Talk:Anal sex/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Cancer

In relation to Cancer the current article uses two dated sources with limited linkages between anal cancer and anal sex, being: 1.What Are the Risk Factors for Anal Cancer? > dated 2007, Citation 103 and cited 3 times - with a 'lower-order' linkage between anal cancer and anal sex. 2.Changing Trends in Sexual Behavior May Explain Rising Incidence of Anal Cancer Among American Men and Women > dated 2004, Citation 104 and cited 6 times - with a 'lower-order' linkage between anal cancer and anal sex. There are now more recent, definitive, peer-reviewed, US studies linking anal cancer and anal sex, such as: Factors Affecting the Prevalence of Strongly and Weakly Carcinogenic and Lower-Risk Human Papillomaviruses in Anal Specimens in a Cohort of Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM) > dated 20 Nov 2013 which notes that, "Invasive anal cancer is a health crisis for gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men." Another earlier study Anal Cancer: In Gay and Bisexual Men notes, "Anal cancer is a serious and pervasive health problem among and gay and bisexual men. These two references have been included in the Wiki article 'Anal sex'. Sam56mas (talk) 03:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

As you can see, I have yet to pull out your latest addition to this article. But that's only because I'm tired of you WP:Edit warring your text in without WP:Consensus, even when reverted by two editors, and I wanted to see if anyone else would revert. So I'm going to ask you right now, and I want you to be very honest, about why you keep insisting on essentially adding "If you are a gay man or a man who has sex with men, you are more likely to get anal cancer." text to this article? Having looked deeper into your edit history the first day you popped up at this article, I don't think I have to guess why. But, anyway, first there was this, this, this, this, this, this, and even this at the Anal cancer article when you couldn't get your way at this article (though you were reverted there as well), and now the current matter. Did you not read the Prevalence subsection of the Male to male section of this article to see that anal sex is not as popular among gay men and other men who have sex with men as is generally thought? In fact, in Western culture, with how prolific heterosexual anal pornography has become and how that influences people's sex lives, it may very well be that heterosexuals are having anal sex as much as or more than gay men/men who have sex with men. Like the Prevalence subsection of the Male to male section shows, reports on the prevalence of anal sex among gay men and other men who have sex with men have been inconsistent. And yet you think that the WP:Primary source prevalence information you added with regard to anal cancer and men who have sex with men is reliable? Or is it that you simply want to report that information for some other reason? Did you not read this section of the WP:MEDRS guideline about how health sources are defined/categorized after I pointed you to WP:MEDRS in this article's edit history? In short, WP:MEDRS strongly discourages primary sources; there should be a good reason, some WP:MED editors would state "a very good reason," to cite a primary source for health information. The fact that the Cancer section already cites some WP:Primary source research does not mean that it is good for you to add more WP:Primary source research to that section. Also, if your aforementioned latest text is to stay in this article, it should be clarified that the anal cancer bit is with regard to anal sex since, you know, this article already makes it explicitly clear that anal sex is not the only type of sexual activity that takes place among men who have sex with men. And since "men who have sex with men" is already linked a little higher above that section, it should be de-linked...per WP:Overlinking. Flyer22 (talk) 08:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

In view of the justifications above for excluding updated, anal-cancer information why:

1 should the current wording, remain - wording based on a (7 year old, now web-archived) citation 103, when [103] contains no mention of anal sex. WP:OR ?

2 should the current wording, remain - wording based on a (10 year old) citation 104, when the use of [104] contravenes WP:MEDRS ? Sam56mas (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

As you know, Zad68 reverted you again. What is currently reference 103 is from the American Cancer Society, which passes WP:MEDRS as one of the "reputable major medical and scientific bodies." That source is not a study; it concerns basic facts that still remain true today for the risks of getting anal cancer. So it does not need to defer to the Use up-to-date evidence part of the WP:MEDRS guideline that advises to "[l]ook for reviews published in the last five years or so, preferably in the last two or three years." Also notice where WP:MEDRS states: "These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or few reviews are being published." Well, like this review source used in the Anal sex article relays, "most research on anal intercourse addresses men who have sex with men (MSM), with relatively little attention given to anal intercourse and other anal sexual behaviors between heterosexual partners" and "[r]esearch is quite rare that specifically differentiates the anus as a sexual organ or addresses anal sexual function or dysfunction as legitimate topics. As a result, we do not know the extent to which anal intercourse differs qualitatively from coitus." In other words, the effects of anal sex on health are not studied as much as one would think. But there are a lot of WP:MEDRS-compliant sources that are supported by one another by generally reporting the same health information on anal sex, and we still need to be cautious when reporting primary source information on anal sex -- studies that are old, new or in between concerning data that have not been properly reviewed or replicated. And, yes, the American Cancer Society source (currently 103) does mention anal sex; it states, with regard to sexual activity and anal cancer, "Having multiple sex partners is a risk factor. Another risk factor is anal intercourse for both men and women, particularly younger than the age of 30."

As for the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center source, the source itself (meaning without the primary source research) obviously passes as WP:MEDRS-compliant, but the primary source research should be supported by WP:Reliable secondary medical sources. Either way, like I already stated above, "The fact that the Cancer section already cites some WP:Primary source research does not mean that it is good for you to add more WP:Primary source research to that section." See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You should stop trying to add such information to this article and elsewhere, as you most recently did at this article. Flyer22 (talk) 01:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll just add that the current wording gives specific rates and context, while "Men who have sex with men are at higher risk for invasive anal cancer" doesn't. The UCSF PDF is mainly making the point that gay men appear to be more likely to have lesions related to HPV, especially if they also have HIV. The HPV connection is already discussed, so using that paper to support the above quoted statement is very misleading. Lines like that do not meet NPOV, regardless of MEDRS. As Flyer said, the current sources could be better, I guess, but they appear to equal or exceed your proposed additions. Grayfell (talk) 02:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

HETEROSEXUAL BIAS

While I am very aware that heterosexual men and women engage in anal sex, I am also very aware that the practice is far more prevalent between gay men when the statistics are ajusted for population density. A greater percentage of gay men engage in anal sex than do heterosexuals. This article is skewed heavily towards the heterosexual orientation. To me, this suggests a strong bias on the part of the writer of the article, if not against gay men necessarily, at least not in their favor. It shows a lack of perspective with regards to who actually practices this behavior. If the article is intended to be primarily about heterosexual anal sex, then it should be labeled as such.Eellddo (talk) 00:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@Eellddo: - First, don't assume ill intent. Second, while the rates are higher among gay men, the overall number of participants is higher among heterosexuals. Third, you're only thinking of USA it seems; anal sex is much more common among heterosexuals in other cultures. Can you point out exactly where you see an undue coverage of one or the other. From what I can see, there is coverage of all forms of anal sex. I don't see any anti-gay bent... Frankly, I'd think there would be an effort to avoid making this article overwhelmingly about gay anal sex to avoid stereotyping and give due weight to straight anal sex. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what heterosexual bias you are referring to. And, per WP:Undue weight (a policy that makes clear that we should give the majority of our coverage to the majority view or aspect), if there was heterosexual bias, that would likely be a reflection of the sources and there is not much we can or should do about that. Do read all of the WP:Due weight policy, including its Balancing aspects and Giving "equal validity" subsections for what we should and should not do when giving coverage in Wikipedia articles. But in the case of this article, it gives a lot of weight to homosexuality, meaning not just to the Male to male section, and this is obviously because anal sex has historically been, and still is today, far more associated with male homosexuality than heterosexuality (the article makes that clear in the lead and at lower parts in the article). Even with a lot of focus on homosexuality in the article, it gives due weight to the practice of anal sex among all couple combinations (male to female, male to male, female to male and female to female). So, again, I don't know what you are referring to by heterosexual bias, "a strong bias on the part of the writer of the article, if not against gay men necessarily, at least not in their favor" or "If the article is intended to be primarily about heterosexual anal sex, then it should be labeled as such."

