Talk:Tribadism/Archive 2

Scissoring
I object to the use of the phrase "commonly known by its scissoring position" in the first sentence of this article. Elsewhere this article discusses the objection to the characterization of "scissoring," as opposed to other forms of tribadism, as a common lesbian sex act, as well as the confusion surrounding both terms. However the way the phrase is included in the very first sentence seems to just unnecessarily further the simplistic popular myth that the position illustrated in figure 2 is the be-all and end-all of lesbian sex (or is even common). Perhaps an early mention is worthwhile because tribadism is so equated with scissoring in the popular imagination, but that is not necessarily an accurate association, and it should be reworded to reflect that. Further, the article goes on to discuss that tribadism can include any form of female-female frottage, but the first sentence makes it seem as if tribadism only refers to scissoring. This feels inaccurate and misleading. Artdyke (talk) 22:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello again, Artdyke. While the act is usually termed tribadism in scholarly sources, it is (as you are aware of) most commonly known as scissoring among the general public. That's why the term scissoring redirects to this article. Wikipedia is concerned with providing the most common term and/or most common definition for something in the lead because Wikipedia is for the general public first and foremost. WP:Due weight is an aspect of that. It is standard Wikipedia practice to have the common term in the lead, bolded there, and specified as the most common term there. See Myocardial infarction/heart attack, for example. If scissoring were an obscure slang term for the act, or not as predominant as it is, there would be no need to include it in the lead (especially since Wikipedia advises against slang; see the WP:Slang essay). But this case is obviously not one of those cases. Per Alternative titles, "By the design of Wikipedia's software, an article can only have one title. When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. If there are at least three alternative names, or there is something notable about the names themselves, a separate name section is recommended (see Lead section). ... All significant alternative titles, names, or forms of names that apply to a specific article should be made to redirect to that article."


 * I am the one who significantly expanded this article to shape it into what it is now, including the fact that tribadism is not limited to the scissoring position and the fact that some lesbian women/same-sex female couples object to the term scissoring and/or engaging in that position, so I know what you mean about the scissoring aspect. And it's because of such factors that I made a point of adding "position" onto "scissoring" so that readers are aware from the beginning that there must be other positions for the act. That is clarified by the following text in the lead addressing the different acts of tribadism, including that it involves different sex positions. I also requested that the missionary position be drawn for the act (see here for background information) and placed it as the first image in the article (the lead image) because it is a significantly more common position for the act than scissoring. The scissoring position image, as you've seen, is in the section that discusses different sexual aspects (the "Sex positions and other aspects" section); that section and the image caption notes the debate among lesbians regarding the scissoring position. Because of these steps I've taken regarding this matter, I don't feel that the "first sentence makes it seem as if tribadism only refers to scissoring" and that it is inaccurate and misleading. I don't feel that there is a need to note in the lead that that the popular term scissoring is an inaccurate description of tribadism. But perhaps Siawase, who I think still watches this article, feels differently. Therefore, I've alerted Siawase of this discussion via WP:Echo (which will work if Siawase has that aspect of the notifications system turned on). I'm sure that Auric still watches this article, so maybe he has something to state about this matter as well. Flyer22 (talk) 00:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I was indeed notified. I haven't looked deeply at the sources, but it looks like they might at least support some kind of softening of that sentence in the lead. Like changing "commonly" to "colloquially" or "sometimes." From just a quick look at the sources, it seems the sources that claim "scissoring" is the common term are lower quality news coverage (of which at least one claims South Park popularized the concept, making it sound fairly recent and not all that embedded) while higher quality more academic sources omit the term. Are there any high quality sources that actually discuss the terms "tribbing" and "scissoring" themself? Siawase (talk) 09:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you need the WP:Echo notification? I mean, had you taken this article off your WP:Watchlist? As for sources, I don't know of any high-quality sources that discuss the terms tribbing and scissoring (discuss, not simply mention). Some of them mention that tribadism is also known as tribbing, however. But from what is in the "Popular culture and other media" section, it's clear that scissoring is the term most commonly used by laypeople (the media included). Using "sometimes known by" is WP:Weasel word-ish to me, and not precise when taking into account that scissoring is more commonly used by the general public than any of the other terms for this act. I have no problem with "colloquially known by," though. Flyer22 (talk) 11:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I was about to change "commonly" to "colloquially," using a WP:Pipelink to the Colloquialism article. But then I thought about the fact that the act is colloquially known by other slang terms as well. I'm not sure that tribbing, which is noted/bolded in the lead, can be accurately described as a slang term for the act, though. And, yes, the act is commonly known by other slang terms, but scissoring appears to be the most prominent of those terms. Flyer22 (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the two women are essentially hugging. Why not both images? 209.112.13.89 (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Both images are used in the article. If you mean we should use both images as lead images, I disagree. The main image clearly shows the vulvae meeting, whereas the scissoring image does not. Stating that the main image looks like hugging is like stating that the scissoring image looks like the women simply have their legs intertwined. It's also similar to men stating that two women can't do anything sexually valid together, and that their sexual acts together are "essentially hugging." The "essentially hugging" image, as you call it, is what missionary tribadism looks like when captured in a still image. The reason we should not use the scissoring image as the main image is per what is stated above in this section: the missionary tribadism image is far more representative of tribadism (what happens in real life more so, as opposed to being more of a popular culture notion), while scissoring is far more debated. The scissoring image is where it should be in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 00:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

