Talk:Anal sex
Complaints
I have a couple of complaints about this page, as follows:
- in this passage "In the same mentality, women were not officially allowed to find pleasure in sex, therefore sex was only served as a sort of marital prostitution; in this sense, under the sole husband's determination, anal sex was a form of contraception too in the case of couples who already had too many babies, since the ignorance about other methods was total. Similar facts were reported up to a very few decades ago, and it is currently impossible to certify whether this mentality has been totally abandoned or has otherwise been substantially modified."
It seems clear to me that a strong opinion is present here. I object to this statement particularly "sex was only served as a sort of marital prostitution" as even in a specific example, I don't see how consummating the act of marriage can be seen as prostitution, even if in some particular it could, it is quite disturbing to label an entire culture as marital prostitutes. Also, I can't see the point of saying "women were not officially allowed to find pleasure in sex", as even if there are laws to this effect (which I doubt) they certainly would not be enforceable, and would thus be irrelevant.
and this statement here "Although both men and women might enjoy anal sex, because of this physical difference, men often have an easier time enjoying anal sex."
This seems to go far beyond the objective, and rather seems to dwell on some subjective personal musing, not something needed in a encyclopedia entry. If there is some evidence supporting this opinion, please feel free to correct me. Sorry if I came on a bit strong, but while I like this entry overall, I can't stand by on a subject so dear to my heart. ;)
(the above is my first talk edit, which I will now sign, long after the fact Sam Spade 07:21, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC))
Deleted much?
I made some edits to this page, and I hope I didn't delete over much. If so, please let me know! It was my first edit, so I would like feedback. thank you
- It would be good when you delete large chunks of text that you wrote a reason for doing so. Why did you remove that text? (and welcome to Wikipedia) Tristanb 07:44, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- I don't know if User:JackLynch which is the editor of the comment above, is the same as User:207.95.173.63 the last contributor to the article. Dysprosia 07:51, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Oh, I should have checked the times better. I haven't really been following the article that closely. The last edit did remove a considerable amount of text, with the only comment Anal sex. Tristanb
I pretty much removed what I was objecting to when I thought it was off topic, and deleted or changed adjectives and phrases. I hindsight I think I failed to replace enough of it with text, but in my own defense I didn't have a lot more to say, and over all I think this article is well written and thorough. Sorry I didn't sign before, but I didn't know how at the time. JackLynch ---
Sexual surveys
This article needs more reference to sexual surveys discussing the frequency of anal sex among people--and I'm sure all the other sexual practice entries do as well.
Unfortunately most of the scientific research, like most other scientific research, is only available offline or for those with subscriptions to the online journals. Here's one site, though:
What about straight anal sex?
It doesn't seem NPOV to single out gay men with a heading but not include a heading for straight folks.-Hyacinth
- Well, in the west, anyhow, anal sex is largely associated with gay men (though all orientations practice it). -- Pakaran 23:02, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Needless to say, it isn't NPOV to reinforce the associations or stereotypes made by society. I changed the "Reasons for practice" heading, which is redudant as reasons are discussed throughout the article, such as under the heading "Pleasure" (which, by the way, I think is a hilarious heading).-Hyacinth
- Fair enough. Not sure how to change the article though. -- Pakaran 23:20, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Thanks. I think the article is as good or bad as it was before my change, but you are right, it could use some organization. Obviously, things need to be put under the appropriate categories or new ones need to be invented (& the section on "Pleasure" seems more appropriate for a FAQ or Q&A, not an encyclopedia entry).-Hyacinth
As to the added para on lesbians and anal sex: it conflicts with the intro definition: should mention be made of in the intro that anal sex need not involve penile insertion? Furthermore, Is stuff like rimming considered anal sex? Dysprosia 23:38, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- It might be - even if it isn't "anal intercourse". We already mention use of toys on straight men. I'd say that if lesbians practice vaginal sex (whcih some of them do) then they also practice anal sex (which a smaller proportion do). -- Pakaran 23:37, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll make mention of it. Dysprosia 23:38, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
eunuchs fiddle scores zero on a Google search. What is it? -- Karada 14:31, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Hah. Google proves its worth again! A eunuchs fiddle was an early (historic) form of vibrator before batteries. It consists of an egg shaped thingummy to stuff up you-know-where, a string attached to it, and a bow to make the string vibrate like the string of a violin. I haven't got any direct reference works at hand to cite, but I have read about it in Playboy magazine among others. It is a piece of historical trivia, rather than something popular currently, so I am not totally suprised about the lack of hits on google. Anyway, it is real, but I can't write about it authoritatively, or with any significant amount of precise historical detail. The above is pretty much what I remember about it. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 17:11, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)
Brilliant prose?
This article has had a consistant bias against female receptive anal sex, which I have been working on eliminating since I began editing the wikipedia (literally, it was my 1st edit). I request any/all who have anything useful to add on this subject to do so, and to assist me in reducing the tendancy for this article to be used as a mouthpeice for a POV (not that I think it was ever intentionally used that way). Sam Spade 07:33, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)