Talk:Sexual practices between men/Archive 1

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

Title and WP:Content forking

Since the term gay commonly refers to gay men and lesbian women (even to bisexual-identified people or other queer people), it may be best that the title of this article be Gay male sexual practices, not Gay sexual practices. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Article titles, where it currently states "sufficiently precise," ambiguity should not cloud the heading. Yes, I am quite aware that gay, in some contexts, only refers to gay men...such as commonly being the G in LGBT. But, regardless, it is a term commonly applied to both men and women. If one wants to argue that "gay male" is unacceptable because many of the men may not identify as a gay man, I would suggest that one option is to address sexual identity in the lead, similar to how we do for the Men who have sex with men, Lesbian sexual practices and Women who have sex with women articles, but I'm not aware of any WP:Reliable sources stating that "gay male" doesn't in fact mean "a gay male," unless touching on transgender issues. There are, however, many WP:Reliable sources pointing out that the term gay is often used as an umbrella term for all LGBT people, especially LGB people. So another option is to let this article stay titled Gay sexual practices, but to add a WP:Hatnote indicating that this article is specifically about sexual practices between males, and that sexual practices between females is covered by the Lesbian sexual practices article. And then perhaps address sexual identity in the lead, providing insight into the fact that gay does not always mean "strictly homosexual person."

Secondly, Prcc27's creation of this article is currently an unnecessary WP:Content fork. Prcc27 gave the following reasoning for creating this article: "Things copied from anal sex, frot, and men who have sex with men. Since there is a 'Lesbian sexual practices' I decided to create this page. It might need a little bit of work." I don't think that is good reasoning to have used to create this article. WP:Content forks should only be created when needed; otherwise, they should generally be avoided. There was no need to fork this material to create a Gay sexual practices article. The Lesbian sexual practices article, for example, is not largely redundant. It also has substantial WP:Weight in WP:Reliable sources; this is due to the degree to which WP:Reliable sources focus on lesbian sexual practices. By contrast, WP:Reliable sources usually focus on anal sex with regard to sexual activity among gay men and other men who have sex with men, as made clear by this and many other sources; WP:Reliable sources on male-male sexual activity usually aren't nearly as focused on the different sexual practices that male-male couples might engage in. The Lesbian sexual practices article is not nearly the same as the Women who have sex with women article or any other Wikipedia article discussing sexual activity between women. But the Gay sexual practices article is currently a significant fork of material presented in other Wikipedia articles. I don't object to a Wikipedia article on this topic; I object to unnecessary redundancy. And, no, the solution is not to remove or reduce this material in those other articles; this material, all of its text, is very important to those other articles, which is why it's there. The solution is to WP:Copyedit some of the material in this article away from the same exact wording (some of it being my wording) and to expand this article with different material, material that shows this article as unique instead of as unnecessary space. One WP:Copyedit to begin with is to fix the "Health Risks" heading, per MOS:HEAD -- sentence case, not title case. Flyer22 (talk) 05:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer hatnote over name change. Prcc27 (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I added a WP:Hatnote and made other tweaks. One of the tweaks I made, as seen in that diff-link, was remove most of the statistics regarding anal sex and to instead summarize the matter and link directly to the male-to-male prevalence section of the Anal sex article. The Anal sex article, of course, is the article for significantly elaborating on anal sex. Since, like I noted above, sources so often focus on anal sex with regard to male-male sexual activity, I know that the Gay sexual practices article is going to have paragraphs about anal sex, but when we can reduce the redundancy between articles, we should. Another thing that needs to be significantly reduced is the Health risks section; this is because the vast majority of it is an exact copy of the Sexually transmitted infections section of the Men who have sex with men article; it would be best to summarize that content and have that section link to the relevant section of the Men who have sex with men article, perhaps with a "Main article," "See also" or "Further information" link. And that is what I plan to do, if you do not do it first. I also obviously added categories -- the same categories used in the Lesbian sexual practices article, with the exception of the Category:Lesbianism.
Do be careful with WP:Content forking in the future; such forking can certainly be, and often is, a problem. This is why WP:Content forking advises against it in general. Think of it like this: When there is already one or more articles sufficiently covering the topic, there is no need for another. Not unless that "another" piece is significantly unique. The point of the WP:Content fork guideline is this: We should strive to keep aspects of a topic in one article instead of causing readers to go to multiple articles for the material, unless necessary. There are editors who will immediately nominate a WP:Content fork for deletion, if they view it as inappropriate WP:Content forking. Flyer22 (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Source misrepresentation and WP:OR

This article seems to have become WP:COATRACK for linking numerous diseases to gay sex (protected or otherwise). Several sources are misrepresented, exaggerated, or clumsily combined in blatant violation of WP:OR. I'm inclined to nominate the article for deletion as a WP:POVFORK, but would like to hear from other editors about whether the article is worthy of being kept.- MrX 19:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Here are MrX's edits to the article so far:[1][2][3][4]. Per what I stated above about cleanup, MrX, the article might be worthy of being kept. I could certainly expand it with more material about gay male sexual practices. For the record, I don't think that it was Prcc27's intention to have this article be a "gay sex leads to numerous diseases" article in disguise; I think what he intended is made clear above. He simply wanted an article about gay male sexual practices since the Lesbian sexual practices article exists. He obviously went overboard in copying content from the Men who have sex with men article, and you might want to check that article for WP:Synthesis as well. I obviously didn't get around to reducing that material in the Gay sexual practices article. Flyer22 (talk) 23:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that perspective Flyer22. I will check out the other article as well.- MrX 02:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
@MrX and Flyer22: any coatrack issue here seems to me to be exacerbated by the prominence of the TOC. Under Gay sexual practices#health risks I'd suggest, as a short term measure, that ===level three headings=== are removed from TOC access so as to prevent, I think, undue display as:
1 Behaviors
2 Health risks
2.1 HIV/AIDS
2.2 Hepatitis B
2.3 Other sexually transmitted infections
...
Also the health risk content covers ~1.5screens as I see it while the lead and behaviours content minus TOC but including pics presents less than one screen.
GregKaye 08:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Should health risks be changed to health concerns. For instance the gay couples that I know face no risk but certainly, a physician within one of the couples, has as much of a legitimate and general level of concern as anyone. GregKaye 09:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I think health risks is the correct heading, and I'm not really concerned about the TOC. If the article is about gay sexual practices, then that is what most of the article should be about, with a brief mention of risks. For example, the first two sentences of 'Hepatitis B' have absolutely nothing to do with the article subject. Whoever created the 'Health risks' section clearly wanted to advance a point of view that gay sex is fraught with awful diseases. Let me see if I can fix some if it now.- MrX 19:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
MrX, keep in mind what I stated above in this section about Prcc27 having created this article. Knowing what topics Prcc27 edits and how Prcc27 edits them, I highly doubt that Prcc27 is anti-gay and wanted the article to advance the point of view that "gay sex is fraught with awful diseases." That stated, Prcc27 might think that frot and some other sex acts that concern gay sex are healthier than anal sex (after all, I have encountered gay or bisexual male Wikipedia editors who think that way), but I think we should let Prcc27 have his say instead of speculating on what anti-view he might have. Flyer22 (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Flyer22 please don't misunderstand me. I don't suspect Prcc27 of malicious intent, nor do I question their good faith. I just think that they have approached the subject from a point of view that is not consistent with what I would expect from an article about gay sexual practices. - MrX 20:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I trimmed some material after you did, per this discussion. There was no need for the subheadings for the Health risks section after the trimming. Flyer22 (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. That's an improvement.- MrX 20:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I have removed content from the 'health risks' subsection, which was the largest before the removal, in violation of 'Undue' policy. The content can be re-added as the core of the article grows. Rafe87 (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Rafe87 (talk · contribs), you removed too much material from the section. For example, the human papillomavirus (HPV) material should be re-added considering how common HPV is and what the material stated about its relationship to MSM. And the frot/non-penetrative sex material should be added back, since that type of sexual activity does not pose as much of a risk as anal sex. This content should be supported by quality sources, however, per WP:MEDRS. In the #Latest edits to the Activities section section below, also see what I stated about other changes you made to the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
The HPV section had literally nothing to do with MSM. Material that doesn't directly relate to the subject should be removed - this entry should not be turned into a list of all STDs that could possibly be caught by someone gay. The frot etc. material was editorializing, and had no source backing up its assertion about sex risks. The reference to J.A. Kowalski's paper is abstruse and doesn't clear up the subject in the least. Rafe87 (talk) 13:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Rafe87 (talk · contribs) (last time WP:Pinging you to this section because I assume that you will check back here if you want to read replies), there is no sexual act that is exclusive to MSM except for frot and docking. So, yes, of course the Health risks section should include some commonly sexually transmitted infections; HPV is one of the main ones. And content that was there mentioned MSM and anal cancer, and that "Men with HIV are also more likely to get severe cases of genital warts that are hard to treat." As for frot, it is a form of frottage. And the "No-Risk Sexual Activities" section of this Aids.gov source that was in the article before you removed it states, "Frottage—also known as 'dry humping' or body-to-body rubbing [...] You can still contract other STDs, like herpes, HPV, or pubic lice ('crabs') if you have bare skin-to-skin contact with your partner." This source that was also there similarly supports that information. Better sources can be used to support the frot/frottage material. As for the J.A. Kowalski material, I don't care much if that stays or goes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not the one disputing that frot can be conducive to STDs. What I removed was only the reference to it carrying fewer risks, which, if I remember correctly, was not sourced and therefore was editorializing.177.98.55.220 (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
And yes, I maintain that the health risks subsection should not become just a who's who in the STD world. Make it relevant to MSM. Rafe87 (talk) 14:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I stand by my "14:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)" post above; for example, I already noted that frot being of lower risk and carrying no HIV risk was sourced. I will now respond to you in the #Latest edits to the Activities section section below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
The Health risks section of this article should be similar to the one currently seen at the Lesbian sexual practices article, in that it starts off by noting the topic of sexually transmitted infections, how the risks of them differ between penetrative and non-penetrative sex acts, and in that it includes material specific to same-sex sexual activity. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Docking

A lot of the docking information that was just added is unsourced and unclear. I'm not sure how much of it should be reverted! Prcc27 (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

This page doesn't make too much sense since the sexual practices referred on it are not exclusive of gay couples but are also performed by a lot of heterosexual couples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.93.248.48 (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

There are two practices noted in the article that are exclusive to male same-sex couples; those are frot and docking. But that is beside the point. The article is specifically about sexual practices that male same-sex couples engage in. Above, I did argue unnecessary WP:Content forking (and unnecessary WP:Content forking irritates me), but the article is here and can be expanded and fixed up better than it is. Flyer22 (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Common name as "Gay sex"

I was wondering whether direct reference to "Gay sex" in the article title would be appropriate as this seems to be commonname. See: Ngram and Google Trend results. GregKaye 09:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, think about it for a second...- MrX 20:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
If GregKaye means including "gay sex" in the lead as a WP:Alternative title, I don't mind that. But like I noted in the #Title and WP:Content forking section above, the term gay refers to females as well; and "gay sex" can also mean "lesbian sex." The WP:Hatnote at the top of the Gay sexual practices article takes care of anyone looking for the Lesbian sexual practices article. Flyer22 (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the term "Gay" can be used with broad meaning and that, in this case, it is ambiguous. Perhaps appropriate titles might be either Gay sexual practices (male) or Gay sex (male). Either way "Gay sex" better meets the stipulation of WP:UCRN. The current title is no less ambiguous than an alternate commonname version. The content forking issue applied to the use of "Gay" without reference to a gender specific word such as "male". It doesn't relate to the commonname titling as ".. sex" rather than ".. sexual practices". All the same it is also clear that the commonname title can be clearly viewed within a title presentation as Gay sexual practices. GregKaye 08:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
There is no need to change the title to Gay sexual practices (male) or to Gay sex (male) since there is no article titled Gay sexual practices (female) or Gay sex (female); nor should there be. Per WP:Disambiguation, we should only disambiguate when needed. Since there is a Lesbian sexual practices article, and the Gay sexual practices article is clear about its scope, there is no need to disambiguate the Gay sexual practices article in the way that you suggest. Yes, it can be argued that some people coming to this article will be looking for sexual activity among females as well; but, again, there is the WP:Hatnote to help them read about what they want to read about in that regard. There is also the option of turning gay sex into a disambiguation page. Flyer22 (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Grossness

Must you show that gross picture of the man being sodomized? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.101.144 (talk) 03:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

What were you expecting to see on a Wikipedia article titled "Gay sexual practices", bearing in mind that Wikipedia is not censored? Content on Wikipedia goes by our policies and guidelines, and not personal taste. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 15:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Do we need to show child molestation in an article about child molestation? Surely these extremely vile acts can be discussed without the need for pornographic imagery. 174.1.101.144 (talk) 20:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
You finding them to be "extremely vile acts" and "pornographic" is your own opinion. Nobody's forcing you to view the page, and I think that a painting such as the one you object to is perfectly encyclopaedic: I do personally have issues with real life photos on Wikipedia, but as I mentioned before, Wikipedia is uncensored.
Also, compare the sexual intercourse article – do you object to the imagery used there, or just on this page? As noted on the fellatio talkpage, you seem to take a rather keen interest in removing male-on-male sex acts from Wikipedia. I'm sorry about that, but what were you really expecting with a page on "Gay sexual practices"? – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 21:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I am certainly against the posting of extremely vile pornography on all Wikipedia articles. What do I expect when I come to these pages? I expect an encyclopedic article on the act in question, not a pornographic representation of this act. How gross this is, and vulgar. Look at the Wikipeda article on Urination and you will see a line figure and a photo of a fully clothed man, from behind, with no private skin exposed. Can we not be that decent in this article? 174.1.101.144 (talk) 03:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I will not give money to Wikipedia so long as it shows these pornographic images of extremely disgusting sex acts. 174.1.101.144 (talk) 08:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • It's not pornographic; it's art. Prcc27 (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Latest edits to the Activities section

I took issue with most of the edits that Rafe87 (talk · contribs) made to the Activities section. And here's why: Rafe87, judging by how the section looked after your edits to it, it seems to me like you tried to make anal sex appear more popular among gay men/MSM than it actually is. Even if that was not your intention, you inserted the anal sex material in a counterexample way, so as to conflict with what studies usually report these days on gay men/MSM and anal sex -- that it isn't as popular among them as the media makes it out to be; in fact, it usually ranks second, third, or more distantly. Furthermore, you removed the following line: "Some men who have sex with men, however, believe that being a receptive partner during anal sex questions their masculinity." There was no valid reason to remove that, since it actually plays a large role with regard to feelings about anal sex among the MSM community. Therefore, I restored it.

I did not like the way you ordered/worded some things. What I liked about the version of the section before your edits is how it started out addressing anal sex but also noting that it isn't as popular among MSM as people think and that MSM commonly engage in other sexual practices. It addressed the variety first before specifically addressing anal sex only, or other sexual acts only. Your version also had a bit of WP:Editorializing, and made pseudo headings, which goes against WP:BADHEAD. Furthermore, per MOS:Paragraphs, a little bit of content usually does not need a subheading. You also need to be careful not to add primary source after primary source, and should not make it seem like such sources apply to the world at large when they only apply to the United States or some other specific region; see the WP:Primary source policy. I also don't think sources like this this fivethirtyeight.com source should be used for this material.

All that stated... Since anal sex is so focused on when it comes to MSM, and since it's best to explain what something is first, I crafted a version that solely focuses on anal sex at the beginning, then goes into how anal sex is popularly associated with MSM, but that there is sexual variety among MSM, and that the rates for anal sex vary; it then provides specific information on other sexual practices. I restored the Jerzy Adam Kowalski material because I don't see why you removed it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Update: More tweaks here and here. And I will likely add something to counter the following sentence: "A study by the National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior (NSSHB) indicated that men who self-report taking a receptive position during anal sex in their last encounter were at least as likely to have reached orgasm as men who adopted an insertive role." It should be countered because it is very common for a man not to experience an orgasm via prostate stimulation during receptive anal sex, while his male partner, who is doing the penetrating, will most assuredly achieve one (usually anyway). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

The "at least as likely to have reached orgasm as men who adopted an insertive role" aspect is usually the case only when the man is directly stimulating his penis in some way or when his male partner is directly stimulating his penis while penetrating him. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

The version that preceded my edits was so poorly written. Before dropping a subject, we should explore it in its full depth. We should not mention anal sex, then immediately start discussing other forms of sex, and then discuss anal sex again. This is poor writing, it's confusing and undisciplined. If my edits are guilty of making anal sex look more popular among gay men, then yours are guilty of doing the opposite, downplaying its frequency. What I did was explain that anal sex has high lifetime participation rates among MSM, even if it's not as assiduously practiced as other sexual practices, which is exactly what the sources on the subject are saying. Why should downplaying the frequency of anal sex be prioritized in the entry at the cost of muddying RS's findings? The Five...source has a link to the study being referenced, so it can be replaced; I decided to use it because it has a table where whoever is interested can verify the information mentioned in the entry, whereas the study itself is paywalled. But if one'd rather replace one source for the other, I won't object. And my presentation of the information does not suggest that the passive role in anal sex is more or less pleasurable than insertive sex; what it did was explain exactly what a study found, that men who bottom are at least as likely to have reached orgasm as men who assumed insertive roles in their last encounter. Sure that could be partly due to other sexual behaviors practiced throughout the encounter - my edits do note that multiple sex behaviors are practiced during gay sex. But that goes for men who assume the insertive role as well. Look at the table with more attention, and you will see that men who have had other forms of sexual behavior in their last encounter, including masturbation, which you say is what gives pleasure to the bottom, did not have a higher orgasm rate than men who bottomed. So it shouldn't be discounted that the experience of being anally penetrated is directly contributing to the bottom's pleasure as well, which, in turn, is relevant to discuss the popular perception that "gay sex is painful". Rafe87 (talk) 14:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't view your version as written better than the previous version. So we disagree on that. The previous version that was there started off by noting a variety of sexual practices. It began with "Historically, anal sex has been popularly associated with male homosexuality and MSM." because anal sex is the first thing people think of when they think of "sex between men", and it also began with that so that it could smoothly lead into "However, many MSM do not engage in anal sex, and may engage in oral sex, frottage or frot, or mutual masturbation instead." So the text did not start off primarily focusing on anal sex. It moved into noting other sexual aspects. After that, it then addressed anal sex specifically and other sex acts specifically. The first paragraph was a summary paragraph of sexual practices. The current version, as you know, is different since it starts off with anal sex only, and then goes into discussion of other sexual acts, including as compared to anal sex. I did not downplay anal sex in the version you complain about (in fact, an editor copied and pasted my text to this article from elsewhere, as noted above on this talk page); I simply did not give it WP:Undue weight. This is not the Anal sex article, nor should it be. Studies consistently show that anal sex is not as popular among gay men/MSM as society and the general media make it out to be, and this article should be clear about that. Yes, so much of the literature on gay male sexual activity focuses on anal sex, because of the popular association of "gay men = anal sex", but we should not go out of our way to make this article so much about anal sex. There are a variety of things that gay men/MSM do sexually, and a lot of them are tired of people thinking that all they do is have anal sex; a lot of them are tired of reading about anal sex as though it is their only option or main go-to option. This article should be an encyclopedia article covering the variety of sexual practices that gay men engage in. And we should not be listing any and every primary source study. WP:Secondary sources, such as scholarly book sources, are preferred. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
The second paragraph should be the first one because it would be a better introductory paragraph. Prcc27 (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Per above, I obviously agree, but Rafe87 seemingly wanted the first paragraph to focus on anal sex, so I crafted the new first paragraph with that thought in mind. If we move it so that it is the second paragraph, then it should begin with "Among men who have anal sex with other men", like it did before, instead of begin with "MSM may engage in anal sex" (since the "MSM may engage in anal sex" aspect will already be noted in the first paragraph). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Update: Prcc27 changed the order, per the "23:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)" post. And I tweaked it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I added this to the Health risks, and I'll add more to it later, per what I stated above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I just reverted this redundant piece by Rafe87, who is determined to have the section mostly focus on anal sex. Prcc27, since you also objected to Rafe87's summary of the first paragraph, even after I compromised with him by having the first paragraph be solely about anal sex, what are your thoughts on this? I mean, the content was clearly redundant, but do you think we should move text on that matter to the first paragraph? Per what I've stated above, I obviously don't think we should; it's bad flow. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, the "with one study finding that roughly three-fourths of gay men have had anal sex at one time or another in their lives" material conflicts with other studies; I see no need to point out that one study when we already point to the Anal sex article for further detail and state "with some percentages higher than others." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't agree with the content that was added, but I figured if it was going to be added it shouldn't be in the intro paragraph. I agree that a lot of it was redundant. Prcc27 (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

You should look up the meaning of words before using them. For one, it seems you don't know what "redundant" means. My edit inserted brand new information, about the lifetime practice of anal sex, which is lacking in the entry because it displeases you, so it wasn't redundant. Rafe87 (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Pay better attention to what you add; it is indeed already covered in the article. You added, "A large percentage of gay and bisexual men self-report lifetime participation in anal sex, with one study finding that roughly three-fourths of gay men have had anal sex at one time or another in their lives. Studies among gay men show that similar percentages have participated in anal sex as tops (the insertive partners) and bottoms (the receptive partners). Those who enjoy either role may be referred to as versatile."
The second paragraph in that section states, "Among men who have anal sex with other men, the insertive partner may be referred to as the top, the one being penetrated may be referred to as the bottom, and those who enjoy either role may be referred to as versatile." And the third paragraph states, "A large percentage of gay and bisexual men self-report lifetime participation in anal sex. Studies among gay men have indicated that percentages are similar when comparing men who prefer to penetrate their partners to those who prefer to be the receptive partner." The only part you added that was not already in the section is the "with one study finding that roughly three-fourths of gay men have had anal sex at one time or another in their lives" text, and I commented on that part with my "16:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)" post above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

As seen here and here, Rafe87 is back at it again (as a different IP) -- removing the "Some men who have sex with men, however, believe that being a receptive partner during anal sex questions their masculinity." bit, adding primary sources based on U.S. samples, and applying information with poor context; for example, including orgasm information as though it's only about orgasm from anal sex. This is the "Gay sexual practices" article, not the "Gay sexual practices in the United States" article. I tweaked his additions with this edit, but this packing in primary U.S. study after primary U.S. study thing needs to stop, and so does giving the information poor context. MrX, thoughts about this? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't have any subject matter expertise here, but I think you were right to revert. Making general statements based off of individual studies is problematic. If this keeps happening with the same content, then an SPI may be in order.- MrX 02:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, MrX. As noted above, I left in the content but tweaked it. I might remove a little bit of material later. We don't need parts of this article getting tagged with Template:Globalize. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
MrX and Jytdog, there has been more of the same, as seen here and here. This is clearly Rafe87 IP-hopping, once again trying to make anal sex seem more prevalent among men who have sex with men than it actually is and once again relying on individual studies. Notice that both IPs changed "Many MSM, however, do not engage in anal sex" to "many MSM do not frequently engage in anal sex", and that the wording "And while lifetime participation in anal sex is high (>80%) among gay and bisexual men" was added? These changes were clearly made to make it seem as though all MSM engage in anal sex and it's just that some MSM engage in it less frequently than others, despite what secondary sources report on the matter. And I've already been clear above that we shouldn't be adding primary source after primary source, based on U.S. samples or otherwise. I will now request that this article be WP:Semi-protected. Doing so is likely to draw Rafe87 out under his registered account, but at least the IP hopping and WP:Edit warring will be better dealt with.
Also pinging Rivertorch/Rivertorch's Evil Twin in case he is interested in helping out on this matter, or simply watching the article and reverting when necessary. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Latest report on the matter can be seen here. Also take note in that report is the fact that Rafe87 suddenly showed up to make this edit to his talk page after months of only editing as an IP. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh dear, here comes Rafe87 again, asserting that most gay men have taken part in anal sex, using - gasp! - reliable sources!! How dare he?? Rafe87 (talk) 10:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

When he is using primary sources to contradict secondary sources, and when the source he used for the "while lifetime participation in anal sex is high (>80%) among gay and bisexual men" piece is a source about sexual practices in North American Medical Students, and yet he used this source to make a sweeping generalization, as though the source is talking about MSM in general, yes, how dare he.
To others, Rafe87 has taken the matter to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Noticeboard#Arbitration request: Deletion of sourced content motivated by personality disagreements. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Tell my, why did you delete my edits about sexual dysfunctions, if your sole objection is to what I've added on anal sex? How is that constructive conduct? Rafe87 (talk) 11:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
If you dislike the "generalization" of that "North American medical students" article, there are ways to go about the matter without deleting the reference wholesale. We can simply notice that the study was based on a convenience, not probability, sample, that volunteers were self-selected, that they were students, etc. Also, [5], based on a Portuguese sample, says a large majority >70% of gay men engaged in anal sex in the six months prior to the survey, so, again, we have further proof that lifetime participation in anal sex is high among gay men. And the study is not based on students or a single occupation. Do you have any objection to adding it to the entry? Rafe87 (talk) 11:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I and others tried to explain WP:MEDRS to you before; this was at Talk:Biology and sexual orientation. You didn't listen then. Why should I believe you would listen now? And for the last time, we should not be building articles based on individual primary studies. That is not how good Wikipedia articles are supposed to be built. I'm going to contact WP:Med and WP:LGBT to weigh in on the aforementioned discussion you started. And the next time I reply, I will be arguing with tertiary and secondary sources, like I usually do. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
@Rafe87: have you made edits to this article while logged out of your account?- MrX 12:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I have. Prior to today, I did not use this account for 7 months. I was not even sure I remembered the password. To the small extent I tried to work on this entry, I used my IP number. However, as Fly herself admits, I've always been clear that the IP account 177..., from Brazil, is me. I've not engaged in edit warring using my IP number as a sock puppet, and I never meant to deceive anyone, which is why I've always been upfront about my identity. To my understanding, my use of the IP number doesn't constitute violation of the rules. I hope this issue alone doesn't preclude people from giving a fair look to my activities. Rafe87 (talk) 12:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your honesty. I have no input on the content as it is well outside of my area of knowledge. I suggest discussion, WP:DR, and WP:CONSENSUS for resolving the content dispute.- MrX 12:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Just a note: I think I was clear that I do not think that the 177. IP range is Rafe87's only IP range.
MrX, as for expertise, I don't think one has to be an expert on this topic to comment on what they believe is appropriate per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. For example, your "02:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)" comment above had it right. We are not supposed to build Wikipedia articles like that. But if you'd rather sit out of this dispute, I understand. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I think we can assume that edits to this article from the east coast of Brazil come from Rafe87. The only way I would consider getting involved in this is if you both break down the content in dispute workable portions and leave out personalities, assumptions about your opponents motivations, history, and discussions/content and on other pages. I recommend a structured process like
  1. Proposed text (one discrete piece of information since the dispute is over stats)
  2. Sources (but I can't help if I can't access the sources online)
  3. Argument for
  4. Argument against
  5. Form consensus to include the text (or not), or some compromise version, then go to #1 and repeat the process for the next piece of information.
- MrX 13:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
MrX, I tried with this post. I doubt that it will help Rafe87 understand where I'm coming from, but it should help the more experienced Wikipedians understand what I mean. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I really don't have time to delve into this thoroughly, and I don't think I've ever looked at this article before today, but I will offer a couple of general comments, if I may. First, Flyer22 Reborn has emphasized that secondary sources are preferable to primary sources. She's right about that; it's policy and, in the absence of very good reason, non-negotiable. Second, in looking over some of the recent edits made by an IP, I see a pattern that rings alarm bells for me. In some cases, the wording cannot be correct both ways if it's being sourced to a given source; it has to be one way or the other. I'd suggest that anyone objecting to the current version take it one step at a time and identify concisely here on the talk page what each problem is. That would allow other editors to examine discrete revisions in manageable chunks, rather than being confronted by multiple changes all at once plus a wall of text. Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 23:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
That is a dead on good comment. User:Rafe87 this was way too aggressive a work over, especially as many of these changes appear to have been contested in the past. I suggest that you bring these one by one here to Talk for discussion. Jytdog (talk) 00:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. - MrX 00:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Maybe I would be able to offer a response if I had any idea what "the wording cannot be correct both ways if it's being sourced to a given source" means. Also, the entry, as it is, is filled with primary sources. There are, after all, few secondary sources about the general sex practices of gay men. They were not deleted, like others, because they don't address Fly 22's weird hang up on anal sex. In any case, why not go about deleting all of it if the primacy of secondary sources (even when there are, apparently, none) should be respected über alles? Also, I do not see how that edit is "aggressive". It was that much content (you're welcome, Wikipedia) because there were that many sources added by me (I am, after all, behind most the recent research behind this entry). And am I not supposed to be bold? For that matter, I'd like to be pointed out to me where it is said on Wikipedia that primary sources are generally not allowed. Rafe87 (talk) 08:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Here are all sources that are currently on the entry and are clearly primary sources:

  • Turner CF, Ku L, Rogers SM, Lindberg LD, Pleck JH, Sonenstein FL (May 1998). "Adolescent sexual behavior, drug use, and violence: increased reporting with computer survey technology". Science. 280 (5365): 867–73. doi:10.1126/science.280.5365.867. PMID 9572724.
  • Katherine B. Coffman; Lucas C. Coffman; Keith M. Marzilli Ericson (2013). The Size of the LGBT Population and the Magnitude of Anti-Gay Sentiment are Substantially Underestimated (Report).
  • "Not all gay men have anal sex". Go Ask Alice!. June 13, 2008. Retrieved August 19, 2015.
  • Sexual Behaviors and Situational Characteristics of Most Recent Male-Partnered Sexual Event among Gay and Bisexually Identified Men in the United States onlinelibrary.wiley.com Retrieved 2-13-2014
  • "The male hot spot — Massaging the prostate". Go Ask Alice!. Apr 1, 2011. Retrieved April 21, 2010.
  • Mona Chalabi (20 August 2015). "The Gender Orgasm Gap". FiveThirtyEight.
  • "Variation in Orgasm Occurrence by Sexual Orientation in a Sample of U.S. Singles". The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 11 (11): 2645–2652. 2014. doi:10.1111/jsm.12669.
  • "Pain from anal sex, and how to prevent it". Go Ask Alice!. June 26, 2009. Retrieved April 7, 2011.
  • Joshua G. Rosenberger; et al. (2011). "Sexual Behaviors and Situational Characteristics of Most Recent Male-Partnered Sexual Event among Gay and Bisexually Identified Men in the United States". J Sex Med. 8: 3040–3050. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2011.02438.x.
  • Center for Disease Control, Increases in Unsafe Sex and Rectal Gonorrhea Among Men Who Have Sex With Men – San Francisco, California, 1994–1997[1]. Retrieved April 29, 2007.
  • Laumann, E., Gagnon, J.H., Michael, R.T., and Michaels, S. The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States. 1994. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (Also reported in the companion volume, Michael et al., Sex in America: A Definitive Survey, 1994).
  • "The Impact of Sexual Orientation on Sexuality and Sexual Practices in North American Medical Students". Journal of Sexual Medicine. 2010. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.01794.
  • "The New Sex Police". The Advocate. 2005-04-12. pp. 39–40, 42. Retrieved February 12, 2011.
  • Richters J.; De Visser R. O.; Rissel C. E.; Grulich A. E.; Smith A. (2008). "Demographic and psychosocial features of participants in bondage and discipline, "Sadomasochism" or Dominance and Submission (BDSM): Data from a National Survey". The journal of sexual medicine. 5 (7): 1660–1668. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2008.00795.x. PMID 18331257.
  • Richters J.; Grulich AE; de Visser RO; Smith AM; Rissel CE. (2003). "Sex in Australia: autoerotic, esoteric and other sexual practices engaged in by a representative sample of adults.". Aust N Z J Public Health. 27 (2): 180–90. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2008.00795.x. PMID 14696709.
  • Elliott, Leland / Brantley, Cynthia, Sex on Campus, 1997, Random House, New York
  • Reece M, Rosenberger JG, Schick V, Herbenick D, Dodge B, Novak DS (2010). "Characteristics of vibrator use by gay and bisexually identified men in the United States". The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 7: 3467–76. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.01873.x. PMID 20561168.
  • Joshua G. Rosenberger; et al. (2014). "What's Love Got To Do With It? Examinations of Emotional Perceptions and Sexual Behaviors Among Gay and Bisexual Men in the United States". Arch Sex Behav: 119–128. doi:10.1007/s10508-013-0223-9.
  • Debby Herbenick; et al. (2010). "An Event-Level Analysis of the Sexual Characteristics and Composition Among Adults Ages 18 to 59: Results from a National Probability Sample in the United States". J Sex Med. 7(suppl 5): 346–361. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.02020.x.
  • "Sexual Behavior Does Not Explain Varying HIV Rates Among Gay And Straight Men - Medical News Today". medicalnewstoday.com. Retrieved February 10, 2015.
  • Goodreau SM, Golden MR (October 2007). "Biological and demographic causes of high HIV and sexually transmitted disease prevalence in men who have sex with men". Sex Transm Infect. 83 (6): 458–462. doi:10.1136/sti.2007.025627. PMC 2598698free to read. PMID 17855487.
  • Center for Disease Control (CDC) (2016-08-12). "Gay and Bisexual Men | HIV by Group | HIV/AIDS | CDC". cdc.gov. Retrieved August 21, 2016.
  • "Reported STDs in the United States — 2014 National Data for Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, and Syphilis" (PDF).
  • M Hourihan; H Wheeler; R Houghton; B T Goh (2004). "Lessons from the syphilis outbreak in homosexual men in east London". Sex Transm Infect. 80 (6): 509–511. doi:10.1136/sti.2004.011023. PMC 1744940free to read. PMID 15572625.
  • Andrew E. Grulich; et al. (2014). "Homosexual experience and recent homosexual encounters: the Second Australian Study of Health and Relationships". Sexual Health. 11 (5): 439–50. doi:10.1071/SH14122.
  • Thomas W. Gaither; et al. (2015). "The Influence of Sexual Orientation and Sexual Role on Male Grooming-Related Injuries and Infections". J Sex Med. 12 (3): 631–640. doi:10.1111/jsm.12780.

Is there a reason they were not all deleted like the ones I've more recently tried to add?

Also notice the poor quality of some of the sources that have been added (not by me, for what is worth). Something called "Go ask Alice" is apparently less of a controversial source than the peer-reviewed articles that I have recently tried to add. Is it because the author is saying things Fly 22 wants to hear - that not all gay men have anal sex? While peer-reviewed studies with hundreds or thousands of samples are not allowed, when they say something Fly 22 dislikes. Rafe87 (talk) 08:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

As an aside, I'd like to bring Flyer22 Reborn's attention to the fact that, completely by coincidence, while researching for something else, I've found a nationally representative dataset [6] showing that the large majority of gay men have had anal sex in the insertive (83%) as well as receptive (90%) positions. The numbers for bi men are 75% and 66%, respectively. So I've been slighted and berated over something that was true all along. Rafe87 (talk) 17:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Your point is good; the sources above are not MEDRS sources. The way to deal with this is not to add yet more primary sources and get into a "battle of poor quality primary sources", but rather to raise source quality and replace content sourced to poor quality sources with content sourced to MEDRS sources for biomedical information or high quality secondary sources for non-biomedical information. getting into a battle of primary sources is really trench warfare that nobody can "win" and where the encyclopedia loses. Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Rafe87 stated, "Here are all sources that are currently on the entry and are clearly primary sources." No, those are not all of the sources currently in the article and not all of the sources in the article are primary sources. Some sources in the article, for example, The Advocate and Go Ask Alice! source, are WP:Secondary or WP:Tertiary sources. There are a number of secondary or tertiary sources in the article, such as this, this, this, this, this and this book source. Like I recently told Rafe87, we are generally supposed to use secondary and tertiary sources to report on the literature. We are not supposed to use primary source after primary source, especially when the sources mainly or only concern the United States, and when the prevalence of anal sex among gay men and other MSM has varied over the years. For example, the "nationally representative dataset" that Rafe87 pointed to is about the United States and it's just one study when other studies report differently. This source states, "The most commonly reported behavior was kissing a partner on the mouth (74.5%), followed by oral sex (72.7%), and partnered masturbation (68.4%). Anal intercourse occurred among less than half of participants (37.2%) and was most common among men ages 18–24 (42.7%)." And yet above, Rafe87 stated that he's "been slighted and berated over something that was true all along." I told Rafe87 that having tried anal sex before, whether insertive or otherwise, is obviously not the same thing as regularly engaging in it. Many gay men who do not have anal sex (regularly or at all) have tried anal sex before. Rafe87 keeps making this matter about me disliking something with regard to anal sex. I am female and am not particularly interested in what gay men do in bed. I am, however, particularly interested in not misreporting and/or misrepresenting data about the sexual practices that any sexual orientation group engages in, and that includes misrepresentation of data about anal sex among gay men/MSM. For this article, what I've consistently objected to as far as Rafe87's edits go is packing the Activities section with anal sex material when a number of sources make it quite clear that anal sex is one of the least favored sexual activities (and sometimes the least favored sexual activity) among gay men and other MSM, and using poor sources such as this FiveThirtyEight source or primary source study after primary source study.
Furthermore, not every piece in the article needs to be supported by a WP:MEDRS-compliant source. That gay men engage in frot, for example, is not a medical statement. The following sentence does not need to be supported by a medical source: "Historically, anal sex has been popularly associated with male homosexuality and MSM. Many MSM, however, do not engage in anal sex, and may engage in oral sex, frottage or frot, or mutual masturbation instead." And the Go Ask Alice! source is one source used to support that information. As is clear from earlier discussions above on this talk page, most of the primary sources in the article were added by Prcc27 and Rafe87, and I was not happy about the matter. And in any case, the solution is not to strip the article of all primary sources or add more primary sources. Primary sources are allowed, but use of them should be infrequent. For topics that do not have a lot of secondary sources, there may me more use of primary sources than there are for other topics. Gay sexual practices, at least studies on gay male sexual practices, is one such topic, but use of primary sources should still be minimal. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gay sexual practices. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 15 June 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn due to opposed consensus. occono (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

– See https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all_2008&gprop=news&q=gay%20sex,gay%20sexual,lesbian%20sex,lesbian%20sexual - I don't think confusion with biological sex is likely - Compare Casual sex. There was talk page discussion for it here: Talk:Gay_sexual_practices#Common_name_as_"Gay_sex" but it was sidetracked into discussing whether a (male) quantifier was needed to distinguish it from Lesbian sex, and there was a short discussion at Talk:Lesbian_sexual_practices#Presentation_as_"Lesbian_sex"_either_as_article_title_or_in_article_content. where there was one vote against, one in favour and one neutral. I'd argue WP:PRECISE doesn't mean the current slightly belaboured title is necessary, I see no confusion between Sex (biological) and Lesbian or Homosexuality. occono (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose, per WP:Precise. Like I stated before, I don't see a need to move the article to "Lesbian sex," since "Lesbian sexual practices" is the more precise terminology. After all, the article is about sexual practices/sexual behavior. Why shorten the title to "lesbian sex"? Furthermore, "lesbian sex" redirects there to the article and, per WP:Alternative title, "lesbian sex" can be noted/bolded in the lead as the alternative title. But it's a no-brainer that "lesbian sex" is the alternative title. It's also better to state "Lesbian sexual practices are sexual activities involving women who have sex with women, regardless of their sexual orientation." than to state "Lesbian sex is sexual activity involving women who have sex with women, regardless of their sexual orientation." I feel similarly regarding "Gay sex." And as recently made clear in another move discussion, Google Trends analysis can be faulty. I don't feel strongly about this particular move request, but I do feel that "Gay sexual practices" and "Lesbian sexual practices" are the clearer, more precise, and more encyclopedic titles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
And one more thing: The Casual sex article is titled "Casual sex" because that is the WP:Common name for it; it is the term that reliable sources use to refer to that matter. By contrast, the topic of lesbian sex (although called "lesbian sex" in enough website sources) is commonly qualified with terms like "sexual behavior," or "sexual activities," or "sexual practices," like it is in this 2013 "Reader's Guide to Lesbian and Gay Studies" source, from Routledge, which uses the terminology "lesbian sexual practices." The Gay sex redirect should probably be a disambiguation page pointing to the Gay sexual practices and Lesbian sexual practices articles, like Homosexual sex (which is titled Homosexual sexual practices) currently is. And by that, I mean that "gay sex" should probably redirect to the "Homosexual sexual practices" disambiguation page. Also see all of the previous discussion/debate at Talk:Homosexual sexual practices. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – the current name seems to be carefully fitted to the content scope. The new name is broader. Not clearly a good move. Dicklyon (talk) 03:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No compelling reason has been given for the proposed change. The current title may not be necessary, but it seems optimal. If it ain't broke... RivertorchFIREWATER 19:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC) Added: I concur with Flyer that "gay sex" should redirect to the "Homosexual sexual practices" disambiguation page. RivertorchFIREWATER 17:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sexual_practices_between_men/Archive_1&oldid=1187833576"