Talk:Woman on top (sex position)/Archive 1

Misc comments
I've never heard it called this in the UK -- Tarquin 10:06 May 12, 2003 (UTC)


 * What do we call it here? -- sannse 10:10 May 12, 2003 (UTC)


 * "Woman on top"? -- Anon.


 * yup. Don't ask me how I know, but The Joy of Sex calls it something along the lines of "riding St George"


 * Heh, that sounds like a good description. "Woman on top" is maybe not specific enough - there are a few possible positions that include that (so I'm told ;) -- sannse

About the "supporting herself on her hands": not needed in the sedate version of this position; however, more energetic versions of the same position may find the woman pushed forwards quite vigorously by what's going on under her... She can take her weight on her arms in that case, to restore balance / get a grip. Karada 20:33 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * Or her partner's arms. --Charles A. L. 23:44, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Following comments on the WikiEn-l mailing list about how Wikipedia must not be censored in any way, on e wiki-kiss to anyone who uploads a GFDL'd, encyclopedic image of a couple making love in the cowgirl sex position. Martin 22:04 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Uh, so, there's not really mention here that these names -- cowgirl position, reverse cowgirl position -- come from shorthand used in producing pornographic movies. I believe the clinical term for this sexual position is female superior. -- ESP 04:41 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

There are official clinical terms for sex positions? This is great news! Can you give some more? Can they make the "cowgirl"/"reverse cowgirl" distiction? -- Karada 17:42 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are clinical terms for sex positions. No, they mostly cover the basics -- male superior, female superior, male posterior. I only know the names from reading, can't cite sources, but I'll try to dig them up. It's probably worth noting that Cosmopolitan magazine and other women's magazines make up their own terms for positions -- the debt collector, explosive intimacy, yadda yadda. The porn industry terms aren't universal. -- ESP 00:16 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'd be really interested in a proper cite for the medical terms: the web is useless for this. At least doctors and the sex industry have a need for unambiguous terms; the women's magazines and sex manuals, as you say, seem to want to make up new names each time. -- Karada 13:16 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * I'll get right on it. Until then, could you give a cite for the current terms? I think we can find it in Hustler and Cheri. -- ESP 13:40 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Copyright Violation?
I think this article may be violating copyright. In searches I did on Google to find a GPL'd/GFDL'd image of the cowgirl sex position, I found this website. The article here on Wikipedia seems to be a near word for word copy of the text on the World Sex Explorer website. Does the author of that site provide permission for the text to be copied here? Until these questions are answered I recommend copyediting.--Flockmeal 22:54, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Au contraire. The article at www.worldsexexplorer.com appears to be a copy of the original GFDL'd article written here at Wikipedia. I know, because I wrote the first version. Please check the article history to see the many edits that created the Wikipedia article. We should contact worldsexexplorer.com's owners to ask them to comply with the GFDL licencing requirements. -- Karada 09:42, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * A quick look suggests that they may have also copied various other Wikipedia content. -- Karada 09:46, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * wow. if porn sites are using our content, we must be doing something right! ;) -- Tarquin 09:51, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Ok, I am corrected. Thanks, was just making sure. I'll remember to check the page history next time. --Flockmeal 22:55, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I just found another that seems to take its content directly from yours.


 * There are dozens of them. The known ones are listed here: Sites that use Wikipedia for content. If you find any that are not listed there, then please add them. --snoyes 07:16, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Woman on top
I've heard the name "woman on top" hundreds of times more frequently than "cowgirl". Would anybody agree or oppose that I rename it as such?--Sonjaaa 00:17, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)


 * I've heard the name "amazon" quite often, and it seems to be the standard naming in books; and had never heard "cowgirl" before. I wouldn't like to sound too homeric and fond of ancient Greek mythology, but I would really prefer something less mundane than "cow-girl". So I concure to the idea of renaming the article. Rama 00:50, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * That sounds good to me too. I suggest if no one seriously objects here on talk after say a week, go ahead and retitle the article. -- Infrogmation 00:56, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Why don't you do a redirect page? "Woman on top" sounds no less mundane to me than "cowgirl".  How about moving the page to "Reverse Missionary Position". Ttownfeen 21:24, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

A letter to Worldsexexplorer.Com about its plagiarism and copyright-infringement of us.
I wrote the following letter to Worldsexexplorer.Com about its plagiarism and copyright-infringement of us:

From:	Ŭalabio Subject:	 Copyrightviolation of WikiPedia.Org Date:	June 29, 2005 00:40:45 GMT To: 	

¡Hello!

¿How Fare You?

You copy much information from WikiPedia.Org. As an example

http://worldsexexplorer.com/cowgirl-sex.html

comes from an older version of

http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman_on_top_sex_position

We at WikiPedia.Org want to create a free and open Encyclopædia for the world. We do not mind people mirroring us. The more people mirror us the more people will benefit from our efforts. We do not even care whether people burn CDs or print the Encyclopædia and sell it, because, for some without Internet-Access, a CD of our Encyclopædia costing five dollars may be the only option. None need pay us royalties. We just want one thing: Recognition.

Our contributers work long and hard on our articles without pay. All they want is credit. To that end, all of WikiPedia.Org is licensed under the GPL. This is our licensing policy:

http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights

Basically, all you have to do is state that you got a the content from WikiPedia.Org and have link back to the original article (each article has history stored indicating who authored it). It is that simple to legitimize your use of our material. Not crediting WikiPedia.org and backlinking to the original article opens you up to potential lawsuits for legal liabilities such as plagiarism and copyright-infringement. All we ask is credit to WikiPedia.Org and a backlink to the original article so that people can see who authored it. We ask for so very little.

¡Thanks!

¡Pax!

¡Bye!

—

Ŭalabio

--

―	“It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.” —	Joseph Stalin, General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union

―	“I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.” —	Walden Wally O'Dell, Chairman and CEO of Diebold.Com — Self- -service, security, election and service solutions

—

&mdash; &#364;alabio June 29, 2005 01:23 (UTC)


 * Displayed right at the bottom of that article: This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Cowgirl Sex Position". It's been there for more than a year (according to archive.org, since June 17, 2004). So you sent that email for no reason at all. --DoubleCross 23:49, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Butt cheeks?
Is not the phrase "butt cheeks", used in this article, slang?

It certainly is here in the UK. Any suggestions for replacements ie. buttocks? Or should it be left as-is?


 * The intended tone is scientific, so slng is indeed out of place here (unless discussing slant intself obviously). Do feel free to correct to a better wording if you wish. Rama 14:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Feminism section
I have removed the brief section on feminism from this article. Not only did it not cite its sources, but the quote used did not follow from the introduction to the quote, and the entire quote itself seemed somewhat biased against men. --HarmonicFeather 07:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Is gender neutrality necessary here?
Do we really need to be gender neutral for a position called "woman on top"? I propose that this page be about the heterosexual position in which the woman is the receptive partner. Another page or pages can cover the other three possibilities. (Or alternatively, this page could have sections for each and should be renamed to something gender neutral. However, I think this is clunkier.)  This page should discuss specifics about the position. This can only be done if specific body parts are under discussion. If every phrase is neutered, then no real meaning can come across. --Strait 06:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that the specified "variants" in the article aren't really variants, they are in fact the same position. That's why I feel that "Woman on top sex position" isn't necessarily the best name for this article 194.109.22.148 17:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. What would be a better name; "reverse missionary" perhaps?  Joie de Vivre


 * Call me old fashioned, but I've got to believe that suggesting "how about a little 'receptive partner on top'?" has got to kill the mood. When will people learn to just drop the newspeak already? James Callahan 17:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "How about a little sexual intercourse" doesn't exactly inflame the loins either, but luckily we don't name articles based on what will arouse people. Joie de Vivre 18:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Really? Because I'm all for moving sexual intercourse to passionately fucking like bunnies, if there are no objections. James Callahan 03:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hee hee :P Joie de Vivre


 * As far as I'm aware sexual intercourse refers to the act in general and it doesn't really matter what position nor whether the partners are passionately fucking like bunnies, it's still sexual intercourse Nil Einne 10:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is an encylopaedia not a sex guide so killing the mood is somewhat irrelevant. Receptive partner on top is more inclusive and accurate since it doesn't matter if the partner on top is male or female nor does it matter if the partner at the bottom is male or female, it comes down to the same thing Nil Einne 10:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem with the gender neutrality is the near unreadability of the article. In the same paragraph the author uses they, them and their to alternatingly refer to the two different people.  I know what they is (do you still use singular verbs when you use a plural pronoun to refer to a single person?) trying to say, and I can't follow it. Ditch the politically-correct speech.  Use proper English.  People may get uptight about it, but at least they'll know what you're saying.  If you insist on being a crowd pleaser, at least label them person A and person B, and use those monikers instead of calling each person the same thing.  98.212.172.93 (talk) 22:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Still Some Gender Bias
I modified the Features section to remove some gender bias, and added a note to that effect:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Septegram (talk • contribs)

Merging reverse cowgirl
That article was short, i merged as a section in this article. Comments welcome. Thanks. Lara_bran 03:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Receptive partner on top
It seems like title "Receptive partner on top" is original research, i see no google hits. Moving to "Cowgirl position", or "Woman on top (sex position)" would be appropriate. Thanks. Lara_bran 04:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Variants and Use in pornography
Are you sure they belong to the reverse position and not to the general position? -79.183.0.151 (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Somebody changed it this month to reflect the latter. -82.81.228.66 (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Scene on Jason Goes to Hell
In the part where Michelle Clunie has sex with that guy, there is something that does relate to this sex position. Can we create a picture of that and put it on the article? It would give viewers of what it looks like in real life from the drawing. 72.209.10.107 (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Article Renaming
I am suggesting that we rename this page to Receiver on top or Receiving partner on top or something similar. Right now it is not a gay friendly title, and lets be honest, who has more anal sex then gay people?  C t j f 8 3 Talk 18:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In so far as I can see, the article only refers to heterosexual sex. The positions the article describes would be different if anal sex were involved. to be perfectly blunt about it, the only gay people that could partake of these positions as decribed would be lesbians where one of them was wearing a strap-on... in which case woman on top is quite acceptable - a woman would indeed be on top. Crimsone (talk) 13:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually one of the pictures shows anal sex between two males so I would say this position is easily accomplished by two gay men. Not only that but common sense should tell you that it would be easily doable.
 * Hmm the article seems to support that it applies to anal sex as well Nil Einne (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It mentions several times that these positions can be used for anal sex, which would be gay anal sex, not just for women on top.  C t j f 8 3 Talk 18:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes but it's certainly not the position most associated with anal sex is it? I don't want to be graphic, but that would be rear entry, wouldn't it?:) I disagree with renaming the article, who is going to google for 'receiver on top', far less people will than for this (if anyone even enters this.  It's not the most commonly used name amongst the general population, which is what we tend to name articles after, per WP:MOS.  Like it or not, the gay use of an 'on top ' position isn't as well known, and it could be mentioned here but also be well covered in bottom as in recipient, or whichever is the article about that role.

"Recipient on top" doesn't even uually refer to that act and is rarely used as a specific phrase, the highest google entry about it is for something to do with roofing!  woman on top is used 1000s of times more often. We can't use wikipedia to create the notability we think terms should have, to do that with language you would need to contribute to a special political correctness wiki. Sticky Parkin 22:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Search results shouldn't be a criteria for naming an article. Of course a search result with "woman on top" will get a lot more results then "receiver on top" or some sort of gay search. My proposal is more inclusive.  C t j f 8 3 Talk 22:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My point is that it's the most commonly used name- i.e. it follows policy. You could make policies for this change on your own "Ctjf83's political correctness wiki", but it doesn't meet the policies of this wiki. Sticky Parkin 22:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

"Woman on top" is what it's called. Should we rename spoons sex position because people are not spoons? What if you have a forked penis? --NE2 01:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I hardly see the relevance of your argument about spoons to this argument.  C t j f 8 3 Talk 01:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Person on top:woman::either person:spoon --NE2 03:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Person on top can be either...in gay terms we call it "riding" the penis.  C t j f 8 3 Talk 04:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point. You use the name that's most common, in this case, woman on top. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  05:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, let's be blunt: bad faith proposal. If this was a good faith proposal we'd see discussion, instead all we get is restating the original argument. If we're going to do ridiculous things such as this, then we have the right to go through every single LGBT article and remove each and every gay or lesbian specific term. Scissor sisters will be scissor recepient/reciever pairing. There is a point where your desire for aimless, pointless political correctness has to bow to common sense. If we're talking about anal sex, then it should be in the anal sex article, and the anal sex article can say there is a recipient on top position for anal sex. Renaming a common term to a made up neologism just to satisfy heterophobic fears that it doesn't kowtow to the fact that gay people can have sex in this method isn't going to fly. Make it fit WP:V WP:RS and WP:NOT a battleground and a rename is great. When it doesn't, it comes out as drama stirring. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 17:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What the hell are you talking about?! Renaming scissor sisters to scissor recipient is illogical, and ignorant to even suggest, even if for some sort of argument sake. I'm not talking about renaming a band name, i'm talking about a sex position, which has no sources that says that is some sort of official name for the sex position. For all I know, the article creator just decided to go with that name. Also, why don't u AGF instead of bad faith. If I were you, I'd be embarrassed to call this a bad faith proposal, without a deletion or strike out.  C t j f 8 3 Talk 17:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see you entering into discussion on the issue. I see no attempt to find consensus. Your argument is based neither on policy nor on common and frequent usage but on the fact that it isn't "gay friendly" (to which I bemusedly suggest that lesbians using external toys are indeed "woman on top"). Three different points have been put forth -- that the correct place to note the issue regarding anal sex is the anal sex article; that we use the most common name and not the name you like; and that the article specifically and repeatedly refers to hetrosexual sex. I would have no problem supporting and helping to source an article about the gay version of this sexual position. I would be delighted to work with you to expand the anal sex article to include any pertinent information from this article. But I cannot accept that you are acting in any way except as a biased participant in the idea of renaming this article based on "gay friendliness". Of course the scissoring suggestion is ridiculous -- and so is this. I call it like I see it. Discussion, which would involve you actually answering the points raised, is a key component of consensus. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 18:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Like I pointed out, where is a source that says this is the actual name of the sexual position? For all I know, the article creator just made up the name s/he had heard or used in personal context. Also, with your negative attitude, and assuming bad faith, I would never work on any article with you.  C t j f 8 3 Talk 18:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * FAIL. It's called woman-on-top coitus. You have a source for your ridiculous politically correct name? I very strongly doubt it, since the most common name for what you're talking about is, gasp...gay anal sex position. I'm not trying to be obstructive or mean. But I am not going to play silly games when people go off being pointy, or ignore reality. There is objective sourcing for what the article is named. There is NOTHING for what you suggest. Have a nice day. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 18:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The "Woman on top" title is appropriate and describes accurately what happens in life. So we should keep that title. Zoodly (talk) 04:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should remove all other parts of this article so it remains dealing exclusively with heterosexual vaginal intercourse and create another page that is named "Receptive Partner on Top" that includes: heterosexual and homosexual anal intercourse, and homosexual vaginal intercourse with gender neutral language. I see a valid argument in wanting it to remain what it is because its a specific sexual position colloquially, but since there is no valid source naming it as such, it weakens that point. Even if there is a separate article wouldn't it be basically the same thing except having gender-neutral language and have more of a general nature and thus be redundant? Since that would be needlessly onerous and complicated I suggest renaming it "Receptive Partner on Top" and have "Woman on Top" redirect here with its own major section and therefore would retain the status it supposedly has according to those against renaming. Thus the article would be inclusive and wouldn't superfluously create another article dealing with the same thing under a different name and it would have its own section identifying it as having its own cultural status.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 04:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that idea was well discussed above, and has not seen any activity since March since the majority is tending to the status quo. The current name is in general parlance and should stay. One could always construct a Gay man on top page if it was deemed necessary.  Ron h jones (Talk) 20:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this picture acceptable?
picture : File:Sex intercourse.jpg. The picture is currently in the article. I'm not sure whether it's acceptable for Wikipedia. I think it was deleted once. 142.166.206.166 (talk) 03:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Or, we could just look at this: WP:NOTCENSORED So yes, it is acceptable. 69.86.1.10 (talk) 04:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To answer that question, allow us to ask ourselves a few questions: 1: Is there a copyright issue? Not as far as I am aware. 2: Does the image help illustrate the topic? Admittedly, it isn't the best angle, but yes. 3: Is the image illegal? No.

Regardless this photo is in poor taste and I feel that it should be removed or risk taking back all of the good graces that Wikipedia has gained in recent times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.29.149.11 (talk) 04:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think taste is relevant. If taste was a factor, many photos on Wikipedia should be removed, as many of them have really poor quality (for my taste). And God forbid people to see how human sexuality looks like. Even kids see more details in schoolbooks, when they learn about human sexuality. Kirjapan (talk) 02:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

right... Did you read what the original Flickr title was on the file page? This is just too hilarious. Very tasteful, wikipedia. --166.205.7.186 (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't it acceptable it illustrates the point of the article, it could be a better angle or view. Taste hasn't got anything to do with it as long as the picture illustrates what is in the article then any image is fine as long as it doesn't break the rules on wikipedia--Scorpio95 22:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpio95 (talk • contribs)

I strongly support WP:NOTCENSORED, and have advocated keeping images involving nudity and/or sexual content in the past. In this case, however, I do not think that this particular image adds enough to the article to be worth keeping. The other images are, in my opinion, much better illustrations of the subject matter. This one adds a bit of shock value, without constituting any real improvement to the article. --Icarus (Hi!) 23:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Icarus3. This image adds nothing other than graphic shock value and doesn't do anything to improve the article.  WP is not censored, however at the same time WP does not have a goal to try to offend.  This image has been removed by many distinct contributors, but has been repeatedly added in by multiple SPAs.    7  22:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that WP:NOTCENSORED nicely applies. Let's leave the image in place for now, unless someone else has a better one to replace it. True, the angle is not great, but it's hardly tasteless with respect to the article's content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.23.182 (talk) 20:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * One thing is for certain:- the correct way to deal with this issue is to work out a consensus, not delete and re-add. My personal position is that body parts need at least one photograph so readers can see what the thing actually looks like, and sex positions need a clear illustration of some sort so readers can understand what's going on.  I prefer artwork to photos for sex position articles because it's generally clearer and photos give the page the feel of the sleazier parts of the web.  Further illustrations should always add something to the article:- more information, artistic interest, historical interest, beauty, whatever.  I don't agree with the test Can this article cope without this material? which is what censors like to apply, but you must be able to say Yes to Does this material add anything to the article?.  My own view is that this is a poor image and should go. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no real preference to keep the picture or not - I've ended up watching this page after reverting a bad edit with WP:HG. What I would like to say is that Simon Speed is quite correct in seeing the need to obtain a consensus to delete the picture. The reverts were becoming quicker and there is always a danger of being accused of edit warring when that starts to happen. Hopefully that situation will not arise. So far I see... There is a sight majority for, I would suggest that is "no concensus" either way at present, and leave the picture unless there is a significant increase in the "against". I did note that Simon suggested that we need "clear illustrations", - I would therefore also question the use of the Carracci05.jpg picture - which is hardly a clear illustration, and it not really what I would call a typical position. Finally, as regard to the question of "poor taste" and what should be on Wikipedia - I hardly think that this picture is going to make much difference - compared with the (literally) hundreds of pictures at commons:Category:Sexual intercourse in humans - maybe one of those pictures might better suit the article - I've not checked them all.  Ron h jones (Talk) 01:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * For 69.86.1.10, Kirjapan, 166.205.7.186, Scorpio95,  92.41.23.182
 * Against 99.29.149.11, Icarus, Simon Speed
 * Neutral Me(Ronhjones), 7
 * I have moved myself to neutral above, because I believe in WP:NOTCENSORED, and I have no objection against this type of image (despite it being incredibly unflattering). My involvement here stems the appearance of multiple SPAs which continue to add this image back in despite multiple (non-SPA) editors desire to remove it.  If the SPAs are indeed the same user then they are in violation of policy.  I have not (yet) filed a WP:SPI but will continue to be wary of the following users until their edit habits show a bit more diversity:  User:Mikegmsg, User:Why-Fi, User:Naturalist2, and a few Southern US IP addresses - all of which have made no edits other than to add this picture back in.   7  01:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you User:7. If as many people had come here as had added/removed that  picture then we may have got a better idea of the overall wish of the community. I agree that it's not flattering, but then again what photo of two people having sex is?  I do hope you manage to resolve the issue of possible WP:SPI one way or the other. I don't see the need to have the picture on this page as well, so I'm taking it off and just leaving the file name instead  Ron h jones (Talk) 22:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI - Sockpuppet investigations/Naturalist2.  7  01:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

There has been a similar debate on the discussion page of the Sexual intercouse article. In that discussion it was dicided that the illustrations used in sex education would be less controversial and more educational. I would also like to point out that there are currently no images of real sex on the Sexual intercouse article or any other sex possition articles. I am also pesonaly against the image.(Tk420 (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC))

I believe that given the guidance in WP:NOTCENSORED, this picture should be removed. One of the conditions used to determine whether material is allowed is that it must adhere to the laws of Florida, which is where the wikipedia servers are hosted. This includes federal law. If you consider the the requirements of US Code, Title 18, Section 2257, wikipedia must maintain well-documented records of each person in any pornographic media it hosts in order to ensure that the participants are of legal age and able to consent. I don't see any feasible way wikipedia could do this record keeping for this picture and it is certainly not doing it at this time. So, this picture should be removed. By the way, I personally have no problem with the image itself and think that while it is redundant because of the drawings above, it is produced in good taste and is appropriate for the article. However, I do believe it is not legal for Wikipedia to host it and not adhere to the US Code I mentioned earlier.(Kjkeefe (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 04:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC).

The disputed image is still being added and removed all the time and it appears to be added by unconfirmed users. That didn't happen so often when this article was semi protected. The Sexual intercouse article is semi protected so I recommend this article is also semi protected permanantly.(Tk420 (talk) 13:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC))

I have removed the image from time to time, as per the consensus expressed in the RFC. Clearly there is one person adding it every time using different computers to log in and make it look like different people. I suspect they may have some personal relationship to the picture or the people in it. This is hardly the worst thing to ever get foisted on the Wikipedia, but I don't think a determined individual who is prepared to edit war should be allowed to dictate a page's contents. --Simon Speed (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the image again, as per RFC - it clearly adds nothing that the diagrams don't, other than shock value/titillation -- Boing!   said Zebedee  09:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems like everyone is against this particular image, which I have no problem with because of its shock value, but I think a real (not drawn illustration)image should be used in this article. There are several real life images on the sex position article and it should be fair to use real life images on this article as well. (Gordomebix (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC))


 * The RfC, below, was decided only in January - I seriously doubt anything has changed in the meantime to reverse it. -- Boing!   said Zebedee  21:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The image does not violate the laws of the state of Florida. Also, it is not obscene under federal law as obscenity.  Also, Wikipedia is not subject to US Code, Title 18, Section 2257 for reporting as was indicated earlier.  So, the disclaimer and the records of persons in each photograph are not required for Wikipedia.  Wikipedia does not allow photographs produced by others with images of minors.  Wikipedia is not a primary or secondary producer of pornography for commercial use.  That is because Wikipedia does not produce the images, and also does not use any image for commercial use.  The law is applicable to a person, including any individual, corporation, or other organization, that produce pornography for commercial distribution.  The law explicitly does not refer to noncommercial or educational distribution of such matter, including transfers conducted by bona fide lending libraries, museums, schools, or educational organizations.


 * The decision to place an image in an article should focus on whether the image benefits the article in expressing the topic of that article. The decision is not based on whether it may shock or offend some people, or whether some people feel that an image may be obscene.


 * In this specific case, a recent survey to find consensus on this image occurred. The editors developed a consensus that the image was not appropriate for *this* article based on editorial standards.  Atom (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment: Including a disputed image in this article
Following up on the above discussion Is this picture acceptable?, I'm filing this RfC to see if we can get definitive consensus on whether or not to include the image File:Sex intercourse.jpg in this article. --Muchness (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Not appropriate for this article - This picture may be acceptable for use in other articles (although I don't know where, because even Amateur pornography does not provide samples) but does not add any encyclopedic value to this article beyond what the line drawings and old artwork already depict. Note that none of the other sexual position articles contain this style picture.   7  00:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have seen some other discussion on category:sex articles about the same problem - "picture or drawing". The result was drawing on the basis that there was no evidence of permission given from all the people in the photograph. That seems a reasonable argument to put forward. This particular picture is from Flickr, which makes it harder to test that question. Maybe we need to modify a policy to fix this problem once and for all - as this is not going to be the last page that has this problem. And on that basis I shall vote! for Not appropriate  Ron h jones (Talk) 02:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope The multiple images already illustrate the subject more than adequately, it's not rocket science. There's no benefit from it so no need to bother venturing near the censorship>y/n? mire. Someoneanother 02:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not appropriate for this article - This image provides no benefit to the article. A drawing would be more appropriate. Calvin (talk) 02:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure if the question is (1) if this kind of picture is acceptable, is this particular picture acceptable? or (2) is this kind of picture acceptable at all? If it's the former, it's just a primarily a question of whether it merits inclusion.  If it's the latter, I'm not clear on where Wikipedia stands legally regarding pictures of intercourse.  Sexual_content, WikiProject_Sexology_and_sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines, WP:Pornography, Photographs of identifiable people, Nudity, Historic debates are some pages that seem relevant. Шизомби (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not appropriate The drawings sufficient add to the content of the article.  The photograph merely adds shock value while raising legal issues due to its pornographic nature. Eastshire (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not appropriate – as mentioned above, the line drawings provide sufficient anatomical information, and the various artistic depictions provide variety. That file is nothing but a can of worms, for all the reasons mentioned above.  Comment to Shizombi – per the RfC as opened by the requesting editor, I take this to be only a discussion of the suitability of this image for this article.  If we want to establish a policy/guideline about photographs of real people performing sex acts, we'd better do that at some more centralized page.  I also suspect that that question has come and gone several times; my impression is that consensus rests with the line drawings.  —  æk Talk  05:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not appropriate – Wikipedia might be in for some legal weather when you take into account that most nations require prior notice before showing explicit content. Marxmorley (talk) 12:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No Where to begin? The image is grainy, badly focused, incorrectly lit, and suffers from a diseased composition which reduces people to their pelvises. In any other context, this photograph would be considered utter junk. The article's existing illustrations are far more informative in any event. Having no encyclopaedic purpose, the inclusion of this photo could only suggest puerile exploitation for shock value. Jennifer500 (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

That picture
We seem to be getting endless reverts to the agreed consensus of not showing the photo, by IP users. I've taken the bold step of semi protecting for a month.  Ron h jones (Talk) 20:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Move?

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Woman on top (sex position) → —
 * unnecessary dab —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Woman on top" can also mean a woman in charge of an organization or team, and similar. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The current title is unambiguous, but the suggested title would be ambiguous. I know there's currently no need for an actual disambig page, but for subjects like this I think it's best for the title to be explicit -- Boing!   said Zebedee  10:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose I prefer more clarity to less. --Simon Speed (talk) 10:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Cause not only having sex women are on top :) Sarah desan (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is an Article about a film - Woman on Top, making the difference between two pages to just a letter case is not on. In fact Woman on Top and Woman on top should link to a proper DAB for the two Articles, and call the film Woman on Top (film).  Ron h jones (Talk) 00:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per  Ron h jones . Woman on top rightly is a dab-page. The only problem I see is the article on the film, which should be moved to Woman on Top (film). Janfrie1988 (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just proposed that page name be changed - Talk:Woman_on_Top  Ron h jones (Talk) 23:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

That photo
I've just removed yet another re-addition of the photo discussed above - hope we're not in for another attack of it from IP editors. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment: Including a disputed image in this article
Following up on the above discussion Is this picture acceptable?, I'm filing this RfC to see if we can get definitive consensus on whether or not to include the image File:Sex intercourse.jpg in this article. --Muchness (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Not appropriate for this article - This picture may be acceptable for use in other articles (although I don't know where, because even Amateur pornography does not provide samples) but does not add any encyclopedic value to this article beyond what the line drawings and old artwork already depict. Note that none of the other sexual position articles contain this style picture.   7  00:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have seen some other discussion on category:sex articles about the same problem - "picture or drawing". The result was drawing on the basis that there was no evidence of permission given from all the people in the photograph. That seems a reasonable argument to put forward. This particular picture is from Flickr, which makes it harder to test that question. Maybe we need to modify a policy to fix this problem once and for all - as this is not going to be the last page that has this problem. And on that basis I shall vote! for Not appropriate  Ron h jones (Talk) 02:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope The multiple images already illustrate the subject more than adequately, it's not rocket science. There's no benefit from it so no need to bother venturing near the censorship>y/n? mire. Someoneanother 02:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not appropriate for this article - This image provides no benefit to the article. A drawing would be more appropriate. Calvin (talk) 02:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure if the question is (1) if this kind of picture is acceptable, is this particular picture acceptable? or (2) is this kind of picture acceptable at all? If it's the former, it's just a primarily a question of whether it merits inclusion.  If it's the latter, I'm not clear on where Wikipedia stands legally regarding pictures of intercourse.  Sexual_content, WikiProject_Sexology_and_sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines, WP:Pornography, Photographs of identifiable people, Nudity, Historic debates are some pages that seem relevant. Шизомби (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not appropriate The drawings sufficient add to the content of the article.  The photograph merely adds shock value while raising legal issues due to its pornographic nature. Eastshire (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not appropriate – as mentioned above, the line drawings provide sufficient anatomical information, and the various artistic depictions provide variety. That file is nothing but a can of worms, for all the reasons mentioned above.  Comment to Shizombi – per the RfC as opened by the requesting editor, I take this to be only a discussion of the suitability of this image for this article.  If we want to establish a policy/guideline about photographs of real people performing sex acts, we'd better do that at some more centralized page.  I also suspect that that question has come and gone several times; my impression is that consensus rests with the line drawings.  —  æk Talk  05:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not appropriate – Wikipedia might be in for some legal weather when you take into account that most nations require prior notice before showing explicit content. Marxmorley (talk) 12:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No Where to begin? The image is grainy, badly focused, incorrectly lit, and suffers from a diseased composition which reduces people to their pelvises. In any other context, this photograph would be considered utter junk. The article's existing illustrations are far more informative in any event. Having no encyclopaedic purpose, the inclusion of this photo could only suggest puerile exploitation for shock value. Jennifer500 (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

That picture
We seem to be getting endless reverts to the agreed consensus of not showing the photo, by IP users. I've taken the bold step of semi protecting for a month.  Ron h jones (Talk) 20:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Move?

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Woman on top (sex position) → —
 * unnecessary dab —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Woman on top" can also mean a woman in charge of an organization or team, and similar. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The current title is unambiguous, but the suggested title would be ambiguous. I know there's currently no need for an actual disambig page, but for subjects like this I think it's best for the title to be explicit -- Boing!   said Zebedee  10:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose I prefer more clarity to less. --Simon Speed (talk) 10:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Cause not only having sex women are on top :) Sarah desan (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is an Article about a film - Woman on Top, making the difference between two pages to just a letter case is not on. In fact Woman on Top and Woman on top should link to a proper DAB for the two Articles, and call the film Woman on Top (film).  Ron h jones (Talk) 00:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per  Ron h jones . Woman on top rightly is a dab-page. The only problem I see is the article on the film, which should be moved to Woman on Top (film). Janfrie1988 (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just proposed that page name be changed - Talk:Woman_on_Top  Ron h jones (Talk) 23:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

That photo
I've just removed yet another re-addition of the photo discussed above - hope we're not in for another attack of it from IP editors. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Squatting Position
Squatting Position is not well defined. there is no photo either.

some photos: here, here, and here.--78.162.169.51 (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sadly we cannot pinch photos from other sites unless they are clearly defined as "public domain" or a suitable "creative commons" license - I doubt if any of those will be allowed.  Ron h jones (Talk) 18:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Inserting partner
"the inserting partner lies on his or her back". Should it not be enough with the "his" part here? Surely a woman does not have anything to insert?? --Oddeivind (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That depends on the type of woman in question (Transgender), and what she's into (Strap-on dildo) --24.12.0.7 (talk) 07:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

History and Culture
Why is there no section about cultural views of Woman on top position? There is such things written about missionary position. I think it would be interesting to read about historical and cultural views on this position. But I do not know anything about those things. Cannot someone get such facts, please? Mr Fang 72 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrFang72 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed addition
Any reason not to make this addition: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woman_on_top_(sex_position)&diff=prev&oldid=509970602 ? 150.135.161.113 (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we are talking about this little gif video thumb|Reverse cowgirl (sitting). I object to it because it has the look and feel of internet porn. This is absolutely the sort of thing you'd see on Xhamster or YouPorn. Somebody viewing the page (or somebody looking over that person's shoulder) would gain an impression that this was a pornographic page rather than an educational one. It would not in fact change the nature of the page, but one of the conditions for the page working as education is that the viewers (and maybe people looking over their shoulders) accept it as such. That said, it's not a bad illustration of the subject and would help an ignorant viewer's understanding. --Simon Speed (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll suppose, for the sake of discussion, that the proposed image is an instance of "porn", i.e., "the explicit portrayal of sexual subject matter". You assume, "Somebody viewing the page (or somebody looking over that person's shoulder) would gain an impression that this was a pornographic page rather than an educational one," but why can't it be both? It illustrates the subject specificly, clearly, and in detail. Shouldn't our concern be the actual nature of the page, and not how it might be "accepted" by some bystander looking over people's shoulders? 150.135.161.113 (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've nominated this image for deletion (which would stop its use anyway). The reasons should not be discussed here, but on the deletion page. Please contribute there. --Simon Speed (talk) 20:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, but your nomination hasn't been ratified, so this discussion here should remain live. 150.135.161.113 (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved. — ΛΧΣ  21  03:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Woman on top (sex position) → Woman on top – Title redirects here already. Unreal7 (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong support. For the position, and for the title move. DeistCosmos (talk) 02:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Amazon Position
no mention of the Amazon Position? as described here: http://badgirlsbible.com/amazon-sex-position  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.29.87.28 (talk) 07:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Cowboy style position
There has been an edit war over adding new material. Try to work it out here. --Malerooster (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I've also seen the edit warring. Regarding the content at hand, we do sometimes include a similar aspect in a Wikipedia article when there is no home for the topic. Heterophobia redirects to a section of the Homophobia article after much discussion, for example. But the content being disputed can go in the Top, bottom and versatile article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Heteronormativity and bias within the article
I strongly oppose the removal of the section on Cowboy position; and frankly, I'm not even sure that is sufficient. If the article's coverage is simply exclusively about positions where women are on top, why not include a wide range of sexual positions in which the woman is on top of the man, but is penetrating him? The fact is that the article has come to principally refer to a selection of sex positions (i.e cowgirl, reverse missionary, etc) which are widely covered but not necessarily exclusive to women.

The entire narration of the article is very heteronormative in the sense that it limits all content as having to fit within a certain narrow lens of positions wherein a woman rests on top of a man and is penetrated by him; there is ample and sufficient online and print coverage of positions which fall outside this lens.

Beyond that, I think that an article for "Men on top" should exist if this one is to exist. The easier solution would be to conduct a move or rename the article so that all of the very relevant and interconnected content can remain in one place. It's a bit of an awkward/touchy subject, so please feel free to discuss beforehand so that we a mutual solution can be reached.

<b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b><sup style="color:purple">and <b style="color:lime">Flopped</b> <b style="color:grey"> ツ</b> 22:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Flipandflopped, regarding this, per what I stated here, I don't mind the content being covered in this article since it's likely not WP:Notable enough for its own Wikipedia article and it is a comparative topic. But we follow the literature with WP:Due weight and there is no systematic bias policy on Wikipedia. WP:GLOBAL is an essay. WP:Due weight is policy. The literature on "woman on top" is about a woman being on top; it's explicitly about that. Not only do we need to adhere to WP:Due weight and not try to add false balance (see WP:False balance), we need to make sure that the sources comply with the WP:Reliable sources guideline. As for "man on top," it already exists, and we follow the literature on that with WP:Due weight as well. If the literature is heteronormative, the Wikipedia article will be that way as well. We do not try to rail against the literature here on Wikipedia. Read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. If you reply to me on this, there is no need to WP:Ping me since this article is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You make valid points. I agree that the extent of coverage means we should give further weight to the positions/topics already covered. I was unaware of much of that as I'm only an occasional contributor to the wiki, so thank you for the correction! With that being said, I do believe that there is (even if only marginal) room for expansion with regards to the topics I mentioned. An equally small subsection could probably be added that is solely dedicated to women on top, but in the penetrative role, as I'm sure there is literature on that subject. I feel omitting it would be a wrong, and against the spirit of the WP: GLOBAL essay you mentioned if not in direct violation of policy. Thank you again for your patience! <b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b><sup style="color:purple">and <b style="color:lime">Flopped</b> <b style="color:grey"> ツ</b> 22:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Flipandflopped, thanks for looking into the matter and understanding. I don't mind pegging being included at all as long as WP:Reliable sources specifically tie it to the "woman on top" position. We have to avoid WP:OR. I see that you mentioned pegging in the cowboy section you added. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Pegging, sure. Men on top, no. We'd have to change the name of the article. If we need to change the target of so be it (and then we can add a "See also" link) but as it currently stands the Cowboy section should be removed. Primefac (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Primefac, there is no need to change the title of an article to add comparative material to an article. We add comparative material to a number of different kinds of Wikipedia articles, including medical or anatomy articles. For example, comparative anatomy. Comparative material might be about terms or concepts. We include them because the sources specifically compare the matters, which makes a mention in the article understandable and not off-topic. As for "man on top," the "man on top position" is a synonym for the missionary position, which is why it is in the lead of that article as its WP:Alternative title. So we shouldn't be creating a WP:POV fork just to address same-sex male pairings or otherwise. The Missionary position article does address same-sex couples. The cowyboy material could go in the "Anal sex, tribadism and other aspects" section of the Missionary position article. But the material under question is being compared to the cowgirl position, which is why it's better suited for a spot in this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In that case, may I suggest a change of the section header? There's a little bit of a MOS:EGG/SURPRISE situation when an article about the "woman on top" suddenly discusses only-males interactions. Primefac (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure. What do you have in mind? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't call it a MOS:EGG issue or a big WP:Principle of least astonishment issue, though, since the article is mainly about women being on top and then has that small piece of comparative material. How about changing the heading to "Comparison to the cowboy position," and moving the pegging sentence to a different section in the article? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2018‎ (UTC)

Works for me. Primefac (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Good compromise. I'm fine with the article in its current state as well. Cheers. <b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b><sup style="color:purple">and <b style="color:lime">Flopped</b> <b style="color:grey"> ツ</b> 14:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Might this be renamed to "Partner on Top"?
This is redirected from the Lil Nas X song Montero (Call Me by Your Name). He is a man. Men are penetrated while having sex on top as well as women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:C602:E870:7D99:E32:2537:3698 (talk) 04:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 6 April 2021
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved, and with a reception likely to strongly discourage near-future requests. Hopefully a prompt close will stem the developing argument about whose idea of an 'encyclopedic topic' is wrong. Consensus in this discussion is strongly in the direction that any such move would be OR/SYNTH violating article title policies. (closed by non-admin page mover) <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 14:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Woman on top → ? – Works regardless of gender; LGBT people exist. This has already been discussed to death before, with the consesus generally going along the lines of "WP:OR, may be relevant elsewhere" with little more.

I feel a less heteronormative title may be necessary, though I fear I lack the knowledge on sex positions (spare me the jokes) to find a better suited title that isn't WP:OR Orcaguy (talk) 11:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * What if we just add the opening line "In heterosexual sex…" Kokopelli7309 (talk) 14:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose ridiculous notion bordering on WP:POINT/WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. If OP can't come up with an alternative title, then we shouldn't do their work for them. This title is the clear common name. Speedy close. --Netoholic @ 18:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, alright then. I guess I didn't make my points entirely clear then.
 * 1) "Woman on top" doesn't necessarily always refer to heterosexual vaginal intercourse: see pegging, in which the woman is also on top.
 * 2) The positions described in the article aren't necessarily exclusive to women.
 * Neither of which are included in the article, as they're beyond the scope of the article: WP:SPECIFIC.
 * In any case, I'll ignore the dismissive nature of your reply and give a suggestion: Receiving partner on top, which is the terminology used at sex position, though it seems to either be WP:OR or obfuscated in the "further reading" section. The reason I didn't give a suggestion is 1. other users have already suggested "receiving partner on top" before, and have had it turned down (albeit a decade ago), 2. other users could potentially have better ones, and 3. wading through porn searches on Google seems like an unproductive use of my time.
 * Usage of "receiving partner on top":  and possibly others, but again, wading through porn searches late at night is not my cup of tea, personally.


 * Best regards, Orcaguy (talk) 00:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "Receiving partner on top" is an obscure usage (one I'd wager actually originates in this unsourced edit to the Wikipedia sex position article because I can't find sources which pre-date it). That phrase also obfuscates the topic of this article, which is intentionally focused on heterosexual relations - "Woman on top" is the COMMONNAME for this. -- Netoholic @ 01:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. This article isn't about gay or lesbian sex in which neither or both of the partners are women. It's about a specific set of acts by this name involving the geometric positioning of the couple. Pegging is not called "topping" in the top, bottom, and versatile sense used in the gay community. Of the 3 sources mentioned above, one is some op-ed from Malaysia, and another is a book about "post-human sexuality", whatever that is, but this article is about what humans do. Crossroads -talk- 04:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per nom (!): "This has already been discussed to death before, with the conse[n]sus generally going along the lines of "WP:OR ...". So,, this self-defeating proposal should never have been opened. Yes, it should be speedily closed as WP:POINTy, WP:GREATWRONGS grandstanding. This is not ForceTheLanguageToChangePedia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Certainly this warrants renaming, for WP:PRECISION, balancing WP:POV, and countering WP:BIAS. It is not “righting great wrongs” to point out that woman is not the sole object of sex, so why do we even place “woman” as an object in this title at all? Why not just remove non-defining gender from the reference, and at the same time be more WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENT with titles in Category:Sex positions, with On top or On top (sex position)? —Michael Z. 21:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Since this RM could close soon, pinging user:Orcaguy, user:Crossroads, user:SMcCandlish for their opinions on this newly introduced idea. —Michael Z. 22:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Because 'sex positions where one partner is on top of another somehow' is not a coherent or encyclopedic topic. The WP:BIAS essay doesn't supersede what WP:NPOV says about the due weight of reliable sources being how we judge neutrality. Combating systemic bias means not failing to include reliably sourced material becuase of our own failure to notice it because of our social position. It does not mean engaging in original research and neutrality violations in the other direction to fit personal ideas of what great wrongs need to be righted or to de-gender everything. Crossroads -talk- 04:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Which reliable sources say “on top” doesn’t refer to sex unless it’s preceded by “woman,” and then it transforms into a “coherent encyclopedic topic”? Sounds like balderdash. —Michael Z. 05:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * [Followup discussion taken to User talk:Mzajac.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)]

Inclusivity
Agree with the previous discussion. There's not even a single mention in the entire article about anything but heterosexual sex. The article is filled with "when the woman..." Why don't these things also apply to men? The article is pointlessly exclusive. The position or the topics discussed aren't exclusive to heterosexual couples, so why does the article give that impression? 73.128.151.200 (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This is an article specifically about a heterosexual sex act. For gay sex, we have top, bottom, and versatile. As said when replying on the talk page of a user from the previous discussion: It is that "on top" as a phrase that could refer to various sexual situations/practices is not an encyclopedic topic. It's "not a thing", as the kids say today. "Woman on top" is a stock phrase with a clear referent, a subject about which many sources have been written. "On top" as a phrase in reference to sex[uality], regardless of which party is doing what and who is what sex/gender, does not qualify. By way of a direct (noun-preposition-object) analogy, "clerk of court" (also "clerk of the court" or "clerk to the court", depending on jurisdiction) is a real legal term-of-art, and is an encyclopedic topic. Just "of court" or "of the court" or "to the court" by itself is not (and yes, it does refer to other legal things, such as officer of the court, so the analogy is even more direct than you might think). It's possible that "man on top" and some other "[someone/something] on top" phrases exist in reference to sex, and that they might have sufficient RS coverage to be article here, but they are not all to be glommed together as "On top (sex)" as if they're all the same thing. That's novel synthesis to suit some editor's idea about "how things should be" or "how English should work". And yes, it absolutely is motivated by WP:GREATWRONGS / WP:ADVOCACY PoV-pushing activism about the same gender and sexuality stuff that is so constantly a source of dispute on this site. Crossroads -talk- 00:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Where does it say this article is only about heterosexual sex? First of all, "woman on top" is not at all a commonly used term. I've only ever heard the position referred to as "cowgirl". Secondly, the position is not limited to only heterosexual couples. Plenty of gay couples use this position as well, so I don't understand why you feel it's limited only to heterosexual people. That's simply incorrect. Top/bottom is not the same as a sex position. At this point, I will be forced to edit the article to make it inclusive, since the position is not only limited to heterosexual people as you incorrectly claim it is. 73.128.151.200 (talk) 02:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)