Talk:Pegging (sexual practice)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Sources pls

Could someone please get some sources on this? particularly that survey that two people just quibbled about through edits earlier. Jacqui ^★ 14:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, according to a major CDC survey in 2002 %40 of males 25-44 years old have reported anal with the opposite sex [1] (PDF) and [2] -- as the Slate article says, a major trend not being reported. This is USA only of course and doesnt include older generation - in other words GenX are a bunch of freaks. Well, do with that what you want, im unwatching from the article, too freaky for me. Stbalbach 16:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

A major sexual survey published in 2002 by the CDC has shown that 40% of hetrosexual men in the United States between the ages of 25 and 44 have had at least one experience with anal sex, though not necessarily with pegging.[3] [4]

How is this at all related? The survey specifically asked men, "Have you ever put your penis in a female’s rectum or butt (also known as anal sex)?" This has absolutely nothing to do with pegging, and its inclusion is seriously misleading. The survey did not ask any questions about heterosexual male-recipient anal penetration. I've removed the text for now. Please discuss if you disagree with the edit. -- Dpark 05:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, unless someone objects (or I forget), I'll remove the "verify" tag in a couple of days. It seems best to completely omit references to stats unless someone can produce some that directly discuss pegging (or possibly some other form of male anal stimulation). -- Dpark 05:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Removed. -- Dpark 01:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Sodomy?

Regarding the sodomy line -- unless someone can show me every single sodomy law in the entire world, we can't unilaterally say that this pratice is controlled by every sodomy law out there. In fact, I've heard that a lot of sodomy laws only cover homosexual activity, which would therefore not affect this practice. Jacqui ^★ 19:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the above, sodomy refers to any sexual activity not performed for the purpose of procreation, and sodomy laws in the united states technically do prohibit even such things as heterosexual oral intercourse, but the laws were enacted (and enforced) only to control homosexuality and rape.

If a man anally penetrates his male or female partner with a strap-on dildo, is that still pegging? Exploding Boy 00:49, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Cleanup

I can't be bothered to do this, but if this article is going to be on the front page, then it should really be of a higher quality than the fucking tripe displayed currently. Come on, people. This is shoddy.

DicDef?

Resolved

If this is just a definition of a neologism, shouldn't it be in the Wiktionary? Avriette 02:54, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) Wow...learn sumhin every day

Current article text is way beyond that now. Marking this topic "Resolved". — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Females

I'm a bit confused by this statement "women may enjoy receptive anal sex, through harness attachments" does this mean a woman can er peg herself while pegging her partner or does it mean a woman may enjoy being pegged by another women? Nil Einne 13:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It's clear to me that that part is either invalid, or somebody was being overinclusive. If you remove the part about women being stimulated anally, it makes more sense, and since this article is about the happenings of female-to-male heterosexual sex acts, it seems to make sense to remove that bit, and cleanup around it, which I'll do. --Flata 23:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I can,t see another place to put my comments so here seems good my husband & I recently bought a strap on as we wanted to try reverse roles after much discussion with a very nice girl we decided on a strap on & a hand held vibrator as the girl said with a vibrator you can penetrate him whilst he is inside you.we got home & within ten minutes I had stripped my husband lubricated him & had him on his hands & knees I started slowly but I soon had him begging for me to do it harder I could see his hand moving frantically so I thought lets turn him over so I can get a better view & I was so glad I did he soon shot a huge load all over his chest, he later told me it was the most intense orgasm he had ever had.As for the hand held its still in the box.--Marta 63 15:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)marta

That's... great for you. I'm glad you're enjoying yourselves, but what exactly are you trying to tell us? This is not a discussion forum for sexual practices. It's common knowledge that stimulation of the prostate is considered arousing my some men, and anal sex is apparently enjoyable for both ends, so apart from the extremely graphical account of your sex life, you don't seem to intend to add anything to the topic.

As for the original topic: I think the point was that some harnesses have attachments, i.e. "internal" dildos or plugs. I leave the rest to your imagination. A simple mention that such attachments exist should be enough to cover them.

I do wonder whether the female-to-female use of strap-ons is considered "pegging" as well, though, as that's the context from which I knew the term before encountering this article. — Ashmodai ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what in God's name the above post is doing in an encyclopaedic setting. If anyone has any response to the irrelevance of the above rambling, please let me know. -- Mcsc09 23:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

And I don't see what god have in this encyclopaedic discussion. Ran4 10:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent edit to first paragraph

"Occasionally, the term is also used if a woman gives anal sex to another woman." -- does anyone have a source for this? When the term was introduced by Dan Savage it was specifically meant to describe a woman giving anal sex to a man, and I'm not aware of any common usage of the term for woman/woman anal sex. Catamorphism 19:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Savage is a gay sex columnist not gay-sex columnist

Removed notation that Dan Savage is a gay sex columnist. He has always stated he is an advice columnist and his advice column focuses on sex (not gay sex, just sex in general). He does happen to be gay, but the intent of the statement was unclear.

Who was it that said ...

"Behind every successful man there is a woman." Sasabune 00:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Very clever =P—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.62.16.250 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 5 April 2007

Participants

I wonder if there is any information about the sexuality of individuals who participate and/or enjoy this activity. I have done some reading on this activity in relationship advice columns, and in the questions and answers it seems that the authors go out of their way to imply that it does not imply homosexuality on the part of the male. But how about bi-sexuality? Is it used by bisexual males who are in relationships with females as a substitute to satisfy that part of their sexuality?

Also, to what extent might females enjoy or participate in this? Maybe those that enjoy male homoerotica, or thrill seekers, or those who like to explore the taboo...?

I think this is a fascinating area of sexuality and deserves study.

Well, I heard a while ago someone calling into either FH&F or Tom Leykis, that 1/10 of her friends had been asked by a man to peg them. While highly annecdotal, it does give you some place to start. As for my own self, I dont find the male form in any way arousing, however I would most definately enjoy this activity. To me pegging is not in any way homosexual. Sexuality is attraction, not activity, at least in my book. Carterhawk 07:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well done

Just have to say after reading even the first three paragraphs that I'm impressed by the NPOV, broad and sensistive wording of this article. FWIW. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggested clarifications to the "pegging" page

As the producers of Bend Over Boyfriend, we read this article with great interest. We'd like to suggest a couple clarifications:

1. Bend Over Boyfriend stars (or features) Carol Queen. It was directed by Shar Rednour. Fatale Media, Inc. is the producer.

2. We would appreciate a link to http://www.fatalemedia.com/videos/bend_over_boyfriend.html.

3. We would also suggest an external link to http://www.fatalemedia.com/videos/bend_over_boyfriend.html.

The image of the cover of Bend Over Boyfriend appears to be tagged correctly, and we appreciate that.

Lastly, please forgive our newbie status when it comes to Wikipedia. There are many links to Fatale from different articles here, but we would like credit for producing Bend Over Boyfriend.

Thank you!

--17:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Christi Cassidy

I've responded on your talk page. Bushytails 18:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Speedy move request

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

See below for requested move. From WP:RM:

• Pegging (sexual practice) → Pegging — There is only one other usage mentioned at Pegging (disambiguation), the usage means "to score points in cribbage", and that usage does not have its own article titled "pegging". There were previously several other uses listed at the dab, but none were upheld in their respective articles. WP search for "pegging" reveals nothing else. — Joie de Vivre 14:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • "Pegging" has plenty of other meanings: see the verb meanings at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/peg . Pegging out clothes to dry, level-pegging, pegging prices at a fixed level, etc. There is no one dominant meaning: leave pegging as the disambig page, or redirecting to the disambig page.I see no sense in treating Pegging (sexual practice) as the dominant meaning to the general population who are not interested in odd sexual practices. Anthony Appleyard 16:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The word "pegging" is only significant enough for its own encyclopedia article when it comes to this definition, logically, the word should redirect here. Your personal opinion of which things are "odd" should have no bearing whatsoever on the structure of an encyclopedia. Joie de Vivre 17:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• If this article were not on a sexual subject, there would be no controversy. The question we need to address is "Should Wikipedia protect users from seeing adult-oriented pages by accident?". Should we be concerned by a child finding this page while searching for information on pegging(UK)/staking(US) out a tent? Wikipedia has a clear policy of non-censorship, which is mentioned in the list of perennial proposals at the Village pump. However, I personally feel that it should be made as difficult as possible for users to open an adult-themed page unintentionally. If a child goes to Wikipedia and types the word blowjob, Wikipedia is not responsible for compromising the child's innocence; the child almost certainly knows the word is naughty, and would not have difficulty satisfying his/her curiosity elsewhere on the internet. Pegging is different, and there may be a case for keeping a disambiguation page to say "is this really what you want?" before you see the interesting pictures. Such a policy would not constitute censorship in my view, provided the content remains accessible to those who actually want it. However, this is really an issue beyond the scope of this talk page. Mtford 08:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• I would say no, wikipedia should not make any effort whatsoever to "protect" people. Until someone comes up with a good argument that accidentally finding adult pages will harm people, people do not need to be protected from them. However, as to the name of the article... Using the good old google test, 'pegging dildo OR strapon OR anal OR sex OR strap-on' finds 213K results, 'tent pegging' (both a sport and what you do to pitch a tent; I don't know a query to make google only find one or the other) finds 77K results, 'cribbage pegging' 11K results, 'pegging memory' 120K results, 'garden pegging' 127K results, and 'pegging exchange rate' finds 1.2M results. So, fixed exchange rate is definitely in the lead, and given the large numbers of matches found for other things, having pegging be a disambig page might be best. Of course, pegging alone with no other qualifiers rarely refers to the other definitions... Bushytails 16:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, a disambiguation page can't hurt. And this is the opinion of a woman who's pegged a number of guys...

• Oppose the move. The dab page is fine as it is; neither usage is so widely known as to make it the default. Mike Christie (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Rationale: There are only two meanings listed at Pegging (disambiguation); the sexual practice, and a definition for the act of scoring points in cribbage. Google returns 213K for 'pegging dildo OR strapon OR anal OR sex OR strap-on'; while 'cribbage pegging' gets 11K. "Pegging" to describe the sexual practice gets nearly twenty times more Google hits than the cribbage-related definition. Also, an encyclopedia article cannot be written about the act of winning a game of cribbage. There is an encyclopedia article about pegging, so this move is sensible. Joie de Vivre 17:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

