This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Interesting article. What would the equivalent position in homosexual (male or female) sex be called? A question of curiousity --Sketchee 11:06, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
Won't women object to the man controls the pace being an advantege, it's more of a fact, itsn't it? -Samaraphile
Did missionaries teach this?--220.238.43.167 05:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC) this is another person and I must give complements this gave me quite the boner
"The missionary position is a common human sex position, the most common one used by 100% of married females surveyed by Kinsey in Kinsey's Sexual Behavior in the Human Female and the only one used by 9%."
the only one used by 9% of... what?
12.208.179.119 00:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Statement is false. Lobsters (Homarus americanus) do. I would like that statement changed. After the female lobster molts the "male will raise himself on his claws and tail, then use his legs to flip over the female and get on top. The male has a pair of hardened swimmerets, or fins on the bottom, that match a pair of swimmerets on the female which have an opening between them." (Wiki, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_lobster)
It is said that the name "missionary position" arose because this sex position was supposed to have been taught by Christian missionaries as the only "proper" sex position. The term is believed to have originated sometime between 1945 and 1965. Another possible explanation is that the term was coined by indigenes when first saw missionaries having sex in this position, unusual amongst them.
This is a joke, and should be edited, or deleted. See the discussion of this reference here: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/050617.html
This is a joke, but a very successful joke, and that is rarely taken for a joke indeed. So I guess that this article should developp about it. The explaination mentionned may only be the soft one, I guess that it as if not more widely beleived that missionnary not only adviced this sex position but taught it by daily practice... I guess it is successful because it carries two implicit ideas : that "indigenous people" sexuality was originaly very similar to the one of the animals - and that missionary, altought their official rule was not to have sex (or excepted with their wife if so) generally and very usually had sex with the people they were supposed to teach about religion. So this explaination is very pleasant for people that have anti-clericalist and may be some litle ground of racist or at least ethnocentric feeling.
Wikipedia "mission" should be to give that kind of explaination (if it appears right) rather than let people keep this kind of idea. Astirmays 17:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The article says that "no other land mammals have been observed to use it," but no citation was given. I don't believe that's true, and I'm pretty sure i've heard about (non-human) primates doing it face to face. I'm gonna remove this until a source can be found. ENpeeOHvee 06:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
So now the first sentence includes "also used by bonobos and armadillos". My comment would be that putting this factoid in the very first opening sentence is distracting and ... oddly placed. It's not a critical piece of information. I think it should be moved to somewhere further down in the article. 65.92.174.212 03:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Please keep discussion of the image under this heading. --Strait 21:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
What's with the teddy bear? Are readers supposed to take this seriously? --Doradus 23:02, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
Even though I am an administrator (but not here), I still can't understand how can that teddy be visible on the thumbnail, but not on the picture itself when you click it!? --B. Jankuloski 10:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
What I find really difficult to grasp is why on earth would someone draw a teddy bear on a picture describing a sexual position?! What is it supposed to be there for? Sorry, but I see nothing humourous in it and I certainly shan't consider getting one beside me next time I want to have fun with my girlfriend --B. Jankuloski 05:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I've restored the teddy bear to the picture. I don't think there was ever concencus to remove it. And unless there is, I think we should respect the original artist by leaving it there. I personally think it adds to the picture by giving it more setting, making it more real that way. Some said that maybe it made it seem like she was a child but I don't think so. I've known lots of women college age and older who slept with teddy bears. ENpeeOHvee 05:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
1- It's not really needed. Aside from the whole teddy bear thing what if little Johnny hears about the missionary position and not knowning what it is has a look on wikipedia. If an image could be inappropiate for some age groups AND doesn't really add anything to the article why not delete it?
2- Yes, the teddy bear does possibly suggest ( at least to some people) that one or both of those pictured is underaged, we don't want that suggestion.
3- If there must be an image of the missionary position it should be geninuely informative or be from a famous work of art or something like that. The image as it is is just taking up bytes and load time and doing nothing aesthetically or educationally.
Timothy J Scriven 12:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Where's the infamous teddy bear? I've gone through the history and looked at revisions where it was supposed to be there but I can't find it. I had though perhaps the image itself had been changed but the revision history only shows one version of the file, the original uploaded by Rama. So where the heck is the infamous teddy bear? All I see is a pillow near them no teddy... Nil Einne 19:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I propose merging side entry missionary position into this article.
--Strait 01:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree, a merge sounds good, e.g. a "Variants" section. MMad 00:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Done. --Strait 21:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I propose merging Butterfly sex position into this article.
--Strait 01:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Since there have been no comments, I'm going to do it. If you disagree, please undo my merge and we can discuss. --Strait 07:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I propose merging legs up missionary position into this article. Most of that article violates WP:WEASEL and/or WP:OR and would be better suited to being a short as a paragraph under "variants" in this article. Comments? --Strait 08:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |