Talk:Sexual intercourse

Archives

• Archives: Archive 1, Archive 2
• Start a new discussion

Merge proposal

There's been some fairly tense discussion in Premarital sex regarding the state of that article, Fornication, and Extramarital sex. Since it's all coming down to article title name, i'm recommending that all of those articles be merged into the morality and legality section of this article, and that the participants in those debates help on cleaning up that section rather than an endless proliferation of redundant or meaningless stubs. Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JFQ (talk • contribs) .

A note to editors here: there is already a proposal (partially sponsored by myself) to merge Fornication and Premarital sex into Extramarital sex; this discussion hasn't been formally closed that I am aware of. My opinion would be that the main article on Sexual intercourse is already getting too large, but the consensus on the notability (or lack thereof) of the material in these small articles hasn't really been established. Please read the talk pages of these articles for more of the story of these ongoing debates. Cheers, Kasreyn 10:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Premarital and Extramarital Sex should not be merged based on the simple fact of the ages of people who may be concerned here. A 17 year old who has sex, is obviously having premaritl sex but not extramarital sex. For this reason (and many others which involve the MAJORITY of Americans who ARE NOT married) these articles should remain seperate.

Recently added paragraph on "overstretching"

This was recently added:

Overstretching is extremely painful, this generally occurs when the males penis has a to big circumfrence or in a rape situation when the female is not in a position to withdraw the penis from the vagina therefore releaving the vagina of the immence pain. Overstreching of the vagina can lead to swollen vaginal tissue and in some of the worst & most horrid cases, infection.

I've moved it here because it needs to be copy edited and sourced. --Tony Sidaway 17:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Penetration of the hardened erect penis

To someone who speak british-english, this says that the penentration is performed TO the Penis.

I would perfer "penetration BY the hardened erect penis".

--Charlesknight 08:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. It has the same meaning in American-English as well. Atom 11:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

OK taretone has reverted it so it reads Penetration of the hardened erect penis is also known as intromission, or by the Latin name immissio penis.

Atom changed it to Penetration by the hardened erect penis is also known as intromission, or by the Latin name immissio penis.

The first one seems to suggest that the Penis is being penetrated and the second that the penis is performing the penetration. Therefore I would say that the second makes more sense in the context of the article. --Charlesknight 12:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

POV Sections

The Catholic and Protestant sections only list negative views of the churches wrt sex. Christians view sex as a sacred charge and it is a positive thing when done properly. This needs to be fixed.

Also, it's said, cant find the proper citation, in some christian religions, that, as it is associated with joy and pleasure, it shoudl be still within mariige bounds. I guess it woudl be best to merge moral discussion from both premartial and exmartial sex, leaving just the definition there.

The section on Protestantism is next to worthless, due to the wide spectrum of protestant churches. While it doesn't say anything technically wrong, the actual text is relevant only for those groups that use these texts and says nothing about how it is interpreted for actual daily life. --OliverH 15:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Photograph Of Sex

All this article has is sketchs of people having sex. I think we need a photograph of a couple engaging in sexual intercourse. What does any one else say? matt wilson 19:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed before and so far the consensus has always been that drawings are more appropriate for a scholarly work such as our, for a variety of reasons. This remains my view, certainly. I encourage you to read through the archives for the past discussion. Johntex\^talk 19:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

So what your saying is drawings are better than photographs and we should delete all photos on Wikipedia and replace them with sketchs. No disrespect, but thats stupid matt wilson 03:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

For images of explicit sexual acts, yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. What would be "stupid" would be to blindly plunge ahead adding lots of full-color photographs to articles like creampie (sexual act) or autofellatio or Meatholes without considering the broader consequences to the reputation of the project. Johntex\^talk 12:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

See guidelines work-in-progress at dia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines. Please note: 7. Artwork is preferred over photographs. Atom 22:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It also needs gays' and bisexuals' pictures. As it is now, it is fairly heterosexist (which is a POV) Towsonu2003 20:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

For a photo I can take a picture of me and my girlfriend having sex and put it on here. Can I? I will take the picture tonight and post it tommorrow. 75.109.101.139 17:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I have taken the photo of me and my girlfriend having sex, I just need to know how to post it so someone help me. post it 75.109.101.139 03:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hold your horses, have you explained to your girlfriend exactly what your doing and the implications of it? Nil Einne 22:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You need to be able to document your and your girlfriends ages and that you are giving permission for the pictures to be used and put in the public domain. You should know that on most sexuality articles we prohibit what are called "vanity images". Pretty much, if an image is not asked for by the editors of the article, it probably will be considered to be such a vanity image. Atom 23:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It is a clear image and will be fit for the site. Im 20 and my girlfriend is 14. 75.109.101.139 23:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah! Well, you might take a look at Age of consent. Also, Child_pornography#United_States as those kinds of pictures of teenagers under the age of 18 are illegal in the U.S. Atom 00:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Im not going to tell her. It will be a suprise. And what is "age of concent" ? 75.109.101.139 00:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, how very Christian of you. Taking a picture of your girlfriend, while you were having sex, without her knowing? Lol, firstly if you are a true Christian, you can't have sex with her 'till your married. But back on subject, I do not think we are having any photos here, especially not some crude one of you having sex with your supposed girlfriend. And finally, to upload photos, I think you need to be a member. I can't be bothered to sign out and check if that's true though. Age of consent is the minimum age at which two people can have sex. As your 'girlfriend' is 14, I'm taking that that is quite illigal. The Haunted Angel ^{(The Forest Whispers My Name)} 21:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I laud your motives, but I wonder what Christianity has to do with anything here? I don't recall 75.109.101.139 ever mentioning his religious persuasion. Kasreyn 06:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

75.etc, do not post such an image. I can guarantee that it will not only be speedily deleted, but continued uploading of such material may result in your permanent banning from the project. It's already happened once - and that was to someone much more well-spoken who had a much stronger case to argue than you. I urge you to desist instantly. Cheers, Kasreyn 06:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

75.109.101.139 has vandalised my user page, Haunted Angels user page and blanked articles because he thinks there non Christian. He says Wikipedia should be 100% Christian, and evrything thats a sin should be deleted. H.J. Bellamy 23:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

What user was banned for such images H.J. Bellamy 04:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a picture of sex is not appropriate in this format, sketches are perfectly fine. Pictures should be reserved for better sex web sites that have the proper 2257 model release forms that abide by Title 18 and provide the required disclaimers. Example of such a site is http://www.HolisticWisdom.com. Please be warned that while that example is a sex education site, it does contain sexually explicit photos in some of the sexual health related articles. They have a disclaimer as well as model releases that are necessary for display on the web which is essential in posting such pictures.

