps it is just that you value this particular form of art highly.
4. It is interesting that, of all the emotions and traits you read into the image, there is no mention of sexual intercourse or what any of these things will do to inform the reader on this topic.
5. What do you mean by "run-of-the-mill" picture. Are you saying that the other images somehow don't qualify as art? What makes them different for you?
6. Please explain your remarks about "ethnocentric trap". It seems your remarks both here and on Masturbation are implying that whoever doesn't agree with your views on how and where these images should/should-not be used is narrow-minded at best or some sort of racist at worst. I hope I have misunderstood you. Johntex 03:47, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, one point at a time.

1. You say does not go any distance to better explain the act of human sexual intercourse but favor a picture of two lions over two people. That led me to conclude that your arguments are contrived and mask an unspoken (and quite possibly unconscious) motive. Whence my "ethnocentric" comment. Ethnocentrism is a real obstacle, and it is so for all of us, as far as I am concerned. No one is immune, myself included. But if I am out of place, I apologize. It is not your disagreement per se that troubles me, but what I perceived as a forced quality. Again, forgive me if I angered you.
2. You also argue that the image is "anatomically incorrect". All symbolic representation can be said to be so, but that does not stand in the way of the image as communication. Oriental people sit differently from westerners, something you painfully discover, for example, when attending a zen session. The position looks totally valid to me, though if I attempted it I would probably not be able to stand up again without help.
3. The claims that the baby is being "penetrated" or that this is child abuse are so forced and extreme, so profoundly disconnected from the artist's message, and so apparent as projection, as to not warrant further refutation.
4. Japanese notions of guilt and sin. Social duty (giri) and proper form were and are immensely powerful forces for social control in Japanese society. So much so that many leave the country. But sex, or excretion, or public mixed-sex nudity (bathhouse) were not seen as dirty. I do value the art, and I value it for its freedom. I see it as a gift to the west, especially now that we are so bound up, much more so that a hundred or so years ago. (I am sure you heard that John Quincy Adams swam nude in the Potomac in good weather. Imagine if Bush did that now.)
5. Sexual intercourse. I did not bring it up, it seemed obvious. But this is my logic: it shows the act (and shows it clearly and honestly, not pulling any punches) not from a scientific or medical viewpoint, but from a human perspective. What you get from it is that, aside from being a bodily function, it is a beautiful, humanizing, tender act. That needs to be said (if not through this art object then through another). It may be sad that it needs to be said, but that is another discussion.
6. Run of the mill. I meant run-of-the mill shunga which shows just the man and woman alone.
7. One more thing. U$er claimed this belongs on an art page but not here, and I have to object to the idea that art is not a valid form of communication, or that this piece is inappropriate. If I were the only one here making this argument, I would not bother, but there is at least one other person who seems to find it fitting. Why is it appropriate here? Again, because it communicates the fundamental innocence and purity of the sexual act, and of erotic arousal. That, at least, is the role of the baby in the picture. Is it provocative? Somewhat. But why should we shy from provocation, when it is appropriate? I thought one of the points of this project was to express ideas which would not fly in a restrictive corporate environment. Haiduc 05:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Redirecting the Intercourse page here

I'm pretty sure it's less than 1% of the time that an English speaker says "intercourse" and means something other than sexual intercourse. And yet anyone who types in "intercourse" is taken to this page: Intercourse - instead of directly here. I think that it should redirect here, and at the top of the page it can say something like: "Intercourse" redirects here. For other uses, see intercourse (disambiguation). --Blackcats 10:39, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree "sexual intercourse" would be the most common usage. However, I think we should leave the pages the way they are for two reasons:

1. In a Google serach on "intercouse", both the town in Pennsylvania and the use of the word to mean discussion/communication make the top 10 hits (albeit with 8 hits for the sexual meaning)
2. Hitting the disambiguation page first informs people the other uses exist, which heightens the educational nature of the experience.

Those that only care to go on to the sexual intercourse article may do so with one click, so the barrier is not high. Johntex 19:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some internal links removed

These seem to me to be of only marginal relevance to this article about a specific erotic and reproductive act. I've removed them. Please restore any or all if you disagree.

• Sexual morality
• Sexual slang
• Sex in advertising
• Sex Diet
• Nymphomania

--Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:13, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Hi Tony, I commend you for trying to remove some clutter. I agree with you on all of these except Sexual slang, looking at that article, a good portion of the slang is about sexual intercourse. Therefore, I would recommend we restore that link. I don't feel that strongly either way, so I'll wait to see what you and others say... Johntex 20:01, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

History files show deletion(s). CONTRIBUTION DELETED BY WIKIPEDIAN: Use of latex condom does not guarantee protection against "the HIV virus"....not a good idea if having sex with high risks individuals such as the "intravenous drug user". This topic appears controversial to some and therefore, contribution deleted from paragraph. HOPE THIS HELPS YOU.

Ariele 18:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Adding another reference ==>> [5]

Ariele 18:20, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

There are hardly any references anywhere in literature about sex concerning the possibility of upside down standing sixty-nine, even though it is feasible with some couples with whom the woman is tiny and/or courageous. It is interesting that the only allusion to this that I have seen is in Alec Comfort's classic "The Joy of Sex" where he describes it as the cascade position. If the woman has the confidence to try it, it is spectacular for both parties! How many couples have tried it, I wonder?

"Copulation" versus "sexual intercourse"

The text says: "The term for the higher vertebrates (e.g. the lions in the picture to the right) and some other animals is "copulation"." Please specify for which animals the term is used. What taxons of animals? Specifically. The article should also distinguish "copulation" and "sexual intercourse" more explicitly. I think the two things, "copulation" and "sexual intercourse", should have two separate articles. The article is way too anthropocentric. In simplistic words, it focuses too much on humans. I personally don't like that. Just my opinion. It sucks.

Neutral? There's nothing "neutral" about that. First of all, if you are gonna confuse "copulation" with "sexual intercourse", then why not redirect to "copulation" instead of "sexual intercourse"? That's ridiculous. There are way more animal specimens out there in nature than there are humans. So then, what's so neutral about the article? The term used for animals is "copulation". There are way more species that "copulate" than species that "have sexual intercourse". So if you're gonna redirect somewhere, it's the article "Sexual intercourse" that should redirect to "Copulation", not the other way around.

And then, if the article mentions positions during sexual intercourse of humans, why not mention positions of other animals during copulation? And that's supposed to be neutral? I don't see it.

Why not mention the sexual positions of Drosophila flies or platypuses? Why not mention the "complications" that dogs or kangaroos have during sex? Why not mention the sexually transmitted diseases of cats or chickens or dinosaurs? They have sex, too.

Then, if the article "Copulation" redirects to "Sexual intercourse", why is there a section that's called "Morality and legality". The article "copulation" is supposed to talk about copulation of animals. That's why many articles about biology and zoology have hyperlinks to that article, so the copulation of animals is described. What do "morality and legality" have to do with animals? Nothing. Nothing at all. The article mixes it all up. Animals don't care about things like "morality" or "legality". To them, those things are irrelevant. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 05:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Removed Sex on Telly and Miscellaneous

I removed the "Sex on Television" section as it was written poorly by Wikipedia standards and the subject matter, which was almost entirely about one particular sex scene on a British TV show that interested the author, was not very appropriate by Wiki standards (actually it was quite idiotic). Here is the section I removed:

"---Sex on Television---Why this is has never really been certain, but sexual intercourse on television can make great viewing figures. One of the most explicit sex scenes on telly ever aired was on February 25 2004, on ITV's Footballer's Wives, in which Tanya Turner and Conrad Gates have sex standing up, and then lying down using the missionary position, with Conrad pouring champagne on Tanya's breasts, and licking it off. Other sex scenes on television have been aired, but this is one of the most notable."

I also moved part of "Miscellaneous" section to Morality and put the remainder under a new heading of "Misconceptions" to which I added a little myself, as half of it clearly belonged in the "Morality" section and the other part was about an Urban Legend which was a ripe topic for a new section to which more could concievably be added by people whom have any good ideas. Here was the part I moved to the existing "Morality Section":

"There is a good deal of controversy about the kind of relationship one should have with someone else before engaging in sexual intercourse. This controversy is beyond the scope of this article; interested readers are encouraged to read the articles on chastity, evolutionary psychology, and sexual morality."

And this is the part I relabled, the first paragraph was in the original "Miscellaneous" section and the second paragraph I added:

"There is an urban legend that dolphins, bonobos, and humans are the only animals that have sex for pleasure; in actual fact, what distinguishes these three species from other animals is that they also have heterosexual sex when the female is not at a point in her gestation cycle suitable for successful impregnation [2].

A related urban legend is that only humans have homosexual sex but Bonobos regularly engage in various forms of intercourse and/or stimulation with the same sex, in addition to other animals such as dogs."

--Brentt 05:30, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I think we need to put new images up and remember that wikipedia is an open media to all and sometimes these pictures currently up may not be appropiate, also read thier captions. 64.250.215.217 04:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)JJ Glendenning

A joke hidden in an encyclopedia!!

"It is believed that all of the cultures that prohibited sexual intercourse entirely no longer exist,...."

haha

• It's amusing, but inaccurate. The Shakers (who can be considered a "culture") still exist...albeit with greatly reduced numbers.

Proposal to remove "Other Names"

I would like to propose that we remove the "Other Names" section entirely and move all of it to the Sexual Slang article. For one thing, the article is mainly about the physiology of sexual intercourse, not about the anthropology and folklre of it. Second, all of the "other names" are in English, so they're really about particularly English-language slang, which doesn't seem appropriate in a general encyclopedia article about intercourse, even though this is the English-language version of Wikipedia. Third, many of the expressions of the list are highly sub-cultural and of dubious general status. When I was in college, men used to say "I dipped my wick". Should I add that to the list? And if I made up an expression and added that to the list, who would know that it was made up? So I propose removing this entire section and keeping the things that seem relevant in the Sexual Slang article. Jeremy J. Shapiro 18:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I concur. TheMadBaron 13:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes I agree, What do you think POTW? Scott 22:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

This is beginning to seem urgent to me because the "Other Names" section is moving in the direction of being longer than the rest of the article! Does anyone object? Jeremy J. Shapiro 06:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I see you've done it already. No, I don't object, although I would object to completely excising every last occurrence of a slang term in all sex-related articles. For example, the term blowjob (although I always thought it was two words) is in the oral sex article (recently edited by TheMadBaron who commented above), but it is used in context and is not simply a reference to slang. --Craig (t|c) 08:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree entirely. I don't object at all to slang in the sex-related articles. I think it would be entirely appropriate and even advisable to have up to half a dozen of the most common expressions (e.g. ones that would be in a major dictionary of slang), especially if it were noted that these were English-language expressions. I object only to this interminable list of slang, some of which is trivial or minor and some of which may even be made up. I think that for sexual intercourse we should definitely have such things as "fuck", "screw", and other expressions that have real tradition behind them ("fuck" is very very old) etc., but not such things as "I chased her around the henhouse" or "I poured my espresso into her latte" etc. Jeremy J. Shapiro 20:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and even the dedicated lists of slang of just out of this world. Speaking of the oral sex article, it has its own list of slang you might consider looking at, although it's not quite a simple list as the one here was. --Craig (t|c) 23:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

"Misconceptions" section

The first sentence in the "Misconceptions" section is very ambiguous. It states that there is a misconception, but doesn't really explain what that misconception is. The way that it is phrased, you expect to find additional animals listed after dolphins, bonobos, and humans, or at least an explanation of the misconception. The paragraph just seems poorly constructed. I'm not an authority on this type of animal behavior so I'm not sure how to rectify the problem.

The article is trying to say that these animals have sex when the female is not likely to be impregnated. That has led to the conclusion that they are having sex for pleasure, which is one possible explanation. Another possible explanation is that they are bad at telling when pregnancy is likely to occur. Yet another possible explanation is that these animals are trying to form a stronger bond with a mate. It is not possible to say for sure "why" an animal species does something. It is only possible to describe what they do, and what the consequences are. I have reworded the paragraph. Johntex\^talk 21:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I think there should bepictures of people having sex on this page

A politically charged message

"abstinence from heterosexual intercourse is the only 100% effective way to avoid pregnancy"

right, but shouldn't there be a mention that: According to the World Health Organization [2], condoms currently work successfully 97% of the time at twelve months, when used properly and consistently. (from the condom page)

I would agree that it's odd that the article mentions pull-out - an utterly discredited and worthless form of BC - but makes no mention of condoms. I wouldn't remove the reference to abstinence. While it reads like something straight from the mouth of right-wing radio, it happens to be factually accurate. Nothing succeeds at failing quite like inaction! In the interests of fairness and NPOV, I'm adding a small reference to condom usage, but let's PLEASE try not to grow this paragraph. This is the article on sex, not on birth control. Don't lose focus. -Kasreyn

Plus it's not true. When abstinece is the policy over condom use pregnancy rates go up.--God_of War 06:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that is not true. If you take the success rate when condoms are used "properly and constantly", then you have to compare that to abstinence when used "properly and constantly". When you control conditions and compare like to like, then abstinence is more effective. Johntex\^talk 02:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, technically, yes. But what condom proponents, such as God of War and myself, mean when we say abstinence policies are less effective, is not that abstinence itself when properly practised is less effective - since it's of course the more effective possible method - but merely a realistic assessment that abstinence is much less likely to be properly practised than condom use, especially among teens and young adults. My guess is that God of War was referring to general trends in an area embracing a pro-abstinence, anti-condom culture, not what would happen if people were to actually apply both practises perfectly, which is almost never done. So technically, you're right, but controlled conditions don't generally occur in everyday life, so in practise, God of War's comment makes sense. -Kasreyn 11:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

"A prophylactic such as a condom is among the most effective methods of birth control short of sterilization or abstinence, with effectiveness rates in the high 90th percentiles." I don't know what the effectiveness actually is, but percentile is the wrong measure. Percentile is the numeric equivalent of position on a sorted list. This should be changed to the correct value or moved to a page specifically on contraception.

I must confess I'm not up on the Wikipedia Manual of Style as regarding quoting ranges of percentage values. I was wanting to avoid a constant revert war over an exact number. The last thing I need to spend my time on is arguing with someone over whether it's 95% or 93%. Is there a more correct way to note that the majority of effectiveness studies put condom effectiveness ranging from 90-99 percent? I haven't been able to find it in the manual of style. -Kasreyn 19:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I believe condom is less effective than the IUD and (some forms of) hormonal birth control, assuming proper use of each. -- Pakaran 02:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Condom effectiveness

Most things I've heard place the effectiveness lower than most other methods. I'm sure there are tons of numbers that contradict each other. The condom article says 80%. — Omegatron 01:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The number in the condom article is actually 85%, and is unsourced. I have marked it as such. I really don't see how you can claim it's less effective than most other methods, since any group that could be called "most other methods" would have to include such completely useless methods as the pull-out and rhythm methods, which would tend to drag down the average of most other methods by a lot. -Kasreyn 08:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely: using condoms is NOT as effective as other forms of contraception. In decending order from most effective -> condom they go abstainance (obviously, if properly followed!), sterillisation (although not to be used as a reversible form of contraception); the mirena progestogen releasing intrauterine device is AS EFFECTIVE as sterilisation. The combined oral contraceptive pill, when used properly is also >98% successful. The humble condom whilst being cheap and a reasonable effective barrier against STDs is NOT the most successful contraceptive out there.

While, it's true condoms have a high failure rate and abstainance is in theory 100% effective I think we must remember to keep things in perspective. If you're going to talk about the real world failure rate for condoms, it makes sense to talk about the real world failure rate for abstainance. This is of course nearly impossible to measure and it's why I personally we just shouldn't bother including it as a comparison. Also, shouldn't sterilisation be before abstinance? If you are properly sterilised, you've got a lower risk of pregnancy (or causing pregnancy) then if you practice abstinance because sterilisation will prevent you getting pregnant/causing pregnancy by rape. If you're a male and assuming here we don't consider masturbation necessary for abstinance, it's also possible your semen could be taken to induce a pregnancy (especially if you use a condom during masturbation) which sterilisation would prevent. Of course, these are all very unlikely but my point is that logically, assuming we're talking absolutes here, sterilisation must be more effective then abstinance. Nil Einne 05:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You've forgotten the "pull-out" and "rhythm" methods, both of which, in real practise, are significantly less effective than condoms. So in reality, condoms are not on the bottom of the list. Kasreyn 01:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Too lame pictures

This picturres are not good they should get ones with better boobs and vvaginas

Please don't troll here...-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 10:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It is true though. For great justice. 17:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Scope of article wrong?

Sexual intercourse, specifically coitus, is the human form of copulation.
Is this correct? I do not think this is right, why should the term apply only to humans? There's this definition Sexual activity during which the erect penis is inserted into the vagina where ejaculation takes place. from here This definition seems to be exclusivelly about human activity sexual intercourse, intercourse, sex act, copulation, coitus, coition, sexual congress, congress, sexual relation, relation, carnal knowledge (the act of sexual procreation between a man and a woman; the man's penis is inserted into the woman's vagina and excited until orgasm and ejaculation occur) (from here), though it does not distinguish between copulation and sexual intercourse as wikipedia does. Then there's this Sexual intercourse: Sexual activity that involves vaginal, anal, or oral penetration from here. And why should there be seperater pages for sexual intercourse and copulation? This seems daft to me, but maybe I'm just looking at it from a biologists POV. Alun 07:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Da Vinci image

I wonder about the appropriateness of this image. I've read in several places that Da Vinci was operating on guesswork. Actual MRI images have been taken of people having sex (I've got one of them on my PC), and the internal arrangement is somewhat different from what Da Vinci imagined. If I can find a copyright-free version of the MRI scan (which is also a cross-section of coitus), would anyone object to my adding it? In the meantime, I'll note that Da Vinci's is not entirely accurate. -Kasreyn 05:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The Da Vinci image is not entirely accurate. Neither are those ghetto butt-ass lame anime pictures (which are wholly unhelpful and ought to be removed). The proportions are way off. Of course, Da Vinci is Da Vinci - and his interpretations matter more than an anime artist's. The Da Vinci image is accurately labeled as an artists' interpretation - and it is a classy image with which to introduce the reader to the topic of sex.70.19.136.66 19:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The "accurate label" as an artistic interpretation was what I inserted myself... previously it had no such disclaimer, so readers might have made the mistake of thinking it was an accurate depiction. As for the line drawings, they are from the world-famous original edition (if I remember correctly... my copy's lost somewhere) of The Joy of Sex, one of if not THE best-selling book on sex in the English-speaking world. Apparently all those readers found the images helpful enough. I like them for these reasons:

1. BECAUSE they're crude line drawings. This prevents any accusation of prurient interest. Very few are so extreme as to think that those images could be for salacious purposes, so it saves a LOT on vandalism reverting.

2. They depict somewhat generic and universalized human figures. Ignoring bone structure and other identifying marks, they could be any race (since a line drawing can be a person of any skin color). Therefore they are universal and inclusive.

3. They are simple and instructive, avoiding anything extraneous such as too many props, exotic backgrounds, unusual sex toys, or other additions which might serve to confuse rather than inform.

4. They depict sex as a positive act: the figures are smiling and clearly enjoying the act. There are no sultry looks, bedroom eyes, or suggestive leers to be seen. This also serves the purpose of avoiding confusion and mixed messages.

While I have nothing against sex toys, bizarre positions, or sexual fetishes, it's hard to find depictions of intercourse which don't include at least one of those elements. Elements which would simply be confusing to the readers of this article, which is about the basic act. For the more complex variants, toys, positions, etc., our readers can refer to specific articles relating to them.

And, I hate to put this bluntly, but no: Da Vinci's opinion was just that, an opinion, no greater than anyone else's. He was an engineer, a scholar, a brilliant man, one of my personal role models, but his knowledge of internal anatomy was backwards compared to modern knowledge. Any artist who draws the human body must learn anatomy to draw it well. And to learn to draw the body stylistically - such as in anime style, or the simplified style of the illustrator of The Joy of Sex - you must *first* learn to draw the body realistically, before you can learn how to draw it stylistically. Plus, it's not appropriate for Wikipedia to critique the artistic quality of images; our concern is whether they are informative and encyclopedic, which I'm proud that all the images in this article are.  :)

Cheers, Kasreyn 04:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

About the life expextancy of a sperm cell

Due to the lack of an elaborate metabolism of the sperm cell (at the moment of its creation in the testis, it is supplied with all the energy it would ever need - to get to the egg quickly, that is), it has rather a short life, much shorter than up to nine days, as said in the article. The limited amounts of energy created by its mitochondria cannot last forever, as it has no ribosomes, no protein-synthesis, in fact its nucleus is transformed in such a way that it cannot control the processes in the cell. To cut the long story short - spermatozoa can, at best, live up to three days in the female organs, provided that the woman is in the fertile phase of her menstrual cycle. Ksenija

Sexual Reproduction section

I'm curious as to why the methods of preventing pregnancy appear essentially right in the begining of the article, before the topic at hand is even really discussed? Birth control should be discussed very briefly and at the bottom of the page, if at all. This is the Sexual intercourse article, not the birth control article.

There are 4 Direly Needed Citations

I'll break this down into two categories.

1. Although I've also heard that the bonobos (?sp?) and dolphins engage in sexual intercourse for purposes besides sexual reproduction, it would greatly add to the credibility of the article if we could include citations for each of the two species. (Preferably to a reputable scientific journal, i.e. Nature)

2. Much more importantly, if the claims of homosexual activity amongst bonobos (?sp?) and dolphins is to be kept in the article, there is a DEFINITE need for citations. As I read the article, those statements 'struck me in the face', so to speak. I'm not saying that they aren't true; I am saying that they are sufficiently 'out there' and 'not common knowledge' to need (really, to 'deserve') a citation if they are to be included.

No, there are two citations needed, I don't know about them being dire. One for the claim about all three species engaging in sex for pleasure - I'm sure a report can be found that verifies all three in one breath. If not, out they go. And the other for the claim about homosexual activities; once again, a source that verifies all three is probably out there. Why overcomplicate the sourcing unneccessarily?

You're right to be adding the cite needed tags, though. Good catch. -Kasreyn 04:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but, to be honest, it seems much more likely that the info is going to be found in separate articles ... I think that the benefit of keeping the dual citation tags is that it informs viewers of the page of a need for both, whereas, if we bring it down to one, then people might think (and go out and look for) only one citation. If we do find a single article that captures both, then that would be great, but I think it's instructive to maintain both tags until info is found.

... obviously, this is a (VERY) minor point

FWIW here's a book about gay animals Pcb21 Pete 11:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC).

Time to orgasm measurement

I think that once we get a source for this section, we should also add a note as to when the measurement is begun. Ie., do they start the stopwatch when the guy is still flaccid, so that the time includes foreplay etc., or do they start the stopwatch at insertion? I'm rather curious. Kasreyn 17:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Moot. After over two weeks with no source found for the dubious claims, I've removed them. There are limits to how long we can leave something unsourced in an article. Kasreyn 11:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Question: Sex instinct

I had a big discussion with a friend. He says that the human sex drive can be compared to the sex drive of dogs. Furthermore he thinks if two teenager of different sexes are in a room for a long time, they will eventually have sex because they are driven by their sex drives. The teenagers haven't heard anything about sex before and they are pubescent. I disagree with his opinion, is there evidence to prove his theory incorrect? Janno 23:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

This talk page really isn't the right place for such a discussion. The topic here is the article, and how to improve it. I recommend asking your question on a web forum devoted to topics relating to sex. Good luck, Kasreyn 23:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If a boy ejaculates outside of a girl after sex will the girl get pregnant

See my comment directly above. This talk page isn't the right place for such questions. There are plenty of web forums and blogs where you can get an answer to your question. Kasreyn 10:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The good stuff? what?

"Sexual Drive" contains the following:

""The good stuff" which is slang for Casual sex..." Not only is that a non-sequitur, it's also a "slang" term I for one have never heard of. It doesn't sound like real slang to me, it's too cumbersome and it's a pretty common phrase that carries no sexual implications.--24.190.122.122 19:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Image Modification

Please see my comments at the image's talk page. I am not entirely certain that the terms of use under the Free Art License for the image are being obeyed. Kasreyn 23:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. The issue has been resolved. Kasreyn 20:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

birth control template

There is a new Template:Birth control methods. Would it be appropriate to add it to this article? Lyrl 19:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No. This is not the birth control article. Don't give an Ameriflag 00:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I would think so. As DGaAF has said, this isn't the article on birth control, however birth control is a very important topic related to sexual intercourse. Kasreyn 02:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed unnecessary birth control exerpt

I removed the paragraph about birth control as it has almost entirely nothing to do with "sexual procreation" and should not take up the bulk of the section. A simple mention of birth control is far more than adequate. This isn't the birth control article. Don't give an Ameriflag 00:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Note the article is about intercourse specifically, not procreation. That is to say, the article is about all kinds of sexual intercourse, including by those who have no desire to procreate. Kasreyn 02:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The section it was in was titled, "Sexual procreation". Either way, I don't really see any reason for birth control to be given any more than a passing mention at best. Thanks for your cooperation. Don't give an Ameriflag 03:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Sexual morality and legality cleanup tag.

I've added a cleanup tag to the section. It's still very disorganized, it mixes discussion of secular and religious attitudes, and does not arrange its information in a logical way. When I find time, I will try to rewrite it for clarity. Kasreyn 20:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Clitoral stimulation during intercourse

I think that the following sentence from this article was not accurate: "While being well suited for effective stimulation of the penis, intercourse is poorly suited for effective stimulation of the clitoris." In reference to the second part of the sentence, during face-to-face sexual positions, a man's pubic bone is generally lined up right at the woman's clitoris. Pressure on the clitoris from the public bone during the pelvic motions of intercourse can result in effective clitoral stimulation. I think that this lining up is at least somewhat well suited for clitoral stimulation, and as such, I objected to the "poorly suited" phrasing. I would imagine, however, that just about everyone could agree with a statement that intercourse is less well suited for for clitoral stimulation than penile stimulation, since some extra effort is required for the clitoral stimulation and, given the layout of each partner's body, this stimulation can be more difficult for some couples. I hence changed the wording to "less well suited" which I think still maintains the flow and content of the paragraph. HalfDome 08:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

While I don't necessarily disagree with your change, I wonder if your mising the point. Intercourse itself is not particularly well suited to clitoral stimulation. Various sexual positions may provide the simulation but intercourse itself is not particularly suited for clitoral stimulation (if it were, it would provide the stimulation in ALL positions). 00:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't appreciate the suggestion that I am "missing the point". I read what was written carefully, and I responded to what exactly those words were. What it sounds like you are claiming, though, is that "intercourse" only consists of the rubbing between the penis and the inner walls of the vagina. If that is in fact what the original author meant, then this would be a matter of using different definitions of the word "intercourse" and have nothing to do with me potentially missing any point.

I think "intercourse" refers to the entire activity and not just that specific rubbing. And that seems to be consistent with wording of this article. As such I think my comments are sensible, since the standard bodily movements during intercourse can often be used to provide clitoral stimulation as well, with little added difficulty. But we could try to work on a compromise wording here if you would like.

Cheers, HalfDome 06:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Boosting Testosterone

"A man can boost his testosterone naturally through reducing (or eliminating) smoking, alcohol, certain drugs such as most anti-depressants, emotional stress, simple carbohydrates such as white sugar, and dietary sources of estrogen such as soy. He should also avoid exposing his testicles to too much heat such as from a hot tub. "

I'm aware that avoiding exposing the testicles to heat can prevent a reduction in fertility, as the heat harms sperm cells. But, that is an issue of fertility, and not testosterone or pheremones. How much of these other (generally common sense) suggestions are really about male health, or male fertility, rather than increasing testosterone? Could we get references from some source? Atom 12:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

                              Merge is probably not the best idea for Vaginal Sex

Okay, I must admit that I know nothing of the vandalism which you speak of. However, most anonymous users actually seek to clean up articles. Second, I do not believe it is a good idea to merge Vaginal Sex, as this article is about Sexual Intercourse, and as Vaginal Sex is not the only form it can take, it would probably be in Wikipedias best interest to either: A. Merge all forms of Sexual Intercourse into the article, or B. Merge none of them. The reason behind this is that it could be misleading to users of Wikipedia to suggest or even imply that the only form Sexual Intercourse can take is vaginal.

Hemisected coitus image by Da Vinci

The following comment is for Unschool. The reason I added the phrase about an "artist's interpretation" is that Leonardo Da Vinci has a very great reputation as a scientist, which might lead readers to assume that his illustration is scientifically accurate. However, he was largely basing his work on guesswork, and modern MRI imaging of coitus has shown some significant differences from his interpretation.

If you can think of a better way to explain this in as few words as possible, please, be my guest. The artist being a genius of legendary repute, I think it's worth a little space to inform readers that, while illustrative, the image is not accurate. Kasreyn 08:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Physiological need?

Physiological needs are ones that will cause imminent death if they are not met. Food, air, water, possibly shelter.

No one has ever died from lack of sex. I object to the current wording. Please, if my syntax or style is bad, do copyedits - but I don't understand why my edit was outright reverted. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 00:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose what's at stake is that it is desired that a way be found to communicate that the desire for sex is not a conscious, chosen desire or goal; instead, it's an urge or drive within our bodies. Perhaps a "biological urge" might be another way to describe it? As the history of asceticism will show, it's entirely possible to deny this urge, even for one's whole life. Kasreyn 16:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It is grouped in the linked article with the need for friends, family, and the need to feel accepted. These needs, if not met, will often result in mental disfunction, but not death.

While ascetics may go without food for days or weeks, and Muslims go without food or water during daylight hours of the month of Ramadan, anyone who went their entire life without eating or drinking died as an infant. It's not necessarily the phrasing phsiological I disagree with, but rather the grouping with food, water and air. I would prefer to group it with the need for social relationships as does Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 00:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

To comment, as you see in Maslow's though, sex is reflected twice in the heirarchy. It is in the base "physiological" level, and also in the "love/belonging" level. If I had to guess as to the reasoning for a placement in that base phisiological level, I would go in support of that reason presented above. This is to not say that sex is something neccessary to remain alive, so much as it is a fundamental desire. Those who resist sexual urges deny desire in the same way someone on hunger strike denys food, or someone on a pressing mission may deny themselves sleep. It is my understanding that the resulting experience of denying sexual desire can be seen as the base of some spiritual experience. In short, my vote is that the physiological reference should be retained, provided that it is referenced in light of Maslow's - I could see how some confusion could arise otherwise. Cullen Kasunic