Talk:Sexual intercourse

Archives

• Archives: Archive 1, Archive 2
• Start a new discussion

Merge proposal

There's been some fairly tense discussion in Premarital sex regarding the state of that article, Fornication, and Extramarital sex. Since it's all coming down to article title name, i'm recommending that all of those articles be merged into the morality and legality section of this article, and that the participants in those debates help on cleaning up that section rather than an endless proliferation of redundant or meaningless stubs. Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JFQ (talk • contribs) .

A note to editors here: there is already a proposal (partially sponsored by myself) to merge Fornication and Premarital sex into Extramarital sex; this discussion hasn't been formally closed that I am aware of. My opinion would be that the main article on Sexual intercourse is already getting too large, but the consensus on the notability (or lack thereof) of the material in these small articles hasn't really been established. Please read the talk pages of these articles for more of the story of these ongoing debates. Cheers, Kasreyn 10:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Premarital and Extramarital Sex should not be merged based on the simple fact of the ages of people who may be concerned here. A 17 year old who has sex, is obviously having premaritl sex but not extramarital sex. For this reason (and many others which involve the MAJORITY of Americans who ARE NOT married) these articles should remain seperate.

Recently added paragraph on "overstretching"

This was recently added:

Overstretching is extremely painful, this generally occurs when the males penis has a to big circumfrence or in a rape situation when the female is not in a position to withdraw the penis from the vagina therefore releaving the vagina of the immence pain. Overstreching of the vagina can lead to swollen vaginal tissue and in some of the worst & most horrid cases, infection.

I've moved it here because it needs to be copy edited and sourced. --Tony Sidaway 17:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Penetration of the hardened erect penis

To someone who speak british-english, this says that the penentration is performed TO the Penis.

I would perfer "penetration BY the hardened erect penis".

--Charlesknight 08:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. It has the same meaning in American-English as well. Atom 11:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

OK taretone has reverted it so it reads Penetration of the hardened erect penis is also known as intromission, or by the Latin name immissio penis.

Atom changed it to Penetration by the hardened erect penis is also known as intromission, or by the Latin name immissio penis.

The first one seems to suggest that the Penis is being penetrated and the second that the penis is performing the penetration. Therefore I would say that the second makes more sense in the context of the article. --Charlesknight 12:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

POV Sections

The Catholic and Protestant sections only list negative views of the churches wrt sex. Christians view sex as a sacred charge and it is a positive thing when done properly. This needs to be fixed.

Also, it's said, cant find the proper citation, in some christian religions, that, as it is associated with joy and pleasure, it shoudl be still within mariige bounds. I guess it woudl be best to merge moral discussion from both premartial and exmartial sex, leaving just the definition there.

The section on Protestantism is next to worthless, due to the wide spectrum of protestant churches. While it doesn't say anything technically wrong, the actual text is relevant only for those groups that use these texts and says nothing about how it is interpreted for actual daily life. --OliverH 15:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Photograph Of Sex

All this article has is sketchs of people having sex. I think we need a photograph of a couple engaging in sexual intercourse. What does any one else say? matt wilson 19:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed before and so far the consensus has always been that drawings are more appropriate for a scholarly work such as our, for a variety of reasons. This remains my view, certainly. I encourage you to read through the archives for the past discussion. Johntex\^talk 19:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

So what your saying is drawings are better than photographs and we should delete all photos on Wikipedia and replace them with sketchs. No disrespect, but thats stupid matt wilson 03:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

For images of explicit sexual acts, yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. What would be "stupid" would be to blindly plunge ahead adding lots of full-color photographs to articles like creampie (sexual act) or autofellatio or Meatholes without considering the broader consequences to the reputation of the project. Johntex\^talk 12:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

See guidelines work-in-progress at dia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines. Please note: 7. Artwork is preferred over photographs. Atom 22:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It also needs gays' and bisexuals' pictures. As it is now, it is fairly heterosexist (which is a POV) Towsonu2003 20:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

For a photo I can take a picture of me and my girlfriend having sex and put it on here. Can I? I will take the picture tonight and post it tommorrow. 75.109.101.139 17:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I have taken the photo of me and my girlfriend having sex, I just need to know how to post it so someone help me. post it 75.109.101.139 03:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hold your horses, have you explained to your girlfriend exactly what your doing and the implications of it? Nil Einne 22:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You need to be able to document your and your girlfriends ages and that you are giving permission for the pictures to be used and put in the public domain. You should know that on most sexuality articles we prohibit what are called "vanity images". Pretty much, if an image is not asked for by the editors of the article, it probably will be considered to be such a vanity image. Atom 23:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It is a clear image and will be fit for the site. Im 20 and my girlfriend is 14. 75.109.101.139 23:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah! Well, you might take a look at Age of consent. Also, Child_pornography#United_States as those kinds of pictures of teenagers under the age of 18 are illegal in the U.S. Atom 00:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Im not going to tell her. It will be a suprise. And what is "age of concent" ? 75.109.101.139 00:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, how very Christian of you. Taking a picture of your girlfriend, while you were having sex, without her knowing? Lol, firstly if you are a true Christian, you can't have sex with her 'till your married. But back on subject, I do not think we are having any photos here, especially not some crude one of you having sex with your supposed girlfriend. And finally, to upload photos, I think you need to be a member. I can't be bothered to sign out and check if that's true though. Age of consent is the minimum age at which two people can have sex. As your 'girlfriend' is 14, I'm taking that that is quite illigal. The Haunted Angel ^{(The Forest Whispers My Name)} 21:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I laud your motives, but I wonder what Christianity has to do with anything here? I don't recall 75.109.101.139 ever mentioning his religious persuasion. Kasreyn 06:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

75.etc, do not post such an image. I can guarantee that it will not only be speedily deleted, but continued uploading of such material may result in your permanent banning from the project. It's already happened once - and that was to someone much more well-spoken who had a much stronger case to argue than you. I urge you to desist instantly. Cheers, Kasreyn 06:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

75.109.101.139 has vandalised my user page, Haunted Angels user page and blanked articles because he thinks there non Christian. He says Wikipedia should be 100% Christian, and evrything thats a sin should be deleted. H.J. Bellamy 23:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

What user was banned for such images H.J. Bellamy 04:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a picture of sex is not appropriate in this format, sketches are perfectly fine. Pictures should be reserved for better sex web sites that have the proper 2257 model release forms that abide by Title 18 and provide the required disclaimers. Example of such a site is http://www.HolisticWisdom.com. Please be warned that while that example is a sex education site, it does contain sexually explicit photos in some of the sexual health related articles. They have a disclaimer as well as model releases that are necessary for display on the web which is essential in posting such pictures.

Removal of religion

A user has twice removed the entry on Wicca. I am not sure why. Pagans and Wiccans views are just as relevent and important as other religions. The view that Wiccans have that sexuality is sacred may be inconvenient or uncomfortable for conservative christian types, but we need to respect, and allow all views, not remove the views of religions that we don't agree with. Atom 23:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I kind of wonder why more religions aren't covered. Surely there are more Mormons than neopagans, yet we don't cover Mormon views. How about Shinto? And so on and so forth. Kasreyn 06:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess in accordance with NPOV we allow people to put their views in when they are factual and not just opinion. Someone Wiccan/Neopagan added their view and Mormons didn't. Also, the christian view is covered, which mormons are a subset of. SO, I agree with you in the context that we need more people to add their religious view if it is distinct. Atom 12:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no debate about the notability of religion's view on sexuality. My position has to do with sourcing. If every religion is gievn an indepth section then that would qualify as undue weight and a sperate article would be needed to cover religion and sexuality such as oh...Religion and sexuality. NeoFreak 21:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Bricker Amendment

why does "Bricker Amendment" redirect to this article??

