Talk:Sexual practices between women/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Presentation as "Lesbian sex" either as article title or in article content.

The common name for this topic is Lesbian sex. See Ngrams. I am just wondering how this would be best, if at all, reflected in content. GregKaye 09:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a need to move the article to "Lesbian sex," since "Lesbian sexual practices" can be considered the more WP:Precise terminology, and "lesbian sex" redirects here. 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. Flyer22 (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I certainly agree that both descriptions are readily WP:RECOGNIZABLE and that the (I would argue) commonname title is even clearly evident in the title "Lesbian sexual practices. Editors with more knowledge of Lesbian sex/Lesbian sexual practices may be better able to comment regarding to most appropriate description according to area of topical coverage are concerned in relation to WP:Precise Though not being an expert on the subject I suspect that the problem in using Lesbian sex in anything other than a redirect is because "Sex", according to its disabiguation page is an ambiguous term. Otherwise I am unsure why one term might be considered more precise than the other. GregKaye 08:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, lewdness concern

The pictures are fairly pornographic. I know that there is a grey area with these things (like the oft-searched penis article) but are these pictures really necessary or just gathering lewdness points? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.138.211 (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2015‎ (UTC)

WP:Wikipedia is not censored. BMK (talk) 05:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

IP, as noted at Talk:Lesbian sexual practices/Archive 1#File:Wiki-cunnilingus.png Nominated for Deletion, there were more images in the article than there currently are, but I reduced them due to WP:GRATUITOUS and WP:SANDWICHING concerns. I left in the most relevant ones, with the WP:Lead image being the most tame, per the WP:Principle of least astonishment aspect noted at WP:GRATUITOUS and WP:Manual of Style/Images#Offensive images, and because the more sexual images are better suited for the corresponding content lower in the article. Not everything can or should be the lead image. Either way, in a Wikipedia article like this, you should expect some sexual images. And at least they are drawn or otherwise illustrated instead of real-life photographs. Flyer22 (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, I believe that more images and photos are required; no practice should go without illustration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.103.81.34 (talk) 18:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I think there should be more illustrations, especially some that illustrate diversity in terms of age, race/ethnicity, etc. I suppose we are limited by the availability of CC images. Are there artists out there who would be willing to submit their work to Creative Commons for this purpose? AnaSoc (talk) 07:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

AnaSoc, the article is not that big. More images are not only unnecessary but would also cause the aforementioned WP:SANDWICHING concerns. And if not that, some images will spill over into sections they do not fit in. There is sometimes a WP:Gallery included in a Wikipedia article, but not usually. We don't add images for every sex act mentioned in an article. And we are not excessive with images. Articles that are excessive with images are usually poorly written ones. But if you want to add a Gallery lower in the article (see the Erotica article for an example) with illustrations (not real-life people), I would not be strongly opposed to that. I don't know of any artist who could provide more diverse images. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Labeling

Can these sexual practices be labelled as mutual masturbation?--5.15.0.234 (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Replace lede image?

Le Sommeil is a beautiful painting, but I question if it should be in this article. The clue is in the title of the painting, "The Sleep." They're not engaged in a sexual practice, they're asleep. Ribbet32 (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Ribbet32. See what I stated in the #Also, lewdness concern section above if you haven't already. That was my reasoning for having the current lead image. This article is not solely about the sexual acts, and the current lead image implies lesbian sexuality. In addition to "least astonishment" concerns, using File:Oral nipple stimulation.png or any of the other images currently in the article seemed inappropriate since they're not quite representative. By "representative," see WP:Lead image. Being in bed with one's lover, as implied by the current lead image, seems like something most people can relate to. Furthermore the other images in the article fit best in the sections they are in.

That stated, I am open to using a different lead image. Looking on commons, I came across File:1925 Wegener Les Delassements dEros 03 anagoria.JPG and File:1925 Wegener Les Delassements dEros 09 anagoria.JPG. Would you be okay with using one of those instead? And if so, which one do you prefer? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

D'oh! Sorry Flyer, skipped past that section because I assumed a garden variety complaint about lewdness and pornography could be easily dismissed by a garden variety reference to WP:NOTCENSORED. I did scan the article and didn't see a discussion to mere sleep, even in the nude. But what you say makes sense, and this isn't urgent by a long shot, so we'll see if a large number of other editors want to chime in to build a consensus on another image. Ribbet32 (talk) 07:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

No problem. And, to be fair to File:Oral nipple stimulation.png in the representative department, the article does currently state that "Breast and nipple stimulation of women is a near-universal aspect of sexual activity where the woman is the recipient of sexual attention." I need full access to that source to see if it supports that statement.

This talk page page doesn't get much traffic, though. So I doubt that many editors will weigh in. Again, I don't mind changing the lead image. I could go ahead and change it to one of my suggestions above (I think the second suggestion is better), unless you have a better suggestion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, if you agree with either of my two suggestions, feel free to add the image as the lead image yourself. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Ribbet32, per above, I went ahead and changed the lead image. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I also changed the "near-universal" piece. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Enthusiast01, regarding this (my revert of your edit), why do you think that this kissing image is a better lead image than this one? I oppose the image you added because it is of two random women kissing, is less encyclopedic, and does not quite capture the essence of the article. Per WP:LEADIMAGE, "It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image‍—‌such as of a person or place, a book or album cover‍—‌to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page." Although kissing is commonly an aspect of being sexual, two women being sexual in bed together captures the topic (is more representative of the topic) than two women kissing. And we use a drawing or painting image instead of a real-life image per what I stated in the #Also, lewdness concern section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The image you added is also of poor quality. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lesbian 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131021062010/http://www.klbresearch.com/KLB_Research/Research_files/Holmberg%20%26%20Blair%20JSR%20Vol%2046%20Iss%201%202009.pdf to http://www.klbresearch.com/KLB_Research/Research_files/Holmberg%20%26%20Blair%20JSR%20Vol%2046%20Iss%201%202009.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 00:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Fisting

Ok, I'm curious as to why fisting is not included, as that is more common than people realize, and a normal part of a healthy relationship. I'm on my phone so I can't start a new section. This questionfit here best. The Lesbian Sex Book by Newmann is an excellent resource. 107.77.161.8 (talk) 04:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

See this section of the Anal sex article for why I didn't think to include fisting; also see the Fisting article. As is noted in the Anal sex article, fisting is not too common. And as is made clear in both articles, it is not healthy either. In addition to what the Fisting article states about the dangers, the "Physical damage and cancer" section of the Anal sex article addresses the health details of fisting. Also, the Anal sex article notes that anal sex in general is not common among lesbian women (and other women who have sex with women). It mentions that "Felice Newman cites anal sex as a part of lesbian sexual practices," but the research does not support it being common among female same-sex couples. So giving fisting its own section would be WP:Undue weight. It can have a brief mention in the "Research and views" section, where anal sex is already mentioned (well, other than the "Oral sex, manual stimulation and tribadism" section, which mentions anilingus). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that you likely mean vaginal fisting, or both vaginal and anal fisting. Because fisting is more commonly associated with male-to-male sexual activity (at least in reliable sources discussing it and its origins), my mind excluded considering that you meant vaginal. What I stated above about fisting still stands, though. We could include vaginal and anal fisting material in the "Dominance, submission and BDSM" section and rename the section "Other practices." Since vaginal and anal fisting are not as common as the sexual practices mentioned in the "General" section, I don't think they should be mentioned there. If we include fisting material, the risks regarding it should be mentioned in the "Health risks" section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2018

change this link to ::: Managing the sexually transmitted disease pandemic: A time for reevaluation http://www.teach2wait.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=36&Itemid=63

keep this link :: Find Girls For Fuck, Women Dating For Sex, Girls For Webcam Chat, Women for Fucking Near Me https://groups.google.com/d/topic/de.sci.mathematik/cDUEKCtz1zs Jessicasummons1 (talk) 12:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Partly done: The deadlink was updated using the article's DOI. The suggested link to Google Groups was not added. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 14:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Gay sexual practices which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)