That said, that's my 2 bits and I'll likely leave it at that. 209.112.13.89 (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) "Both images are used in the article." Fair enough
 * 2) "The main image clearly shows the vulvae meeting, whereas the scissoring image does not...that the scissoring image looks like the women simply have their legs intertwined." Also fair, though apparent meeting isn't necessarily contacting. While I'm no expert on anatomy, presumably the "scissoring" seems to promote better contact. Women who have sex with women (is that the appropriate phrase?) would know better, but I'm not sure if they have come up with a consensus. (FWIW, Women, Sex, & Scissoring(YouTube) and 1 of 2 of these Scissoring VS Tribbing(YouTube) seem to like it.)
 * 3) "It's also similar to men stating that two women can't do anything sexually valid together, and that their sexual acts together are 'essentially hugging.'" I didn't say they couldn't and I hope I didn't imply it.

Obvious tautology
Well, you have the sources, but what about logic? "Some lesbian and bisexual women do not engage in the scissoring position" means that "engaging in the scissoring position it is not a part of their sex lives" So if "Some lesbian and bisexual women do not engage in the scissoring position [...] because it is not a part of'' their sex lives." then "Some lesbian and bisexual women do not engage in the scissoring position [...] because engaging in the scissoring position it is not a part of their sex lives." then "For some lesbian and bisexual women engaging in the scissoring position it is not a part of their sex lives [...] because engaging in the scissoring position it is not a part of their sex lives." Which is an explicit tautology. Now a very simple analogous example:

"I do not have sex" means that "sex is not a part of my life". So if "I do not have sex because sex is not a part of my life" then "Sex is not a part of my life because sex is not a part of my life" Which is an explicit tautology. 85.193.195.22 (talk) 02:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * For the record, this is the edit (which I reverted) that the IP is talking about (followup edits by me are here and here). The IP reminds me of a registered editor I'm familiar with, but anyway. The IP (with a different IP address) showed up at this article back in December 2013; as seen here, here and here, I disagreed with the IP then as well, except for one part. Now, a year later, the IP is back and is focusing on the same paragraph.


 * IP, in my opinion, given the misinformation out there about lesbian sex, including that all lesbians engage in the scissoring position, it is important to mention that the reason that some lesbian women, or other women who have sex with women (WSW), do not engage in it is because they don't include it in their sex lives, not simply because of the other reasons that the article mentions they do not engage in it. Without the statement you want excluded, it makes it sound like, if not for the reasons listed, then lesbian women, or other women who have sex with women, engage in scissoring. Flyer22 (talk) 02:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I changed the sentence to: "Some lesbian and bisexual women do not engage in the scissoring position, because they find it physically uncomfortable, feel that it is not representative of lesbian sexual practices and is more attributable to the male fantasies of the heterosexual porn industry, or because it otherwise is not a part of their sex lives." Flyer22 (talk) 03:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Can't you really see that the problem is purely linguistic? I realize, that some lesbian do not engage in the scissoring position without a concrete reason. They simply do not have a custom of doing it, which can be phrased as follows: "it is not a part of their sex lives". However all these three sentences mean means the same. 85.193.195.22 (talk) 00:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The three reasons (named in my "03:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)" post above) are not the same; that's the issue for me. Those three reasons should be named. And, no, I don't see any problem with naming those three reasons. Flyer22 (talk) 00:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Then you still don't understand what a tautology means. 85.193.195.22 (talk) 01:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Then you still don't understand why the specific reasons that a lesbian or other WSW does not engage in scissoring should be listed, and you instead want us to be vague about it. I won't be agreeing to that. And I don't see why you are hung up on this matter, other than possibly wanting the matter to be as vague as possible or something along those lines. Flyer22 (talk) 01:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * And, for the record, others are watching this talk page and therefore this discussion; they seemingly don't care for this discussion, considering that they have not weighed in on it yet. Flyer22 (talk) 01:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Contradiction?
The article begins, "Tribadism...is a form of non-penetrative sex", but in the next paragraph it says that it "can also involve vaginal penetration by use of the fingers, a dildo or double penetration dildo". Aside from being an obvious contradiction, the implication here is that the absence of a penis is central to the very definition of the term. This is odd for multiple reasons. First: we don't generally define things on the basis of something that isn't present. ("What's a bicycle?" "It's a mode of transportation without doors." "Huh?") Second, much more significantly: for obvious reasons, defining an activity that occurs only between women in a way that specifically requires a penis seems, well, highly incongruent!

Is this contradiction maybe the result of citing sources that should not be relied upon? Or is this just one more example of things being defined on men's terms simply because of the history of sexism? -- Hux (talk) 02:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, Hux. Tribadism is defined as non-penetrative sex in some WP:Reliable sources. And what those sources mean is tribadism without the use of the fingers penetrating the vagina or anus, or a sex toy doing the penetrating. The fact that tribadism may involve penetrative sexual acts doesn't mean that tribadism is not non-penetrative sex. So the reason it states "non-penetrative sex" is not because of a lack of a penis (not usually anyway, disregarding the dictionaries' outdated, heterosexual take on tribadism), but rather because, for example, a vulva rubbing against a thigh is not usually considered penetrative sex. That stated, non-penetrative sex is not always defined consistently, as you can see by reading the lead and definitions section of the Non-penetrative sex article (those pieces are supported by WP:Reliable sources). And in some WP:Reliable sources, non-penetrative sex is indeed defined in a heteronormative way. Also, regarding sexual penetration, a woman with a prominent clitoris may penetrate the vulva or vagina of another woman. And women's labias might penetrate each other's during genital-to-genital tribadism. Because of the clitoris and labia thing, I had thought about adding that tribadism is sometimes penetrative.


 * To address your objection and reduce confusion, I could change the WP:Lead away from "Tribadism or tribbing, commonly known by its scissoring position, is a form of non-penetrative sex in which a woman rubs her vulva against her partner's body for sexual stimulation, especially for ample stimulation of the clitoris." to "Tribadism  or tribbing, commonly known by its scissoring position, is a sex act in which a woman rubs her vulva against her partner's body for sexual stimulation, especially for ample stimulation of the clitoris." And then I could move the "non-penetrative sex" part to the second paragraph, and alter the "In modern times" sentence. It could state: "In modern times, the term usually refers to various forms of frottage (non-penetrative sex) between women without any negative connotations, but may also involve vaginal penetration by use of the fingers, a dildo or double penetration dildo. It may also refer to a masturbation technique in which a woman rubs her vulva against an inanimate object such as a bolster to achieve orgasm." Flyer22 (talk) 06:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Update: I went ahead and changed the lead to this. Flyer22 (talk) 02:40, 6 August 2015‎ (UTC)


 * I think your edit makes things a lot more clear and consistent. And thanks for your detailed response! -- Hux (talk) 03:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, Hux. Flyer22 (talk) 04:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Tribadism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/social22.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lgf.org.uk/health-and-wellbeing/lesbian-and-bisexual-women-s-health/safer-sex-2/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Popularity of the term "scissoring"
With this edit, Aelffin removed content from the "Popular culture and other media" section. The content states that the term scissoring was popularized by South Park. Aelffin argued, "The term 'scissoring' was widely known before South Park; 'The Raw Story' and 'The Frisky' are not reliable sources for such a big claim."

I reverted, stating, "Being 'known before' is not the same as being 'popularized by.' Furthermore, the sources count as WP:Reliable." The Frisky and The Raw Story do count as reliable sources for this content. And, for the quote, WP:In-text attribution is included, which makes it clear that The Raw Story is making that specific claim. If Aelffin has WP:Reliable sources showing the popularity of the term scissoring before South Park, then I am open to changing the text at hand. If not, then we go by what the sources in the article state. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Going by the aforementioned sources, I should also probably change "The episode is credited with having popularized the term scissoring." to "The episode is credited with having brought more awareness to the act of scissoring.", or something like that. A lot of people who did not consider the act of genital-genital rubbing between women were made aware of it via that South Park episode, and the aforementioned sources are focusing on the act more than on the term. I'll go ahead and change the wording now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

With this edit, I changed "awareness" to "recognition," since "awareness" seems more like a social cause. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)