Removal of religion

A user has twice removed the entry on Wicca. I am not sure why. Pagans and Wiccans views are just as relevent and important as other religions. The view that Wiccans have that sexuality is sacred may be inconvenient or uncomfortable for conservative christian types, but we need to respect, and allow all views, not remove the views of religions that we don't agree with. Atom 23:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I kind of wonder why more religions aren't covered. Surely there are more Mormons than neopagans, yet we don't cover Mormon views. How about Shinto? And so on and so forth. Kasreyn 06:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess in accordance with NPOV we allow people to put their views in when they are factual and not just opinion. Someone Wiccan/Neopagan added their view and Mormons didn't. Also, the christian view is covered, which mormons are a subset of. SO, I agree with you in the context that we need more people to add their religious view if it is distinct. Atom 12:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no debate about the notability of religion's view on sexuality. My position has to do with sourcing. If every religion is gievn an indepth section then that would qualify as undue weight and a sperate article would be needed to cover religion and sexuality such as oh...Religion and sexuality. NeoFreak 21:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Bricker Amendment

why does "Bricker Amendment" redirect to this article??

Teddy Bear in Missionary Position Sketch

I think having the teddy bear in the sketch of the Missionary Position is creepy and was inserted by someone who has thoughts about sexual acts with young girls. I see from the history that the teddy bear have been added and removed a few times, thus there are probably people out there who think like me. I do agree with the sketchs, but please remove the teddy bear. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.251.172.221 (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Wicca dispute

I first came across this in the Masturbation article. One thing I noticed is that it was exactly copied from this article. First off, Doreen Valiente wrote the Charge of the Goddess. Second, not -all- Wiccans practice the Great Rite, but there are several that do so symbolically. I really think that an expert on this, someone more qualified than me, to really go through this section and clean it up. Disinclination 04:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not properly sourced and is rather misleading as there is no central dogma to Wicca and therefore there is no central position on sex. I suspect that the only reason it is even here is to make a stand for "equal representation" of religions. NeoFreak 06:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, why not represent their views? Yes, it should be better sourced. Someone should do that. But, it does not suggest that all Wiccans believe the same thing. Just because wiccans don't enforce dogma, and don't have a central authority is no reason not to represent a predominant view. Those who hold similar, but differing views should add them. Atom 17:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right someone should do that. If you review WP:V you wil find that it doesn't have to be me, it has to be you, as you're the person asking for inclusion. So tell us, who says that is the predominant view? How many view it like that? What are the other views? How can it be justified as being the central belief of the religion when theere is no central dogmatic structure to the religion and it has no recognized clergy? When you state that is it central or overwhelming view of that religion that is a statement that needs to sourced. Because some witches council or some such said they think "x" that does not qualify it as a core belief for the entire (or even majority of that) religion. After you answer and source these obvious questions I'm sure that nobody will object to it inclusion back into the article. NeoFreak 20:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The Wiccan section is not my addition. You are right, there are lot's of material in Wikipedia that could be better sourced, and should be. In this article, there are a large number of them, including the part you pointed out. Should we remove ALL of the article except for the cited portions? My editorial decision is to leave in the information that seems likely, but needs to be better cited, and let people who have an interest in that portion find the citations eventually. We could indeed remove many of the things that are not cited here, but that would just leave a bad article. Reverting the Wiccan section will just make the article less NPOV. If both choices are not gavorable, an editorial decision needs to be made on which is the better choice. IMO, having the information (even if someone needs to find further sources) is better than omitting valuable information, and at the same time weakening the neutral POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomaton (talk • contribs)

Wikpedia's policies on reliable sources and verifiability don't agree with your "editorial decision". I'm not contesting the other portions (yet). Also see the other talk section you've created for more explanation of why you are wrong. Please ensure that future reversion are complaint with policy as clearly laid out in WP:V, WP:NPOV (esp undue weight) and WP:RS so as to avoid an edit war, they benefit nobody. If you want to make a sweeping assertion about a de-centralized religion's viewpoint on sexuality then you need to back that up with sources. If you have any specifics you would like to discuss don't be afraid to drop me a line on my talk page. NeoFreak 21:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I honestly think it needs to be re-written all together. I've been studying for almost two years, and re-reading that every time just made me want to shudder. As was posted on the Wicca talk page, I have asked that someone who knows alot better about this subject, or can possibly make it sound better, should come forward. Like NeoFreak said above, there si not central dogma of Wicca, although yes, sex is seen as magic (it is a fertility religion, along with others, but I won't get into that). But there was a Witchmeet mentioned (which could include ANY number of witches, since witchcraft is a craft, and is no longer considered to be truely interchangeable with Wicca), that was apparently by a 'Council of Witches'. Not only was it unsourced, Gardner intended for each person to be their own priest/ess. There is no central dogma, save for your own coven, or yourself (if you are solitary).

I honestly would like to see a good section on Wicca, but the current one just didn't cut it. Disinclination 21:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, your explanation is better than the previous editor. I still disagree, and feel that leaving it in is better than removing it. If we were to remove this because it is unsource and uncited, then we would need to remove a number of other things.

For instance, in the Judaism section:

Orthodox Judaism restricts sexual activity to a legally permissible marriage between a Jewish man and a Jewish woman. A man and woman are prohibited from being in a closed room alone together if they are not married, a law called yichud. Orthodox Jews refrain from all physical contact with adult members of the opposite sex other than their spouses, a practice called shemirat negiah. Within marriage, there is no taboo against either the man or the woman enjoying sexual activity. Talmudic law dictates that the wife, not the husband, is to decide when the couple shall have sex.

Sexual relations between a man and a woman who are not married are considered less serious (they are referred to as zenuth) than the Biblically prohibited unions such as adultery (a married woman having relations with another man) and incest; the later are referred to as ervah (literally "nakedness"), have more severe penalties and there are serious restrictions on children of these prohibited unions (mamzerim).

Sexual intercourse is one of the ways the Talmud (Kiddushin 2a) specifies for effecting a marriage, though this method is no longer employed.

And in the Protestant section:

Translations of the New Testament say: "Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers,... will not inherit the kingdom of God". 1 Corinthians: 6:9-10. The original Koine Greek word translated as fornication is porneia. The Greek term is used by conservative churches to include a wide range of sexual misconduct including fornication, adultery, sex with prostitutes, etc., even though there is some debate as to the scope of the meaning of the word, which in Classical Greek refers to prostitution, etc. and is etymologically the same root as in the English "pornography", which literally means writings having to do with sexual immorality.

The Islam section:

In the Qur'an, sex before marriage is strictly prohibited. Islam stresses that sexual relations should be restricted to the institution of marriage in order for the creation of the family; and secondly as a means to protect the family, certain relations should be considered prohibited for marriage. Islam recognises that sex is enjoyable and makes no prohibitions on sex for pleasure (between a husband and wife). In fact being available for, and pleasuring, your spouse is a duty on both the husband and wife. Fornication and adultery are both included in the Arabic word 'Zina'. Belonging primarily to the same category of crimes, entailing the same social implications and having the same effects on the spiritual personality of a human being, both, in principle, been given the same status by the Qur'an.

And Hinduism:

Hinduism preaches that the material world, also termed as maya, is responsible for all of man's sorrows. Hindu texts, such as the Bhagavad Gita, describe fornication and lust as acts of material bondage which drives a man away from spiritual wisdom.

Alternative Hindu schools of thought such as the Tantric branches of Hinduism, is markedly less reserved, teaching that enlightenment can be approached through divine sex. Divine sex is one path whereby one can approach Moksha (Nirvana), a oneness with a higher spiritual level. As such, the Tantric practices, through writings such as the Kama Sutra seek not to repress sexuality, but to perfect it. By perfecting the act of divine sex, including masturbation, as seen depicted at the 10th century Hindu temple of Khajuraho, one clears the mind of earthly desires, leaving the soul on a higher level devoid of such worries, filled with bliss, and relaxed.

\

Buddhism:

In the Buddhist tradition, under the Five Precepts and the Eightfold Path, one should neither be attached to nor crave sensual pleasure. The third of the Five Precepts is "To refrain from sexual misconduct". For most Buddhist laypeople, sex outside of marriage is not "sexual misconduct", especially when compared to, say, adultery or any sexual activity which can bring suffering to another human being. Each may need to consider whether, for them, sexual contact is a distraction or means of avoidance of their own spiritual practice or development. To provide a complete focus onto spiritual practice, fully ordained Buddhist monks may, depending on the tradition, be bound by hundreds of further detailed rules or vows that may include a ban on sexual relations.

Secular Humanism:

Most secular humanists believe that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, sexual intercourse does no harm in this world. Secular humanism therefore considers most sex acts as morally irrelevant and up to the individual. It should be done in private or viewed with/by consenting adults.

We have to take them all out. No references, no citations. Clearly the statements made her don;t represent the views of everyone in those religions. Buddhism has no central authority, Like Paganism and Wicca. Same for Secular Humanism.

So, tell me, how does the section on Wicca differ from these sections? They could all be edited to be clearer, they could all be cited and referenced. In all of the cases the statements hardly apply too all, or maybe even most of the adherents of those religions.

So, I'll say it again. Removing the Wicca section just because it doesn't fit all Wiccans or Pagans, or because the statements made aren't sourced or cited is a bad idea unless you plan on applying it everywhere in the article, and in other religious articles as well.

Look at some of the things said:

• Wiccans consider such activity not only normal and healthy, but also sacred (as long as it isn't causing harm in acordance with the threefold law,...

• Sex magic is considered one of the more potent branches of Thelema, with sex being key to the Great Rite, itself.

Despite the non-uniformity of Paganism and Wicca, how many pagans, wiccans, druids or neo-pagans do you think would dispute those things? Most would say that those beleifs or similar are within the foundation of their religion. Atom 03:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, how many would? How many is "most"? More than half, right? All but a "few"? The "vast majority"? What about those that wiccans that disagree? What about those that practive alternatives or view sexual intercourse in a diffrent way? How many of those are there? How are the beliefs "similar" and what does that mean for the assertion's accuracy? Any sources? Who is the arbitrator of these questions? Who or what is the theological authority for sexuality and the wiccan belief system? Is there one? Says who?

I'm not contesting the other sections at this time, just the wiccan one because it is the least accurate, in my opinion. If I so decide to contest an unsourced entry that is my perogative. If you wish to put it back in and you source it then wonderful, the article is improved and everyone is happy. Until then I'm not sure what there is to discuss. If another editors takes issue with unsourced assertions about the other religions that would be their perogative as well. Maybe this entire issue is too large in scope to attempt to handle here and it should stay in the religion and sexuality article instead.

One last thing. I noticed that you made the automatic assumption that I removed the wiccan section because I had a bigoted moral issue with the religion. I would ask that you take my comments at face value and always assume good faith until you are given evidence to the contrary. NeoFreak 03:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I made no assumption about you. I saw that you removed the Wiccan section on the basis that it was uncited, but not any of the other uncited sections. I certainly did not express anything that should have made you think I made assumptions that you were bigoted.