While I'm all for increasing the visibility of this article, I'm getting the feeling you are pushing an agenda here... Firstly, don't quote people out of context, as you just did. If you quote the whole thing, you'll note a simple search for exchange rate pegging returned six times the matches as did sexual pegging, and broader searches find even more results. Making out it to be clear-cut by ignoring other definitions is poor practice. I'm pretty indifferent about the actual move, but I'm strongly against abusing statistics and misquoting people. Bushytails 18:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Oh, and keep in mind that a fair portion of the pegging results are probably porn spam sites, skewing the results higher. Bushytails 18:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Quoting people out of context? I went to Google and performed the exact same tests as you just did (to make sure they were correct). No one owns Google results. It's silly to suggest that I'm required to quote your "Google research". =) Come on, now. Joie de Vivre 18:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not an agenda. The only reasoning people have given is "that's odd" and "we have to protect the children", both of which are bogus. If there were different articles about different forms of pegging it would be a different scenario. As it is, there is one other definition, and it is far more obscure than the other. There are no other definitions that deserve their own articles, so the parenthetical clarification in Pegging (sexual practice) is totally unnecessary. Joie de Vivre 18:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

My reason falls into neither category: I don't think there is a strong priority in usage. Bushytails' point about porn sites skewing the statistics is also plausible, but not necessary to the argument. With regard to the other usage deserving its own article: dabs don't have to point to an article, but can point to sections if required. That doesn't make the dab less appropriate a _target for a link. Mike Christie (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

There are no sections that describe "pegging" in either Cribbage or Fixed exchange rate, and the latter doesn't mention "pegging" at all. I suppose someone could rush to create sections now to prove a point, but that wouldn't look good. Joie de Vivre 18:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently User:Bushytails did recently add multiple definitions to Pegging (disambiguation), but I have reverted these per the Manual of Style (see explanation here). Joie de Vivre 19:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Somehow, those two are not the only reasons people have given. As to those two reasons... I nominated strap-on dildo for DYK, complete with a picture for the main page. Needless to say I'm not arguing from either of those two positions. I'm just not convinced this definition of pegging is more popular than any of the _several_ others, and unless there's a clear-cut case, I'm a big fan of disambiguation pages. Bushytails 21:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose the move. The dab page is fine as it is; neither usage is so widely known as to make it the default. Mike Christie (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The other definition is 1) far more obscure and 2) not worthy of its own article. Joie de Vivre 18:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose as per User:Mike Christie; plenty of common uses of the term outside of the sexual practice, keeping it as a dab page seems the best solution for the greatest number of readers. --DeLarge 23:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC).

Regarding "peg", "pegged", and "pegging"

Peg, Pegged and Pegging each have their own disambiguation pages, because the words have different meanings. The only meaning of "pegging" that is a discrete concept, worthy of its own encyclopedia article, is that found at Pegging (sexual practice). We have a dictionary definition, that is mentioned only in passing in a related encyclopedia article (pegging as regards to Cribbage), and a dicdef that is not mentioned in the article at all ("pegging" as regards to Fixed exchange rate). These should not stand in the way of properly categorizing this encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We are categorizing concepts, not defining words.

Notably, two editors have come forward to express disgust as regards to the subject matter of the article in question. I advise administrators and others to carefully avoid discriminating based on personal taste. Joie de Vivre 18:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent additions to Pegging (disambiguation)

User:Bushytails recently added multiple definitions to Pegging (disambiguation). I have reverted these to comply with the Manual of Style:

The relevant section of the Manual of Style is found here. Per that section, the following additions are not appropriate, because "pegging" is not mentioned in the linked article of any of them.

• Pegging a currency holds it at a fixed exchange rate.
• A type of memorization system.
• The act of pitching a Tent.
• A gardening procedure to change the shape of plants.

Additionally, Tent pegging was removed because I cannot find any sources that refer to the sport as "pegging". It's either "tent pegging", "tent-pegging" or "tentpegging", never "pegging". Joie de Vivre 19:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to quote the first line of fixed exchange rate: "A fixed exchange rate, sometimes (less commonly) called a pegged exchange rate"... I am sorry the relationship between "pegged" and "pegging" is difficult to see, however it's still the most common usage of the term by a very large factor. Must I remind you that pegging is a relatively new term, that the vast majority of the population has likely never heard of?

However, in the time I'm wasting pointing things out to you, I could be actually writing an article, or benefitting the encyclopedia in more useful ways than keeping one disambig page organized properly. Bushytails 21:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't make personal comments; thanks. If you feel that there are better ways you could spend your time, no one is forcing you to spend it here. Moving on...

The word "pegging" on its own does not refer to exchange rates; contextual phrasing is necessary. There is nothing in the MOS that says that parts of phrases which are not mentioned in related articles must be considered of equal importance to discrete encyclopedic concepts. The word "pegging", on its own, without any qualifiers, refers to the sexual act. Infrequently, it refers to scoring points in cribbage. Never on its own does it refer to exchange rates.

Think about it, if someone is looking up fixed exchange rates, and they know it as a "pegged rate", they are going to look up "pegged rate", or "currency peg", not just the word "pegging" on its own. No one is going to say "Thailand employed this method of pegging". No one would understand. They are going to say "Thailand employed this method of pegging its exchange rate." Why? Because "pegging" on its own does not refer to exchange rates. You have to specify that it's an exchange rate for people to know what you're talking about. What's more, when it comes to exchange rates, "pegging" is essentially a slang term; Pegged exchange rate redirects to Fixed exchange rate.

You are comparing a slang term in a rarely-used verb tense to a discrete concept of such relevance that it has its own article. They are not of comparable relevance. Moving Pegging (sexual practice) to Pegging and placing a link to the disambiguation page is an appropriate solution. Joie de Vivre 01:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 08:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

plagiarism

This page contains whole blocks of text from: http://www.blogto.com/tno/2007/05/bend_over_boyfriend/

Which? Joie de Vivre° 05:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It appears whomever wrote that article copied from the wikipedia article, violating the GFDL in several ways. Perhaps you should contact the author of the article? Bushytails 05:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

No references question

I added several references, both to discussion of preferences and to media representations. So, I removed the no references tag.Arbol25 (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Length, edits

I removed the "pegging in popular culture" section per WP:TRIVIA: "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous facts". If more information about pegging can be found, great, but a long list of instances of pegging (usually used as a gag) in various TV shows, etc does not provide much benefit to readers. Whatever404 (talk) 14:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is the section (minus what remains in the article):

Examples in popular media There is also a pegging scene in the movie Acid House based on the book of the same name by Irvine Welsh.

