Talk:Sexual practices between men/Archive 2

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

Oral sex

There is a section on anal sex and non,-penetrative sex; I feel like we need a section on oral sex as well. Prcc27 (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2021

From Section 1.2, Paragraph 2, change 

 MSM may use sex toys. According to an online survey of over 25,000 men who self-report a homosexual or bisexual orientation, 49.8% have ever used vibrators.

to 

 MSM may use sex toys. According to an online survey of 25,294 men who self-report a homosexual or bisexual orientation, 49.8% have used vibrators.
All set, thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Rename section

In order to address some of the concerns raised above, I'm suggesting we rename the section titled Anal sex to one titled Penetrative sex to match with the section on Non-penetrative sex, incorporating a brief line or two about penetrative frontal gay sexual practices between trans and cis gay men. Louisianajones1978 (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

This does not address those concerns at all, and proposes to conflate two very different things for no good reason. Please consider dropping the stick. Crossroads -talk- 23:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I have to oppose this idea as patent nonsense. Everyone who has not had seriously drastic surgery has an anus, and this has nothing to do with gender identity.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: In the above thread, you mentioned, "Any information about this belongs in a separate section or at least a distinct paragraph." Do you have any suggestions as to how that might be done (what might the heading title be, what information should be included, etc.)? Louisianajones1978 (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
See "on second thought", above. The more I look at the RS material, the more I realize that trying to cover transmen in this article at all is a WP:NOR and WP:NPOV problem. We should be sending readers to another article for that subject (even if new material needs to be written there for proper coverage.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Title should be changed to be Male sexual practices

Male sexual practises or male on male shouldn't just be defined by Gay sexual practices. Gays are not the only males with a sexual orientation that engage sex with other males. People forgetting that Bisexual males also engage sex with males and are properly a lot more numerous than the gay population. There is also the bi-curious males who are not sure if they want to practice male on male sex but are either tempting to try it or rather hesitant.

There isn't a article on bisexual sexual practices which is a pity because as as I know bisexuals are the type to accept all sexual orientation.- Vamlos (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

"Male sexual practices" may be too vague, since some people might assume that heterosexual sex involving men would be included. Furthermore, our counterpart article Lesbian sexual practices is not called "female sexual practices". Bisexual people can engage in both gay sexual practices and straight sexual practices– that doesn't make them any less bi when they decide to engage in one or the other. I don't think this article erases bi men or otherwise, because it already states that it applies to all men who have sex with men, regardless of their identity. I'm not sure what a bisexual sexual practices article would look like, or if it's even necessarily. But I won't rule out supporting such an article. Prcc27 (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Definitely too vague. I think "gay" is fine because regardless of how the men identify, male-male sex is commonly called "gay sex". The only sex acts where the act itself is bisexual would be a threesome, which has an article already. Crossroads -talk- 23:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Wait. I agree it's too vague. How about changing the title to "Male on Male sexual practices" because that will include all the males that identify as Gays, Bisexuals, Bi-curious but also enjoys practicing sex with males ( they don't need to necessarily identify as gay person ). I don't mind the "Gay sexual practices" title but this article is clearly isn't only talking about Gay men having sex. There are even hereteosexual males who had sex with transgender for the sake of exploring.
This is my last opinion. I think it should be changed to "Male on Male sexual practices" because believe it not nearly all bisexual males had a sexual experience with other males who identify as gay, bisexual, transgender. I know some Bi-curious men who tend to like females like but had sexual practices with men occasionally. I don't mind calling it Gay sexual practices but I've always felt that male on male sex are not just simply gay sexual practices because we all have different attitudes to it. Just like there's a difference between hardcore manly looking lesbians and feminine bisexual girls who do female on female sex. -Vamlos (talk) 01:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't think sex between men is commonly referred to as "male on male sex". We should use the common name per WP:COMMONNAME. Prcc27 (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I know that. I was just hoping this the title can be changed to better name so that it would include gays and non-gays. A bisexual and bi-curious don't necessarily think it's gay sex because it's also a bisexual practice. A attractive male who have muscles and a feminine male who dress like a female is equally attractive to bisexuals. Threesome can also be either partly and entirely male on male sexual practices. Threesome can be with 3 men or 2 men with 1 women. Vamlos (talk) 02:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Should the photos be deleted?

I don't know if this suggestion offends anyone, but I feel that the photos are a teeny bit too offensive and readers who didn't come for them will be quite outraged. Can someone please delete it, if you don't mind? Heraldscientist (talk) 21:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Trans-inclusivity

@Prcc27: totally fine bringing this to the talk page, since I do know this is a major edit, but I do really think this page needs to be a bit more trans male-inclusive. The article is about gay sexual practices between males, so including a brief section about sexual behaviors between trans and cis men seems both necessary and appropriate for an encyclopedic article about sex between men. If this were an article about gay sexual practices exclusively between cisgender men, then the lack of trans representation might make more sense. As it stands, the absence of any mention of trans men feels like a major omission, especially since all reliable sources describe trans men who are attracted to other men as queer or gay. If there are gay trans men, it's common sense that there's also gay trans sex.

Regarding images, I agree that there is nothing wrong per se with the one already present for oral sex, but it’s really a bit obscured and hard to tell what’s going on. There's not much in the image but shadow? If I had no idea what gay oral sex entailed, I wouldn’t learn anything from that image. The current images of anal and non-penetrative sex are super helpful and useful, but we don’t have any similar animations on Commons depicting oral sex between men (although there is actually one Commons image illustrating the 69 position). Maybe another image might be found that’s more educational but also less visually graphic? Best, Louisianajones1978 (talk) 14:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this warrants a whole section due to the WP:WEIGHT concerns brought up. So perhaps it would be better to add a sentence or two on the matter. If we do add trans men to this article, the Lesbian sexual practices page should also include trans woman to be consistent. It's worth noting that even though your edit was trans inclusive, there was nothing about trans man on trans man sex, (which would perhaps be an even bigger WEIGHT issue). I'm ok with replacing the oral photo with the 69 photo you just shared. However, I would prefer a photo that does not depict mutual oral, because I would assume that 69 is less common. Prcc27 (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Trans men are already included in this page because trans men can do all the same sex acts detailed here. The article does not distinguish between cisgender and transgender men, and it shouldn't. The idea that they just have to be specifically mentioned seems to be patronizing. The WP:BIAS essay does not supersede WP:NPOV and what it says about due weight, nor does it supersede WP:NOR. Personal (OR) views about what constitutes "inclusivity" likewise do not overrule it. Sources about this topic overwhelmingly do not discuss penis-in-vagina sex (PIV) or include it under this classification. Indeed, likely the vast majority of trans men who have sex with men do not engage in PIV because it would exacerbate their dysphoria. What sources were conjured up for this consisted of anecdotes. Crossroads -talk- 18:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
@Crossroads: Hm. Well, I can honestly say I've never once in my life seen research to back up a statement such as "the vast majority of trans men who have sex with men do not engage in PIV because it would exacerbate their dysphoria." Seems maybe more like unfounded conjecture than evidence-based statement? Also unsure about your statement, "Sources about this topic overwhelmingly do not discuss penis-in-vagina sex," because most research regarding cis/trans gay sex actually does mention "front door" (or PIV) sex,12 3 which is definitely not included on this page. A CTRL-F search on any of these studies will show more than a dozen places where the word "vagina" is used. There's enough secondary and tertiary material on the topic at this point for it to be discussed in this article. Louisianajones1978 (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Those are all primary sources and are specifically about transgender sexuality. What's more, while they may be comprehensive in mentioning all sex acts, I don't see where they comment on prevalence. Regardless, my point regarding sources about the topic of gay male sexual practices stands. Those overwhemingly do not discuss PIV. Crossroads -talk- 04:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
We have statistics about the prevalence of trans men's identification as gay,1 as well as secondary literature on HIV-risk (with bibliography) describing frontal gay sex practices between trans and cis men.2 So, we can definitely say two things without SYNTH: 1) Many trans men identify as non-heterosexual 2) Trans men and cis men have PIV sex (which in this instance is a gay sexual practice between two males, relevant and within the scope of this page). Briefly mentioning either or both of these things should not be controversial in an article about gay sex. Louisianajones1978 (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
@Prcc27: I think a sentence or two would suffice, and I definitely agree with the addition of trans women to the Lesbian sexual practices page for consistency. It's also super interesting that you brought up trans man on trans man sex, because I also really did think about the importance of including that too. Was definitely concerned about issues regarding WEIGHT (and also couldn't find much research about it), which was ultimately why I didn't include it. As for images, I think you're right about 69 being less common. There's also this option, but I'm also not sure if there's a clear enough visualization there of what occurs during oral sex? Definitely curious to hear your thoughts. Louisianajones1978 (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
That photo does not clearly show what a fellatio typically looks like, so to me, that photo would seem like adding a photo with an actual penis showing, for the sake of having a photo with an actual penis in it. While the current pic also does not clearly show what fellatio looks like, I feel like it fits better because you can easily infer what is going on and what a fellatio would look like from their pose. Prcc27 (talk) 07:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Totally fair! I'm still wondering if the 69 photograph might be more informative and bibliographic than one where a person has to rely on inference to understand it. Again, if I knew little or nothing about oral sex, I wouldn't have anything to base such an inference on. Louisianajones1978 (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
I see your point, so I'm okay with you changing it. Prcc27 (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Any information about this belongs in a separate section or at least a distinct paragraph. This article is not a place for trans activists to attempt an end-run around real-world community and definitional conflicts. It simply is not a fact that all gay men accept androphillic transmen as gay men; and androphillic transmen are not the subject readers are looking for when they come to this article. This may well change over time, but until we have overwhelming evidence that it has, this article should not confuse readers by commingling topics. It's reasonable to include transmen in this article in some manner, but distinctly and succinctly, and without steering the reader around by the nose to agree with one side in this off-site series of debates and conflicts (that would be a form of forbidden WP:OR, as well as a WP:NPOV and WP:NOT#SOAPBOX issue).

This all goes also for (especially for) adding transwomen to Lesbian sexual practices, since the central locus of the real-world disputation is between transwomen and "trans-exclusionary radical feminists", with the inclusionary viewpoint dominant in North America, and the exclusionary one dominant or neck-and-neck in the UK and several other countries. (The reasons for this split are mostly to do with specific wording in specific legislation in different jurisdictions.) No amount of WP editor disagreement with the "TERF" stance can change the fact that it exists and is a major side in an unresolved public debate that has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Again, do add some baseline coverage of gynophillic transwomen who identify as lesbian, to lesbian articles, but only in a way that does not conflate them confusingly with cis-women, and do so in a concise (WP:COATRACK) and WP:DUE manner, that does not unduly dwell on overly politicized trans issues in what is and must remain a more generalized and neutral topic. We already have highly developed trans-related articles for more detail on such matters.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

On second thought, looking over the reliable source material, it focuses consistently and entirely on biological-male (or however you like to express that) body parts, so this article should not inject material about vaginas of trans men. To the extent trans men should be mentioned here it at all, it should be in the form of a cross-reference to Trans man or some other more specific article (or section thereof) where the mechanics of such a persons sexual activies are covered. This is not the right article for it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, we can add a link to Transgender sexuality in the See also section (and should add Lesbian sexual practices as well). Crossroads -talk- 06:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

The 69 position is not as commonly practiced as other sex positions. Source for this claim? Yes, I have those. The article should use a more representative image than that. The article should include just a plain fellatio image between men when a good one that has a low chance of being called gratuitous is found. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The image of Hadrian and Antinous should be removed.

Hadrian was born in 76 CE, Antinous c. 111—that’s about 35 years apart. The latter died before reaching 20. This is skeevy as hell and should not be used to illustrate normal gay relationships. שונרא (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

As long as nobody in the image is depicted as a minor, I'm okay with it. Prcc27 (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
My point is he likely was. שונרא (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

BDSM

Can we remove the BDSM section, I don't think there is enough WP:WEIGHT to keep that section? Prcc27 (talk) 03:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Prcc27, some MSM engage in BDSM. So do some WSW, and so the lesbian sexual practices article has a section on it. It's not so rare that it shouldn't be covered in this article as well. The 69 position is not as commonly practiced as other sex positions, and yet there's an image of it in the article. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
MSM can engage in many different fetishes. I don’t see why we would only focus on one fetish. It doesn’t merit its own section. We don’t have a section exclusively for the 69 position for example. Prcc27 (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
I didn't suggest we include material or a section about sexual fetishes. While BDSM can include sexual fetishes, it is not in and of itself a sexual fetish. It's a sexual practice. You appear to be thinking of the most extreme forms of BDSM. Yes, we don't have a section exclusively for the 69 position, and we shouldn't. While you will find plenty of reliable sources on BDSM, you will hardly find any on the 69 position. You invoked WP:WEIGHT, and yet there's a sentence about docking, which is rarely practiced, in the article. A section on BDSM isn't needed to have a paragraph on it. When researching sexual practices among gay men or other MSM, information on BDSM is sometimes included, and this is more common than seeing the inclusion of sexual fetishes, the 69 position, or docking in the research. And, by the way, if the 69 picture is to remain in the article, an effort to at least include a single line about it should be made. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  • 69 and docking are actual sexual practices, it’s a little bit of a stretch to say BDSM is. But 1 or 2 lines should be fine. Prcc27 (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Does the BDSM article say "is a sexual fetish" in the lead sentence? It doesn't because that's not an accurate description of the topic. Sources typically don't describe it that way. The BDSM article says it "is a variety of often erotic practices or roleplaying involving bondage, discipline, dominance and submission, sadomasochism, and other related interpersonal dynamics." And sources such as Geographies of Sexualities: Theory, Practices and Politics, Studying Sexualities: Theories, Representations, Cultures, and Gynecologic Health Care: With an Introduction to Prenatal and Postpartum Care also describe it as a sexual practice or various practices (sexual or otherwise). Something as simple as sexual roleplaying can constitute BDSM. Geographies of Sexualities: Theory, Practices and Politics says, "Although by definition BDSM has sexual connotations, it is important to note that BDSM practices are not necessarily directly sexual and BDSM 'scenes' may involve little or nothing that would be defined as sexual activity (genital stimulation). Instead, the defining characteristic is the power exchange whereby one person willingly relinquishes some degree of control over his or her body to another person. And this can range from soft bondage or role-playing to formalised slavery complete with contracts stating the terms of submission." Gynecologic Health Care: With an Introduction to Prenatal and Postpartum Care says, "Another example of social stigma is BDSM. If a particular BDSM practice is nonconsensual, causes distress, or causes harm, it is listed in the DSM-5 as a paraphilia. However, nationally representative survey data indicate that sexual practices such as spanking (reported by more than 29 percent) and tying/being tied up (reported by more than 20 percent) are not uncommon (Herbenick et al., 2017)."
  • I will also add here that although many of my edits have been to BDSM topics, I'm not a BDSM advocate. Someone I know was physically harmed because of misinformation about BDSM, and so I've focused more on it since editing. It's been on that basis alone. Information about BDSM in this article is warranted and should be added responsibly. If I add anything about it to this article, it will be based on the WP:WEIGHT of its coverage in sources about gay male sexual practices. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Legality picture

The map the shows legality of gay sex around the world is wrong. I know at least that it’s very much legal in the United States 23.84.183.207 (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

It was never legalized. The states' laws were found unconstitutional in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
One could argue that Lawrence legalized gay sex. But that does not seem to be an issue with this map, since it looks like “decriminalized” is being used interchangeably with “legalized” anyways. My concern with the map is some countries have different laws regarding gay sex vs. lesbian sex, and I am not sure how those differences are reflected on the map. Prcc27 (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Short⚣description🟰brevity➕accuracy

“Sexual practices between men” was changed into “Sex between males” because the former was repetitive (see; article title) and lacked new words/info. Furthermore, “gay” isn't exclusive to men. It could be e.g. between boys, too. ToniTurunen (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Redundancy?

The content of this article is largely similar to Men who have sex with men, should these articles be merged, or perhaps changed to show a clearer differentiation between MSM the clinical topic and GSP the sexuality topic? ペゴボド同士 (talk) 08:10, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

  • Maybe we could trim the health risks section? Prcc27 (talk) 17:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 23 November 2023

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Sexual practices between men. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Gay sexual practices → Gay male sexual practices – "Gay" could also refer to women, so to have an article about "gay sexual practices" being solely about men seems incomplete. I think the title should make it clear that this article is specifically about gay men's sexual activities, so that people aren't surprised or confused when they read it.

At least when I read it, I first saw the mouse-over preview, which didn't include the hatnote linking to lesbian sexual practices, so my train of thought was something like "ha, they're accidentally implying lesbians don't exist, that comes off so poorly lol". Obviously that's not the intent here, but I would rather have a title that doesn't invite that kind of misreading. 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 03:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I think the hatnote is sufficient. “Gay male” seems verbose. Prcc27 (talk) 03:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. Like the nominator, I would have assumed from the title that the article would address both male and female homosexual practices. The term gay by itself is ambiguous, referring either to homosexuality in general or male homosexuality in particular, so it seems beneficial to clarify the article's scope. ╠╣uw [talk] 13:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
The most appropriate solution would be to replace "gay" with "MSM", or the title could be "Sexual practices in sex between men" (or just "Sexual practices between men"), since not every man who has sex with men identifies himself or his (sexual) relationships as "gay". It's longer, but it's more accurate. I discussed this on the "Gay sex roles" page (where I gave a more in-depth explanation). --2804:2FB0:418:2300:74B5:E8DE:A990:3377 (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
That makes sense. I would support "Sexual practices between men". (For consistency I would likewise support any RM moving Lesbian sexual practices to "Sexual practices between women"). ╠╣uw [talk] 23:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
I could get behind this proposal. - 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
I am okay with the proposal if it is also done to the lesbian sexual practices article. Although is “Sexual practices between men (only)” implied okay? Also, what is the WP:COMMONNAME? If gay sex usually refers to male on male sex, I think the status quo is fine. Prcc27 (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

g 41.114.233.46 (talk) 05:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sexual_practices_between_men/Archive_2&oldid=1217592984"