I added a brand new section, my own writing, based on (and quoting) the cited sources, and the guidance of one of my three lovers, who is a witch. I don't claim that it represents all Wiccans, but it is what it is, and it is cited correctly. As this is better than the previous section, I suppose you achieved your goal, and we have a (slightly) better article.

However, what I said previously is still correct. Leaving accurate, yet uncited material in is better than removing it, especially if it removes a perspective that helps to maintain a neutral POV. Atom 04:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

However, the previous section was not accurate in the most part, and the first sentence seemed to allude that Wicca was some Old Religion (a discussion beaten to death). I edited out the paragraph on the Wiccan Rede, and instead added a few sentences in to the other paragraphs dealing with this. If you want to add in a link or a cite TO the Wiccan Rede, with someone you can add or cite something I've said, go right ahead. But what was put down had no mention of sexual intercourse whatsoever. All I did was take your information, and add context to it. I hope you'll agree, and continue editing here, Atom. Disinclination 06:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, is discussing what kind of wording seems most appropriate is better than removal of the section because it did not entirely agree with one persons philosophy.

Of course I have no problem with other editors improving upon what is already here. This latest edit isn't really much to my liking as " is encouraged to take place between two consenting adults, even more so with two married adults." is a personal POV, and not, generally, the philosophy of Wicca, or wiccans. " is encouraged to take place between two consenting adults" might be better, or possibly " is encouraged to take place between two consenting adults, even more so with two involved lovers".

Secondly, by removing the Wiccan rede, it changes the tone more in that direction. "Do what you will, so long as it harms none " supports that Wicca is fine with consenting adults participating in intercourse. I think it natural that Wiccans, especially conservative ones would like to change the mis-perception that some have of Witches having sex orgies in circle, and elsewhere, and of generally being promiscuous. However, trying to suggest that the Wiccan philosophy supports or enforces monogamous married relationships is just innacurate. Most Wiccans are open to sexuality, and non judgmental about whether others are married, or are of the same or opposite sex, or of polyamorous relationships. The recent few years have pushed many people, and their religious views more to the right. But, those times are over now. There is no reason to try and twist Wiccan philosophy to try and say it prefers or supports marriage and monogamy. Atom 14:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

One thing I have a problem with though, is this:

There is nothing in Wicca that endorses or recommends monogamous marriage, this is a personal choice between two consenting adults.

I think this totally ignores what a Wiccan Handfasting is. A marriage. I think it could be re-worded a little, and I get to what you're saying at. But when reading this, it seems to say that Wiccans do not have any marriage basis at all. Yes, I am still a newcomer at Wicca, but someone reading this, with limited knowledge of Wicca like myself, will see this, and could come to this conclusion. Disinclination 21:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, handfasting was historically an agreement to stay together for a year and a day. It was likely the predecessor to what eventually became marriage, but was not marriage. Also, handfasting isn't an agreement to be monogamous, and isn't limited to heterosexuals or opposite sex partners, or even to just two people. More importantly, handfasting is something available to Wiccans as they choose, between those people — not something required by their church. Sexual Intercourse can happen before or after handfasting and Wicca makes no distinction regarding that. It is true that many modern Wiccans often combine religious handfasting with legal marriage, but then, I know many people who do not go through the legal process. The point is, Wicca does consider sexuality to be wholesome and sacred, but does not endorse or require marriage or monogamy in order to ethical. Essentially, the issue of sexuality, and intercourse is a completely seperate issue from whether one wishes to be bound to a partner. A wiccan can choose one, the other, neither or both and remains ethical.

As for adding back Doreen Valiente, I don't see how her name is pertinent to sexual intercourse, and the Wiki link for "Charge of the Goddess" is right there for anyone to look at should they choose, with her cited prominently. Since the "charge" is in the public domain, and the reference quite clear, I don't see how reference is necessary or desired in this article. Atom 00:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Heterosexist Claptrap

Sexual intercourse should not be so narrowly defined. This article should be renamed "opposite-sex sexual intercourse" or be expanded to include all kinds of intercourse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.36.126 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 2006 December 11 (UTC)

Your post might possibly be taken more seriously if you would

1. Post at the bottom of the page instead of the top.
2. Sign your post with ~~~~ as requested by the instructions.
3. Not begin your post with an inflamatory title.

Possibly. No guarantees, but it would be a good start. Johntex\^talk 03:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

My Edits

My edits about WIlliam Roach and Anne Kirkbridge are true. Everyone better stop reverting them. They are not vandalism. Transmexico 01:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Read history, and policies on what you should add to Wikipedia. You ahve not cited any sources on this, and as someone said, Wikipedia is not a place for so called "true" stories. Disinclination 04:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move

The following discussion is an archived debate 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.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS to move page, per discussion below. "Vaginal intercourse" is not a particularly common name for coitus, and the article now defines sexual intercourse in a more inclusive way, including sections on oral and anal sex with {{main}} links in place. Much of the content is equally applicable to non-vaginal forms of intercourse as well. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sexual intercourse → Vaginal intercourse — The current article indicates that "sexual intercourse" only refers to penile-vaginal intercourse. This exclusive usage is in violation of NPOV, as it has heteronormative bias. This usage also defies Merriam-Webster's dictionary definition of sexual intercourse; which lists several acts as forms of sexual intercourse [1]. The proposal is to rename the article "Vaginal intercourse", because that is the specific act to which the article exclusively refers. The move would allow for a disambiguation page at Sexual intercourse, which would list each of the acts which can be described by the term. Joie de Vivre 15:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Survey - Support votes

1. Support, as the nominator. Joie de Vivre 15:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Support more accurate term that is quite common. 205.157.110.11 03:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Support -- The current wording of this articles equates sexual intercourse with male/female coitus. There is no mention of other varieties of sexual intercourse. This is inaccurate. I agree with Joie de Vivre's comments below. The best tact would be to move this article, and create a disambiguation page that links to all the different varieties of sexual intercourse. I would not object if the disambiguation page starts out saying "Sexual intercourse often refers to vaginal intercourse between males and females. It also can refer to many other sexuals acts:..." --Samuel Wantman 02:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Support heterosexist... starting over might fix it. Towsonu2003 00:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. - Cyrus XIII 00:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Support per nomination. I decided after awhile where I should vote. irregardless of order (which is popularity) in the dictionary, this article should include ALL sexual intercourse acts.Disinclination 00:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey - Oppose votes

1. Oppose - Use the common term most recognized. No reason to change and confuse people. Atom 15:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose - sexual intercourse is defined in every dictionary as vaginal intercourse. Moving it is PC and confusing. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose - Like Dev920 said, sexual intercorse is defined in dictonaries as vaginal intercourse. American Brit 03:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose - Dictionary definition. --206.191.28.13 04:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose - This page has had the same problem between with the lack of homosexual intercourse not included. It is something we should all work on, but I do not agree with putting this as a new page, and starting over. Disinclination 00:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose - The simple fact is that, overwhelmingly, most dictionaries and most people understand this term to mean the one specific act. Fan-1967 01:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Recury 20:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose, common term. Gene Nygaard 02:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose. If someone's not looking for the page on vaginal intercourse and comes to this page, the text at the top will explain where to go, though I do think it would be good if this page could be a little more inclusive. Mangojuice^talk 18:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose. This is still the most common term, the attempt to shift its meaning is politically charged and we should have no part of it. Andrewa 03:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Dictionary definition: The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines "sexual intercourse" as penile-vaginal intercourse, and also as oral and anal intercourse [2]. This dictionary definition of the multiple forms of sexual intercourse supports the proposed move. Joie de Vivre 13:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that you noted in the article that there was a paragraph that said "Often a community adapts its legal definitions during case laws for settling disputes. For example, in 2003 the New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled that :same-sex relations do not constitute sexual intercourse, based on a 1961 definition from Webster's Third New International Dictionary, in Blanchflower v. Blanchflower, and thereby an accused spouse in a divorce case was found not guilty of adultery based on this technicality." So, perhaps the originators of this article based their definition on that view, that is the Webster's Third New International Dictionary definition that did "not" include anal-intercourse as part of the definition of "sexual intercourse".

If you are suggesting that a newer version of the same dictionary now suggests that oral and anal intercourse are definied as alternative definitions of Sexual intercourse, other than Vaginal intercourse, then of course it seems that the obvious solution would be for you to just rewrite the article and include sections on oral sex and anal intercourse within this article. As there are extensive articles on those already, a short paragraph describing them and a link to the main article for those ought to be sufficient.

Certainly there is no need to rewrite this article purely based on one dictionary definition. The primary defintion, and the primary usage for the term "Sexual intercourse" is coitus. Moving it to a different article and creating a disambiguation page seems counter intuitive, and pretty much like a waste of time to me. Atom 17:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

So, New Hampshire law has defined extramarital coitus as the only act which constitutes adultery in that state. How is this relevant? I don't see any relationship between this event and the various meanings of the term "sexual intercourse". No one has disputed that "coitus" refers to penile-vaginal intercourse. The definition of "coitus" does not influence the definition of "sexual intercourse", which can define various acts. See my comments, below, about the problems with rewriting the article. Joie de Vivre 01:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman..." Sound familiar? I think it was a bogus thing to say then, and the same problem applies to this page as well. There is an easy way to resolve this. This page can be rewritten to include a broader definition of sexual intercourse. Intercourse meaning penetration, has to include other types of sexual penetration. The new page could be brief, with a description linking to each variety of sexual intercourse, or it could be comprehensive. But it seems it has to be one or the other. Defining "sexual intercourse" solely as male-female coitus is not accurate. This is an encyclopedia. -- Samuel Wantman 00:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If people really have a problem with it, why not intergrate into the article about homosexual intercourse? Disinclination 00:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Which article would that be? There is no such thing as "homosexual intercourse", and referring to people as "homosexual" is considered rude. People have sexual orientations. Sex acts do not. That said, I don't understand what you're suggesting. Joie de Vivre 01:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Where did you get that idea? The term "homosexual" means "same sex", it isn't derogatory, but is descriptive. However, I agree that "Homosexual sex" is not a term many people use. Atom 01:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hetero/homo is not the issue -- last I've heard, heteros are engaging in oral and anal activities quite a bit. -- Samuel Wantman 02:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

An explanatory link is provided at "considered rude", above. Joie de Vivre 23:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I worded that wrong, since I wasn't clear about the two subjects we were adding (I shouldn't have put homosexual sex, I agree that that part was wrong), which was anal sex and oral sex. And, quite frankly, I don't see homosexual as derogatory. If it is, then the whole article on homosexuals and gay is derogatory as well. Don't know where you got that being rude, from. Disinclination 00:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

To those suggesting changing the existing article, rather than moving the content, have you read the article through? Every single aspect of it refers to vaginal intercourse, from the social implications, to the reproductive aspects, to the religious views, the anatomy involved, the act itself. This article refers explicitly and exclusively to vaginal intercourse. Changing the content of this article to be inclusive of all forms of sexual intercourse would be extremely arduous and time-consuming. As there are articles with content comparable to this one describing Anal sex and Oral sex, the simplest solution is to move the content from here to Vaginal intercourse, making Sexual intercourse perhaps not a bare-bones disambiguation page, but a page where the various uses of this term are discussed in some depth. Joie de Vivre 01:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm discouraged that you seem more interested in making huge changes than just fixing the problem. When the article was written, the Webster dictionary entry only listed coitus as the primary definition of Sexual Intercourse. Now, as you point out, it has a secondary definition that includes oral sex and anal intercourse.

Why not just add two references to this article to indicate that the secondary definition is such, and point to the already existing main articles on oral sex and anal intercourse. If you won't then I will find time to do it myself. Atom 03:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

There, I fixed the article to update it with the new Merriam Webster definition to include the secondary definition of Sexual Intercourse as "Oral Sex" or "Anal Intercourse". It seemed so much simpler than all of the other machinations. The definition matches the article. No need for changing anything.

Howver, feel free to expand beyond what I have added, of course. Atom 01:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the problem is solved. The little bit added about oral and anal sex does not seem worthy of a section. Also, the problem with adding those sections is that if they are to be added, the entire article needs to be rewritten in the following ways:

• The introductory section has to include discussion of all forms of sexual intercourse.
• The sections should be a size that is equal to the weight of their importance. Since oral and anal sexual intercourse is quite common among both heterosexuals and homosexuals, it seems that it would need much more weight.

I don't see the point in messing with this article as it is already a good complete article about vaginal sexual intercourse, and the articles about anal sex and oral sex are also already good and complete. So I moved the references to the other articles to the beginning of the article. I still think this page should be renamed and the top of this page would become a disambiguation page. I don't see why that is a problem. It is the simplest solution to implement, and each article is independent and complete. -- Samuel Wantman 01:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. This is exactly what I meant to convey. Joie de Vivre 02:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

(more) I just did a survey of other articles linked to this. I noticed that Human_sexuality#Topics_in_human_sexuality links this article to vaginal sex in their taxonomy of sex topics. Splitting this page, and moving the bulk of the text would add more resonance with other related articles. --Samuel Wantman 02:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why the introductory section of the article should be rewritten. You mentioned that the Merriam Webster dictionary was your reference. It lists Coitus as the primary definition for Sexual Intercourse. The secondary definition is for Oral and Anal. Why shouldn't this article basically say the same thing?

Also, the points that the others made is good too. If Oral Sex and Anal sex are already full sized and well written articles, then why reproduce all of them here? I can see a case for including more detail that what I put in here. Enough to let the reader understand the concept of each, and the link to the main article if they want more details.

I offered the compromise of moving leaving the about section in the beginning, as you inserted, but also made the section on other forms of Sexual Intercourse define it with enough detail that an interested person would know that they are secondary definitions, and what they are. The about portion in the intro does not clearly identify that Oral and Anal are secondary definitions for sexual intercourse. Atom 03:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems you want to take the path of doing a rewrite of the article, and I don't understand why. If you want to take that path, you need to rewrite the opening paragraphs:

Sexual intercourse, also called coitus, or simply, to have sex is the human form of copulation. While its primary evolutionary purpose is the reproduction and continued survival of the human species, it can also be used for sexual pleasure exclusively.

Coitus may be preceded by foreplay, which leads to sexual arousal of the partners, resulting in the erection of the penis and natural lubrication of the vagina.

Coition of a Hemisected Man and Woman (c. 1492) is an artist's interpretation of what happens inside the body during coitus by Leonardo da Vinci.

To engage in sexual intercourse, the erect penis is inserted into the vagina and one or both of the partners move their hips to move the penis backward and forward inside the vagina to cause friction, typically without fully removing the penis. In this way, they stimulate themselves and each other, often continuing until orgasm and ejaculation are achieved. Penetration by the hardened erect penis is also known as intromission, or by the Latin name immissio penis.

These three paragraphs and picture are incorrect if the artilce is about the broad definition of sexual intercourse. They do not describe sexual intercourse accurately and in broad terms. My understanding is thst coitus only refers to vaginal sex between a man and a woman, so this description gives the false impression that vaginal sex is the same as sexual intercourse. As a summary of the topic it is deficient. There is no practical reason to rewrite it, when we can just move the article and have a disambiguation page. Once again, why is renaming the page a problem? -- Samuel Wantman 04:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. The primary definition of Sexual Intercourse is coitus or vaginal intercourse. That's not a false impression, it is the correct impression. The secondary definition for Sexual Intercourse is Oral Intercourse or Anal intercourse. There is no reasojn to move, rename, DAB, or anything else. I added the secondary definition to the article in order to make it accurate according to the dictionary definition you provided. Problem solved! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Automaton (talk • contribs).

I don't see how. The article has barely been touched, other than adding two references to anal and other types of intercourse. The rest of the article remains largely about vaginal sex. Nothing about anal sex is even included in the introductory paragraph, or how one might distinguish between the two, other than the long list of disamigs on the page now. Disinclination 04:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

But vaginal sex is the primary definition of sexual intercourse. It is only recently that sexual inercourse has mean't anything else. Oral and Anal are secondary references, not the primary reference — Not the usage for hundreds of years. Secondarily, we already have long well written articles for them, why include all of that here, for a secondary reference. Atom 22:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a minute. Vaginal intercourse has one meaning; coitus, arguably, has one meaning; but "sexual intercourse" has three meanings. The ordering of dictionary definitions does not imply that each successive meaning is less accurate, just that the usage is less common. Anal sex and oral sex are forms of sexual intercourse, period. The current article's wording does not reflect this fact. It is not acceptable to leave this article with only the disambiguation links at the top. It must be changed to be inclusive of all the forms, whether through moving and creating a disambig page, or through altering the existing article. This latter option would be very tedious and would make the article very lengthy. Also, since articles can only be so long, changing the article would crowd out valuable information about vaginal intercourse. Why should the quality of the existing article be lost? Joie de Vivre 04:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree we should not include the content (merge) of anal or oral in this article. They are fine as is. Yes, changing this article to be called vaginal intercourse is, indeed, one possible way of solving it. I'm not saying that I, or anyone else is morally opposed to that, it just isn't elegant. Since when the word "Sexual Intercourse" is used, the person means "coitus/fucking" 99% of the time, it seems silly to change the name of the article to a term that only sexologists use (Vaginal sex, and everyday people rarely/never use. Even homosexual, or BDSM/leather lifestylers would use the term Anal sex,"Butt-Fucking", "Head" or Oral sex, rather than "Sexual Intercourse", as they would want to be understood, and not confused for meaning the primary definition of the term.

What is inelegant is the list of seven italicized disambiguation links, coupled with the headers clarifying that anal sex and oral sex are forms of sexual intercourse. The multiple modifiers are there because the term "sexual intercourse" is related to many things. This article would be much more elegant if these modifiers could be moved to the new disambiguation page, allowing us to elegantly frame the existing, solid article on vaginal intercourse. Joie de Vivre 23:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was a compromise. What I would prefer is that those be removed as the following text later on in the article discusses the secondary definitions. It isn't a disambiguation after all, but is referenced in the article. Also, if others than myself would expand the section on oral and anal, it could be more effective here. Atom 23:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I ask. Why is moving this article and creating a disambiguation page a problem? It seems a win-win solution. It answers our concerns and does not require a rewrite. Atom has expressed the desire to not make big changes to the article. If it is not renamed it will require huge changes. -- Samuel Wantman 08:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

As I have said, I made the changes. As it is right now, it is fine. No big changes are needed at all. It reflects that the primary definition and english usage for Sexual Intercourse is Coitus, what you call Vaginal Intercourse. To reflect that in can is sometimes occasionally used to be other forms of sex, the article points out the secondary definitions, and points to huge articles that go into great detail about what those things are. If the term "Vaginal intercourse were widely used, rather than just by academics trying to be politically correct, and clinician's trying to avoid offending their patients, and if people said Sexual Intercourse when they mean't oral sex or anal sex more frequently (instead of rarely) then I would agree with your suggestion. In my view, it is much ado about nothing to change the article. Atom 22:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It is considerably rude of you to keep repeating "it's fine" and "problem solved", as multiple editors continue to dissent with your opinion. Obviously, others do not agree that your edits have resolved their concerns. It is disrespectful to infer that others' opinions don't matter. Joie de Vivre 00:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

My apologies to you, and anyone else who may be offended, or feel that I am rude. I was asserting my opinion, and not telling you how you should feel. When I assert that opinion, and someone responds that I am wrong, and that the article needs major changes, then I reassert my opinion. If they want to assert their opinion, that's fine. When they have offered their opinion, and then respond to my comment to tell me I am wrong, it seems logical for me to respond, and offer some other kind of rational or insight as to why it is my opinion.

Let me be clear that I understand that I am only one person, and stating only my opinion. I submitted only onve vote above, as have other people. Many people have contributed their opinion here in the comments section. Since I made changes to the article that could quite possibly solve the problem, it makes sense that after that change people would state their opinions on that, and I would respond. I encourage you to vote as you feel is appropriate regardless of my words. I'm fine with you disagreeing with me, and I am fine with following a consensus if we can reach one. The only way to reach consensus, and have people who have indicated their view one way or the other reconsider is for all of us to discuss it further, make changes and repeat. We are trying to reach a consensus, and the vote is a straw poll to help. We don't make decision based on majority rule, but by consensus. Atom 21:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, I did a search on Google Scholar for the term "sexual intercourse", and looked through a few of the references I found.[3] I checked every reference for the first five pages, 50 references in all, and every one of them used the term "sexual intercourse" in the context of coitus, and not one was in the context of Anal intercourse, or oral sex.

So, to be fair I looked up the term "vaginal intercourse" in Google Scholar, and found about ten-percent as many references as sexual intercourse.[4] With 4,570 references in academic articles, obviously the term is used, but much, much less frequently than "Sexual Intercourse".

Okay, so I followed through further, and looked up "anal intercourse" in Google Scholar.[5], finding 8,240 references from academic sources. I reviewed the first page of references, 10 in all, found that none of them referenced the term "sexual intercourse" or used the term in reference to anal intercourse.

Now, I don't think that ghits, or even Google scholar should substitute for ones own judgement, and reviewing only ten of the references is hardly a representative sample of 8,240 articles. But – I have to say that it seems to me that scholars writing dissertations and research papers published in refereed journals on these topics — regardless of the Merriam Webster dictionary definition:

• Rarely use the term "Vaginal Intercourse"
• Never use the term "Sexual intercourse" when they mean "Anal Intercourse"
• When they use the term "Sexual Intercourse", always mean "coitus/fucking".

I repeat, in my view, it is much ado about nothing to change the article. Leave the article the way that it is. Let's work on something else that needs doing more. Atom 22:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Re-evaluation of opinion, more rational explanation of viewpoint

I re-read the initial merger nomination and the votes and comments that have been made. After a period of little activity here I re-evaluated my position, but came up with the same conclusion. I am an active supporter of gays and lesbians, and initially I agreed with the nomination text which says essentially "Article is only about penile-vaginal sex, and as such is heteronormative, and so is NPOV". Because I felt that was correct, I edited the article, and added additional POV's, including that for anal intercourse and oral intercourse, both perhaps more representative of the gay and lesbian community. I think that what we differ on is really slight, more a matter of how to implement what needs to change, rather than arguing over whether the article needed to change.

I voted oppose because I feel that the nominated problems have been resolved with the recent edits by myself and others.

The nominator said:

The current article indicates that "sexual intercourse" only refers to penile-vaginal intercourse. This exclusive usage is in violation of NPOV, as it has heteronormative bias. This usage also defies Merriam-Webster's dictionary definition of sexual intercourse; which lists several acts as forms of sexual intercourse [1]. The proposal is to rename the article "Vaginal intercourse", because that is the specific act to which the article exclusively refers. The move would allow for a disambiguation page at Sexual intercourse, which would list each of the acts which can be described by the term.

My analysis of the current situation after edits:

• "The current article indicates that "sexual intercourse" only refers to penile-vaginal intercourse."

• This was true. As such it represented only a heterosexual POV, and so the article was NPOV.
• Per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, "None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one." AND "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."
• Since the article was rewritten, it is no longer POV. It represents other significant published views, and in proportion to the prominence of each. Of course we as editors can add to the alternative viewpoint coverage, if we disagree as to whether it is appropriately proportional, or not.

• "This usage also defies Merriam-Webster's dictionary definition of sexual intercourse; which lists several acts as forms of sexual intercourse"

• The current article now as edited directly mirrors the Merriam-Webster definition of sexual intercourse, which gives penile-vaginal intercourse primary referenced defintion, and Anal or Oral intercourse as secondary definition.

Where I would, and did agree with the originally stated reasons of the nominator, it seems to me, in my opinion, that these problems no longer exist, and that they have been solved.

Also, in reading our NPOV policy, it is more usual (as is the current situation) to represent alternative points of view in the same article, rather than break them up into a series of articles, each of which represents only one POV. (or try to represent all POV's in several articles; each with a different focus).

It is for this reason that I feel, in my opinion, that a disambiguation page approach is incorrect. Disambiguation pages are correctly used for terms that have the same name or acronym, but have little or no correlation or commonality. (Kernel would be a good example of this). In our case, Vaginal, Anal and Oral sex are not really disambiguated, but are very closely linked. The purpose for our NPOV policy is so that content like this should all be fairly represented in the same article. We can disagree as to what the appropriate balance of the article ought to be in order to fairly represent the primary dictionary definition versus the secondary definition, or even heterosexual sexual behavior versus homosexual sexual behavior (although anal and oral sex are predominantly performed by heterosexuals). But, those are editorial discussions regarding how to balance this article. Improper use of disambiguation does not solve the problem, and more importantly, distances people who may have heteronormative bias, rather than confronting them with inconsistencies that may exist with that bias, so that they may be resolved.

Atom 14:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Wicca statement

In the Wicca section, there's a statement that I can't tell if it's a common Wiccan perspective, or just someone's personal opinion: "Sexuality freed from the shackles of obligatory breeding is what makes us specifically human."

Not only is this worded like an indisputable fact, it's a rather outdated point of view that has been since been shown to be false. Bonobos and dolphins regularly have sex for pleasure in situations where breeding is impossible. It's possible that other species do this, also.

There's a reference tag after that line, but it's a book, so I'm not sure if it actually says that, or that the book is representative of common Wiccan belief. Is there anyone with more knowledge about what Wiccans usually believe on this subject? If it's not a common belief, it should probably be removed. -kotra 09:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a direct quote from that book. I'll add quotes to be clear. Atom 12:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

But is the book correct about this? From Kotra's statement, it makes it pretty clear that the sentence seems incorrect, almost biased, that animals cannot have sex for pleasure. Disinclination 00:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Being Wiccan, I would have to say thats someones opinion and defiantly not a common perspective. To be honest, the statement seems kind of big headed and self centered. The most common view that I know of (and believe myself) is that sex is not just a form of reproduction and fun, but also the most intimate exchange of energy, and possibly the most amount. To most Wiccans its about fun, as well as exchanging energies, perhaps you refer to this energy as soul or even like chakra energy. The quote above seems like its trying to seperate humans from animals, which to be honest, is not the Wiccan way. All life is equal, and as stated above it is an outdated point of view that has been since been shown to be false.--Azslande 08:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I might actually add that to the article about it being a form of energy exchange... I have some books around here, although someone lost my Witches Encyclopedia, but I might be able to find it in one so that it can be sourced in one of these books. Also, what book was that quote above stated in?--Azslande 08:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok I noticed what book it was in, 1983? Wow thats old, I was born in 1984, I have to say, a much better source *and I really hope its in one of mine* would be a Scott Cunningham book. I will look into it tomorrow and tweak the article, unless someone removes that quote before I can.--Azslande 08:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Cunningham's words should be taken with a grain of salt, however. :P He was a brilliant Wiccan writer, but alot of his books inspired the whole 'We can do whatever we want' kind of generation of Wiccans. I don't think this was necessarily his intention, but eh. ... Do we have any more recent books to pull quotes from, preferably ones at -least- from the 90's? Lol. Disinclination 16:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I lent some of my books to a niece and one of them came up missing, a very expensive one actually and I'm fairly certain it was the one that had an excellent quote in it about sex from a wiccan/pagan perspective. I will head over to my local religious bookshop and browse through some of the books there and see if I can pull any quotes from them. Will take me a few days to get over there though. In the mean time, I seriously think that quote thats currently there should be removed for the time being as it does not seem to be an accurate representation, even though its sourced.--Azslande 19:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments everyone. Azslande confirmed my suspicion that the statement isn't a common belief among contemporary Wiccans, so I'll remove it accordingly. -kotra 03:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am Buddhist, but two of my LT partners are Wiccan, and we live in a very large Wiccan community. The statement was a quote from a book. The book doesn't claim to be dogma. The book, as cited, is "The Witches Way" by Janet and Stewart Farrar, and is one of the most widely respected books/authors in Wicca. Having said that, It is obviously opinion, even if cited. Removing it is fine. Atom 21:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation links at top

The disambiguation links at the top of the page are a bit overboard. Top links should be much simpler, and most of those links seem much more appropriate for the "See also" section. Disambiguation links should only be for articles that would appear on a disambiguation page (that, if someone were to search for "sexual intercourse", they would likely expect to find). While many of those articles are related to the topic, they are not easily confused with the title of this article. Removing most of them will provide for a much smoother flow of the article. Though I'm not familiar with the history of the article, I'd suggest just keeping the links to mating and Making Love, with the rest being moved to the See also section (or elsewhere). However, I figured that editors more familiar with the history of the article would have some good suggestions, which is why I'm running it by here. Let me know if I didn't explain the disambiguation bit of it clearly enough. :) I see there's a discussion on a proposed move, so this might have to wait until after that, but it should still be considered. -- Natalya 13:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I just corrected some vandalism by user:Joseph St at 03:48, January 13, 2007 Sjc80 07:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)