There is a depiction of pegging in the William S. Burroughs novel Naked Lunch. The dildo used in the scene is called a Steely Dan III, and is the source from which the musical group Steely Dan takes its name.

Pegging is mentioned in the Chuck Palahniuk short story "Guts", from his book Haunted.

The award winning 1992 movie Tokyo Decadence by Japanese director Ryu Murakami features an SM-Scene with a Dominatrix pegging her customer.

The character Abby pegs her husband, Andrew, in the film Young People Fucking.

The practice has received burgeoning "mainstream attention" in the online world.

Two characters from 2008 comedy movie Zack and Miri Make a Porno also perform an act of pegging.

Television

Recently, pegging was featured in the television show Weeds, during the episode "Crush Girl Love Panic," in a scene where Andy Botwin, expecting to have sex with Yael Hoffman in her apartment, is surprised when she refuses to have vaginal sex with him, and dons a large strap-on. A similar scene was also featured in the UK comedy Peep Show. Jeremy and his girlfriend decide to act out each other's biggest fantasy. After having Jeremy's threesome, his girlfriend takes him to a bedroom. He doesn't know what she intends; she turns around and is wearing a large strap-on.

Even more recently, one of the plot threads begun in the pilot episode of Dirt involved Lucy Spiller blackmailing basketball superstar and "family man" Prince Tyreese for story information on a missing (and murdered, as it is revealed) rap star after entrapping Tyreese with photos of him being pegged by a prostitute, Stormy (played by pornographic actress Stormy Daniels), whom Lucy had hired for precisely such purpose.

Channel 4's Manchester-based comedy/drama Shameless also regularly featured Sheila, Frank Gallagher's then girlfriend in strap-on episodes.

More recently, BBC's program Love Soup featured a scene where an 18-year-old topless model surprises her boss (with whom she's about to undertake sexual intercourse) by wearing a strap-on.

Music

Singer/songwriter/record producer Peaches has a song titled "Back it Up, Boys" about pegging on her album Fatherfucker, and on her album The Teaches of Peaches: Expanded, the song "Casanova" on the bonus disc mentions pegging.

Comic books

In Vertigo's series Preacher, it's hinted that the main villain, Herr Starr, is regularly pegged by prostitutes after a sexual assault leaves him unable to enjoy vaginal sex. Also published by Vertigo is the graphic novel The Filth. In chapter 6 Miami, a heroine, pegs villain Tex Porneu.

After much consideration I have reinstated the above content to the article.

Firstly, I note what you say regarding the policy on creating lists of trivia, but if you look at the policy again on WP:TRIVIA is also makes clear, with a headed section, that "Not all list sections are trivia sections".

It states:

"In this guideline, the term "trivia section" refers to a section's content, not its name. A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and "unselective" list. However, a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information."

It is arguable that this is not a disorganized and unselective list, rather it is a selective list of reasonable length, which is indeed on a narrow theme. Even if you could describe it as unselective (which to do you would need to show that it contains every single example of the act) it is still of a reasonable length. The act is still not so common in popular media that it would be ridiculous to list several specific examples, in the same way as it might be to list examples of traditional heterosexual sex which are far too numerous to count and for which there would be no particular justification in choosing any particular example over others.

Secondly, the article overall is still of a reasonable length. Notwithstanding this, were it to reach the point that it became too long and unwieldy, it would probably be more appropriate to create a spin-off article rather than remove the information altogether.

Thirdly, there is varying opinion on whether these types of "in popular culture" lists are appropriate. On one view, a list of examples may not be considered to be of much use if it does not educate the reader further, but on another view, what distinguishes Wikipedia from other encyclopediae is that it is a "living" work of reference and is intended to remain up to date, rather than being a "snapshot" of information at the time a work is published. Examples in popular culture are particularly relevant here since they show the reader what is current.

I think, since there is varying opinion, that it ought not to be deleted on the basis of one opinion, when it may well be the work of several contributors. Rather, until a consensus of opinion can be reached on the issue in the talk pages, the status quo should be preserved.--90.213.159.111 (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I have added the {{In popular culture}} template. In my opinion, the current format, as a disjointed list of facts, it fails to demonstrate the impact of the topic upon popular culture in any cohesive fashion. As you have reinstated the content, please take the time to ensure that this content adheres to WP's quality standards. Whatever404 (talk) 12:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I note the edit war is continuing. I've actually looked at WP:TRIVIA. Nowhere does it advocate removing this sort of section. (Trivia sections are defined as collections of miscellaneous facts, which this is not). It goes so far as to say This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections!!! The guideline is about how a page is arranged and contains no justification for removing content whatsoever. Any further removal of material must be justified on the basis of content policies. --Simon Speed (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

References

Heterosexual

In the column, it was a specifically heterosexual term

I'm not seeing this in the linked column. All it says is that it refers to women using strap-ons to penetrate men. Nowhere can I see anywhere it says either partner must be heterosexual. Did I miss something? The Wednesday Island 01:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I can understand the concept of not wanting to "pigeonhole" or categorise, but this is really going too far in terms of literal interpretation. A man and a woman engaging in a sexual activity together are by definition engaging in a heterosexual act.

Yes you could say that the participants could possibly each be homosexual and are engaging in the act nonetheless, but then we might as well do away with the concepts of heterosexuality and homosexuality since you would be trying to define something that cannot be defined. Does a heterosexual man who engages in a sexual act with a man become homosexual? Or is he bisexual? Is he homosexual until he again engages in an act with a woman, at which point he becomes bisexual, or is he bisexual until he makes a conscious decision never to engage in a sexual act with a woman again, at which point he becomes homosexual?

Reference to "Heterosexual" in this context only therefore makes sense if it is in terms of the act, and not necessarily the adopted state of mind of the participants. Since "Pegging" is specifically defined as a woman penetrating a man with a strap-on dildo, and no other combination, it is entirely correct to define it as a heterosexual act.--81.152.196.247 (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Anytime a male and a female have sexual contact it is by definition "heterosexual." It may be a lot of other things as well, but it still heterosex.174.25.16.197 (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)A REDDSON

Consensual

The article states that all “pegging” is consensual. I disagree; There are cases where the “consent” was non existent. The article must be revised to reflect this. The simplest way would be simply to remove the word construal from the article, the more effective way would be a sub-section addressing rape in this fashion.174.25.49.114 (talk) 05:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)A REDDSON

I don't see the word "consensual" in the article.   Will Beback  talk  06:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears to have been removed; However, there is still the "Pleasure" sections. The article should be revised to include rape in this manner. (If it's there and I missed it call me an idiot. But I didn't see it.)174.25.16.197 (talk) 21:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)A REDDSON

Is that picture necessary?

I fully realize Wikipedia is not censored, but is that picture really necessary? I think most people can visualize pegging in their head without needing a sexually explicit graphic. I know removing it wont improve the article, but it wouldnt make it worse, either. Yonskii (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The picture is a good quality illustration of the subject of the article (in fact that seems to be the only thing that's being objected to). An article is supposed to educate those who don't know about its subject matter and illustrations help. Sexuality illustrations should not be subject to harsher criteria than would apply elsewhere. --Simon Speed (talk) 01:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe if she were wearing a bra the prudes wwould drop the subject. Just a thought. (Me, I like the pic as-is, but then I'm no prude.) 174.25.16.197 (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)A REDDSON

I see another image File:Strap-on pegging.jpg has just been added and removed. I agree with the removal:- it doesn't illustrate the subject nearly as well as the main image and doesn't add anything (apart from being a photo). I don't like photographic illustrations of sex acts when artwork is available: they're usually not as clear (for those who don't already know what the act is) and they give the page the look of a porn-site. Illustrations (though they may still offend the prudish) are associated with sex-ed which creates a more useful and accurate impression for any casual reader or anyone discovering another viewing the page. --Simon Speed (talk) 10:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

@Yonskii, I think most people visualize things far more dramatically than is typically illustrated and that leaving certain things to the imagination can make topics like these worse. Also the text of the article can change and could become misleading at some point while the image will always remain accurate to the subject. I believe that since our goal is to disseminate information we should favor those who do want to learn about sexual topics above those that are offended and just accidentally stumble upon a sexual article and don't want to even look at the subject.AerobicFox (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate graphic?

Is the sidebox really that appropriate to have presented like this? The unnecessary display of breast or genitalia (which could be hidden with some creativity) along with the facial expressions seems a bit graphic for Wikipedia?

File:Wiki-pegging.png

24.96.44.208 (talk) 03:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia is not censored. —EqualRights (talk) 03:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

How would hiding parts improve the article any? Bushytails (talk) 05:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't at all if you were 15. Get a grip. It's inappropriate adult content. 69.24.112.147 (talk) 05:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

female to female pegging

How is it that called if not pegging? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.83.199.22 (talk) 12:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

in bondage sex culture

This section is completely inaccurate and seems to have no references. My only references are from first hand experience, though. Unless someone has some actual references for this, I recommend that we just delete it all together. Also the title is inaccurate, because bondage is not directly related to pegging. I assume the editor meant bdsm, or domination. Silentninjadesu (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Gone. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Dan Savage

Is Dan Savage significant enough for his statement on the subject to comprise the entire "Psychological pleasure" section, or even be mentioned? Not to mention the picture of him. The2crowrox (talk) 07:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• LOL! I had the same issue with this article, it looks like there's an attempt to promote Mr.Savage through this page - 4 links to his page in addition on a whole WP:Template about him. -Pavithran (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Pavithran, well, the article does currently credit Dan Savage with popularizing the term; if it's the case that he did, that point belongs in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Unjustified removal of referenced content

EvergreenFir:

As for “reliable sources”, while I agree that the source I added isn't the ideal standard of “reliable”, it is sufficient (good enough), and it is near the best we have in this topic. Ideally, we would like to cite several systematic reviews of multiple primary studies who examined the psychologically pleasurable aspects of pegging through surveys applied in a representative population, in turn analyzed with the accepted good practices of statistical methods. However, that is completely unrealistic. I'm almost sure that no such studies have been done related to pegging. I have searched for studies done about pegging in the academic literature and I did not find any; therefore I conclude with reasonable confidence that there are no such studies so far. There are some studies about trends in pornography that mention pegging, but they are not specific about it. There is also a study about prostate cancer that seems to allude to pegging, because it mentions receptive anal sex in heterosexual men, but it didn't specify any further (pegging it not the only possibility). Finally, there are books that mention pegging and elaborate to varying degrees, but all such books that I'm aware of are popular books on sexuality, not scientific books.

I don't see how your recent edit that removed content makes Wikipedia better; on the contrary, it removes useful and within-scope information. I am therefore restoring the content. Per the relevant policy: “Once an editor has provided any source that he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia”. In this case, I provided a source that I believe to be sufficient; now it is your obligation to “articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia”. Since you have not done that, I'm restoring the material your removed. If you disagree with the phrasing, then try to improve it instead of deleting, which adds nothing to the encyclopedia.

Also, in what way is the content you removed “non-neutral”?.

Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC).

Pegging101.com is not a reliable source about this sexual practice. We cannot claim things about pleasure and intimacy, using broad sweeping language, using wikipedia's voice. It's an opinion of the author of that website, nothing more. Flyer22Reborn is an editor of this page... let's get a third opinion. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Helps if I ping the right name... Flyer22 Reborn. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

EvergreenFir‎:

Again, if you do not like the phrasing, then try to improve it; that, but not just removing the content you disagree with, could result in an improvement for Wikipedia.

Also again, your standard for reliable sources is going to hinder the development of this article, because there are very few reliable sources on the matter. Read my previous message in this talk page. The medical literature, which is the source for reliable sources (per WP:MEDRS), has almost nothing or plain nothing to say about pegging. If you apply the same reasoning to the section Physical pleasure, you would have to delete it as well. Why didn't you either deleted it too, or why didn't you keep the content added to this section?. Why the double standard?. Although Wikipedia policy doesn't compels you to publicly state a reason (as far as I can tell), intellectual honesty and cognitive congruence compels you to have a reason.

See how I handled the situation in the article “skin whitening”: I noticed some garbage references, I researched the history to try to recover them (because I thought that they had been vandalized), but since they were wrong since they were added, I removed them. I did not remove the associated content because I know from my research of the topic that it is reasonable. On the contrary, I added content to that section with its own sources, rewrote a part, left the rest in place (Special:Diff/728058676/727451221) and I documented why I deleted those references in the talk page.

“We cannot claim things about pleasure and intimacy, using broad sweeping language, using wikipedia's voice. It's an opinion of the author of that website, nothing more.”

No, that is incorrect. It's not just “an opinion of the author of that website, nothing more”. The author (Ruby Ryder) receives many comments from practitioners or non-practicing enthusiasts of pegging and her writings are based upon those comments and her personal experience. In some posts, she includes relevant quotes from the men and women that describe their experiences. This methodology (synthesis based on self-reported experience) is accepted as the standard in the literature for studies on highly subjective human behavior, and even for preliminary studies on human behavior that can be studied more objectively (those more objective studies come later).

For example. in the studies of Alfred Kinsey documenting human sexual response, he (Kinsey) mostly relied on self-reports and even reports about the sexual response of third parties, which are more unreliable that first-hand reports!. Kinsey studies are still quoted up to today. For an example of a study published in a scientific journal with a methodology almost identical to that of Ruby Ryder see Dunn, Trost (1989). Even systematic reviews take into account self-reports about subjective experience; e.g: Wibowo, Wassersug (2016). The systematic review by Wibowo and Wassersug quotes Dunn and Trost, quotes one of the aforesaid studies by Kinsey, and quotes self-published self-reports of sexual behavior (it quotes directly the Aneros forum)!. The important point to note is that self-published reports based on personal experience not published in the academic literature were good enough to be cited in a systematic review.

Therefore, note that the methodology of my source, Ruby Ryder, is not very different from that of some studies published in academic journals or some book edited by scientific publishers/presses.

Inviting any number of third parties is not going to compensate for a lack of experience with the methods of scientific publishing, or a lack of willingness to fix problems rather than to delete them.

I propose that we change “Females enjoy the experience [...]” to “Some females enjoy the experience [...]” and restore the content. Although you didn't state it that way, I think that the fact that this statement was unquantified made you object to it. Does this change address your concern?. Free feel to propose a better phrasing. We are trying to find ways to improve the encyclopedia, not to leave it as it is.

Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC).

Please see WP:WallofText. If you have peer-reviewed sources, that would be awesome. But the author of the website's opinion alone is not notable. We can attribute opinions to their authors when appropriate, but typically the person is an expert or notable. This would be something to discuss on WP:RSN. I'd like a second opinion from one of the people who watch this page. As for equating a website to peer-review journal publishing... I'm very familiar with academic publishing and I can see the parallels to qualitative methodologies. However, the authors works is not rooted in any theory or methodological tradition (e.g., grounded theory) and more along the lines of journalism. The difference between websites and news outlets or academic journals is the editorial/peer-review oversight and vetting done. You cannot compare the output of them. See also WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY. Note, I'm sympathetic to marginalized knowledges and voices being published in non-traditional media, but Wikipedia's mission and content is a reflection of traditional knowledge outlets. There's no WP:DEADLINE here. Let's see what others think. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

EvergreenFir‎:

First you linked me to WP:WallofText and WP:DEADLINE which are essay, not policy or even guidelines. Literally, this is just an opinion. I have no problem with essays about Wikipedia editing, but you should note that by linking to them you aren't backing up your point, you are just stating your opinion. This is some contradictory from you, given that some hours ago you accused me to linking to an opinion article (which it isn't) under the premise that an opinion isn't enough to back up a point. To further add to the self-contradictory behavior, note that WP:WallofText is itself a “wall of text” by its own terminology, and so is WP:DEADLINE.

If you do not like “walls of text” (that is your term, not mine), then I honestly suggest that you refrain from engaging in discussions in Wikipedia and any action that may lead to them. As you already know, discussions in Wikipedia are very often lengthy and if you are not willing to read them in its entirely, you are being dishonest and very uncivil with those that are discussing with you, because you say what you want to say, and therefore make us reply back, but you are not willing to read what we have to say in response.

Did you read all of what I wrote in this discussion?. If you are not interested enough in this article to read what people have to say when you delete content, then please be civil and leave the content as-is.

“However, the authors works is not rooted in any theory or methodological tradition (e.g., grounded theory) and more along the lines of journalism.”

As for “theory”, this can mean a lot of things. In biology, knowledge is mostly organized ad-hoc instead of in “theories” (“theory” in the sense of an almost self-contained and consistent framework of thought, like propositional logic, classic mechanics, theory of relativity or graph theory). There is no policy in Wikipedia that mandates that sources are rooted in “ground theory” or any “theory”, whatever your idea of what “theory” means is.

Your claim that Ruby Ryder's work is “not rooted in any [...] methodological tradition” is wrong. As for “methodological tradition”, I described what Ruby Ryder's methodology is and compared it with that of some papers published in scientific journals ‒that is the part concerning “methodological”)‒. I showed that there is a tradition for such a methodology, going back at least 70 years (it is much older, but Kinsey studies are roughly 70 years old), ‒that is the part concerning “tradition”‒.

“As for equating a website to peer-review journal publishing”

“The difference between websites and news outlets or academic journals is the editorial/peer-review oversight and vetting done.”

Yes, I am aware of that. Hence that I said that the methodology is not very different. I never “equated” Ruby Ryder's work with a peer reviewed scientific article. All on the contrary, I noted that ‒as far as I can tell, after having researched that‒ there are no peer-reviewed scientific articles that can be used as a source for the content you removed.

Are you aware of any study published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that analyzed the psychological pleasure a woman experiences from pegging?. Do you have a reason to be reasonably confident that there is any such study?. My answer to both of those questions would be “no”, the rationale of which I already wrote about, but I am making those questions to you. If your answer is “yes”, then you can easily solve this problem by providing such a reliable source yourself, and if your answer is “no”, then you have no justification on which to think that one such source can be given, so your request for one such source is not reasonable. I have already provided a source. Furthermore, I tried to provide an ideal source but there seems to be none on the topic. If you want a better source, provide it yourself.

You are being disruptive and inconsistent in deleting sourced content because the sources are not ideal. If you are intellectually honest and carry your standard to its logical implication, then we would have to delete all references and the associated content except this one. All of the other references do not come from peer reviewed academic journals.

WP:V is not a license to delete any content you don't like. It's meant as a method to keep falsehoods out of Wikipedia. I think that the content you deleted is accurate (true), and I provided a source for it. Now, if you think that it's true, leave it as is, and if you think that it is false, support your claim!.

I ask you to reflex on whether, and how, your current course of action is going to make Wikipedia better. Suppose that you “win” (term used for conciseness) and the content is left out of Wikipedia. How does that makes it any better?. Would be leaving out a falsehood?. If so, then how do you know that it is false?.

Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC).

There are norms regarding discussions on Wikipedia and one is to avoid huge amounts of text and to be concise in writing. Ignore it if you wish. I read your post, though understanding the key points can be difficult with such verbosity. I'm not being rude/incivil by informing you of the norms of Wikipedia as you are a (presumably) new editor. (I say presumably because you could be long-term IP editor and you've shown some familiarity with Wikipedia; this was not an insult, just that based on the newness of you account I am assuming some lack of knowledge of Wikipedia's norms).

I mention theory and methodology in attempt to explain some of the differences in sources and why Wikipedia values some over others. Nothing more. A purely descriptive, atheoretical, explanatory study can be used as a source too, but the source needs to be consider acceptable per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. That Kinsey did interviews and case studies does not mean anyone doing a similar activity and self-publishing it can be consider a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. If there are no reliable sources regarding information you wish to add to the article, then it cannot be added sadly. Per WP:V, information must be verifiable using reliable sources. The burden is on you as the editor to provide an appropriate source for the content you're adding, not on me. I have objected to your source. If you wish to "prove" it a "reliable source", then WP:RSN is the place to go to seek other opinions from experienced editors and form consensus regarding the source. You have challenged me to find better sources and though I'm not obligated to, this is a team project and I'm rather interested to see if there's academic literature on pegging. (I'm sure Flyer22 would be a good source of where to look too). I'll take a quick look on EbscoHost and GoogleBooks and report back.

Editors who object to content that is boldly added can remove it and discuss the edit per the bold-revert-discuss cycle. This, again, is a norm of Wikipedia. That you consider the material to be "true" or "false" does not impact this process. See WP:TRUTH (an essay, but a good one).

Calling me disruptive or suggesting I'm intellectually dishonest is a personal attack. Please refrain from make them.

I hope I have adequately replied to your points. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I see I am mistaken about the newness of your account. My apologies. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

This is the edit in question. While WP:MEDRS-sourcing is not needed for that content, I agree that the source in question is poor. It would be best to take this matter to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Mario, I agree with Flyer22 Reborn. If you're convinced that Ruby Ryder's blog is a reliable source, please take the discussion to WP:RS/N. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

There's an interesting ASA conference paper about pegging called “Straight Up Confusing”: Heterosexuality, Homophobia, and Sexual Pleasure by Lauren Charles Stewart of University of Oregon ([5]). They talk about pleasure, but mostly seems to be about men's pleasure and issues of homophobia, sexual identity, etc. One I'm unable to access but looks interesting is "Bend Over Boyfriend to Take it Like a Man: pegging pornography and the queer representation of straight sex." by Curran Nault. There are some articles in Diva magazine but they appear to be more about sex tips (pun not intended). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, that paper is cited as a source in the article. Here it is at the Wayback Machine. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it's still available on its original website: [6] — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: Awesome! Thank you! Quick read summary related to above discussion: That article does talk about female empowerment. Also about a woman (Queen) getting sexual pleasuring in the video. Generally talks about the porn aspect of it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

EvergreenFir:

“There are norms regarding discussions on Wikipedia and one is to avoid huge amounts of text and to be concise in writing.”

You seem to think that I wrote a “huge amount of text”. This is not a fact, but your opinion. It's not so by mine. In my opinion, a detailed reply is called for in almost all discussions because they are non-trivial. Thus, writing a reply in full is a sign that the user cares for the topic and is willing to put effort into it; this is in my opinion, a sign of respect and civility, not a point to complain about.

Also, what are those “norms” that you speak about?. So far you have not mentioned any “norm”. You linked to an essay which is nothing more that your opinion and of those who have written it. If you try to pass this as a “norm”, then that would be intellectual honestly, especially given that you are very stringent in applying an high standard for verifiability and you failed to verify the existence of any such norm, providing an opinion instead (note that this is not a conditional accusation of breaking WP:V in the talk page as I am aware that WP:V does not apply to talk pages, but of breaking your own standard).

“Calling me disruptive or suggesting I'm intellectually dishonest is a personal attack. Please refrain from make them.”

Incorrect. I have not done any of the things listed under the relevant policy. I have several mentioned several times intellectual honestly, and I may continue mentioning it, because I think that by applying it, editors would focus less on removing content which is true and focus more on adding content and improving existing content. I think that you may be referring to this this conditional (which is the only one, and note that it converts to a backed-up accusation if the condition holds): “if you are not willing to read them in its entirely, you are being dishonest and very uncivil with those that are discussing with you, because you say what you want to say, and therefore make us reply back, but you are not willing to read what we have to say in response.”.

“That Kinsey did interviews and case studies does not mean anyone doing a similar activity and self-publishing it can be consider a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. If there are no reliable sources regarding information you wish to add to the article, then it cannot be added sadly.”

You are putting the means before the ends. WP:V is a means to the goal of keeping inaccurate, false, and (secondarily) non-notable content outside of Wikipedia. Please reflex on these questions: Hypothetically, if the content you removed is true and you “win” (again, term used for conciseness) and keep it out of the article, how does that make the article better?. Would such an outcome (removing relevant, and accurate content) be what WP:V is intended to do?.

Anyway, since you are very stringent about the literal text of policy: per WP:V, the work of Ruby Ryder is a reliable source about itself, just like the work of Dan Savage (already used as sources in this article) is reliable source on itself. I was hoping that I would not have to resort to discussing the merits of sources based on the literal interpretation of WP:V, but on the intention of it, which is keeping content accurate, hence that my messages in this talk page section were focused on showing that Ruby Ryder work is an accurate source of information of pegging.

As you have already realized in your search of the literature, there are no medical publications that study specifically pegging. I mentioned this (not with certainty but with an high degree of confidence) several messages ago. Does the article on Jump Cult meets WP:MEDRS?. I doubt so. I am aware of the existence of sources like this which do not meet WP:MEDRS (again see above).

I see I am mistaken about the newness of your account. My apologies.

I take no offense of that mistake. However, this is evidence that you do not take the discussion seriously enough to verify that what you write is factually accurate before saying it.

Malik Shabazz:

“Mario, I agree with Flyer22 Reborn. If you're convinced that Ruby Ryder's blog is a reliable source, please take the discussion to WP:RS/N. Thank you.”

Please see what I replied to EvergreenFir: Ruby Ryder works are a reliable source about themselves per WP:V. The policy is completely clear on this.

====================

For those of you who object to the paragraph in question: What suggestions do you have to improve it?. Remember, removing content doesn't makes Wikipedia better, it leaves it as-is before it was added.

Proposed phrasing closer to what Ruby Ryder says:

“According to the advocate of pegging Ruby Ryder, females can enjoy the experience of being active in pleasing their partner, reversing the typical roles, the strong intimacy implied in the exposed vulnerability, and the breaking of taboos.”

In addition to this, other not-medically-reliable sources can be used since they are reliable source of itself, which implies that we have to explicitly attribute the content and we have to keep the description close to what the source says (roughly paraphrasing it).

Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 02:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC).

Mario, you're rapidly approaching WP:IDHT territory. How many editors have to tell you that Ruby Ryder's blog is not a reliable source and that if you disagree you need to take the discussion to a noticeboard before you understand? And please read and follow the talk page guidelines. Be concise. Stop copying everybody else's comments. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pegging (sexual practice). 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20120302065043/http://www.budapestsun.com/news/54577 to http://www.budapestsun.com/news/54577

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Spelling error in reference link correction request

Reference link 5. currently reads: "Ruby Rider's Pegging Paradise." Correct spelling for link: "Ruby Ryder's Pegging Paradise." Editing is unavailable for this area of the page. (No Wikipedia account, but this is Ruby Ryder.) Thank you for your help. 2605:E000:7D0F:6D00:347F:A966:7909:A308 (talk) 08:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I fixed it. Thank you for pointing out the error. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)