Teddy Bear in Missionary Position Sketch

I think having the teddy bear in the sketch of the Missionary Position is creepy and was inserted by someone who has thoughts about sexual acts with young girls. I see from the history that the teddy bear have been added and removed a few times, thus there are probably people out there who think like me. I do agree with the sketchs, but please remove the teddy bear. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.251.172.221 (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Wicca dispute

I first came across this in the Masturbation article. One thing I noticed is that it was exactly copied from this article. First off, Doreen Valiente wrote the Charge of the Goddess. Second, not -all- Wiccans practice the Great Rite, but there are several that do so symbolically. I really think that an expert on this, someone more qualified than me, to really go through this section and clean it up. Disinclination 04:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not properly sourced and is rather misleading as there is no central dogma to Wicca and therefore there is no central position on sex. I suspect that the only reason it is even here is to make a stand for "equal representation" of religions. NeoFreak 06:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, why not represent their views? Yes, it should be better sourced. Someone should do that. But, it does not suggest that all Wiccans believe the same thing. Just because wiccans don't enforce dogma, and don't have a central authority is no reason not to represent a predominant view. Those who hold similar, but differing views should add them. Atom 17:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right someone should do that. If you review WP:V you wil find that it doesn't have to be me, it has to be you, as you're the person asking for inclusion. So tell us, who says that is the predominant view? How many view it like that? What are the other views? How can it be justified as being the central belief of the religion when theere is no central dogmatic structure to the religion and it has no recognized clergy? When you state that is it central or overwhelming view of that religion that is a statement that needs to sourced. Because some witches council or some such said they think "x" that does not qualify it as a core belief for the entire (or even majority of that) religion. After you answer and source these obvious questions I'm sure that nobody will object to it inclusion back into the article. NeoFreak 20:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The Wiccan section is not my addition. You are right, there are lot's of material in Wikipedia that could be better sourced, and should be. In this article, there are a large number of them, including the part you pointed out. Should we remove ALL of the article except for the cited portions? My editorial decision is to leave in the information that seems likely, but needs to be better cited, and let people who have an interest in that portion find the citations eventually. We could indeed remove many of the things that are not cited here, but that would just leave a bad article. Reverting the Wiccan section will just make the article less NPOV. If both choices are not gavorable, an editorial decision needs to be made on which is the better choice. IMO, having the information (even if someone needs to find further sources) is better than omitting valuable information, and at the same time weakening the neutral POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomaton (talk • contribs)

Wikpedia's policies on reliable sources and verifiability don't agree with your "editorial decision". I'm not contesting the other portions (yet). Also see the other talk section you've created for more explanation of why you are wrong. Please ensure that future reversion are complaint with policy as clearly laid out in WP:V, WP:NPOV (esp undue weight) and WP:RS so as to avoid an edit war, they benefit nobody. If you want to make a sweeping assertion about a de-centralized religion's viewpoint on sexuality then you need to back that up with sources. If you have any specifics you would like to discuss don't be afraid to drop me a line on my talk page. NeoFreak 21:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I honestly think it needs to be re-written all together. I've been studying for almost two years, and re-reading that every time just made me want to shudder. As was posted on the Wicca talk page, I have asked that someone who knows alot better about this subject, or can possibly make it sound better, should come forward. Like NeoFreak said above, there si not central dogma of Wicca, although yes, sex is seen as magic (it is a fertility religion, along with others, but I won't get into that). But there was a Witchmeet mentioned (which could include ANY number of witches, since witchcraft is a craft, and is no longer considered to be truely interchangeable with Wicca), that was apparently by a 'Council of Witches'. Not only was it unsourced, Gardner intended for each person to be their own priest/ess. There is no central dogma, save for your own coven, or yourself (if you are solitary).

I honestly would like to see a good section on Wicca, but the current one just didn't cut it. Disinclination 21:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, your explanation is better than the previous editor. I still disagree, and feel that leaving it in is better than removing it. If we were to remove this because it is unsource and uncited, then we would need to remove a number of other things.

For instance, in the Judaism section:

Orthodox Judaism restricts sexual activity to a legally permissible marriage between a Jewish man and a Jewish woman. A man and woman are prohibited from being in a closed room alone together if they are not married, a law called yichud. Orthodox Jews refrain from all physical contact with adult members of the opposite sex other than their spouses, a practice called shemirat negiah. Within marriage, there is no taboo against either the man or the woman enjoying sexual activity. Talmudic law dictates that the wife, not the husband, is to decide when the couple shall have sex.

Sexual relations between a man and a woman who are not married are considered less serious (they are referred to as zenuth) than the Biblically prohibited unions such as adultery (a married woman having relations with another man) and incest; the later are referred to as ervah (literally "nakedness"), have more severe penalties and there are serious restrictions on children of these prohibited unions (mamzerim).

Sexual intercourse is one of the ways the Talmud (Kiddushin 2a) specifies for effecting a marriage, though this method is no longer employed.

And in the Protestant section:

Translations of the New Testament say: "Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers,... will not inherit the kingdom of God". 1 Corinthians: 6:9-10. The original Koine Greek word translated as fornication is porneia. The Greek term is used by conservative churches to include a wide range of sexual misconduct including fornication, adultery, sex with prostitutes, etc., even though there is some debate as to the scope of the meaning of the word, which in Classical Greek refers to prostitution, etc. and is etymologically the same root as in the English "pornography", which literally means writings having to do with sexual immorality.

The Islam section:

In the Qur'an, sex before marriage is strictly prohibited. Islam stresses that sexual relations should be restricted to the institution of marriage in order for the creation of the family; and secondly as a means to protect the family, certain relations should be considered prohibited for marriage. Islam recognises that sex is enjoyable and makes no prohibitions on sex for pleasure (between a husband and wife). In fact being available for, and pleasuring, your spouse is a duty on both the husband and wife. Fornication and adultery are both included in the Arabic word 'Zina'. Belonging primarily to the same category of crimes, entailing the same social implications and having the same effects on the spiritual personality of a human being, both, in principle, been given the same status by the Qur'an.

And Hinduism:

Hinduism preaches that the material world, also termed as maya, is responsible for all of man's sorrows. Hindu texts, such as the Bhagavad Gita, describe fornication and lust as acts of material bondage which drives a man away from spiritual wisdom.

Alternative Hindu schools of thought such as the Tantric branches of Hinduism, is markedly less reserved, teaching that enlightenment can be approached through divine sex. Divine sex is one path whereby one can approach Moksha (Nirvana), a oneness with a higher spiritual level. As such, the Tantric practices, through writings such as the Kama Sutra seek not to repress sexuality, but to perfect it. By perfecting the act of divine sex, including masturbation, as seen depicted at the 10th century Hindu temple of Khajuraho, one clears the mind of earthly desires, leaving the soul on a higher level devoid of such worries, filled with bliss, and relaxed.

\

Buddhism:

In the Buddhist tradition, under the Five Precepts and the Eightfold Path, one should neither be attached to nor crave sensual pleasure. The third of the Five Precepts is "To refrain from sexual misconduct". For most Buddhist laypeople, sex outside of marriage is not "sexual misconduct", especially when compared to, say, adultery or any sexual activity which can bring suffering to another human being. Each may need to consider whether, for them, sexual contact is a distraction or means of avoidance of their own spiritual practice or development. To provide a complete focus onto spiritual practice, fully ordained Buddhist monks may, depending on the tradition, be bound by hundreds of further detailed rules or vows that may include a ban on sexual relations.

Secular Humanism:

Most secular humanists believe that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, sexual intercourse does no harm in this world. Secular humanism therefore considers most sex acts as morally irrelevant and up to the individual. It should be done in private or viewed with/by consenting adults.

We have to take them all out. No references, no citations. Clearly the statements made her don;t represent the views of everyone in those religions. Buddhism has no central authority, Like Paganism and Wicca. Same for Secular Humanism.

So, tell me, how does the section on Wicca differ from these sections? They could all be edited to be clearer, they could all be cited and referenced. In all of the cases the statements hardly apply too all, or maybe even most of the adherents of those religions.

So, I'll say it again. Removing the Wicca section just because it doesn't fit all Wiccans or Pagans, or because the statements made aren't sourced or cited is a bad idea unless you plan on applying it everywhere in the article, and in other religious articles as well.

Look at some of the things said:

• Wiccans consider such activity not only normal and healthy, but also sacred (as long as it isn't causing harm in acordance with the threefold law,...

• Sex magic is considered one of the more potent branches of Thelema, with sex being key to the Great Rite, itself.

Despite the non-uniformity of Paganism and Wicca, how many pagans, wiccans, druids or neo-pagans do you think would dispute those things? Most would say that those beleifs or similar are within the foundation of their religion. Atom 03:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, how many would? How many is "most"? More than half, right? All but a "few"? The "vast majority"? What about those that wiccans that disagree? What about those that practive alternatives or view sexual intercourse in a diffrent way? How many of those are there? How are the beliefs "similar" and what does that mean for the assertion's accuracy? Any sources? Who is the arbitrator of these questions? Who or what is the theological authority for sexuality and the wiccan belief system? Is there one? Says who?

I'm not contesting the other sections at this time, just the wiccan one because it is the least accurate, in my opinion. If I so decide to contest an unsourced entry that is my perogative. If you wish to put it back in and you source it then wonderful, the article is improved and everyone is happy. Until then I'm not sure what there is to discuss. If another editors takes issue with unsourced assertions about the other religions that would be their perogative as well. Maybe this entire issue is too large in scope to attempt to handle here and it should stay in the religion and sexuality article instead.

One last thing. I noticed that you made the automatic assumption that I removed the wiccan section because I had a bigoted moral issue with the religion. I would ask that you take my comments at face value and always assume good faith until you are given evidence to the contrary. NeoFreak 03:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I made no assumption about you. I saw that you removed the Wiccan section on the basis that it was uncited, but not any of the other uncited sections. I certainly did not express anything that should have made you think I made assumptions that you were bigoted.

I added a brand new section, my own writing, based on (and quoting) the cited sources, and the guidance of one of my three lovers, who is a witch. I don't claim that it represents all Wiccans, but it is what it is, and it is cited correctly. As this is better than the previous section, I suppose you achieved your goal, and we have a (slightly) better article.

However, what I said previously is still correct. Leaving accurate, yet uncited material in is better than removing it, especially if it removes a perspective that helps to maintain a neutral POV. Atom 04:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

However, the previous section was not accurate in the most part, and the first sentence seemed to allude that Wicca was some Old Religion (a discussion beaten to death). I edited out the paragraph on the Wiccan Rede, and instead added a few sentences in to the other paragraphs dealing with this. If you want to add in a link or a cite TO the Wiccan Rede, with someone you can add or cite something I've said, go right ahead. But what was put down had no mention of sexual intercourse whatsoever. All I did was take your information, and add context to it. I hope you'll agree, and continue editing here, Atom. Disinclination 06:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, is discussing what kind of wording seems most appropriate is better than removal of the section because it did not entirely agree with one persons philosophy.

Of course I have no problem with other editors improving upon what is already here. This latest edit isn't really much to my liking as " is encouraged to take place between two consenting adults, even more so with two married adults." is a personal POV, and not, generally, the philosophy of Wicca, or wiccans. " is encouraged to take place between two consenting adults" might be better, or possibly " is encouraged to take place between two consenting adults, even more so with two involved lovers".

Secondly, by removing the Wiccan rede, it changes the tone more in that direction. "Do what you will, so long as it harms none " supports that Wicca is fine with consenting adults participating in intercourse. I think it natural that Wiccans, especially conservative ones would like to change the mis-perception that some have of Witches having sex orgies in circle, and elsewhere, and of generally being promiscuous. However, trying to suggest that the Wiccan philosophy supports or enforces monogamous married relationships is just innacurate. Most Wiccans are open to sexuality, and non judgmental about whether others are married, or are of the same or opposite sex, or of polyamorous relationships. The recent few years have pushed many people, and their religious views more to the right. But, those times are over now. There is no reason to try and twist Wiccan philosophy to try and say it prefers or supports marriage and monogamy. Atom 14:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

One thing I have a problem with though, is this:

There is nothing in Wicca that endorses or recommends monogamous marriage, this is a personal choice between two consenting adults.

I think this totally ignores what a Wiccan Handfasting is. A marriage. I think it could be re-worded a little, and I get to what you're saying at. But when reading this, it seems to say that Wiccans do not have any marriage basis at all. Yes, I am still a newcomer at Wicca, but someone reading this, with limited knowledge of Wicca like myself, will see this, and could come to this conclusion. Disinclination 21:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, handfasting was historically an agreement to stay together for a year and a day. It was likely the predecessor to what eventually became marriage, but was not marriage. Also, handfasting isn't an agreement to be monogamous, and isn't limited to heterosexuals or opposite sex partners, or even to just two people. More importantly, handfasting is something available to Wiccans as they choose, between those people — not something required by their church. Sexual Intercourse can happen before or after handfasting and Wicca makes no distinction regarding that. It is true that many modern Wiccans often combine religious handfasting with legal marriage, but then, I know many people who do not go through the legal process. The point is, Wicca does consider sexuality to be wholesome and sacred, but does not endorse or require marriage or monogamy in order to ethical. Essentially, the issue of sexuality, and intercourse is a completely seperate issue from whether one wishes to be bound to a partner. A wiccan can choose one, the other, neither or both and remains ethical.

As for adding back Doreen Valiente, I don't see how her name is pertinent to sexual intercourse, and the Wiki link for "Charge of the Goddess" is right there for anyone to look at should they choose, with her cited prominently. Since the "charge" is in the public domain, and the reference quite clear, I don't see how reference is necessary or desired in this article. Atom 00:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Heterosexist Claptrap

Sexual intercourse should not be so narrowly defined. This article should be renamed "opposite-sex sexual intercourse" or be expanded to include all kinds of intercourse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.36.126 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 2006 December 11 (UTC)

Your post might possibly be taken more seriously if you would

1. Post at the bottom of the page instead of the top.
2. Sign your post with ~~~~ as requested by the instructions.
3. Not begin your post with an inflamatory title.

Possibly. No guarantees, but it would be a good start. Johntex\^talk 03:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

My Edits

My edits about WIlliam Roach and Anne Kirkbridge are true. Everyone better stop reverting them. They are not vandalism. Transmexico 01:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Read history, and policies on what you should add to Wikipedia. You ahve not cited any sources on this, and as someone said, Wikipedia is not a place for so called "true" stories. Disinclination 04:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Title of article

The current title of this article indicates that "sexual intercourse" only refers to penile-vaginal intercourse. I find this to be POV because this usage is exclusive of the act of anal intercourse, which can easily be described as a form of sexual intercourse. I would prefer to see the content of this article moved to "Vaginal intercourse", because that is the act that this article describes. I chose to bring this up as a discussion topic before formally suggesting the move. Joie de Vivre 13:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, what the heck. Joie de Vivre 15:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Sexual intercourse → Vaginal intercourse — The current article indicates that "sexual intercourse" only refers to penile-vaginal intercourse. This is exclusive of the act of anal intercourse, which can readily be described as a form of sexual intercourse. There is a sentence in at the top of the page that states "To engage in sexual intercourse, the erect penis is inserted into the vagina..." This is not necessarily accurate. The proposal is to rename the article "Vaginal intercourse", because that is the act to which the article exclusively refers. Joie de Vivre 15:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Survey - Support votes

1. Support, naturally. Joie de Vivre 15:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Support more accurate term that is quite common. 205.157.110.11 03:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey - Oppose votes

1. Oppose - Use the common term most recognized. No reason to change and confuse people. Atom 15:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose - sexual intercourse is defined in every dictionary as vaginal intercourse. Moving it is PC and confusing. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose - Like Dev920 said, sexual intercorse is defined in dictonaries as vaginal intercourse. American Brit 03:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose - Dictionary definition. --206.191.28.13 04:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments: