Talk:Missionary position/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Use of singular "they" and gender neutrality

The article was recently edited to change all instances of "his" into "their", to make it gender-neutral. While I am not taking any stance on the gender neutrality issue per se, the use of singular "they" makes some sections extremely hard to read - the sentences become very heavy and there is confusion as to whether "their" refers to the receptive partner, the insertive partner or both partners. I have therefore changed the singular "their"s back into "his". Gandoman 20:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. Response: You can use the navigational template at the bottom of the page to view the other articles on sexual positions. The general consensus is that in order to avoid a heteronormative tone, the use of singular "they" is acceptable and used throughout these articles. if you identify specific instances where the wording is confusing, feel free to specify which partner is meant, but reverting to gendered pronouns in these articles is generally not accepted. I'm reverting, feel free to specify whereever it's confusing. Joie de Vivre 21:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
There is no consensus about whether or not to use a so-called heteronormative tone. There is an apparent consensus that if one is being gender neutral that "their" is preferred over "his/her".
At list of sex positions, most positions use "their" because there is no space for detailed discussion in a list. However, this is an article on one position (or at least a set of related positions). We have plenty of space to discuss all variants without trying to cram meaning into single words and making the article vague and difficult to read in the process. So I have edited the article so that it starts with a clear description of male-female vaginal sex and then continues on to discuss variants of this, including those which are homosexual. --Strait 21:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
You reverted all of the other sections to the male-female descriptions. It took a long time to get them where they needed to be. Why should people who don't engage in male-female sex have to mentally translate the description? Joie de Vivre 21:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
That was not intended. I meant for the "variants" section to be gender neutral, but I apparently didn't check whether that was the case at the end of my edits. I didn't destroy any of your work, it's all still in the page history, so please redo that section as you wish and we can discuss from there. --Strait 14:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Er, I guess that you did that already. You also seem to have deleted at least one section in the process. I'm going to do some more work on it. --Strait 14:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment is at bottom for readability. I think that comments are not supposed to be interspersed but placed at bottom, not sure. Joie de Vivre 16:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The part I found most confusing was "resting on the back of their upper shins or thighs, around their buttocks or back, or over their shoulders." Whose shoulders? The inserting or receptive partner's? Or both? I had to read this several times to understand what was meant. However, I see that you have now made this somewhat more clear by changing the first "their".

Also, the "Using a raised surface" section switches between using the word "their" about either the receiving or the inserting partner: "their vagina" and "their pelvis" about the receptive partner, but "their hands" about the insertive partner. So, when one immediately afterwads reads "or the receiving partner might place a pillow or other object beneath their tailbone to elevate their groin.", it is not immediately clear under whose tailbone the pillow is placed. This section should be rewritten with a different sentence structure that avoids the use of the word "their", for example by using the passive voice.

Though I must say that Strait's last edit looked very good to me. The first part of the article describes the most common use of the missionary position (man and woman), which allows simple and unambiguous language, then a section follows describing variations of this position. Isn't that a reasonable compromise? Gandoman 22:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a reasonable compromise, because same-sex sex acts are not "variants" of opposite-sex sex acts. They're all sex acts, and they should be referred to neutrally. Joie de Vivre 16:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
If there's any question about it, the fact that there are more same-sex couples does not mean that such couples should be considered the "default sexuality", any more than white people should be considered the "default race" over other ethnic groups. It's subtle, but it's still inappropriate. Perhaps members of majority groups are less likely to recognize a problem of discrimination:
For example, 68 percent of blacks surveyed said racism is "a big problem in our society today," but only 38 percent of whites agreed. Similarly, 71 percent of blacks said "past and present discrimination" was a major reason for the economic and social problems facing some African Americans today, but only 36 percent of whites thought this was true. ref
Something to think about. -- Joie de Vivre 16:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I have thought about it quite a bit. Here's the thing. This page is documenting the "missionary position". That phrase has a specific accepted meaning, which is penile-vaginal sex. It does not mean a generic position which is similar to that one. In fact, the origin of the phrase itself explicitly requires heterosexual behaviour, because missionaries would hardly be promoting the generic practice of having the penetrator on top. (It's irrelevant for this point whether any actual missionaries were involved in creating the phrase. The phrase relates to missionaries even if apocryphal.) So this page should present penile-vaginal sex as the missionary position and variants on it as variants of the missionary position. If you want them to be on equal footing, you should petition to have this page moved to face-to-face penetrator-on-top sex position.
I want to emphasize that this has nothing to do with which sexual orientation is "normal". It simply has to do with what this article is about.
Remember especially that any claims here must be backed up by references. The references here so far pretty clearly refer to the missionary position as penile-vaginal. If you can provide published references that show that it is common to define it more generically, we could alter our definition to fit. However, I strongly suspect that any such references will be much more recent than the ~1960's origin of the phrase, and therefore would be liable to be considered neoligms. --Strait 15:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The phrase "missionary position" has been used in gay male culture to identify the position described under anal sex for as long as I've been aware of gay male sexuality, roughly since 1983, and potentially much earlier. It's a case of the definition of a term outgrowing its origin. That said, I think that where gender-specific pronouns make sense (it will always be her vagina & his penis), they should be used. I would, however, like to see at least one of the illustrations edited to show the homosexual male missionary position, to avoid the appearance of exclusionism. --Ssbohio 13:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Note also I think the vast majority of people will call strapon-vaginal penetration in the missionary position the missionary position so regardless of whether or not using the term for the gay male and/or anal sex act is a neoligism I would say it's clear gender neutrality is called for at least for the penetrative partner Nil Einne 21:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Anal sex

Also, the "Anal sex" section was all POV stuff about whether the missionary position is comfortable for anal sex. It's not needed if we aren't specifying the orifice. I don't see which other section is missing... Joie de Vivre 16:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I can see that. I will restore and cut it down to only the NPOV stuff. --Strait 15:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Does anal sex even count as a type of missionary? I'm going to take out the whole thing. Sarsaparilla (talk) 05:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course it counts. Position has nothing to do with orifice. 98.168.192.162 (talk) 06:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Yep, it counts. Gay men can engage in this position, though instead of aiming for a vagina... And I went ahead and tweaked the lead with the first source already used...to make clear that this position applies to gay and lesbian couples as well. What?? Lesbians can do it also? Yes. Tribadism is one example. Flyer22 (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

More missionaryish positions

I see a plethora of other missionaryish positions at http://sextex.hit.bg/pozi.htm . The Indra position, for instance, looks like a combination of the Grip and the Plough. OK can we have some nominations as to what should be included? Sarsaparilla (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(Cross posted from village pump) I am attempting to get this article to featured article status but am concerned that it will get hit with comprehensiveness objections if I do not include all the pertinent missionary variants. On the other hand, there are hundreds of sex positions, many of which bear a slight resemblance to missionary, and I don't want to have too many false positives (i.e. Type I statistical errors). Please see Wikipedia:Peer review/Missionary position and Talk:Missionary_position#More_missionaryish_positions for more details. Any insight you can provide as to what criteria might be used to evaluate whether a position is indeed a subset of missionary will be appreciated. Sarsaparilla (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have centralized the discussion to Talk:Missionary_position/Votes_on_inclusion_as_missionary. Sarsaparilla (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This all depends on how you define "missionary position". The missionary position is a nickname for what is actually the male-superior coital position- it just means that the man is on top of the woman, facing her.-Wafulz (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
So, if she's lying down and he's standing, kneeling or sitting in front of her, does that count as missionary? See for instance http://www.sex-and-relationships.org/zmanontop/P2221847.jpg or http://www.sex-and-relationships.org/zmanontop/P2221866.jpg . It's a thin line between man on top and standing, sitting and kneeling. Sarsaparilla (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Every definition I've run into defines the man as lying on top, with him facing her. (Dictionary definition link). I can quote a textbook definition if you'd like.-Wafulz (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
So basically the various "press" positions wouldn't count. See http://www.have-better-sex.com/Sex-Positions-1 Sarsaparilla (talk) 15:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
No, they wouldn't.-Wafulz (talk) 05:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Female response to missionary position in porn

From the following article:

Terri L. Woodard MD, Karen Collins MS, MA, Mindy Perez BA, Richard Balon MD, Manuel E. Tancer MD, Michael Kruger MS, Scott Moffat PhD, Michael P. Diamond MD (2008) What Kind of Erotic Film Clips Should We Use in Female Sex Research? An Exploratory Study The Journal of Sexual Medicine 5 (1), 146–154. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00641.x

It was a study done on how women respond to erotic films. I found information on the missionary position.

"Mentally Appealing and Physically Arousing (Defined by Average Score >2 for Mental Appeal and Physical Arousal)

"Videos that were reported as being the most mentally appealing and physically arousing had a mean subjective score of 2.54 ± 0.39 and a mean physical score of 2.48 ± 0.24. The coefficients of variation were 0.15 and 0.10, respectively. While collectively for the entire cohort of women studied, there was no significant correlation between mental appeal and reported physical arousal (r = 0.319, P = 0.197); when analyzing ratings on an individual basis, there was a significant positive correlation (r = 0.61, P < 0.05).

"Out of the 90 film clips, 18 met these criteria. They were characterized as containing scenes that involved (percentage refers to the number of clips with the characteristic divided by the number of clips in this category) vaginal intercourse (83.33%), male on female sexual positions (77.78%), outdoor settings (55.56%), missionary positions (33.33%), female on male sexual positions (27.78%), rear-entry vaginal intercourse (22.22%), characters with race other than Caucasian (5.56%), and cunnilingus (5.56%).

"More Mentally Appealing than Physically Arousing (Defined by M > P)

"Film clips that were reported as being more mentally appealing than physically arousing had a mean mental appeal score of 2.38 ± 0.67 and a mean physical arousal score of 2.00 ± 0.62. The coefficients of variation were 0.28 and 0.31, respectively. There was a significant positive correlation between mental appeal and reported physical arousal scores (r = 0.59, P < 0.05). Interestingly, over half of these clips were also found to be the most mentally and physically arousing (55.55%).

"Out of the 90 film clips, 18 met these criteria. They were characterized as having scenes involving male on female sexual positions (66.67%), vaginal intercourse (50.00%), outdoors setting (38.89%), female on male sexual positions (22.22%), characters of non-Caucasian race (16.67%), rear-entry vaginal intercourse (16.67%), cunnilingus (11.11%), partner masturbation (11.11%), missionary position (11.11%), anal intercourse (5.56%), bondage (5.56%), and fellatio (5.56%)."

If it sounds like it's worth including I can write up a blurb with some more context.-Wafulz (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

II wonder what percentage of the 90 film clips were male on female sexual positions? I would think that information would be relevant in drawing conclusions about this data... Sarsaparilla (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
34/90 (38%) were male-on-female (this was actually the most common theme, by proportion), 19/90 (21%) involved the missionary position.-Wafulz (talk) 04:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Just so you know, I have access to several academic journal databases (including peer-reviewed material, theses, dissertations, books, etc) on several aspects of sex, including history, medicine, psychology and sociology.-Wafulz (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Oops, I didn't notice that missionary and male-on-top were broken out separately. Is missionary a subset of male-on-top in that study, or are they two separate categories? What conclusion do you draw from this data, by the way? Sarsaparilla (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The conclusion from the study in general was that the most appealing films depict heterosexual vaginal intercourse, and that films with these attributes should be used in future studies. The result regarding the missionary position was that 33% of women in the study were both mentally and physically aroused by the missionary position, behind male-on-female, vaginal intercourse, and outdoor settings. That's pretty interesting considering it beat out rear-entry and cunnilingus. There was no specification about missionary being a subset of man-on-top, but I think this was the case.-Wafulz (talk) 05:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I do think that information is relevant to include in the article. I will add it. Based on some other anecdotal evidence, I'm not surprised that missionary beat out cunnilingus, by the way. Sarsaparilla (talk) 06:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I think you are mistaken – the 33% appears to be not the percentage of women who were aroused by missionary, but the percentage of the 18 film clips that were selected that involved missionary. It must have been 6 films out of the 18, hence the round number (33%). But that is still disproportionate to the 19 of the 90 (21%) that involved missionary, so the data is still relevant to proving missionary's appeal to women. Sarsaparilla (talk) 07:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Collection of articles

What a great collection of articles: http://www.nerve.com/specialIssues/MissionaryPosition/ Sarsaparilla (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Illustration of sex pillow in missionary position article

Hello, I got the OK from the president of Blowfish to release one of his images into the GFDL (with credit to Blowfish) and use it in our article as an illustration of the use of specially-shaped sex pillows to enhance the missionary position. He did give the caveat that we would need to specify which image it is since some of them belong to his vendors and thus are not his to release. Anyway, I was thinking any of these images might be relevant (see http://www.blowfish.com/catalog/toys/cushions.html ):

  • Wedge
  • Wedge/Ramp (regular) Combo
  • Wedge/Ramp (short) Combo
  • Wedge/Ramp (tall) Combo

Let me know what you think would be the best, or if you have another idea. Sarsaparilla (talk) 04:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I'd go with wedge I guess. Does nobody on Wikimedia Commons own one of these? Considering we get hundreds of people taking pictures of their genitals, you'd think one would have a sex pillow to photograph.-Wafulz (talk) 04:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
If anyone wants to use a different photo from that site for illustration of a sex pillow, feel free, as we have permission. You may need to crop, though. Sarsaparilla (talk) 11:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use images

I have tried to get permission for some other images but didn't receive responses to my emails. I wonder if it would count as fair use if we used GIMP or something to scale them down to thumbnail size? Also, there must be a repository somewhere of pre-1923 public domain images that would be pertinent to this article. I haven't found it yet, though. I'm sure the French were way ahead of us in producing such images; maybe someone on the French Wikipedia can help. Here are the emails I sent:

Unfortunately we can't use fair use for reproducible images.-Wafulz (talk) 05:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
What makes it reproducible? The fact that we could get someone else to pose with one leg up in the missionary position? (Okay, any volunteers?) Sarsaparilla (talk) 05:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Caitlain's Corner email

from Caitlain's Corner <caitlain@gmail.com> date Jan 9, 2008 7:50 AM subject Copy of: Permission request This is a copy of the following message you sent to Caitlain via Caitlain's Corner

This is an enquiry e-mail via http://www.caitlainscorner.com from:

Hello, Wikipedia would like to use an image on your website to illustrate its article on the missionary position. The one we want is titled missionary.jpg and has the woman on the bottom with her feet planted on the bed. See http://www.caitlainscorner.com/content/view/189/69/1/1/

Are you willing to release this image into the GNU Free Documentation License so that we can use it? Thanks,

Sex-and-relationships email

to info@sex-and-relationships.org, date Jan 10, 2008 1:57 PM subject Wikipedia mailed-by gmail.com

hide details Jan 10 (3 days ago)

Reply

Hello, Wikipedia would like to borrow one of your images at http://www.sex-and-relationships.org/man-on-top-sex.html for its article on the missionary position.

I was thinking that one of these might be good for the article:

If you would be willing to release one of these images into the GNU Free Documentation License, then Wikipedia can use it. We can credit the image to Sex & Relationships if you like, and link to your website. The current version of the article is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missionary_position

Thank you, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarsaparilla (talk • contribs) 00:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


Teddy bear mystery

Does this solve the teddy bear mystery? Sarsaparilla (talk) 01:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Les missionaires

Does anyone know how old the term "missionary position" is? Gustav Klimt had a drawing called "les missionaires" about 100 years ago. Sarsaparilla (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Religious references

I found this, which may be useful.-Wafulz (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

"For Aquinas, any sexual act other than missionary position intercourse – man on top of woman – was assumed to be a sin of irrational gratification, of lust. Oral sex, sodomy, prostitution – any sex that rejected the one truly acceptable reason for sex within marriage was considered suspect. ‘Omnis luxurious attactus – every erotic stimulation – of the genitals’ in which sex as procreation was averted for pleasure became a form of adultery. ‘The ramparts being defended here are social, not individual. Sins contrary to nature were a direct assault on the institutions that God created to allow fallen men to live with concupiscence’, the author explains (pp. 153–4). Medieval and early modern church leaders feared that the impure act could overwhelm the sexual body of the laity at any turn (p. 166)."Shepard, Benjamin (2004), "Masturbating Madness", Sexualities, 7 (3): 365, doi:10.1177/1363460704044806, ISSN 1363-4607

Here's another one:

"Moreover the historical processes by which we have come see, on the one hand, eroticism as embedded in the psyche, and on the other, sex acts as expressions of power, cannot be separated. Davidson (1998: 178) suggests some of the key points, at which sexuality has become linked to power since antiquity. These include the Christian tradition of bodily integrity, culminating in the purity of the Virgin Mary, which makes the female body into an open space awaiting corruption; the early modern definition of sex crimes in terms of the violation of bodily orifices; the sanctioning of the ‘missionary position’ to make a distinction between bestial and civilized sex; and the Victorian view of the penetrator as active and pleasured and the recipient as passive and as not experiencing pleasure."Hardy, Simon (2004), "The Greeks, Eroticism and Ourselves", Sexualities, 7 (2): 215, doi:10.1177/1363460704042164, ISSN 1363-4607

Translation: "The missionary position was used to differentiation between civilized and "savage" sex."-Wafulz (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I added those. Sarsaparilla (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

"For Aquinas, any sexual act other than missionary position intercourse – man on top of woman – was assumed to be a sin of irrational gratification, of lust. Oral sex, sodomy, prostitution – any sex that rejected the one truly acceptable reason for sex within marriage was considered suspect. ‘Omnis luxurious attactus – every erotic stimulation – of the genitals’ in which sex as procreation was averted for pleasure became a form of adultery.

It seems to me that many or at least some conservative Christians I have met are confused and want to claim that "...every erotic stimulation - of the genitals' in which sex as procreation was averted for pleasure became a form of rape (not adultery)". Are they just confused, or is there something [doctrinal/scriptural] to this? Or are they just co-opting the now popular "all sex is rape" mantra that's been hyped by most establishment feminists since at least the early 1990s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.124.196 (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I have added a cited observation about Aquinas' view. He does not specifically recommend the missionary position, nor condemn any other; he supports 'the natural style of intercourse' and condemns 'beastly and monstrous techniques'. It is unclear what exactly he means by these terms - he may be referring in general to vaginal- and non-vaginal intercourse, though the fact that he specifies that it should be 'as regards the proper organ' suggests that he is referring to types of vaginal intercourse. It seems to be others, following him, that spelled it out. --Rbreen (talk) 00:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Symbolism

The Priest article that I used for the etymology and history discusses the symbolism that I mentioned in the peer review (feminist stuff). Basically it mentions how the position can represent power. Where could this go in the article?-Wafulz (talk) 05:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Holding himself up with arms

Most, if not all, of the pics associated with this article have the guy holding himself up with his arms. I am thinking we should have one where he's not doing that, since that's a fairly common (if not the standard) and as the article notes, a lot of women prefer the guy to put his weight on her. Sarsaparilla (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

GA comments

  • the Perceived advantages and disadvantages section is way too long and should be split into subsections.Nergaal (talk) 04:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • add images with some statistics: i.e. % of people preffering it, or people only doing it. anyways, an image with something else than the schematics of the position.Nergaal (talk) 04:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • there should be more internal links. for example, people's names can be linked if they are important enough.Nergaal (talk) 04:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


About that last one... I think we know that people's names can be linked if they're important enough. But I noticed that almost every name mentioned in this article, when you look them up they just don't have a page. They wrote this stuff a long time ago or they just don't meet notability one way or another. Lady Galaxy 01:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Any suggestions on what subsections we might establish for perceived advantages and disadvantages? Sarsaparilla (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I suggest physical (comfort, accessibility, etc) and psychological (emotional connection, power, etc).-Wafulz (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes the physical and psychological aspects are closely interrelated, but I'll give it a shot. Sarsaparilla (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Citation style

Any suggestions for which citation style to use? Cite web, cite book, etc. are standard, right? Should we use the 2008-02-02 format or January 2, 2008 format? Sarsaparilla (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the "cite x" templates are standard. Dates should be inputted as yyyy-mm-dd.-Wafulz (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments on sourcing

The sourcing in this article is a bit weak. While we have tons of citations, not all of them are complete, and not all of them are particularly good - just because it's on the internet doesn't mean it's true. A lot of the assertions of how partners feel during sex are unreliable, and we'd essentially be perpetuating amateur opinions by leaving them in.

  • "This position was exceptionally popular in Ancient Greece and is commonly depicted on Attic pottery of the Classical Period" - We need a page for the reference.
  • "The conspiring women in Aristophanes' Lysistrata likely refer to it when they take an oath "not to lift high their Persian slippers"" - The reference doesn't say this.
  • Ask Men, Men's Health, and similar titles are not authoritative. These sources are primarily entertainment and gender-specific reading. This is particularly true for statements about what people enjoy during sex - it's fine to say "this position allows more contact between x and y", but we shouldn't use them to say "women like this position quite a lot"
  • Similarly, we should be careful when citing commercial sources. Their main motive is profit, not education.
  • The James Thomsen citations need page numbers. At the FAC revision, the Thomsen parts don't make much sense. I have never heard of a cervical pocket, and I can't find any reference for one. The whole thing about "deep spots" also doesn't make sense.
  • I've removed the Monica Sharp citation because it looks like it's primarily amateur authors.
  • "The Anvil" and "The Pretzel" are not mentioned in the citation that follows. "The Pretzel" doesn't seem to be a common term to begin with.
  • The Tarkovsky reference doesn't appear to be reliable. It's a website of self-published content, and the author doesn't state any qualifications.
  • The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Sex Positions doesn't give any authorship information.
  • Sexual health resource doesn't give authorship information.
  • Love and Sex e-books is some seduction artist website.
  • Pregnant Store is a porn site

This is about halfway into the article, so there's still a ways to go.-Wafulz (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how Tarkovsky's Sex in Ancient Greece could possibly qualify as a reliable source. Is it okay to just remove it, and the material attributed to it? If not, what would be the best way to make it clear in the text that the source is unreliable? Vectornaut (talk) 05:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Image

How come the image changed from .svg back to .png? I looked in the edit history, but found nothing except some vandalism... no explanation in the edits or anything of the sort. Anybody care to explain (or revert)? Lady Galaxy 06:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

See Also.

The See Also section is blank at the moment. Any reason to keep it in light of the nav box at bottom? 66.191.19.68 (talk) 01:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Does seem redundant. I'll remove it, unless there is a good reason to keep it at the present. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 22:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Removed. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 22:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

"ventro-dorsal"

"Ventro-dorsal", what does it mean? in the sentence

The medieval Catholic Church observed that animals copulated in the ventro-dorsal ("doggy style") position, and concluded that it was unnatural to humans.

it's obviously referring to doggy style, but in the sentence

While many states outlaw oral sex, anal sex, buggery, or other "unnatural" acts, no US law has banned ventro-dorsal heterosexual sex, or specified which partner needed to be on top.

it isn't clear what it means, though it seems to suggest the missionary position. Both excerpts from #History.

Stuart M (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead sentence

The lead sentence of this article says.... "The missionary position is a man on top sex position in which the woman lies on her back and the partners face each other"

Forgive me for saying this, but can't a man top another man as well in the missionary position? Why is this article so discriminatory against homosexuals? To my understanding, I think that two men can have anal sex in the missionary position. So why is this definition of missionary position restricted to heterosexual partners? Or are Wikiepedia editors just prejudice and discriminatory? --Yoganate79 (talk) 08:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow dude calm down excuse someone for writing the intro without thinking of every single sex combo. Why not female on top of female? Two men on top of 1? 4 women on top of 1 man (i wish)? Also, how the hell would 2 men have sex in missionary? Stick in each other's urethras? wtf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.97.27 (talk) 11:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

As I stated above in the #Anal sex section. "Yep. Gay men can engage in this position, though instead of aiming for a vagina... And I went ahead and tweaked the lead with the first source already used...to make clear that this position applies to gay and lesbian couples as well. What?? Lesbians can do it also? Yes. Tribadism is one example." Flyer22 (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Armadillo (Popularity)

"In addition to humans, the missionary position is also used by certain other species including bonobos[82], gorillas[83] and armadillos.[84]" I checked reference #84. The writer says "The nine-banded armadillo mates missionary style" with the reference "Schueler, 1988". It would be good to get hold of Schueler , and see whether he?she has been accurately reported. The sentence is concluded with the words "when climate conditions are at there best." The mis-spelling does not instill confidence in the writer. Can we regard this web-site as trust-worthy? I find it hard to imagine armadillos engaging in the missionary position. I think the claim is wrong - it certainly is not satisfactorily established - and it may be best to delete it. Froggo Zijgeb (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

height differential in Ancient Greece?

The article states that due to Ancient Greek men marrying 14- and 15-year-olds*, the rear-entry standing position was more popular than missionary. How could this be so? Imagining a very tall man with a short woman (even today), what could be more height-differential-friendly than lying down, man on top? Certainly rear-entry used by a couple with a large height differential actually sounds like torture for both of them, no?

  • Was / is this not the practice in many cultures? Why single out the Ancient Greeks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.8.123.140 (talk) 08:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Dorso-ventral v. ventro-dorsal

The term "ventro-dorsal" is used twice in the article. That term is not really wrong but, in contrast, the term "dorso-ventral" is used in scientific literature. I am going to change "ventro-dorsal" to "dorso-ventral". DPS145192 (talk) 03:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

And, for an example, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomical_terms_of_location#Dorsal_and_ventral DPS145192 (talk) 03:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Citing Germaine Greer as a source? Really?

Personally, I believe that to cite Germaine Greer as a reliable source against the Psychological benefits of the missionary position is like asking Fred Phelps to discuss homosexuality. The woman has proven herself to be bigoted, as proven by her writings on transsexual women. If she cannot accept transsexual women as women, how reliable can she be as a source on this matter? I'd like to recommend her detrimental citation be removed and something that carries a similar sentiment, yet more netural be written. JessicaSideways (talk) 07:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Woman on top (sex position)

This has been noted briefly in other sections on this talk page, but seeing this edit (which I reverted and tweaked) makes me ask it as well: Can't "woman on top of the man" be referred to as the missionary position as well, especially since the term also applies to gay and lesbian couples? I mostly hear the "woman on top" position simply referred to as a variant of the more traditional missionary position, not as the nicknames the above linked article mentions. Flyer22 (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Starfish missing?

Starfish position was merged here, but this article now contains no mention of it. I don't believe it's just the same thing as missionary. Dcoetzee 09:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I came here from the same link, and I couldn't find a consistent definition from a google search. 85.138.128.15 (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

"The grip or starfish" section was deleted by 71.14.105.38 on 1 February 2010, comparison with previous version is at
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Missionary_position&diff=341402412&oldid=341294918
No idea why. I don't see a problem if someone wants to undo, but I have not verified that the 30 month old references are still current. Kid Bugs (talk) 03:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

No discussion of deck chair position?

Squashing of the deckchair position redirects here, but this article makes no mention of it. Either the redirect should be deleted, if the content has been excised, or it should be explained as a variant here. Dcoetzee 09:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Missionary_position/Archive_2&oldid=1092051525"