You seem to be upset over the fact that the article is not thoroughly saturated with homosexual content and by the prevalence sections in the article (and possibly the lead image, which is currently the best WP:GRATUITOUS-compliant lead image we can use for this topic; by that, I mean that it is the "equally suitable alternative" to a real-life image, since it substitutes in place of where a real-life image of anal sex would cause more offense to our readers). Per WP:Verifiability, we go by what the WP:Reliable sources state, and those sources show that reports on the prevalence of anal sex varies among opposite-sex and same-same couples. Like I stated in the #Cancer section above, the Male to male section of this article shows that anal sex is not as popular among gay men and other men who have sex with men as is generally thought. "In fact, in Western culture, with how prolific heterosexual anal pornography has become and how that influences people's sex lives, it may very well be that heterosexuals are having anal sex as much as or more than gay men/men who have sex with men." Still, the Anal sex article does not state either way on the matter, except for the part of the Male to male section that states: "[Scholars] say that anal intercourse is generally more popular among gay male couples than among heterosexual couples, but that 'it ranks behind oral sex and mutual masturbation' among both sexual orientations in prevalence." With regard to that section, it shows that reports on the prevalence of anal sex among gay men and other men who have sex with men have been inconsistent. And part of the reason that reports on the prevalence of anal sex among heterosexual couples are inconsistent is because, like this scholarly review source used in the Anal sex article relays, "most research on anal intercourse addresses men who have sex with men (MSM), with relatively little attention given to anal intercourse and other anal sexual behaviors between heterosexual partners" and "[r]esearch is quite rare that specifically differentiates the anus as a sexual organ or addresses anal sexual function or dysfunction as legitimate topics. As a result, we do not know the extent to which anal intercourse differs qualitatively from coitus." Flyer22 (talk) 04:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Coercive anal sex

I was researching something else and came across this article. I haven't read the article deeply, but nothing in the section titles answers the question, nor does a text search for "coerce," coercive," or "consensual" turn up a result. There ought to be something about coercive/nonconsensual anal sex.

• Culzac, Natasha (August 15, 2014). "Anal sex study reveals climate of 'coercion'". The Independent. London. Lightbreather (talk) 00:13, 15 September 2014‎

Initially, I thought you were only referring to rape, since sexual coercion is often a matter of rape. Your source is about boys or men coercing girls or women into having anal sex. At most, if it is to be included, all that it needs is a sentence or paragraph in the Male to female section, which already addresses the fact that some women have anal sex simply to please their male partners. And I prefer a scholarly source, as opposed to a news source. Over the months, I've been removing some poor sources or mediocre sources and replacing them with scholarly sources where scholarly sources are better for the topic. Flyer22 (talk) 00:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

There's a link to the study in the article. Lightbreather (talk) 00:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

And that is one study, a WP:Primary source. For the type of scholarly sources I mean, see, for example, this scholarly source that I've used for the prevalence of heterosexual anal sex (including the influence of pornography). Flyer22 (talk) 00:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Propose swapping illustrations, removing a few, too

I think the current illustration at the top of the page should be swapped with one of the ones depicting male homosexual anal sex. Perhaps I can help to put {{u|EmmaCXC]]'s outrage into the appropriate Wikipedia jargon: It seems the number and placement of images in this article are not in sync with the Principle of least astonishment. Lightbreather (talk) 00:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Nope, for the reasons I stated in the #MALE PREJUDICE section above. Flyer22 (talk) 00:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

In addition to WP:LEAST, we must also consider:

• Pertinence and encyclopedic nature - Adding multiple images with very similar content is less useful.
• WP:Manual of Style/Images#Offensive images - Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available.

--Lightbreather (talk) 00:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I specifically addressed WP:Offensive images in the HETEROSEXUAL BIAS and MALE PREJUDICE sections above; this article most certainly complies with WP:Offensive images and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Offensive images. I don't see a need to repeat a lot of what I stated in those sections, but to reply to your points: Of course not having an image that very clearly/very realistically shows anal sex "would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate." The aforementioned heterosexual anal sex image is the best WP:GRATUITOUS-compliant image of anal sex, and is quite clearly the "equally suitable alternative" to a real-life image of anal sex. WP:GRATUITOUS is simply a redirect to a specific section of WP:Offensive material, and I abide by that section when it comes to sex images on Wikipedia, as noted on my user page. Wikipedia's rationale of least astonishment does not mean "portray the act less accurately." And the only reasons I can see for a person wanting to replace that lead image is because a person wants the stereotypically "Anal sex is for gay men" notion to immediately brand the article, they have a feminist point of view like EmmaCXC's when it comes to what a lead image regarding anal sex should be, or they want a real-life image of anal sex. There's also the possibility that a person would prefer that the lead image not be of white people. I find none of those arguments to be valid for what should be the lead image.

I am thinking about what is in the best interest of the Anal sex article, not so much about my personal views on the topic. And if the aforementioned image is not the lead image, or there is not a different drawing or painting portraying anal sex very clearly/very accurately, an editor will be more likely to add a real-life anal sex image as the lead image, especially since it can validly be argued that it portrays anal sex more realistically simply because it is a real-life image of the act. I am speaking from experience, as my user page about images in sexual or anatomy articles acknowledges. The aforementioned image is a balance between those who would prefer a real-life image of anal sex and those who would be extremely offended or shocked by it. Drawings or paintings of sex acts offend and shock people significantly less than images of real-life sex acts. And as for "Adding multiple images with very similar content is less useful," the different couple combinations of anal sex -- male to female, female to male, male to male, female to female -- are not all that similar; these are distinct forms of anal sex simply because of the different couple combinations. And, yes, all of those forms should be demonstrated in the Anal sex article. The rest of the images are historical artistic images that aid the Other cultural views section; I don't see why any of them need to be removed. Flyer22 (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Overuse of adverbs

I'm giving up for now, but someone should go through this article and cut back the number of adverbs. Many are unnecessary, and some should be substituted with numbers. Here are just some used repeatedly in this article:

• generally
• commonly
• exclusively
• especially
• primarily
• siginificantly
• frequently
• solely
• highly
• particularly
• typically
• additionally
• usually
• only

--Lightbreather (talk) 01:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with adverbs being removed when the removals are warranted, but not when the removals alter the meaning of what the text/source(s) are stating. In a lot of these cases, the sources emphasize "generally" or "typically," and similar, for valid reasons, and so should we. That is why when you made this adverb edit, I partially reverted. If something is a "solely" matter, for example, we should absolutely relay that. We do similar with WP:Med articles, and this article is partly medical. And if the sources don't relay numbers, but rather give words such as most in their places, so should we. Like Template:Who states, for example, "Use good judgment when deciding whether greater specificity is actually in the best interests of the article. Words like some or most are not banned and can be useful and appropriate. If greater specificity would result in a tedious laundry list of items with no real importance, then Wikipedia should remain concise, even if it means being vague. If the reliable sources are not specific—if the reliable sources say only 'Some people...'—then Wikipedia must remain vague." Flyer22 (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

MALE PREJUDICE

I am outraged that a diagram and graphic photos depicting anal sex are shown on wikipedia. It should be removed immediately.

I refuse to further donate to wikipedia until this is removed. If this is the kind of thing that will be permissible, well then surely I will also boycott Wikipedia and take it to social media where people can decide for themselves if this is appropriate or not.

Yes, you can find more graphic images on the internet but wikipedia should be held to higher standards than porn sites and random internet photos. I think anal sex is sufficiently explained with words and that the main image is unnecessary. In fact quite a lot of the images are not necessary. The first image is downright sadistic in its detail though it may parlay as "educational". I believe some of the images show a level of impropriety that is unacceptable. It leads me to believe that the majority of male authors of wikipedia and the possible majority male viewership of this article, find this acceptable and take secret enjoyment out of this.

Not only is there a strong heterosexual bias which the above author mentions, there is a strong patriarchal bias to this piece. Most of the photos are of men doing things to women with the exception of a few photos. Another example is the diagram of annalingus being performed is only shown when it's a woman doing it to a woman (why not of a man doing it to another man or a man doing it to a woman?). If you portray the female as the 'receptive' it's only fair you portray men as the 'receptive' as many times as the woman.

HONESTLY IF YOU ARE GOING TO SHOW A FEMALE ANUS BEING PENETRATED BY A PENIS, DO YOU THINK YOU COULD SHOW A PHOTO OF A MAN PERFORMING ANALINGUS ON A WOMAN?

I hope the 80% male writers on wikipedia wouldn't be offended by a diagram of a man licking a woman's anus. Could we please find a graphic image of that and then ask men how they would feel about that being so openly shown to the world?

I'm not suggesting there is anything wrong with these practices per se, I'm just infuriated that most of it is in reference to a heterosexual man doing it to a woman and the GRAPHIC details are mostly of a man doing it to woman.

Honestly I'm appalled by the level of unnecessary graphic detail in this. It's disgusting and sadistic.

I would welcome a feminist academic's contribution to this page to balance the obvious bias that currently prevails. I also agree with there being a heterosexual bias on this page.

Like I said, I do not having anything against these practices but I strongly disagree with the way you have presented it to the world. We don't need a graphic image of a man's penis penetrating a woman's anus. If it's a historic image, it should be in a different section. There is enough exploitation of women's bodies and sexuality on the internet, wikipedia should not be an extension of it.EmmaCXC (talk) 11:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

EmmaCXC (talk · contribs), I have no idea what "male prejudice" you see, even after you have explained it. And I certainly don't see what heterosexual bias you speak of, as noted in the #HETEROSEXUAL BIAS section above. Perhaps you are the author of that section, now here with a new account to essentially complain about the same thing? In addition to a similar complaint as that poster, you've capitalized your heading just like that previous poster. As for the article, each section addressing couple combinations has a single image demonstrating what anal sex may be like between that couple combination. How is that biased? We cannot, and should not, include every anal sex position possible. We have the Sex position article for that, and even that article doesn't show all the anal sex positions that are possible; it notes enough of them. As currently shown in the Anal sex article, there are not mostly heterosexual images in it. There are mostly homosexual images in the Anal sex article, and most of those (which are historical images) are regulated to the Other cultural views section for an obvious reason: The other sections only need one image, and anal sex has been historically, and still is today, most commonly associated with male-male anal sex. And therefore most of the taboo regarding anal sex has focused on male-male anal sex. That is why the article mostly has males in it. It has a female-on-male image in the Female to male section, and a female-on-female image in the Female to female section. Why does the article need an image of a woman licking a man's anus, a man licking a woman's anus, or a man licking a man's anus? Yes, the article has an image of a woman licking a woman's anus; this is because it's the only image of anal sex between women that is available to us. We work with the images that are available on WP:Commons. You've pointed out that we show a female anus being penetrated by a penis. Well, in the Female to male section, we also show a male anus being penetrated by a woman wearing a dildo. I take it that you would rather have that image as the lead image because of feminist views you may have? If so, I disagree. And I state that as a female. I disagree because, like the article notes, female-to-male anal sex and female-to-female anal sex are not well studied. Anal sex is most commonly defined as a penis penetrating an anus, like the lead notes, and is mostly studied among gay male and heterosexual couples; therefore, the lead image should be of a penis penetrating an anus. The reason that I prefer that it is a heterosexual image is because anal sex, like the lead notes, is stereotypically associated with male homosexuality; there is no need for the lead image to play up to that stereotype.

Again, we work with the images that are available on WP:Commons. And regarding what may offend readers, I've taken that into account, which is why I have applied the WP:Offensive material guideline to this article (see what WP:Offensive material states about "equally suitable alternative") and this article currently only uses drawings or paintings to illustrate anal sex, as opposed to real-life images, which are more graphic. That is as far as we need to go, per that guideline, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Offensive images and the WP:Not censored policy. The only problem I have with the current images is that, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Size, some of them (all of the ones except for the ones in the Other cultural views section) are too big. The size of the images were recently changed, starting with this and this edit. Flyer22 (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Update: I decreased the size of the images; seen here. Flyer22 (talk) 02:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2015

please change the text in article# 7.4.3 Islam , ". ...because it is blasphemy toward the prophet Allah... ." . ...to because it is blasphemy toward the prophet OF Allah... ." because Allah is the God and prophet Hazrat Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) is His prophet. لا إله إلا الله محمد رسول الله lā ʾilāha ʾillā-llāh, muhammadun rasūlu-llāh There is no God but Allah, Muhammad is the messenger of God.[1]... . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahada and, http://www.islamawareness.net/Dua/kalimas.html . 39.34.150.206 (talk) 10:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Done Cannolis (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't all hyper-monotheists believe their g(G)od is the only one? Is there any academic merit to endorsing any of these sentiments? Isn't Wikipedia meant to be an academic medium for everyone, not one subscribing to one particular religion or another? Wouldn't this argument have more merit if made on the basis of accuracy, not religion? 74.42.81.206 (talk) 03:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)Nate Vazquez — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.10.16.150 (talk) 03:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2015

1. In "Other Cultural Views -> General" section, this line is clearly wrong : "Historically, it has been restricted or condemned"

because the first reference "Human Sexuality: An Enclopedia" itself states:

" Anal sex has been known since records of human sexual activity have been kept. Depending on the culture, or even on the time of evolution of culture, the practice has been tolerated, accepted, expected or condemned. Definite roles were sometimes assigned to the participants. For example, it was common in many cultures for the insertor to be an older man teaching the insertee, a young man. In other cultures, the participants were of equal status and alternated roles. It was considered unusual by the people in those cultures if such relationships did not exist. Anal intercourse was sometimes used as an act of dominance over a conquered enemy or to exert superiority over women. "

2. This part is just a sweeping assumption based on Christian/Catholic taboos -> "especially with regard to religious beliefs". No evidence is provided to substanciate that majority of world religions proscribed anal sex.

Arul20 (talk) 06:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

That content is supported by three different sources. Historically, anal sex has been restricted or condemned; various WP:Reliable sources are clear on this, and that it was historically restricted or condemned especially because of religious beliefs. The text does not state that anal sex was restricted or condemned everywhere. The Other cultural views section clearly shows that it was not a "restricted or condemned everywhere" matter. That section even begins by stating, "Different cultures have had different views on anal sex throughout human history, with some cultures more positive about the activity than others." Flyer22 (talk) 06:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Changing the URL format from http to https?

Zumoarirodoka, with this edit, why did you change the URL format from http to https? I've seen editors reject https format, though I can't remember the exact reason(s) why. Furthermore, I think we should stick to one of the formats, not use both. Flyer22 (talk) 02:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that the advice now was to use HTTPS for all Google Books references, as most editors seem to prefer it, now that unencrypted access is no longer allowed on Wikipedia. I don't see why there would be any objections to the rule, nor do I see why sticking to one format is really that necessary. Zumoarirodoka (talk) 12:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Anal sex in animals

At the top of the article is the statement: "This article is about the human sexual act. For anal sex among non-human animals, see Animal sexual behavior" The referenced article contains only a single passing reference to anal sex in animals; no general discussion. Perhaps this reference should be removed (or better yet, someone who knows the subject, adding a section on anal sex to the "Animal sexual behavior" page!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.113.56.149 (talk) 08:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it should be removed, as this should be about the human sexual activity. I do agree that this certain area may be expanded on the Animal sexual behaviour article though, provided it is reliably sourced and whatnot. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 20:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Anal sex. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130304101359/http://www.museolarco.org:80/iep_er.shtml to http://www.museolarco.org/iep_er.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Removing and/or replacing "gay," "men," "homosexual" and "heterosexual"

As seen with this, this, this and this edit, Antinoos69 (talk · contribs) removed or replaced the terms "gay," "men," "homosexual" and "heterosexual" due to them being "anachronistic" or inaccurate. I can understand removing "gay" when the sources are not solely or specifically referring to gay men, and since men who have sex with men (MSM) might not identify as gay. I can understand removing "men" for broader context, to cover pederasty or adolescent males having sex with each other. I can understand removing "homosexual," since, as noted in the Gay article, a lot of people these days prefer "gay" or "lesbian" over "homosexual." But I don't see a valid reason to remove "heterosexual" and replace it with "male-female," especially in the cases where the sources use the term "heterosexual." It's unneeded and makes for a more awkward read. Even if one argues that people having heterosexual anal sex might not have a heterosexual sexual orientation, they are still engaging in heterosexual behavior. "Heterosexuality" covers opposite-sex romantic/sexual attraction and behavior, just like "homosexuality" cover same-sex romantic/sexual attraction and behavior; these terms cover behavior in addition to sexual orientation, which is why sources in the article use these terms. We are not going remove and/or replace every mention of "gay," "men," "homosexual" and "heterosexual." Furthermore, the sources in this article mostly cover adults, because research on sexual activity is mostly concerned with adults (and adolescents after that), and the vast majority of adults identify as men or women (not as a third gender or genderqueer); so using "men" and "women" instead of "males" and "females" at various points in this article is fine. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22 (talk · contribs), I've been studying the ancient history of same-sex sex intensely for more than a quarter century. The adjectives homosexual, heterosexual, and bisexual are ambiguous and anachronistic when applied to ancient phenomena, for neither the terms nor the construction of sexuality they variously denote or connote (i.e., sexual orientation) existed in ancient times. That is why many scholars, including some cited in this article, often avoid them. Given the extremely varying familiarity with the history of sexuality readers can be expected to bring to this article, we should avoid anachronistic uses of the terms. The same principle applies to the terms "gay" and "men," when the latter is projecting a modern construction of sexuality into the past. Antinoos69 (talk) 12:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

To be abundantly clear, the problem arises only when referring to the fairly distant past, about 1600 CE or earlier, very roughly speaking, or when referring to different cultures. Antinoos69 (talk) 12:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

To add just a bit more clarity, I think I caught all or nearly all the problematic instances of anachronism. My concerns are largely irrelevant to the primary sections of the article, which have a decidedly contemporary focus. So don't worry. I'm not planning any massive purge of heretical terminology. Antinoos69 (talk) 12:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Antinoos69 (talk · contribs) (last time WP:Pinging you to this section because I assume that you will check back here if you want to read replies), first off, welcome. Second, given what I saw of your edits, I assumed that you would state that we can't use the terms "heterosexual" and "homosexual" with regard to ancient times. I disagree. In the context of your edits, it doesn't matter that the terms "heterosexual" and "homosexual" were not used in ancient times or in old or modern religious texts; this is because these terms are used to refer to heterosexual and homosexual behavior in whatever time period by WP:Reliable sources, including various ones in the Anal sex article. You state that many scholars avoid the terms for such material. I state that many scholars also don't avoid them for such material. I am not heavily opposed to your changes thus far, especially since they mainly concern the historical aspects, but I won't be avoiding every use of the word "homosexual" with regard to ancient times. If the sources are specifically discussing male homosexuality in ancient times, then I may very well use the wording "male homosexuality." Also, since you noted how educated you are on the ancient history of same-sex sexuality, which I appreciate, I will go ahead and note here that I am educated well on a variety of sexual topics, including sexology, as a number of Wikipedians know. So I'm not someone who hasn't a clue about the ancient history of same-sex sexuality. Third, I fail to see how "men" falls under an anachronistic use, especially in the cases where the sources are specifically talking about men, and not about men with adolescent boys or adolescent boys together. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

With this edit, I went ahead and linked the Homosexuality in ancient Greece article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

"Men," as is all but universally known among specialist scholars, is anachronistic thus: Among the ancient Greeks, sex between men was widely idealized and practiced. See? While the statement would be true of pederasty or males, it certainly isn't true of "sex between men." More generally, we must avoid anachronistic use of terms. You would certainly agree that your proposed (mis)use of terms would, at the very least, be ambiguous. The unsuspecting reader will often be misled. For example, does a particular use of the adjective "heterosexual" refer only to behavior, or is something being meant regarding the nature or self-understanding of those engaging in the behavior. As good writing avoids potential confusion, misunderstanding, and obfuscation whenever reasonably possible, we must avoid such vices here. Antinoos69 (talk) 12:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

We're going to have to agree to disagree on using "heterosexual" and "homosexual". As I've stated, reliable sources (scholarly or otherwise) use those terms to refer ancient sexual behavior. Scholars also recognize that homosexuality, like heterosexuality, has existed throughout history, despite the terms "heterosexual" and "homosexual" not having existed in ancient times. As such, the "Homosexuality in ancient Greece" article is not titled "Same-sex sexual behavior in ancient Greece"; nor does it need to be. I also disagree with you on the use of "men," though I agree with you about not applying it inaccurately. In the case of the type of edits you made, the only time I'd avoid "men" is, as stated above, "for broader context, to cover pederasty or adolescent males having sex with each other." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)‎ 

I do think it's a good idea to never use "gay" to refer to ancient sexual behavior or a person from the ancient period, though. After much discussion about this at WP:LGBT and elsewhere, a section about it was implemented at WP:LGBT. I would also state that avoiding "lesbian" for ancient material is as important, but that term is commonly used by scholars to refer to same-sex romantic/sexual attraction or same-sex sexual activity among women in ancient times. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

With this edit, I linked Homosexuality in ancient Rome. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're now confusing editorial marketing with scholarship. Craig Williams wrote a book called Roman Homosexuality—it's the standard reference on its subject, in fact—yet he is one of the major exponents of social constructionism, right up there with David Halperin. Don't do scholarship or research by titles. If by "heterosexuality" and "homosexuality" you mean our construction of sexuality, complete with "sexual orientation," then you are both mistaken and referring to the opinion of a small minority of specialist scholars vociferously trying to promote their minority position. This article is no place for minority positions on tangentially related topics. (Btw, those last two sentences just demonstrated the sort of ambiguity using these terms can lead to.) And I can't even begin to imagine what there is for you to disagree about regarding my previous comment on "men." The overwhelmingly majoritarian position is that such uses of "men" anachronistically and inaccurately project our construction of sexuality into the past. That's simply all there is to it. When using secondary sources, we must first interpret them; even secondary sources don't interpret themselves. We must read them for what they are trying to convey, not necessarily how they convey it (unless that is our subject or we are quoting them). If the source is wrong or anachronistic, then we must convey the error or anachronism—though we may need to find better secondary sources instead. If, on the other hand, the source is attempting to convey the correct information using sometimes infelicitous terminology, then we are not required to use the same terminology (unless we are quoting or the terminology itself is our subject). This isn't about "monkey see, monkey do." Infelicitous terminology, especially in introductions and titles, is often used so general and very modern audiences will have some initial idea what is being discussed. Sometimes its just about momentary lapses or attempts at variety. Sometimes scholars explain the way they want familiar and infelicitous terminology to be understood in their introductory remarks, proceeding to use it thenceforth with their intended meaning. We must focus on usage of terminology in the sources, not the terminology itself. Of course, here, we don't generally have introductions on how we wish to (re)define terms. Antinoos69 (talk) 13:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm not confusing editorial marketing with scholarship. Nor did I state or imply that I do "scholarship or research by titles." I've been clear about why I disagree with you, and clear about what I agree with you on. I've also been clear that I was primarily using "heterosexual" and "homosexual" in the context of sexual behavior; I noted that those two terms are used to refer to sexual behavior in addition to sexual orientation. There is no consensus whatsoever among scholars to not use those two terms to refer to sexual behavior in ancient times, which is exactly why those terms are so very commonly used by scholars exactly for that purpose. I don't understand your point about use of "men" at all, except for it not being used to inaccurately represent a matter. And, per WP:Synthesis and WP:Editorializing, it's not our job to interpret sources beyond what they state. Again, I agree to disagree. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, the ancient history of sexuality isn't an area of scholarship of which you possess an adequate grasp. I would recommend personal restraint. Among classicists specializing in same-sex sex, for example, as I can personally assure you, usage of the terms "heterosexual" and "homosexual" has become fairly rare, especially without explanation, the battles having been fought mainly during the 1990s. The section of the article dealing with ancient Greece and Rome somehow manages to cite only one of the major specialist studies on the subject, sometimes citing scholars having nothing to do with classics (or, it seems, ancient studies). You also ignore my relatively extensive discussion of how and why scholars use the terms they do, so I won't rehash it now. As for the term "men," why do you suppose the error is sometimes committed? People are so accustomed to our own construction of sexuality that they sometimes can't resist speaking in terms of age mates when discussing the ancient past. There's the anachronism. "Synthesis" and "editorializing" have nothing whatsoever to do with anything I'm discussing. Of course, Wikipedia does very poorly with the ancient history of sexuality. Roughly half of what I've seen in relevant articles is either plain wrong or misleading, and articles tend to be controlled by editors largely unversed on the subject. I've even seen books cited in defense of positions they were actually written to refute. In any case, it doesn't seem that our disagreements are having any substantive effect on our editing. So I guess it's all purely academic for now, as one might say. I'll conclude by pointing out that I have never read a book or article using these anachronistic terms that did not end up committing more substantive conceptual errors due to that usage—and confusing readers to boot. It's quite the insidious problem, for what it's worth. Antinoos69 (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, you are so determined to win this argument and try to educate me on a topic I am already educated well enough on, that you can't see when it's time to drop the stick. Again, I appreciate your knowledge, and I certainly don't mean to insult you. I agree with some of what you have stated, but I do not think as strictly as you do on these matters. You seem to be suggesting that we can never and/or should never use the terms "heterosexual," "homosexual," "men" and "man" to refer to sexuality in ancient times. I'm telling you that you are wrong, and that your objecting to "men" is especially dubious (unless it's to cover the broader context I've already mentioned). I know this from my various studies on Greek, Roman, and other ancient sexualities for years (and, yes, I know you likely think this is the result of the "insidious problem" you note). I never stated that we should generally use the terms "heterosexual" and "homosexual" for sexuality in ancient times; after all, I already noted above that "After much discussion about this at WP:LGBT and elsewhere, a section about it was implemented at WP:LGBT." In those discussions, I was against using modern sexuality terminology to refer to ancient sexuality, and especially to people in ancient times, in ways that can be confusing. When it comes to a topic like Sappho, however, a lot of scholars use the terms "homosexual" and "lesbian" in reference to her when debating her sexuality (whether arguing that she was lesbian, or that it cannot be validly stated that she was lesbian). There are other ancient figures whose sexualities are debated using modern sexuality terminology as well. What I object to is your strict stance on the words "heterosexual," "homosexual," "men" and "man" to refer to sexuality in ancient times. I think your stance on that is stricter than Cynwolfe's, and she's one of our best (if not our best) editors on sexuality in ancient times, and other ancient topics. For example, she significantly edited the Sexuality in ancient Rome article. In July 2014, I also had a discussion with her about sexuality in antiquity, regarding an editor using the modern term "pedophilia" to refer to ancient sexuality; I was against the terminology being used for obvious reasons (well, obvious to enough people anyway). 

Either way, an editor disagreeing with you about your strict use of terms does not mean that "ancient history of sexuality isn't an area of scholarship of which [that editor] possess[es] an adequate grasp." A number of scholars you disagree with on this matter have an adequate grasp on sexuality in ancient times. I also don't adhere to the idea that heterosexuality and homosexuality didn't exist in ancient times, as if opposite-sex sexual attraction/behavior and same-sex sexual attraction/behavior didn't exist back then. They didn't have these terms for that back then; we do now. And I am not talking about the entire way we have constructed sexual orientations. I am talking about plain ole opposite-sex sexual attraction and/or behavior and plain ole same-sex sexual attraction and/or behavior, which undoubtedly existed back then. As for synthesis and editorializing, that is exactly what I got from your "interpret the sources" statement, except for you being right that we don't have to use the exact words a source uses. Since you want to keep debating all of this, should, in addition to having WP:Pinged Cynwolfe to this discussion, I alert WP:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome to this discussion for outside opinions? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Given your frame of mind, I'll limit myself to passing comments:

1. I am struck by the irony of your reference to "drop the stick" after your last post.
2. That you would conflate "same-sex sexual attraction and/or behavior" with "homosexuality" conclusively demonstrates how little you actually understand about these matters. (I haven't the time to instruct you, let alone on a forum such as this.)
3. As for interpreting the sources, my "we don't have to use the exact words a source uses," as you put it, indicating agreement, was the crux of my point here.
4. Given the thoroughness of my research into Greek and Roman same-sex sex, naturally in the original languages, you could get my attention only by bringing Craig Williams, David Halperin, Andrew Lear, Nick Fisher, or Sandra Boehringer in here—though I suppose you could also hunt down a "genuine" medium to bring in Kenneth Dover. Wikiexperts, if one dare speak of such, won't do. I'm afraid you've wasted your time.

In any case, again, this is all purely abstract, for now. Antinoos69 (talk) 07:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Antinoos69, I wasn't the one hard-pressed on continuing this discussion; you were, as evidenced by my stating twice that we should agree to disagree and leave the matter at that. After my short "14:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)" post, you decided not only to continue the discussion with a long reply, but a long reply that sought to school me on things I do not need to be schooled on; it sought to condescend, etc.; you've intentionally insulted me more than once on this talk page, as if that helps you win this argument. It doesn't; all it does is make me have less respect for you, and want to school you with actual sources instead of talk, which I can most assuredly do. But then again, given what you've stated above, you'd simply disregard the sources. And I'm not interested in such exchanges; I generally have no patience for them. Furthermore, WP:Not a forum comes to mind. Your point about not conflating same-sex sexual attraction and/or behavior with homosexuality is asinine, especially given the various times I have educated editors on such matters with WP:Reliable scholarly sources to support my statements. But I can't expect you to be aware of my reputation on sexual topics (or medical topics, for that matter) at this site, a reputation that goes far beyond being a "Wikiexpert." It's clear that you think you are right and everyone else is wrong; it's also clear that your ego is far too big for Wikipedia. I will state now, however, since you seem oblivious to the fact that the term homosexuality covers any same-sex sexual attraction and/or behavior, that you should consider researching that topic more thoroughly. Or are you going to refer to such language among scholars as an "insidious problem"? Even in the case of heterosexual men or heterosexual women who have engaged in sexual activity with the same sex, the sexual activity is referred to as homosexual activity. Even in the case those who are sexually experimenting with the same sex, the sexual activity is referred to as homosexual activity. Even in the case of those who are questioning, the desire and/or sexual activity may be referred to as "homosexual" or "homosexuality" by scholars. The term homosexual does not only refer to sexual orientation, as is clear by the Homosexuality article and many sources that are in it; this is also why the Homosexual behavior in animals article focuses on same-sex sexual behavior among non-human animals, not a homosexual sexual orientation; of course, we don't exactly know what these animals are thinking anyway. If I've wasted my time here with you, you have certainly wasted yours. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

More passing points:

1. Continuing to demonstrate your ignorance of the topic (and, at times, of what I am saying) will leave me unmoved.
2. You are incapable of instructing me on this matter, and unqualified to do so. 
3. And PERTINENTLY, for a change, show me the actual, concrete edits I've made to this article that you happen currently to disagree with, your reason(s) for doing so, and how any of it relates to your babbling here. If you are unable to do so, and you've stated you are now without disagreements, I will expect to read no more from you.

Let's be blunt. You should never have posted about any of this to begin with. You rushed here with an objection in search of a problem. According to you, there is no problem, so I'll expect no more objections. Antinoos69 (talk) 05:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

And yet here we are again seeming to vie for that precious last word. Let's be blunt: I started this section because it is silly to avoid "men," "homosexual" and "heterosexual" (especially "men") with regard to ancient sexuality with as much strictness as you do, and I sought to let you know that. I also wanted to know your full reasons for having done so. For example, this edit where you traded "men" for "males" caught me off-guard because it is not specifically about ancient times, and the paragraph and source otherwise uses "men" throughout (the source is focused on men who have sex with men, though I do see that part of the quote in the citation format states, "Much of this same-sex sexual activity begins in adolescence between school friends and within family environments and is non-penetrative."). And since I commonly adhere to the sex and gender distinction, I also prefer that "men" instead of "males" is associated with third gender. You even stated, "The problem arises only when referring to the fairly distant past, about 1600 CE or earlier, very roughly speaking, or when referring to different cultures." So you apparently are not as strict about it as you presented yourself to be after your initial replies. But then again, a lot of people wouldn't call the 1700s onward "ancient." We went on to disagree. You got all defensive and started slinging insults about your supposed superior knowledge on these matters; I disagreed with your slinging insults, and any notion that you have superior knowledge. End of discussion...hopefully. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully last points:

1. As for the edit you point out, you have misconstrued both the paragraph in which it occurs and the cited source. The subject at that point is no longer third gender but sex between males, indicated by, "However, sexuality between men (as distinct from third genders) has thrived," in the original text of the article. There isn't a syllable about third gender in the cited quote. So, based on what we have before us, males is the accurate term. However, there needs to be clarification about the support for the first half of the paragraph regarding third gender. As it now stands, the claims look unsupported—though, presumably, support would be found elsewhere in the cited article. A reference at the end of the first part of the paragraph, with page citation, would be helpful.
2. As for your quoting me, you apparently failed to read the quote beforehand, which you excerpted from my "initial replies," especially the part that reads "or when referring to different cultures." Apparently, India doesn't qualify as a different culture with you. Additionally, I didn't speak in that sentence in terms of "ancient" or "the 1700s onward," as you either erroneously or mendaciously put it, but in terms of "the fairly distant past" and "about 1600 CE or earlier, very roughly speaking," respectively.
3. Your poor grasp of the subject continues to fail to interest me. In light of the points above, however, I'm certainly beginning to understand why your grasp is so faulty. Antinoos69 (talk) 09:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't misconstrue the text, but you most assuredly did. And, as noted, you needlessly added "males" in place of "men." Your own "09:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)" post is clear about the needlessness of that change. As for reading what you stated, I certainly read all of it. And, well, you know how I feel about it. Your false superiority with regard to things you clearly do not understand (let's face it: sexuality topics are not your expertise, which you've displayed quite well here by giving all sorts of opinions that well-respected scholars and sexologists would disagree with) and your need to personally attack me to try to make yourself look better bores me. I've endured far worse as this site...from far more entertaining editors. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I realize you're mortified to have been shown so grievously wrong, but the more proper way to respond is either to admit one's errors or to remain silent. Continuing to babble without so much as the suggestion of an argument only worsens your current situation. (Remember, you had admitted the cited reference also speaks of "adolescence.") I decisively proved your errors. It appears you should avoid intellectual matters of any kind. Antinoos69 (talk) 12:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't get mortified. Not usually anyway. And I don't have a reason to be as far as this discussion with you goes. What you call errors are not errors when comparing what scholars have to state on the matter. You yourself admitted that scholars differ from you on your views, and that you only accept the word of certain scholars on matters such as these, and/or only if scholars clarify their terminology in ways that you approve of. If I were to cite the ones who disagree with you, you'd shrug it off. We've been over that. And if I failed to interest you, you wouldn't keep replying. No worries, though; I have that effect on people (some of them become obsessed with me; just ask some of my talk page stalkers). And just look at how quickly you replied. But then again, that pesky need of yours to assert your wannabe superiority and get the last word is likely what keeps driving you on. As for me? When I'm bored on this site, and/or want to see how deep a hole editors can dig for themselves, especially if I want to know the psychological state of the editor(s) involved, then I keep commenting...in all sorts of ways, sometimes to deprive them of their precious last word. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid that failed to help you any, though it was an amusing dodge. And keep up the irony; it's fun to read. Antinoos69 (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

With the exception of amusement, "back at you" suffices. After all, I was clear that amusement is not what I get by interacting with you. You give me further insight into the way people think, and such insight is something I commonly seek when assessing editors (especially problematic ones, which is how I caught so many fakers in the past). Also, I appreciate this addition to your previous post; it's always nice to add (or try to add) a little spice to the mix after the food has been served. If we clash on a different topic (sexual or medical), it'll be interesting to see how well you fare, especially if others are weighing in and it's not simply a one-on-one affair. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're still dodging. Where are your arguments for why your errors aren't errors? As for the added bit, I was in the process of adding it while you were apparently posting, so I finished adding it before replying to your new response, or what passes for one with you. Are you claiming you made no such statement about "adolescence"? Please, continue this little play you're putting on. I'm strangely amused by it. Antinoos69 (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're proving my psychological assessment of you to be true with every reply you make, including my statement that you are desperate to get the last word. It's not a play when various reliable sources, by your own admittance, disagree with you. Should I go ahead and let you get the last word for the sake of your superiority complex? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

You're still dodging. Where are your arguments (must I define the term?) in response to my post of 09:25, 23 November 2015? You had finally semi-declared a pertinent semi-objection to a concrete edit I had made, a semi-objection that you appeared to represent as still active, and now wild horses can't get you to address it with an actual argument. Yet you go on. Why? Perhaps you can apply some of that psychology of yours to the question. You're a scream. Now continue the act, please. Antinoos69 (talk) 14:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

More projecting and deflecting from you, I see. More determination from you to get the last word. Interesting. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm dying to see what happens in Act 2. I anticipate more dodging and unintended irony. Antinoos69 (talk) 14:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Back at you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Evoked above, I just wanted to say that Isee two editors who both have wisdom and good intentions, and who might want to depersonalize this heated discussion. I've been there, so I understand completely. Please understand that I offer this advice neutrally, without reference to the merits of either side. I know that sometimes when an argument is a standoff, psychological assessment seems like the only recourse—and in the case of true disruption, may be a valid explanation. Here, however, I would propose that if the two of you care about getting the content right, as I believe you both do, you should try another approach. It would be painstaking and require at times inhuman self-discipline, but in the long run would be more productive. How about you take a paragraph that's at issue, and start a section here just devoted to editing it? Not discussing, but proposing wording you think would work. And then the other party counters with a different wording, and an explanation of why you think that corrects something in the previous version—in so far as possible, avoiding any dissection of what was wrong with the other way, but providing positive reasoning for your own word choice. And just keep doing that until you get the terminology issues worked out. Might that be a way forward? Cynwolfe (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Cynwolfe. This discussion moved past editing issues with the article. I'd already made it clear that I was not hugely opposed to his changes. After that, the discussion became about our different approaches to terminology and who is wrong or right on that. I don't see what's left for me to discuss with Antinoos69. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I was under the impression that you had indicated just such an "editing issue" in your post of 12:52, 22 November 2015, in direct response to my prompting you to do so in my immediately preceding post. Am I now to conclude that the edit you therein indicated constitutes neither an "editing issue" nor a response to my prompt to provide some? If so, you could have so indicated when repeatedly prompted on the matter, instead of playing teacher's pet games. Antinoos69 (talk) 16:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Anyone is free to see how the discussion played out. I am done responding to you in this section, per everything I've stated above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, I apparently mistook your following my directions to the letter as an indication that you were actually following my directions. I'll be sure to avoid that error in the future. To conclude, then, we appear to be done. Happy holidays. Antinoos69 (talk) 10:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

WebMD and "some Athenian comedies"

Human10.0, regarding this edit you made, I've been excising the WebMD sourcing for better WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing, but why do you think that WebMD needs to cite its data before we can report what it states about the data, especially since the sentence in the Wikipedia article for it uses WP:In-text attribution? There is no policy or guideline that requires a source be formatted in that way. Would you feel the same if the source were a statement from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)? I know that those are two different quality levels, but I'm asking to get a better feel for where you are coming from. Also, why change the "Athenian comedies" to the "some" WP:Weasel wording? I try to avoid "some" whenever possible because of the penchant some editors have to add Template:Who or Template:Which, despite the common sense those templates advise us to use when adding such templates. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I don't think WebMD needs to cite data and sources for its statements (though I would certainly prefer that). My point is that since WebMD has not provided a source, we should try to find one that people can access and verify. I'm distrustful of WebMD's "90%" estimation because I cannot find any other source corroborating it and because the percentage claimed is questionably high in comparison to percentages reported in other sources. I also doubt that WebMD's estimation can be used to generalise all MSMs' preferences the way the Wiki page currently does. What WebMD has reported is probably an estimation of how many American MSMs have engaged in receptive anal sex but since no source is given, there is no way to be sure whether the estimation is of MSMs worldwide or simply of MSMs in a certain geographic location. In contrast, a survey of Egyptian MSMs, for example, reports that the percentage of MSMs who are insertive/active is 82% and the percentage who are passive is 51%.

Regarding the comedies, I would like to clarify that I added "some Athenian" before "comedies", not "some" before "Athenian comedies". Since the relevant sentence was talking about "homosexual anal sex", I added "some Athenian" because the limited number of comedies that joke about homosexual anal sex (including Aristophanes') are specifically Attic (i.e. Athenian) and it should be noted that the comedies only joke about habitual anal passivity, not about homosexual anal sex in general; certainly not about the active role (see Kenneth J. Dover's Greek Homosexuality). I also mentioned that the comedies were "Athenian" because people tend to forget that 'ancient Greece' was actually a collection of numerous independent city-states and that attitudes expressed in one city-state (like Athens) did not necessarily reflect the attitudes of other city-states in Greece.

Since we're on the talk page I would also like to point out that the claim that homosexual anal sex was a _target of jokes in comedies is not mentioned the citation provided and that the paragraph on the Greeks needs some modifications which I will try to make if I (hopefully) find the time. Regarding the use of comedies to make claims about ancient Greek norms, as the wiki page currently seems to do without appropriate citation, Martha Nussbaum advises "extreme caution":

The comedies of Aristophanes and fragments of other comic poets are filled with frank sexual material. The material is aimed at amusing the average audience, so it relies on some norms of what would be acceptable and what would be found shocking. But Aristophanes must be used with extreme caution in reconstructing what people seriously thought and did, just as we would not want hastily to conclude that the humor of a scathing sexual comic of today mirrored current attitudes. Athenians did not hesitate to poke fun at groups of all sorts, unconstrained by any notions of what it would be just or considerate to say -or even what reflected their own most serious views. The fact that they felt free to mock a person or a group says little about how they really regarded the person or group. Furthermore, there is strong evidence that comic mockery does not typically connote moral blame: some of the most common sources of humor in comedy are things like farting, defecating, smelling bad - concerning which no scholar to my knowledge has ever suggested the Greeks wished to take a serious posture of moral condemnation.

I'm leaving Nussbaum's quote here so that anyone who reads this conversation does not make the mistake of adding text to the wiki page based on their personal interpretation of the comedies --- Human10.0 (talk) 14:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Human10.0, when it comes to the aforementioned WebMD sentence, I think that either such a sentence should remain as it is since it has WP:In-text attribution or it should be removed. In my opinion, there is no point in tagging it with Template:Better source needed if there is no better source for the information. I was tempted to simply remove the sentence after you tagged it, but I was waiting for your reply.

As for the "Homosexual anal sex was not a universally accepted practice in Ancient Greece; it was the _target of jokes in some Athenian comedies." sentence... When I added the source for that while sourcing that section (since, as noted at Talk:Anal sex/Archive 7#in ancient Greece and Rome (!), the section had been largely unsourced), I'm sure that I meant to add two sources there, so that both parts are supported. For some reason, only the one source got placed there. Also, from what I've studied on homosexual anal sex in ancient Greece and Rome, there are some conflicting reports. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Human10.0, I went ahead and removed the WebMD piece. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Flyer22 Reborn. Just so we're clear, I did not know you were the editor who sourced the Greece section. I'm sorry if I sounded accusatory earlier, that was honestly not my intention. Regarding homosexual anal sex in ancient Greece specifically, I would recommend checking out Kenneth Dover's Greek Homosexuality (if you haven't already). It's a comprehensive and objective look at the topic of homosexuality & same-sex relations in ancient Greece that I feel may prove helpful. —Human10.0 (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem, Human10.0. And, at the time, I sourced most of that section, but not all of it. A little sourcing was already there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

____

evolution

I am curious about how the desire for anal sex has evolved in humans. Is that discussed in another article? Could it be discussed in this one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.42.81.206 (talk) 03:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• I doubt there is sufficient and thorough documentation to see how anal sex has evolved, how many people do it now, and how many in the past AdultUpdates (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Human intelligence evolved to the point where men realised that the anus is tighter than the vagina, and that anal sex would give their penises more pleasure. That's pretty much it. Karyn Devlin (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Karyn Devlin, whether the anus is tighter than the vagina is not always a clear-cut case, such as when asking men about sexually penetrating the vagina of a virgin compared to sexually penetrating a person's anus. Furthermore, because of how often they engage in anal sex, especially if fisting is involved, some people have an anus that is not as tight as it used to be. That's why this section of the Anal sex article currently states "usually" for the sentence about the tightness of the anal sphincters when compared to the tightness of the pelvic muscles of the vagina. As we know, the rectum is also usually a part of anal sex. The rectum is not as tight as the walls of the vagina, not usually anyway. Some men have noted that after a couple or more minutes of having anal sex, the sensation of anal sex does not feel as tight as it did at first penetration, but that the vagina continues to hug snugly around the penis during penetration of the vagina. This is because, unlike the anus or rectum, the vagina contracts to wrap around the penis as needed (though, yes, there are women who have a so-called loose vagina). It specifically has the function to interact with the penis in ways that the anus and rectum do not. Yes, the anus will contract, but not for the reasons that the vagina does. There are also men who do not like anal sex because of the tightness of the anus; it's too tight for them to take pleasure from the act. If I come across good WP:Reliable sources for these aspects, I will add material on it to the Anal sex article. Flyer22 (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Karyn Devlin, there must be a reason for a couple to try anal sex. That reason is circling around how the anal muscles, while being stimulated, can bring sexual pleasure for both parties such as female ejaculation. This condition can make the man feeling more accepted, instead of hearing fake moaning. SquidHomme (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

SquidHomme, there are various reasons that a couple might try anal sex; curiosity is one such reason. Also, the existence of female ejaculation is highly debated, and I have not read any valid sources of female ejaculation from anal sex. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:09, 21 May 2016‎ (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, I think curiosity begins when a couple cannot reach a level of pleasure, or orgasm. A couple can either researching or hearing a word of mouth about what the anal muscles can do when stimulated. There's no valid sources of female ejaculation, but you can try to watch some anal porn (gross, I know, but for researching). From scenes I've watched, female ejaculation did exist, while doing anal sex. SquidHomme (talk) 11:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

SquidHomme, it's not too common that a woman will reach orgasm from anal sex, or from vaginal sex either. Women reach orgasm far more often from oral sex, and this is because of direct stimulation to the clitoris. Porn is usually very misleading, at least the professional kind. Homemade porn is a different matter. Either way, this is off-topic for this section. Discussions on article talk pages are supposed to be about improving the article(s) in question. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, it's not 'not too common', in fact, it's rare. I know porn can't be a good proof due to actors faking orgasm etc. But homemade porn that does anal is just so rare. I don't know why. Yeah, I know this discussion is going the wrong direction too far, but at least we can inspire another editor who specialized in this matter to improve this article or researching to improve this article. SquidHomme (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

SquidHomme, I know what acts are likely to result in an orgasm, and how likely, and how unlikely some are to succeed in producing an orgasm; so no worries there. I'm sure there is enough homemade anal sex porn out there, but I wouldn't look to it for research...unless analyzing porn like some researchers have done. I don't see anything above that can help an editor improve this article. But I gradually improve it, whenever I have good time to do so. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, the act likely to trigger an orgasm is to stimulate the perineum muscles, but this is 'likely', not precisely. Analyzing homemade porn is also has a slim chance to dig anything, homemade porns are usually blurry and cheap. Now this is the problem: we need to give the precise information for the readers instead of estimating, I thought why people come to read this article is to find answer on what to do and what's the effect. That's why this topic we're discussing matters more on improving the article. SquidHomme (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Subsection- Religon (Christianity) - Needs Edit To Present Neutral Viewpoints / Alternative Viewpoints

This article is grossly misrepresentative of stating that the viewpoint of Christianity, without caveat. (i.e. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9EhF-HjEfc for opposing viewpoint.) Therefore, that section of the article is in violation of Wikipedia's Rules governing the presentation of a neutral viewpoint where possible, or at least providing information with respect to conflicting viewpoints.)

72.192.72.19 (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS. A youtube video is not RS. The section should give due weight to the coverage by reliable sources. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anal sex. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118005301/http://goaskalice.columbia.edu:80/doin-butt-objects-anus to http://goaskalice.columbia.edu/doin-butt-objects-anus
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140121080220/http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE13/010/2008/ar/35e5c0bf-c6d7-11dc-9af1-b1d22f3b300e/mde130102008eng.html to http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE13/010/2008/ar/35e5c0bf-c6d7-11dc-9af1-b1d22f3b300e/mde130102008eng.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

The picture

Can the picture be changed to a homosexual couple? Anal sex is a part of gay love and I find it almost homophobic that it's a straight couple representing anal sex when it's been gays who have been persecuted for the act in past centuries. --VenomFrogX (talk) 00:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

But most people who have anal sex are straight (see Anal_sex#Prevalence), and most gay sex is not anal sex (see Gay_sexual_practices#Activities). Putting a picture of two males foremost risks reinforcing the widespread but unfounded association of anal sex with homosexuality. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 08:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not heterosexual couples engage in anal sex more than gay male couples is not really known. See the "most research on anal intercourse addresses men who have sex with men (MSM)" piece in the first link you pointed to. I agree that we shouldn't use two men as the main image, though, since it's such a widely held notion that anal sex = gay. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Per what Adrian J. Hunter and I stated above, I have reverted MShefa's change of the lead picture and rearrangement of the order of sections. MShefa stated that he was normalizing gay sex. But when it comes to this article, what I saw was him stereotyping gay sex. Consensus at this article has consistently been against putting the gay male image first because many people already think that anal sex is only something that gay men do, or is mostly what gay men do when having sex. The edit is not helping to normalize gay sex at all; it's helping to promote a misconception. And MShefa shouldn't be POV-editing like this regardless. This is not the place for advocacy. Johnuniq and IdreamofJeanie reverted MShefa at other articles, and I thank them for that. I'm not sure why MShefa's edit lasted so long at this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't Wikipedia have some kind of "spoiler" template that can be used for pics like this, to spare the reader from such in-your-face pointless vulgarity immediately upon visiting the article? jej1997 (talk) 23:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

No, there is no practical way to achieve that even if an extremely unlikely decision were made to implement the proposal. See WP:NODISCLAIMERS.

Regarding the recent "Normalizing gay sex" efforts: Wikipedia should not be used to normalize anything, whether it relates to selling products, promoting ideas, or sex. Fruitless edits like that are made all the time—see WP:RGW. Johnuniq (talk) 00:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I just reverted Celestis, who has a sporadic edit history like MShefa and added the same picture that MShefa added; yes, I am insinuating that these two could very well be the same person. I'll look further into that at a later date. Either way, the case for that lead image needs to be made here, given that it is challenged as a lead image by editors here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

IdreamofJeanie, do you have any opinion on which lead image we should go with? How about you, Grayfell? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I suppose I would stick with the current image for the lead. The first priority with images should be clarity, and that's a slightly clearer demonstration of the physical act. The other image could be added to the 'Male to male' section, since it does depict a position which isn't already shown in the article. I'm still not sure if I think adding so many images to sexuality articles is a good thing because it's clarifying something which is otherwise taboo, or is overloading articles to make a point about censorship/titillation. Maybe it's both? I dunno. Grayfell (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Grayfell, thanks for commenting. I previously made a comment on this talk page about the current image demonstrating the act well. And I was thinking of mentioning in this discussion that it demonstrates the act better then other illustrations we have. Also, as mentioned on this talk page before, because of the offensive material guideline, I think it's best that we go with an illustration than a real-life sexual image. I'm usually for less images as well when it comes to sexual topics because of the debates that can result, and because of sandwiching issues, but I've noted before that using drawings or paintings for the acts have led to less debates. Not using any images usually doesn't work because it's always the case that more than one editor comes along wanting an image to be added. In the case of this article, we are lucky to have an image that demonstrates each gender/sexual orientation combination. If we didn't have the female-on-male and female-on-female images, for example, some people would talk about how the imagery is is too male-centric. For the gender/sexual orientation combination sections, I think it's best to stick to one image per section. Adding two images to the male-male-section would lead people to wonder why that section gets two images but not the others, or would lead people to add an extra image to the other sections. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The article is lacking

I see the article covers anatomical issues, health issues, legal issues - but what in the name of all that is good and Holy about MORAL issues!?! --Bishop Morehouse (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Those are covered either by Anal_sex#Other_cultural_views or WP:SOAPBOX HalJor (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)