Talk:Sexual intercourse

Choice of lead illustration

The lead illustration is captioned as showing "the missionary position, the most common human sex position", but it shows the woman with raised legs. According to the article, the basic missionary position is the version where no legs are raised. Would it not be more appropriate for the lead illustration to show that position? For example, the one in that section of the other article could be used. --98.158.139.69 (talk) 09:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

If you do not know already, this matter was already addressed: Talk:Sexual intercourse/Archive 8#Is Avril showing "missionary"?. There are clearly different types of missionary positions. And the current lead image of the Sexual intercourse article is the same current lead image of Missionary position article. For why we've settled on that image for the Sexual intercourse article, read the archived discussion I pointed you to (that is, if you have not already read it); it points to a more extensive discussion about the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 09:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Basic position section of the Missionary article you are referring to clearly currently states, "In the missionary position, a woman lies on her back with her legs comfortably spread either flat or raised toward her chest with the soles of the feet resting on the mattress." It was also like that before I made this recent edit there. That line is unsourced at the moment, however, and one aspect of that article that needs fixing up is its sourcing -- its lack of sources, and the fact that its poor sources need to be traded out for better ones. Going back to the picture aspect, the picture you pointed to clearly shows the woman with her legs raised. And I was clear in the aforementioned Is Avril showing "missionary"? discussion that a "legs flat" (as in actually flat) missionary position is not ideal for sexual pleasure...at least according to consistent research surveying women on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 10:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Reproductive behavior vs. Reproductive Behaviour

I noticed that one of these pages redirects here, while the other page points to another article. Which target should both of these pages point to? Jarble (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Jarble, have "Reproductive behavior" redirect to the Reproduction article like "Reproductive Behaviour" does, not only for consistency but because the Reproduction article is more fitting since it is strictly about reproduction and behaviors relating to it. Flyer22 (talk) 20:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

New sections per MOS

Flyer22, I have expanded the sections slightly and have more content and references to add. Please retain the sections to allow the addition of updated references and additional information that will improve the article. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  21:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Putting my objections to you editing near me aside for now, what part of WP:MOS states that the subsection headings you added are needed? I reverted you because I found those subsection headings as unneeded. This is your version of subheadings for the Health effects section, and this is my version. I generally follow MOS:Paragraphs when it comes to whether or not to create subheadings; the part that I mean is where it states, "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text; by the same token, paragraphs that exceed a certain length become hard to read. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." You stated, "created sections for easier editing." I stated, "Revert unneeded subsectioning. Per MOS:Paragraphs, we should not create subsections for a little bit of material. It is not easier reading; it makes the article look bigger than it is from t[he] table of contents." I feel that way about all types of articles, including film articles, as seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 56#Unnecessary subheadings, which violate MOS:Paragraphs, in the Box office sections. Out of that discussion, the editor who best understood what I meant was Betty Logan. I don't create subheadings with the idea of future expansion in mind; I create subheadings based on whether or not the article needs them at that moment. Because of this, I reverted you at the Anal sex article as well, as seen here (followup note here). Flyer22 (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

More noted in the #Style of the article section below. Flyer22 (talk) 07:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Reference style

The article should generally be consistent with its reference style. Bit by bit, I have been changing the reference style of this article to be consistent. This edit by Bfpage, where Bfpage used Template:RP is not consistent reference style. Furthermore, I do not like that reference style; the reason why is because, besides resembling graffiti, it tends to distract our readers. I've seen IPs and registered editors confused about that reference style and remove the additional numbers because they don't know that they are part of the references. For an example, see this and this edit by Starburst9 (talk · contribs). I corrected Starburst9 with a note in the edit summary. You can see here that Starburst9 thanked me for the correction. Maybe Starburst9 is willing to explain here why he found that reference style jarring. Flyer22 (talk) 23:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Removed. Flyer22 (talk) 00:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I was told by Doc James to cite page numbers when referencing a medical text book. Will edit to hide page numbers.

  Bfpage |leave a message  00:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Mostly, I guess it was because I didn't know what it meant. Using "page" or "p." or something would be must clearer than just a colon...especially because its so rare, almost all refs give the range of pages for the whole ref. Starburst9 (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Style of the article

Bfpage, regarding my not liking edit choices you make, it's because the way you edit conflicts with how I edit on a large scale and you make a lot WP:Newbie mistakes, like this recent heading matter in the Sexual intercourse article. You also seem to prefer list form as opposed to WP:Prose form more than I would like, as seen in this section at the Menopause article. That section currently looks differently, but has too many subsection headings. A subheading for a single-sentence paragraph? In the #New sections per MOS discussion above, I noted I do not like that type of editing and that MOS:Paragraphs is clear about that type of editing. Let's take this "Sexual intercourse and disabilities" section you added. Why do we need that section when we already have the "Duration and sexual difficulties" section, and disabilities during sexual intercourse are already mentioned there? We do not need a section for every topic that has to do with sexual intercourse. One paragraph for the sexuality and disability matter suffices, with the Sexuality and disability article being the article for in-depth material on it. And despite my stating that I do not like unnecessary subsection headings, you created this relatively small "Sexual intercourse after surgery" section, as if we need a section specifically for that topic and as if that section should be significantly expanded. As you know, I moved that section, but left your subheading for it intact for now.

With this edit, you stated, "rmoved redundancy." That quote within the reference is not redundancy. I added that quote for the following reasons: Because that reference is not only used for the most common definition of sexual intercourse, but also to relay the most common sexual position, and because the reference could become sort of a WP:Dead link at any time; by sort "sort of a WP:Dead link," I mean that those page numbers could become unavailable on Google Books while other pages in that book on Google Books are available. That source is also used for other things in the article as well, but those two matters are the most contentious. When people add quotes to references, as was done in this other case where you removed the quotes (and I noted, here and here, why the quotes were likely added), it is usually for a good reason. And as for this bit you added, how is that WP:Lead material? For one, stating "Typical sexual intercourse consists of sexual activity" is silly to me since sexual intercourse is sexual activity. For two, "with progression through the phases from attraction, arousal to relaxation with no problems, and with feelings of fulfillment, pleasure, and satisfaction" part is too strict; people experience sexual intercourse differently (for example, people don't always have sexual intercourse with a person because they are sexually attracted to that person), and its pleasure aspect is already covered in the first paragraph, including the other intimate aspects. Flyer22 (talk) 02:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I was tempted to significantly reduce the "Sexual intercourse and disabilities" content you added and to stick the remainder of it at the end of the "Duration and sexual difficulties" section where disability-related pain was already addressed. Instead, with this edit, I renamed the "Duration and sexual difficulties" section to "Duration and genital complications" and moved your "After surgery" content there, and created the "Other disabilities" section out of your "Sexual intercourse and disabilities" content and the disability-related pain content that was in the "Duration and sexual difficulties" section. I initially had the "Other disabilities" section titled "Physical and mental disabilities," but, given that the Disability article is currently so broad in its definition of what a disability is, and the content in the "Duration and genital complications" section could be considered disability content going by that broad definition, I went with "Other disabilities" for the title. Flyer22 (talk) 07:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Further tweaks here; in this edit, I note WP:Due weight for another reason why I don't think the death content needs its own section. Flyer22 (talk) 07:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)