Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:09, 29 August 2019

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 2 months

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 2 months

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

	Sex position is a former featured list. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page and why it was removed. If it has improved again to featured list standard, you may renominate the article to become a featured list.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 9, 2005 Featured list candidate Promoted October 10, 2006 Featured list removal candidate Demoted
Current status: Former featured list

Sexology and sexuality List‑class High‑importance

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

Archives

1 2

proposal: rename

This is not an article. It is multiple lists. If all of the bullet points are removed, then content is ~1K and much of that due to illustrations. So, I say call it List of sex positions. Any discussion or objection?
Weeb Dingle (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

The rename is not needed. There is no valid way to separate discussion of the sex positions from the different types covered (listed) in the article. In other words, having a "Sex position" and "List of sex positions" article would be unnecessary WP:Content forking. So why shouldn't the article continue to be called "Sex position"? As seen in the history of List of sex positions, this article was titled "List of sex positions" until a move request to move it to "Sex positions." Eventually it, was moved to "Sex position" per WP:SINGULAR. "List of sex positions" redirects here. And if this article was titled "List of sex positions" again, "Sex position" would redirect here. Not all of our list articles use a "List of" title. And, really, what other way is there to cover different sex positions than to list them? Even if the bullet points were removed, we'd still have sections devoted to specific sex positions. I don't really consider this a list article. It uses bullet points, but it mainly also consists of prose. An editor can simply remove the bullet points. MOS:PROSE states, "Misplaced Pages differentiates between articles that consist primarily of lists (and are termed 'lists' or 'stand alone lists') and articles that consist primarily of prose (and are termed 'articles'). Articles are intended to consist primarily of prose, though they may contain lists."

For a similar discussion, see this discussion regarding the Unsimulated sex article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm describing Sex position here. Anyone who examines that article will readily note that, if the bullet-point lines — or, as some call them, LISTS — were to be removed, the only prose remaining is like 300 words, so inarguably NOT deserving to be called "a discussion" in any sense.

I've noticed that Misplaced Pages generally lets a lot of garbage remain in List pages that would be quickly contested in an article. If this is an article, then it should be held to article-level standards. If it is a List page, then it should be a List page, and continue being a repository for unsourced cruft, trivia, and ephemera, so that garbage is kept from actual articles. It is disingenuous at best (more likely dishonest) to maintain a page that is allowed the benefits of both List and Article.

FFI: Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Trivia sections.

There probably could be some actual content, such as discussion of the reasons for selecting various sexual positions, not least being different types of physiological stimulation, but also to take into account physical inabilities; instead, this is a throwaway parting thought — and, predictably, entirely unsourced essayism. Overlooked as well is the meditative/spiritual aspect, which demonstrates why this page is such an inept List: there is no mention at all of karezza (coitus reservatus) or tantric sex, and Kama Sutra is mentioned here only as a sex manual for Western dilettantes.

Maybe if it were an actual article, editors would be encouraged to add actual encyclopedic content. Instead, they are met with a spastic fistful of trivia lists, and no clear space to add general prose. As a result, the fanboy cruft continues to bloat like a dead frog in the sun.

Most people mostly have sex as a couple, with no onlookers or image recording. Therefore, a collection of cliched positions (chosen for visual novelty rather than enjoyability) and group-sex configurations are of interest primarily as sexual fantasy. Misplaced Pages IS NOT an instruction manual, IS NOT a textbook, and IS NOT a field guide for porn-video addicts — no matter how it's viewed, this "article" cannot escape violating WP:NOT.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

No. Reliable sources show "sex position" is a notable topic. Johnuniq (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

List five.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is a discussion.

Coitus reservatus and tantric sex are not sex positions. Parts of the article are sourced, and most of the rest can be sourced. No editor should be expecting others to source material for them. Most Misplaced Pages editors -- at least the experienced ones -- know not to come to an article's talk page to complain about a lack of sourcing. Well, unless the sourcing is WP:Synthesis. Other than that, they either source the material themselves or tag the article or sections within it as unsourced. You often state "essayism" for the article you complain about. If one is to consider this a list, a list is not automatically "essayism." And since it's a sex position article (list or not), of course it's going to note what is done during the sex position. Like others before you, you are misapplying WP:NOTHOWTO. Like WP:NOTHOWTO notes, "Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not." Your "a collection of cliched positions" is lost on me. Besides the fact that clichéd sex positions should be included, the article also includes non-clichéd sex positions. In other words, stuff that is usually practiced in pornography rather than in real-life. If you have reliable sources to supposed non-clichéd sex positions, then do list them here. And per WP:Due weight, we should be giving most our weight to the more common ("clichéd") sex positions anyway. We shouldn't be including atypical sex positions just to include them. If we are to consider this a list, Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Lists makes clear what the purpose of lists are. Not all of them are sourced. In fact, they often are not sourced...depending on the type of list they are. But like I stated, this article can be formatted to remove the bullet points and focus more on prose. And even in that case, we'd still have sections devoted to specific sex positions. Because, you know, this is the Sex position article. Adding more prose for each section is not a problem as long as the material is reliably sourced. You are complaining about something that is easily fixed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Stopping by to call "B.S.!" again.

Q: When is a sex position not a sex position?

A: When it's not a sex position!

It's hardly Zen. The entire Sex position#Non-penetrative section is about sex TECHNIQUE (and pornfan categorizations) rather than ANY sort of "position." The immediately previous Other positions subsection is doubly egregious for being entirely wrong in the heading — even the "fisting is dangerous!!" squawking doesn't belong at all because (say it with me) there is no "sex position" even mentioned. (The need to cite five sources makes clear the contributor realizes it's BS and has overcompensated, as typical.)

Get educated: WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, WP:NOTHOWTO, WP:NOTMANUAL, WP:NOTADVICE, WP:NOTCASE, probably WP:NOTGUIDE.

Being as it's been contended that THIS IS NOT A LIST, I would therefore say hold it to the standards expected of an article and delete all the unsourced cruft… which then according to Misplaced Pages rules CANNOT be reverted back without proper citations, so it's not like there'd be any edit-warring, eh?

Ergo, either the page title MUST be changed, or all that cruft is liable to deletion as irrelevant to the topic at hand. Pick one.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I wonder why you think your endless "let me go from article to article and complain about it based on my personal opinions and a misuse of guidelines and policies" approach is productive. Same goes for you talking down to editors in the process. I mean, "get educated"? Really? Has this approach worked for you? I don't see that it has. And as for your demand? Curved Space was clear at Talk:Facial (sex act) about your "do what I say" and "my way or the highway" attitude. You aren't helping. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok so this is in response to a person that talked in the already archived thread of sex talk about DVDA(DOBLE VAGINA DOBLE ANAL) So this is how I figure it can work: You place yourself back on the ground and a buddy places himself back to the ground paralel to you on the same line but looking the opposite way. In a way that you can place your penuses to do a doble. For reference of how to perform a doble anal like this see legal porno videos,pretty much any one that has 2 guys and 1 girl will probably have it. Then the girl places her ass an is doble penetrated,later a guy does missionary sex on her vagina. He will ideally be as close as he can be to her without stepping over the two guys. Then a 4rth guy places himself like when you do a triple penetration with her back facing the ground. This would mean 4 dicks are inside her. It would be uncomfortable but if you can get a experienced female and thin guys with average porno sized dicks it would be posible. If you don't have the legal porno doble anal position it would be imposible basically.

• Misplaced Pages objectionable content
• Misplaced Pages former featured lists
• List-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• High-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles