Talk:Sexual intercourse: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 05:07, 29 January 2013 editFlyer22 Frozen (talk \| contribs)365,630 edits →Adding "fucking" and "sleeping together" to the lead?: Tweak.← Previous edit		Revision as of 05:08, 29 January 2013 edit undoFlyer22 Frozen (talk \| contribs)365,630 editsm →Adding "fucking" and "sleeping together" to the lead?Next edit →
Line 73:		Line 73:
	== Adding "]ing" and "sleeping together" to the lead? ==		== Adding "]ing" and "sleeping together" to the lead? ==

	Editor ] wants in the lead of the article, for us to mention that sexual intercourse is "more typically referred to with a ] term like ''']ing''' or through a ] like '''sleeping together'''." He was first reverted by ], then by ], and then by me, being reverted twice by all three of us before finally being blocked 48 hours for ]. During the edit warring and block, Tdadamemd expressed that the word "fuck" should be in the lead of this article because "sexual intercourse" is in the lead of the Fuck article (which would make the articles symmetrical with each other), and that he felt that we were ] the article. AndyTheGrump spoke with him before and during the block, and I spoke with him during the block. See . Since I suggested to Tdadamemd that it's time to discuss his addition, he suggested that I start the discussion about it here on this talk page while he's blocked. He'll weigh in on it when he's unblocked.		Editor ] wants in the lead of the article, for us to mention that sexual intercourse is "more typically referred to with a ] term like ''']ing''' or through a ] like '''sleeping together'''." He was first reverted by ], then by ], and then by me, being reverted twice by all three of us before finally being blocked 48 hours for ]. During the edit warring and block, Tdadamemd expressed that the word "fuck" should be in the lead of this article because "sexual intercourse" is in the lead of the Fuck article (which he thinks would make the articles symmetrical with each other), and that he felt that we were ] the article. AndyTheGrump spoke with him before and during the block, and I spoke with him during the block. See . Since I suggested to Tdadamemd that it's time to discuss his addition, he suggested that I start the discussion about it here on this talk page while he's blocked. He'll weigh in on it when he's unblocked.

	Here is the part of my comment to Tdadamemd that is relevant here. I told him: "As you know, in , I told you that your addition doesn't belong in the lead, that you should see ]. I stated that your addition should go in the '''Definitions and stimulation factors''' section, if included at all. In , I told you that this is not about WP:CENSORSHIP. It's about the fact that you are inserting slang terms into the lead as though they are significant alternative titles that should be in the lead. They shouldn't be. And here's why: There are a lot of terms for sexual intercourse. It doesn't mean that they should all be in the lead. Misplaced Pages:Alternative titles#Treatment of alternative names makes this clear. The Fuck article mentions sexual intercourse in its lead because it is especially relevant to the topic. However, the term 'fuck' is not especially relevant to the topic of sexual intercourse. We don't have to design an article so that it is 'symmetrical' with another article."		Here is the part of my comment to Tdadamemd that is relevant here. I told him: "As you know, in , I told you that your addition doesn't belong in the lead, that you should see ]. I stated that your addition should go in the '''Definitions and stimulation factors''' section, if included at all. In , I told you that this is not about WP:CENSORSHIP. It's about the fact that you are inserting slang terms into the lead as though they are significant alternative titles that should be in the lead. They shouldn't be. And here's why: There are a lot of terms for sexual intercourse. It doesn't mean that they should all be in the lead. Misplaced Pages:Alternative titles#Treatment of alternative names makes this clear. The Fuck article mentions sexual intercourse in its lead because it is especially relevant to the topic. However, the term 'fuck' is not especially relevant to the topic of sexual intercourse. We don't have to design an article so that it is 'symmetrical' with another article."

Revision as of 05:08, 29 January 2013

This article was nominated for deletion on 1 April 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sexual intercourse article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Misplaced Pages is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Anatomy High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has not yet been associated with a particular anatomical discipline.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Sexology and sexuality Top‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article was selected on the Medicine portal as one of Misplaced Pages's best articles related to Medicine.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Template:Pbneutral

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sexual intercourse article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Views

See Scientology and sex and Scientology and homosexuality for information about sciento sexual conduct doctrines. In brief, scientology condemns homosexuality illness, encourages celibacy in its religious order, and permits other sexual intercourse. Human-animal bonding. The article's about sexual intercourse involving humans which includes human-to-goat, which will be acknowledged in an appropriate place.

Risk of loss of namus. Coverage will be expanded to reflect loss of social status and danger to physical wellbeing that can happen from incidents of sexual intercourse, particularly when there are elements of homosexuality, adultery, and heedlessness of considerations of family honour— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxycut (talk • contribs) 03:59, 8 September 2012

Don't make a section for each new thing you want to state. Because you did so, I tweaked the original formatting of your comments by placing them in one place. And you need to sign your name using four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~.

And I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to state, but AndyTheGrump's revert of you was because of "WP:OR, off-topic material, and WP:BLP violations." And I made clear my points on your talk page and at the Misplaced Pages:No original research/Noticeboard. And like I stated at that noticeboard, your edits (with the exception of a bit of the zoophilia information) have been original research, poorly-sourced and/or irrelevant. Take the time to read our guidelines and policies like I advised. Clearly, English is not your first language, but you need to try or ask for help in understanding how things work here. Flyer22 (talk) 04:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

In addition to your contributions being ungrammatical and irrelevant, they are original research. Please don't add them again. Rivertorch (talk) 07:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything that makes me think we need additions to this article about any of these things. This is a 'top-level article' per WP:SUMMARY etc, and these are very obscure points. --Nigelj (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I think scientology isolates people and reproduction is the primary purpose of intercourse even if the animal pleasure factor is an inducement in some people of low level and humans should select and choose their partner with eugenics in mind.

Anal acts do not form part of normal sexual intercourse and are an abnormal practice conducted by young women who want to preserve physical virginity but by absolute or stricter Christian standards are not virgins mental virginity being more important then physical virginity according to Old Catholic norms, masturbation is regarded as a sin but the virgins remain virgins. They are also linked to sexual abuse. Fingering may form part of sexual intercourse but does not constitute sexual intercourse, but can form part of the sexual act. Do not let anyone con you that fingering is sexual intercourse, but it can form part of sexual abuse. Sexual intercourse means coitus. "Sex" used to be a colloquialism but now has become a ubiquitous term which banalizes a basically negative act which appears to embody bodily transgression, moral crime, but is essential to current and probably to all human existence. As homosexuality also is latent but can appear, and it can appear in confined canines, it would be interesting to know whether originally parthenogenesis had been a to Christians sacred norm in procreation, and there might have been a further link in reproduction to some primitive rituals, both arising from the primordial conditions, which need to be studied as to real temperature mass etc. There is the Scriptural prohibition "Thou shalt not spill thy seed on the ground", there is the Greek likening of woman to "furrow". 93.108.67.25 (talk) 14:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The use of sexual accessories such as a strap-on dildo as mentioned in the article is a sexual perversion, designed to compensate for lack of a male partner, or for his momentary impotency or incapacity and undesirable, lesbianism is essentially an aberration, which would risk to render all adult individuals sexual to one another. 93.108.67.25 (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sexual intercourse article. It is not a forum for general discussion of the subject matter. Unless you have specific suggestions regarding improvements to the article - and can provide the required citations from published reliable sources - please find somewhere else to express your opinions. Off-topic material may be deleted from article talk pages. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 September 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

223.232.221.142 (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC) begin request

Not done You did not specify what change you would like to be made to the article. Electric Catfish 22:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Risks

Considering the info and stats on Pregnancy#Complications, I really think that the risks section of this article should include a note on pregnancy. pregnancy carries significant risk of harmful complication, very much changes your life for 9 months, and can be thought of as a 'risk' in and of itself - and that's before you get into the social or economic consequences of an unwanted pregnancy. These count as risks for a substantial proportion of human beings engaging in sexual intercourse. --176.250.178.62 (talk) 09:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a very good point, IP. Since such risks, including abortion risks, aren't mentioned in the Reproduction, reproductive methods and pregnancy section, this information should be placed in the article somewhere. And the Risks subsection of the Health effects section is the better place for those risks, along with the other health risks it already mentions, of course. I still haven't gotten around to implementing some things with regard to this article, but will definitely be implementing what you suggest when I do (not sure about adding the social or economic factors there as well yet, though; if I add that, it'll go in the Social effects subsection). If someone else doesn't beat me to it first. Flyer22 (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Adolescents

The phrase " and add to the conflict between contemporary social values" needs work. This use of the word between requires two objects. Perhaps it could be changed to something like " and add to the conflict between modern contemporary social values" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.58.23 (talk) 07:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Reproduction information

Rogr101 removed most of the detail about reproduction. I restored it because sexual intercourse, at least when commonly defined as penile-vaginal sex, has a lot to do with reproduction. The section is titled Reproduction, reproductive methods and pregnancy, and it only makes sense to have a paragraph about how these biological processes happen. Flyer22 (talk) 09:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

In Private.

Why doesn't this article mention anything about the fact that humans are the only animals who have sex in private? Pass a Method talk 14:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages articles, and articles outside of Misplaced Pages, aren't always going to mention every aspect of a topic, not everyone gets around to adding a certain aspect to an article, and it's not like the aspect you are querying is a primary aspect. Furthermore, sources are conflicting on this information; there are sources that seem to be saying that humans are the only animals/species to engage in sexual activity in private (although, despite stating that humans are unique for engaging in sexual activity in private, the wording "as is the case with other animals" may be acknowledging that other animals do as well), and there are sources (this one by Jared Diamond) that state that almost all other animal species other than humans engage in sexual activity in private. Just like there is conflicting information about whether or not human females are the only female species to undergo menopause, as those two sources show when compared to each other and when compared to the In other animals section of the Menopause article. This is why it's not good to just go by one source on anything without checking over a variety of other sources about the same topic. Flyer22 (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Adding "fucking" and "sleeping together" to the lead?

Editor Tdadamemd wants this wording in the lead of the article, for us to mention that sexual intercourse is "more typically referred to with a vulgar term like fucking or through a euphemism like sleeping together." He was first reverted by AndyTheGrump, then by Yobol, and then by me, being reverted twice by all three of us before finally being blocked 48 hours for WP:Edit warring. During the edit warring and block, Tdadamemd expressed that the word "fuck" should be in the lead of this article because "sexual intercourse" is in the lead of the Fuck article (which he thinks would make the articles symmetrical with each other), and that he felt that we were WP:CENSORING the article. AndyTheGrump spoke with him before and during the block, and I spoke with him during the block. See this link. Since I suggested to Tdadamemd that it's time to discuss his addition, he suggested that I start the discussion about it here on this talk page while he's blocked. He'll weigh in on it when he's unblocked.

Here is the part of my comment to Tdadamemd that is relevant here. I told him: "As you know, in this edit summary, I told you that your addition doesn't belong in the lead, that you should see Misplaced Pages:Alternative titles#Treatment of alternative names. I stated that your addition should go in the Definitions and stimulation factors section, if included at all. In this edit summary, I told you that this is not about WP:CENSORSHIP. It's about the fact that you are inserting slang terms into the lead as though they are significant alternative titles that should be in the lead. They shouldn't be. And here's why: There are a lot of terms for sexual intercourse. It doesn't mean that they should all be in the lead. Misplaced Pages:Alternative titles#Treatment of alternative names makes this clear. The Fuck article mentions sexual intercourse in its lead because it is especially relevant to the topic. However, the term 'fuck' is not especially relevant to the topic of sexual intercourse. We don't have to design an article so that it is 'symmetrical' with another article."

So now the article talk page discussion about this begins. Flyer22 (talk) 04:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Categories: