Talk:Anal sex/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

December edits

Please, User:Flyer22 Reborn, can you explain what was so POV in my edits that none could be saved? I'm honestly upset, I don't want this fight to drag on forever, and I wish to stop being persecuted. I'm also calling intervention immediately. Rafe87 (talk) 14:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, User:Jytdog, User:MrX, can you two please give a look at my edits in this entry, and see if they were fair or not, and if by deleting User:Flyer22 Reborn was fair or not? I'd also appreciate if you two could say whether you think User:Flyer22 Reborn's qualification of my edits as "POV" is constructive to good natured edits. I'm sincerely upset at her persecution of me in edits about gay sex life that I make. Rafe87 (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm inviting the following users to please take part in this discussion and, if necessary, impose a decision on all parties involved:

• User:Allieb12 User:Annecremin User:Ano-User User:APatcher User:Arjun024 User:Beggarsbanquet User:BSchilling User:Carbonrodney [[User:Frequencydip User:Homologeo User:Klok kaos User:Laytonsmith1 User:Meitar [[User:MishMich [[User:Noahk11 User:Rafaelosornio User:SmokeyTheCat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafe87 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
• Please, come weight in on this unsolvable dispute: User:Dev920 User:SatyrTN User:Ramondt User:Alison User:Andral User:Am86 User:Bearian User:Belovedfreak User:Sean User:Skyler13 User:TAnthony User:Tovojolo User:unspeakablevice User:Wikiwind User:Bxmuchacho User:Coryarlo User:Dawneyestone User:BigPadresDUDE User:Ed Poor User:Markie Twist User:Wxman87 Rafe87 (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm humbly inviting all the users above, more or less randomly selected from the list of users in the LGBT and Sexuality Projects, to weigh in on this dispute. What's best than to pass a Saturday trying to untangle old disputes on the talk pages of Wikipedia entries?? Rafe87 (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

You are doing the same thing you did at the Gay sexual practices article, where MrX, Jytdog, Rivertorch's Evil Twin and I warned you about this type of editing. Just like at that article, you are adding material that overly relies on primary source studies that mostly pertain to the United States, and you are trying to make anal sex seem more prevalent among gay men and other men who have sex with men than it is, and you are twisting the words of the sources. Even after I pointed out that you should not be using this FiveThirtyEight source, you are still using it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I beseech you to stop putting words on other people's mouths. Many of the people you said agreed with your warning, have no in fact done so, as is clear in the posts they made after I presented them my case. And the whole section where you removed my edits make use of primary sources. You let them stay because they tell you what you want to hear - that gay men don't do gay anal sex. All the references in the prevalence article are like that - of the exact same type that I inserted in the entry. In fact, I inserted novel data, about lifetime participation in gay anal sex among contemporary gay men. All reference still there only cite extremely old studies - by Magnus Hirschfeld, for example, which is extremely old, over 100 years!, and a UK study from the 50s - or data that doesn't mention lifetime participation, only practices in the last sexual encounter. This is a disservice to an encylopaedia, this over reliance on extremely old studies or incomplete data. All your sources, likewise, pertain to single countries. Sadly gay men in the whole world haven't been interviewed about their anal sex habits, but this is not an excuse for eliminating information about single countries, especially because I myself noted in my edits that they are limited to the US, not least because the whole article contains sources like that! Maybe we should go about editing the entire entry to reflect this fact - that the overwhelming majority of the sources used take conclusions based on national, not global, samples. As to the 538 source, the source is not only reputable, it is making a reference to NATIONALLY REPRESENTATIVE study, the NSSHB, it is not author opinion. If I referenced the study directly, which I see no reason to, tbh, you would delete it anyway. In fact. You did so several times, not only in that entry, but in this one, too. I referenced the two editions of the NSSHB several times in this entry, all gone, now. You deleting mania is so bizarre, you have even deleted a study (the one about the 18,000 MSM) which was already referenced in the entry before my edit, and you also deleted a similar study including an even larger MSM sample. Rafe87 (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

You can beseech me, but you are wrong. The aforementioned editors agreed with me about your overuse of primary sources and overemphasis on sources that pertain to the United States. You can keep going on and on about my supposed need to make it seem as though "gay men don't do gay anal sex" (without giving any type of valid reason as to why I would have such a POV), but you are wrong, as material I have added to these articles are quite clear that gay men do have anal sex. They are also quite clear that gay men do not have anal sex as much as people generally think that they do; you are repeatedly trying to downplay this fact. I've told you a number of times now that summarizing the data is what we are supposed to do. We are not supposed to go into as much detail as you go into, especially for a single study. That is UNDUE WEIGHT. This shows the edits you made. The 18,000 MSM data is already in the article. Yes, the article talks about old research on male-male anal sex, but this is because the prevalence section begins by noting that the prevalence research has varied over time and how. The male-female section presents old prevalence material too. It is perfectly fine to include such material for context. It is also perfectly fine to use tertiary sources to summarize past and current research. It is not fine to present primary source after primary source. It is not fine to go into unnecessary detail about a study. I don't see why I need to repeat myself on things I've been over with you times before. The fact that most studies on anal sex pertain to the United States does not mean that it is okay to stuff a section with such studies, especially when they are primary sources. As is typical, you also rearranged things to reduce focus on the fact that many gay men do not have anal sex. And that's another reason that I reverted you. It is perfectly fine to begin the section noting that anal sex was historically (and currently still is) associated with male homosexuality, but that many gay men don't engage in it. Yes, the lead somewhat addresses this, but so should the lower part of the article. The lead is meant to summarize the article. Furthermore, this is not the Gay sexual practices article; so the section should not get carried away with such information. I re-added this bit from you because it is the latest prevalence information for male-male anal sex. Primary sources, however, should be used sparingly. For you, it's the first thing you go to. Do you not know what a tertiary source is? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

As for this, your statement that the "Entire section is based on primary sources, so by Fly's logic, they must go down.", I already explained this type of thing to you. A number of book sources in this article are secondary or tertiary sources. And it's one thing to use primary sources sparingly, which is allowed, per the Wikipedia primary sources policy, but it's another to use them as much as you do and in the undue weight way that you use them. The United States is not the world. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

See above. Rafe87 (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't have time to take a deep dive into anal sex right now, or make a point-by-point analysis, but it does seem problematic to make a general claim in Wikipedia's voice, like "During anal sex, about two thirds of gay men in the United States report using lubricants in their last sexual encounter involving anal intercourse", based on a single study. At the very least, the study should be attributed. Better yet, use secondary sources.- MrX 18:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

That seems far more reasonable than Fly22's suggestion to simply eliminate data right away. What say you, Flyer22 Reborn? Do you have some other excuse to keep ANY AND ALL MENTION to the NSSHB from the entry? Rafe87 (talk) 00:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

What are you not understanding about MrX stating, "Better yet, use secondary sources."? The reasons I eliminated the data right away have been made perfectly clear above and below. We should be using tertiary and secondary sources. I did this even for NSSHB material when it comes to the heterosexual data. For the prevalence material, I've only left in one primary source study without any tertiary and secondary source support, and that is for the male-male material. I only left it in because it is the latest data and is one primary source mention. But, if you see below, it's clear that Jytdog would rather even that be removed altogether. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

"Rectal prolapse is relatively uncommon, however, especially in men, and its causes are not well understood."

I've started this discussion to address the following paragraph:

"Repetitive penetrative anal sex may result in the anal sphincters becoming weakened, which may cause rectal prolapse or affect the ability to hold in feces (a condition known as fecal incontinence). Rectal prolapse is relatively uncommon, however, especially in men, and its causes are not well understood. Kegel exercises have been used to strengthen the anal sphincters and overall pelvic floor, and may help prevent or remedy fecal incontinence. A 1993 study indicated that fourteen out of a sample of forty men receiving anal intercourse experienced episodes of frequent fecal incontinence. However, a 1997 study found no difference in levels of fecal incontinence between gay men who engaged in anal sex and heterosexual men who did not, and criticized the earlier study for its inclusion of flatulence in its definition of fecal incontinence."

As seen with this edit, I reverted Steeletrap on the removal of two quality sources; he stated "removing controversial assertion that is contradicted by one of the studies--which says 14/40 men who regularly receive anal sex have rectal prolapse--in the same paaragraph)." When reverting him, I noted that "it's a primary source study, which was apparently criticized, as noted in the section." I've since removed the two pieces for discussion. I haven't looked at these two studies; they were in the article before I started working on it, but it appears that the first study is flawed. It also doesn't appear that there have been many studies on rectal prolapse from anal sex (regarding gay men/MSM or heterosexuals); I'm not sure that we should retain this information if other studies have not repeated the same finding. The two sources that Steeletrap removed (and I restored) are not about anal sex, but I added them because I think it's important to note that rectal prolapse is very rare.

Jytdog and Doc James, any opinions on the rectal prolapse material? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC) _____

Yes those two textbooks are great sources.

I was just going to commen how they are followed by a couple of poor primary sources but thankfull see you have removed them.[2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Doc James, so, when it comes to anal sex resulting in rectal prolapse, we should be conservative on this issue until we find tertiary or secondary sources discussing it and/or discussing past studies? So far, when I looked for information on this in 2015, the Kelley source is the only quality source I found tying anal sex and rectal prolapse together. Or maybe I found other quality sources stating the same thing, but I went with the Kelley source. I'll look again later. Of course, there is also the WebMD source, but it's not ideal for information like this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The last book you mention says "may cause" which means that it is a tentative association. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Gay anal sex as an expression of romantic feelings between queer men

The entry already indicates that some researchers speculate that there is a relationship between anal sex between gay men and romantic feelings: "The notion that it might resonate with gay men with the same emotional significance that vaginal sex resonates with heterosexuals has also been considered", it says.

However, the entry just leaves it at that, without discussing the subject further, even though there is already research, some of which with very large sample sizes, analyzing the link (if any) between feelings and form of sex practiced between gay men.

If the editors agree, I wish to insert the following lines just after the sentence quoted above, based on the research I found:

Some evidence extracted from both probability and convenience sampling gives support to that thesis; studies from the United States, Brazil, and Australia (though not the Netherlands) shows that the practice of anal sex between men is more common among regular or committed partners than casual partners. According to multi-national evidence, anal sex without a condom is particularly common between committed partners. Besides, young gay and bisexual men with more of a romantic focus seem to desire practicing anal sex more; a study of about 25,000 gay and bisexual men also points that they more often practice anal sex on last sexual encounter with a male partner if the latter is someone they were in love with at the time of the sexual episode.

References

If any of the editors wishes to have access to any of the papers above, I can provide it if this is not against the Wikipedia's rules. Rafe87 (talk) 03:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Rafe87, that wording isn't bad. Thank you for proposing such a change first here on the talk page before making it. Pinging Jytdog and Doc James to see what they think of the wording and sourcing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

i appreciate the desire to flesh this out but no, primary sources are not OK. Please use secondary or tertiary sources. Jytdog (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Do meta-analyses count as a secondary or tertiary source? Rafe87 (talk) 03:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Prevalence sections

I have moved the two sections below from the article, to here. Both are shot through with WP:OR, picking this primary source or that one and stringing together a narrative that is entirely the creation of editors, and not found in any secondary sources.

It is also full of statements like "As of 2011, this survey provides the most up to date data about anal sex at the population level" which are some editor's opinion.

These need to be entirely rewritten summarizing secondary and tertiary sources. That is what we do here.

Prevalence (Male to female)

In 1992, a study conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that 26% of men 18 to 59 and 20% of women 18 to 59 had engaged in heterosexual anal sex; a similar 2005 survey (also conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) found a rising incidence of anal sex relations in the American heterosexual population. The survey showed that 40% of men and 35% of women between 25 and 44 had engaged in heterosexual anal sex. In terms of overall numbers of survey respondents, seven times as many women as gay men said that they engaged in anal intercourse, with this figure reflecting the larger heterosexual population size.

In a 2007 report regarding the prevalence and correlates of heterosexual anal and oral sex among adolescents and adults in the United States, a National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) found that 34% men and 30% women reported ever participating in heterosexual anal sex. The percentage of participants reporting heterosexual anal sex was significantly higher among 20- to 24-year-olds and peaked among 30- to 34-year-olds. A 2008 survey focused on a younger demographic of teenagers and young adults, aged 15–21. It found that 16% of 1350 surveyed had had this type of sex in the previous 3 months, with condoms being used 29% of the time. However, given the subject matter, the survey hypothesized the prevalence was probably underestimated.

In Kimberly R. McBride's 2010 clinical review on heterosexual anal intercourse and other forms of anal sexual activity, it is suggested that changing norms may affect the frequency of heterosexual anal sex. McBride and her colleagues investigated the prevalence of non-intercourse anal sex behaviors among a sample of men (n=1,299) and women (n=1,919) compared to anal intercourse experience and found that 51% of men and 43% of women had participated in at least one act of oral–anal sex, manual–anal sex, or anal sex toy use. The report states the majority of men (n=631) and women (n=856) who reported heterosexual anal intercourse in the past 12 months were in exclusive, monogamous relationships: 69% and 73%, respectively. The review added that "most research on anal intercourse addresses men who have sex with men (MSM), with relatively little attention given to anal intercourse and other anal sexual behaviors between heterosexual partners" and "[r]esearch is quite rare that specifically differentiates the anus as a sexual organ or addresses anal sexual function or dysfunction as legitimate topics. As a result, we do not know the extent to which anal intercourse differs qualitatively from coitus."

According to a 2010 study from the National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior (NSSHB) that was authored by Debby Herbenick and other researchers, although anal intercourse is reported by fewer women than other partnered sex behaviors, partnered women in the age groups between 18–49 are significantly more likely to report having anal sex in the past 90 days. As of 2011, this survey provides the most up to date data about anal sex at the population level.

Figures for prevalence can vary among different demographics, regions and nationalities. A 1999 South Korean survey of 586 women documented that 3.5% of the respondents reported having had anal sex. By contrast, a 2001 French survey of five hundred female respondents concluded that a total of 29% had engaged in this practice, with one third of these confirming to have enjoyed the experience.

Figures for the prevalence of sexual behavior can also fluctuate over time. Edward O. Laumann's 1992 survey, reported in The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States, found that about 20% of heterosexuals had engaged in male-to-female anal sex. Sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, working in the 1940s, had found that number to be closer to 40% at the time. A researcher from the University of British Columbia in 2005 put the number of heterosexuals who have engaged in this practice at between 30% and 50%. According to Columbia University's health website Go Ask Alice!: "Studies indicate that about 25 percent of heterosexual couples have had anal sex at least once, and 10 percent regularly have anal penetration." The increase of anal sexual activity among heterosexuals has also been linked to the increase in anal pornography, especially if a person views it more regularly than a person who does not.

Prevalence (Male to male)

Reports with regard to the prevalence of anal sex among gay men in the west have varied over time. Magnus Hirschfeld, in his 1914 work The Homosexuality of Men and Women, reported the rate of anal sex among gay men surveyed to be 8%, the least favored of all the practices documented. By the 1950s in the United Kingdom, it was thought that about 15% of gay males had anal sex.

Similar to the Hirschfeld study, scholars state that oral sex and mutual masturbation are more common than anal stimulation among gay men in long-term relationships. They say that anal intercourse is generally more popular among gay male couples than among heterosexual couples, but that "it ranks behind oral sex and mutual masturbation" among both sexual orientations in prevalence. Wellings et al. reported that "the equation of 'homosexual' with 'anal' sex among men is common among lay and health professionals alike" and that "yet an Internet survey of 18,000 MSM across Europe (EMIS, 2011) showed that oral sex was most commonly practised, followed by mutual masturbation, with anal intercourse in third place". A 2011 survey by The Journal of Sexual Medicine found similar results for U.S. gay and bisexual men.

Various older studies on male-to-male anal sex differ significantly. The 1994 Laumann study suggests that 80% of gay men practice anal sex and 20% never engage in it at all. A survey in The Advocate in 1994 indicated that 46% of gay men preferred to penetrate their partners, while 43% preferred to be the receptive partner. A survey conducted from 1994 to 1997 in San Francisco by the Stop AIDS Project indicated that over the course of the study, among men who have sex with men instead of solely gay men, the proportion engaging in anal sex increased from 57.6% to 61.2%. The National Institutes of Health (NIH), with their report published in the BMJ in 1999, stated that two thirds of gay men have anal sex. Other sources suggest that roughly three-fourths of gay men have had anal sex at one time or another in their lives, with an equal percentage participating as tops and bottoms. The latest nationally representative sex survey in the U.S., the 2012 edition of the National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior, suggests high lifetime participation in anal sex among gay men — 83.3% report ever taking part in anal sex in the insertive position and 90% in the receptive position, even if only between a third and a quarter self-report very recent engagement in the practice, defined as 30 days or less.

References

-- Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

____________

Jytdog, a lot of the material was there before I started working on the article, but I did source and add some of the material. For example, I added some of the "Heterosexual anal sexuality and anal sex behaviors: a review" information. That content is not WP:OR and is a review of the literature. That source is particularly important because it makes it clear that "most research on anal intercourse addresses men who have sex with men (MSM), with relatively little attention given to anal intercourse and other anal sexual behaviors between heterosexual partners" and "[r]esearch is quite rare that specifically differentiates the anus as a sexual organ or addresses anal sexual function or dysfunction as legitimate topics. As a result, we do not know the extent to which anal intercourse differs qualitatively from coitus."

I also added information such as "oral sex and mutual masturbation are more common than anal stimulation among gay men in long-term relationships." This is supported by the sources. I added "They say that anal intercourse is generally more popular among gay male couples than among heterosexual couples, but that 'it ranks behind oral sex and mutual masturbation' among both sexual orientations in prevalence." This is supported by this source.

There is not a lot of information out there about the prevalence of anal sex and there is not a lot of up-to-date information about the prevalence. This is why I left in the older research. WP:MEDDATE is clear about cases such as these, where not much research progress is being made. What content do you find to be OR and what content do you suggest we add back? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I addressed the sections as a whole which as a whole are pig's ears. There are some bits of silk that could be pulled out to rebuild the sections; you know what they are as well as I do. Jytdog (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, given the limited data that exists on the prevalence of anal sex, I'm trying to get a feel for what you'd be okay with adding. I mean, I think we should keep the National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior (NSSHB) material (except for editorializing like "As of 2011, this survey provides the most up to date data about anal sex at the population level."). Do you? Looking at the male-to-female section, I think we can do without most of that, but I'm trying to picture a summary that makes it evident that the data has varied over time. As for the male-male section, should we frame the section in a way that shows how anal sex reports have varied over time? The research does not consistently report the same prevalence number. All we have when it comes to anal sex prevalence data are conflicting numbers that are reported in book sources. The prevalence material has always bothered me because the reports are so varied. Is information like this (which was in the article) a no for you? Do you want me to propose rewritten versions here on the talk page and then we go from there? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, I've included proposals below.

Proposed sections

For the Male to female section, I suggest the following material: Because most research on anal intercourse addresses men who have sex with men, little data exists on the prevalence of anal intercourse among heterosexual couples. In Kimberly R. McBride's 2010 clinical review on heterosexual anal intercourse and other forms of anal sexual activity, it is suggested that changing norms may affect the frequency of heterosexual anal sex. McBride and her colleagues investigated the prevalence of non-intercourse anal sex behaviors among a sample of men (n=1,299) and women (n=1,919) compared to anal intercourse experience and found that 51% of men and 43% of women had participated in at least one act of oral–anal sex, manual–anal sex, or anal sex toy use. The report states the majority of men (n=631) and women (n=856) who reported heterosexual anal intercourse in the past 12 months were in exclusive, monogamous relationships: 69% and 73%, respectively. The review added that because "relatively little attention [is] given to anal intercourse and other anal sexual behaviors between heterosexual partners", this means that it is "quite rare" to have research "that specifically differentiates the anus as a sexual organ or addresses anal sexual function or dysfunction as legitimate topics. As a result, we do not know the extent to which anal intercourse differs qualitatively from coitus." According to a 2010 study from the National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior (NSSHB) that was authored by Debby Herbenick et al., although anal intercourse is reported by fewer women than other partnered sex behaviors, partnered women in the age groups between 18–49 are significantly more likely to report having anal sex in the past 90 days. Women engaged in anal intercourse less commonly than men. Vaginal intercourse was practiced more than insertive anal intercourse among men, but 13% to 15% of men aged 25 to 49 practiced insertive anal intercourse. With regard to adolescents, limited data also exists. This may be because of the taboo nature of anal sex and that teenagers and caregivers subsequently avoid talking to one another about the topic. It is also common for subject review panels and schools to avoid broaching the subject. A 2000 study found that 22.9% of college students who self-identified as virgins had anal sex. They used condoms during anal sex 20.9% of the time as compared with 42.9% of the time with vaginal intercourse. For the Male to male section, I suggest the following material: Reports regarding the prevalence of anal sex among gay men and other men who have sex with men vary. A survey in The Advocate in 1994 indicated that 46% of gay men preferred to penetrate their partners, while 43% preferred to be the receptive partner. Other sources suggest that roughly three-fourths of gay men have had anal sex at one time or another in their lives, with an equal percentage participating as tops and bottoms. A 2012 nationally representative sex survey in the U.S. suggests high lifetime participation in anal sex among gay men — 83.3% report ever taking part in anal sex in the insertive position and 90% in the receptive position, even if only between a third and a quarter self-report very recent engagement in the practice, defined as 30 days or less. Oral sex and mutual masturbation are more common than anal stimulation among gay men in relationships. According to Weiten et al., anal intercourse is generally more popular among gay male couples than among heterosexual couples, but "it ranks behind oral sex and mutual masturbation" among both sexual orientations in prevalence. Wellings et al. reported that "the equation of 'homosexual' with 'anal' sex among men is common among lay and health professionals alike" and that "yet an Internet survey of 18,000 MSM across Europe (EMIS, 2011) showed that oral sex was most commonly practised, followed by mutual masturbation, with anal intercourse in third place". References

For extra data, we can use this 2016 Sexual Deviance and Society: A Sociological Examination source, from Routledge, page 130. And there are sources to support the following: "The increase of anal sexual activity among heterosexuals has also been linked to the increase in anal pornography, especially if a person views it more regularly than a person who does not." That is why I added this, this and this source for that sentence when it was in the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Doc James, can I get your opinion on this too? My above proposed sections? The data on the prevalence of anal sex, especially for heterosexuals, is limited, and I worked with what exists on the topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Could use some simplification. Also would round to the nearest digit. The amount of research is low and decimal points are not needed. If this is the best that is avaliable than go for it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, Doc. Yeah, I was thinking that the Kimberly R. McBride material is probably a little heavy-handed. I'll wait and see what Jytdog thinks. He'll probably want to tweak some of the wording too. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the revised sections. I haven't yet tweaked the additions per Doc's suggestions. I'm not yet sure of the best way to simplify the Kimberly R. McBride material. The rounding for the other material is simple, of course, though. I did change two things about the male-male material: I changed "among gay men in relationships" to "among men in sexual relationships with other men." And I changed "nationally representative" to "NSSHB." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

There are some studies on the link between anal sex and relationship status/romantic expectations of gay men. I had inserted it before, but Flyer22 Reborn helpfully deleted it, as she's wont to do. It sort of bothers me how all mentions to anal sex in the gay male sector sound so much negative than for everyone else. It's almost like only gay men don't have a right to it. In the gay section, there is no mention to the positive aspects of the practice - to pleasure, orgasm, feelings of intimacy, etc. - even though all data pertaining to that are already available in the scientific literature, and indeed, I tried to add it before. I also added a phrase, which was properly sourced, about bi men's attitudes towards anal play with men and women, which is also gone. Is any of it salvageable in the view of you all? Rafe87 (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Will you stop your "Flyer22 Reborn hates gay male anal sex" campaign? Really, what reason would I have to hate gay male anal sex? I'm not a gay male. Do you think I'm an undercover male, or an undercover gay male, on a mission to discredit anal sex among gay men? And why would I focus so much on gay men, when some data indicates that a lot of heterosexual people engage in it too? The only reason I've been focusing on anal sex among gay men lately is because you are so focused on it. On this site, I've encountered gay men who hate anal sex and tried to bias anal sex material; I stopped it. I've also encountered gay men who love anal sex and tried to bias anal sex material; I stopped it. I've perceived you as one of the latter people, and I keep stopping you for reasons I've made very clear.

You stated, "It sort of bothers [you] how all mentions to anal sex in the gay male sector sound so much negative than for everyone else." Each section talks about likes and dislikes (for example, does the female-to-male section indicate general like to you?), but, as the article makes very clear, the literature on anal sex loves to focus on men who have sex with men, and people love to think that all gay men love anal sex. So, of course, there might be more information regarding men who have sex with men's feelings on anal sex. You stated, "In the gay section, there is no mention to the positive aspects of the practice - to pleasure, orgasm, feelings of intimacy, etc." And yet the section states, "Among men who have anal sex with other men, the insertive partner may be referred to as the top and the one being penetrated may be referred to as the bottom. Those who enjoy either role may be referred to as versatile." The section also states, "Gay men who prefer anal sex may view it as their version of intercourse and a natural expression of intimacy that is capable of providing pleasure. The notion that it might resonate with gay men with the same emotional significance that vaginal sex resonates with heterosexuals has also been considered." After that, it rightly talks about alternatives to anal sex and the dislikes regarding it. The section is relatively small, just like all of the sexual orientation sections are. We note the likes and dislikes and the data. We should not add a lot of detail sourced to one or more primary studies. I noted to you above that "For the prevalence material, I've only left in one primary source study without any tertiary and secondary source support, and that is for the male-male material. I only left it in because it is the latest data and is one primary source mention. But [...] it's clear that Jytdog would rather even that be removed altogether." So, no, I don't think we should add more from the NSSHB study unless it's supported by a secondary or tertiary source. If you have information on gay men or MSM's views regarding anal sex and that material is sourced to tertiary or secondary sources, I will consider it. Note what it is here on the talk page with the sources. But I repeat: We should not go overboard with the material. I see no valid reason to have the male-to-male section be so much bigger than the male-to-female section, or vice versa. Right now, even though the anal sex literature primarily focuses on gay men and MSM, there are not a lot of quality tertiary and secondary sources on the practice and views of anal sex, unless it's the religious views, and we do not know just how prevalent the practice is among heterosexuals. As for orgasms, etc., the "Anatomy and stimulation" concerns both heterosexuals and gay/lesbian people. Men have the same anatomy regardless of sexual orientation. Women have the same anatomy regardless of sexual orientation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Per above, I have re-added pornography material to the heterosexual Prevalence section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Fix here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Fix again here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

National Institues of Heath improperly cited

In the section on pegging NIH is listed as a source for information. The information was published in the British Medical Journal and not from the NIH. Pub Med Central is a repository of many many medical journals and is not solely for in NIH information. I would fix this, but the article is locked. If you look at the citation you will see that all funding for the paper came from British sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:6824:d8d0:7115:6cb4:5e77:77df (talk • contribs)

The text stated, "National Institutes of Health (NIH) information published in the BMJ." I remember adding that. I've changed it to this (followup edit here). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Anal sex. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://goaskalice.columbia.edu/doin-butt-objects-anus
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161020075102/http://www.xyonline.net/sites/default/files/Flood%2C%20Young%20men%20using%20porn.pdf to http://www.xyonline.net/sites/default/files/Flood%2C%20Young%20men%20using%20porn.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=%2Fjournals%2Felh%2Fv069%2F69.2daileader.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101123025839/http://www.tpuuf.org/2008/08/03/glbt-in-world-religions/ to http://www.tpuuf.org/2008/08/03/glbt-in-world-religions/

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) 18:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Why the pictures?

Why the graphic pictures. It's practically porno. Not sure that's what wikipedia is for. The text is pretty clear on its own. Kids use wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.38.87.213 (talk) 23:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, it seems kinda extreme to use what you can effectively find on a porn site, perhaps a more biological diagram would be more appropriate, or something oriental historically depicting the act. AvatarofPride (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

We include sexual act pictures in most of our sexual articles, unless it's something like the Human sexual response cycle. The drawings and paintings satisfy WP:GRATUITOUS. Real-life images are the ones that cause more of an issue; this is because they are more readily considered pornography by our readers and some people like to use Wikipedia to engage in exhibitionism (sometimes prioritizing their personal image over better images). I am not aware of any biological diagram of anal sex, and, per WP:Non-free, it would need to be free anyway. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

copyviol

here: http://healthise.com/general/is-anal-sex-safe-how-to-perform-anal-sex/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.114.3.54 (talk) 09:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

What are you stating, IP? That the source copied/stole our picture? That we stole their picture? The picture was drawn by Seedfeeder, who also has a Wikipedia article: Seedfeeder. I think you should read WP:COPYVIO. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2017

Please can this page be categorised as "Sex education" or "Pornography" or "Other Adult" as we have had children accidentally coming across this page in schools. Jon.howarth (talk) 11:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Please see WP:NOTCENSORED.- MrX 11:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

How do children accidentally stumble across this page? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent addition of WP:Primary sourced material

Avril1975, regarding this, why did you remove what was there and why do you think that the WP:Primary sourced material you added should remain? We are trying to stay away from primary sourced material for this topic unless it is necessary to include it. This is for good reason. See Talk:Anal sex/Archive 9#Prevalence sections for why. Furthermore, your addition made it seem as though it is common for women to experience an orgasm from anal sex, when this is not the case. This is addressed in the Anatomy and stimulation section. Your addition was WP:Undue weight, especially where you placed it, and you used Bustle.com to source the National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior material. If anything, a scholarly source should be used to report on that matter if we are to include it at all. For example, the 2010 National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior study (authored by Debby Herbenick et al.) that we include in the article is supported by this Cengage Learning source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Moved and cut. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Article is homophobic

Is there some particular reason only hetrosexual oriented images are shown, or is this article actually intended to be rather homophobic in nature, considering the fact that anal sex is more popular among the homosexual as opposed to the hetrosexual community? I therefore conclude that this article needs major revisions in order to NOT be homophobic. 108.201.29.108 (talk) 05:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Anal sex is widely practiced by many sexual orientations. Would it not be stereotyping and homophobic to portray anal sex as an act done solely by gay men? EvergreenFir (talk) 05:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Past discussion: Talk:Anal sex/Archive 8#The picture. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 07:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing to that past discussion, Adrian J. Hunter, which addresses image and prevalence aspects. Considering that the article clearly has images to represent every mentioned gender/sexual orientation combination, and additional male-male images in the "Other cultural views" section, I fail to see how the article is homophobic. The article does not have "only hetrosexual oriented images." It leads with a heterosexual image, but that has already been addressed in the previous discussion Adrian J. Hunter pointed to. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

health risks, it is required to add immunological infertility

Health risks, it is required to add immunological infertility

Autoimmune infertility due to Antisperm_antibodies — Preceding unsigned comment added by Путеец (talk • contribs)

See my reply on the editor's talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn Jytdog Now you have studied immunology, and now you can add autoimmune infertility referring to the article antisperm antibodies. Here and in all articles related to the practice of anal sex and the health of LGBT people and MSM. Путеец (talk) 07:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

In terms of material at the Antisperm antibodies article, what are you proposing be added? The material doesn't need its own section. Also, in addition to Jytdog and I, Doc James can help. He is also good at judging additions and giving them WP:Due weight. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I had a good knowledge of immunology before the recent Antisperm antibodies article stuff. But anal sex is not usually discussed in immunology sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

In the article Anal sex has a section of health risks. Here it is necessary to add the item - autoimmune infertility, due to the formation of antisperm antibodies with unprotected anal sex. Путеец (talk) 16:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I was asking what is your proposed text. By this, I mean include the wording you want to add here on the talk page for review. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

"The possibility of autoimmune infertility, due to the formation of antisperm antibodies with unprotected anal sex.". Just lead to the norms of English. Путеец (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, feel free to add it to the section in question, with one or more WP:MEDRS-complaint sources. I or someone else will tweak your addition if it needs tweaking. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• (recent changes patroller) Just passed by this on recent changes. PubMed source seems fine as it is a review and not 'a fresh out of the oven study'. !dave 19:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• • Some of it is supported by [3] so first part looks okay. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit request protected??

"A 2000 study found that 22.9% of college students who self-identified as virgins had anal sex. They used condoms during anal sex 20.9% of the time as compared with 42.9% of the time with vaginal intercourse"

This isnt what the source says, source says 22% of nonvirgins

Done EvergreenFir (talk) 07:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Article ignores the existence of women with penises

Some women have penises and I think it should be mentioned in the "female-to-female" section that penis-in-anal-sex is a viable form of lesbian sex! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lily.mayfield (talk • contribs)

Taking transgender people into consideration, yes. If following your course of thinking, then what about men who have vaginas? You talk about the "female to female" section, but a trans woman could be relevant to the "male to female" section as well, and a trans man could be relevant to both the "male to female" and "male to male" sections. You want us to mention a transgender aspect in all of these sections? We must think about both WP:Due weight and WP:Verifiability. The sources aren't focusing on trans people, and some sources that talk about men who have sex with men include trans women in the category (as noted in the Men who have sex with men article). Another issue with attempting to cover trans people in the aforementioned sections is the mechanics of sex that work the same regardless of gender identity. For example, a lesbian trans woman who has not undergone sex reassignment surgery and uses her penis to have anal sex with a woman follows the same mechanics of sex as a man who uses his penis to have anal sex with a woman. And, no, I'm not calling trans women "men." I'm solely noting the mechanics. There are also trans women who do not view their penises as penises, and trans men who do not view their vaginas as vaginas. Furthermore, it goes without saying that trans people can have anal sex. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

If you are also considering intersex people, who may or may not be transgender (although the vast majority of intersex people identify with the sex they were assigned at birth), there are obviously the same or similar issues. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Update: Looking more on this topic, I do see some sources noting that trans women engage in receptive anal sex without a condom at a high rate, which puts them at significant risk of HIV and other STIs. But that's about all that I am seeing on anal sex and trans people, which doesn't surprise me since, like the "male to female" section of the article states, anal sex is not well-researched outside of the "men who have sex with men" category. And even in that case, it's mainly focused on disease transmission instead of sexual practices and pleasure. Anyway, the high rate of trans women engaging in receptive anal sex is something we can and should mention in the article. There are social reasons behind trans women doing this, like this 2016 "Understanding the HIV/AIDS Epidemic in the United States: The Role of Syndemics in the Production of Health Disparities" source, from Springer, page 104, notes. The source also argues to treat trans women who have sex with men as separate from the "men who have sex with men" category, but that's something to include in the Men who have sex with men article instead. Anyway, material on trans women engaging in receptive anal sex can go in either the "male to female" section since the sources are speaking of men anally penetrating trans women, or we can create a separate "Among trans people" section. But, per what I stated about the scarcity of material on trans people engaging in anal sex, the section would mostly concern trans women engaging in receptive anal sex. There is a bit on trans men and receptive anal sex as well. And just to note here, I did come across this 2014 "Practices of receptive and insertive anal sex among transgender women in relation to partner types, sociocultural factors, and background variables" source, but it's a WP:PRIMARY source, and per this discussion, we try to stay away from primary sources for health material, and this includes prevalence material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

If trans women can be lumped into "men" in this article, due to the "mechanics of sex," while considering the subjects of the sources (cis men and cis women), and this concept of "mechanics" is based on genitals, then why does it not work in the reverse where trans women who use their penis for anal sex, like myself, are implicated by those same sources for the "female to female" section? Lily.mayfield (talk) 06:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Huh? Not understanding your argument. Neither the Anal sex article nor its sources lump trans women into the category of men. And I was not arguing that the article should. The sources are not talking about trans people, period. If any of the people are trans, we don't know it. The point is that Wikipedia goes by what WP:Reliable sources state and with WP:Due weight. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

"Generally"

It's been raised in a discussion on Talk:Missionary position that this article is another that uses "generally" in its introductory sentence.

MOS:FIRST says: "If [the article] subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist."

I don't think the current first sentence is a definition, and I don't really think that any statement entirely covered by "generally" can be. A definition says what something is, not what it usually or generally is.

(To work out if something is a satisfactory definition, try swapping it in to the article later on - e.g. "With regard to lesbian sexual practices, generally the insertion and thrusting of the erect penis into a person's anus, or anus and rectum, for sexual pleasure includes fingering, use of a dildo or other sex toys, or anilingus". That is clearly nonsense.)

I think the MOS is clear that the first sentence needs to give a definition, i.e. say what anal sex is: e.g. "Anal sex is sexual activity involving the anus, or anus and rectum." A second sentence can then say (assuming we can source the assertion) that the most common form of this is what the first sentence says; but what is currently in the first sentence is not the definition of the term.

I think the two terms also need separating - e.g. analingus is referred to by the article as anal sex, but isn't anal intercourse; so I don't think we can define the two together.

Thoughts? TSP (talk) 11:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

MOS says nothing about objecting to "generally." You are making a mountain out of a molehill, just like you have at the Missionary position article, and for reasons that Rivertorch stated there. The primary definition/meaning of anal sex is a penis entering the anus/rectum. It is the most commonly understood meaning, and is what the article mainly covers. And we should be clear about that right off the bat. It is the overwhelming meaning in reliable sources. Your "with regard to lesbian sexual practices" comparison makes no sense to me. Anal sex among lesbian couples isn't nearly as widespread as it is among heterosexuals and male-male couples, as the article makes clear. And pegging is not common. Anilingus also isn't nearly as widely practiced as penile-anal sex. Your assertion that the current definition isn't a definition simply because it states "generally" and/or specifies "penis in anus/rectum" makes no sense to me, and I can only assume you are arguing that due to you wanting the lead sentence to be vague so that it covers all types of anal sexual activity right from the beginning.

Your proposed wording of "Anal sex is sexual activity involving the anus, or anus and rectum." is completely vague and raises the following question: What type of sexual activity? By contrast, the current lead sentence is clear about what anal sex generally (a.k.a typically/usually) means, and then goes into other definitions, as it should. Fisting is not a standard definition of anal sex at all. It is a very rare act. And per WP:Due weight, it should not be mentioned in the lead at all. But your proposed wording automatically includes it because your wording is broad. Sources like this 2009 "The Orgasm Answer Guide" source, from JHU Press, page 108, are clear that anal sex typically refers to the insertion of the penis into the anus and rectum. So that is just one example that contradicts your argument that "A definition says what something is, not what it usually or generally is." And so does this review that is used in the article. We don't use "refers to" wording for the lead sentence because, per WP:Refers, this article is not about the term. The lead sentence should define what the act is. That act is defined solely as "the insertion of the penis into the anus" in the vast majority of reliable sources. And when taking the time to mention other anal sex acts, "the insertion of the penis into the anus" is either always listed first or is noted as the primary meaning. And, yes, per WP:Due weight, we commonly give the most weight to the primary meaning on Wikipedia. In reliable sources, and in studies on anal sex, anal sex is typically defined as the insertion of the penis into the anus. We do use "refers to" after defining the different versions of anal sex because the "refers to" wording is specifically about the terminology. And like WP:Refers states, referring directly to a term rather than using it is different. As for distinguishing "anal sex" and "anal intercourse," they usually mean the same thing. Only occasionally do they not mean the same thing; and this aspect is also covered in the lead.

Those are my thoughts. Pinging Grayfell, Adrian J. Hunter, Johnuniq, MrX, and Doc James for their thoughts. With the exception of MrX and Doc James, I know that these editors watch the article. All of them, however, have been involved in discussion on this talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Many many terms do not have perfect universally accepted definitions. We should begin the article with the most common definition.

The current definition IMO is fine as it is the most common "Anal sex or anal intercourse is generally the insertion and thrusting of the erect penis into a person's anus, or anus and rectum, for sexual pleasure."

This IMO is not the usual definition "Anal sex is sexual activity involving the anus, or anus and rectum." and thus would not be an improvement.

The current definition is supported by three references. What references support the proposed change? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, Doc James. The vague, proposed wording can be supported by one or more sources (meaning that I've occasionally seen sources be vague in such a way on the topic before going into more detail), but I wouldn't use it per what you and I have argued on the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

And the penile-anal aspect is especially important with regard to medical research. Just like the literature in general, it is the type of anal sex that medical sources usually focus on. For example, this Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) source states, "Anal sex (intercourse), which involves inserting the penis into the anus, carries the highest risk of transmitting HIV if either partner is HIV-positive." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with "generally". It would be great if every word had a single, crisp definition that was universally agreed upon. But language doesn't work that way. The meaning of some terms is fuzzy, and someone researching such a topic will want to know that. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 00:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

What he said. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 03:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely true - but encyclopedia articles aren't, on the whole, about terms, but about subjects. A dictionary (or, on Wikipedia, a disambiguation page) is the place to explain the different things a term can mean. An encyclopedia article is about an encyclopedic subject; I'm suggesting that the first sentence should define what that subject is. That certainly doesn't have to be the only thing that term could possibly mean - that's why we have disambiguation - but I feel should be the definition that the article intends to use.

Incidentally, OED has "anal sex n. sexual activity involving penetration of the anus.", which seems to me a significantly more useful and universal definition than the one we have at present. TSP (talk) 11:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages are not the place to explain different things a term can mean. Disambiguation pages are to help readers find the article they're looking for. MOS:DAB is clear about this.

Dictionaries aim for brevity at the expense of nuance. Flyer22 has already demonstrated that the OED definition is not as universal as you think it is. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

TSP, you make it seem that like an encyclopedia is not the place to explain different meanings of a term. And yet encyclopedias, including Wikipedia, do that. I told you at the Missionary position talk page that Wikipedia commonly starts off its lead with one definition -- usually the most common definition -- and then includes other definitions of the topic after that. I told you that just like with dictionaries and encyclopedias, the first listed definition does not preclude or exclude the other definitions. It's the same with Wikipedia, and Wikipedia often has a Definitions or Terminology section to further address the different definitions. One example is the Terminology section of the Myocardial infarction (Heart attack) article. Another is the Definitions section of the Cancer article. And yet another is the Types section of the Neoplasm article. The Neoplasm article also notes definition aspects in the lead. I've told you that we don't allow our lead sentences to be bogged down by an identity crisis simply because there are multiple definitions. We usually choose one, and note others after it. And for those articles that begin with something like "[So and so] does not have a precise definition, but [...]," they are often changed as well.

This aforementioned 2009 "The Orgasm Answer Guide" source, from JHU Press and sexologist Beverly Whipple, page 108, states, "Anal sex typically refers to insertion of the penis through the anus and into the rectum, but can include anilingus (oral stimulation of the anus), fingering, and use of sex toys, including vibrators and small dildos known as 'butt plugs.' " This is what our Wikipedia article states, except that we have separated the matter into two sentences, we do not use "refers to" (per WP:Refers), we use "generally" instead of "typically," and we don't specify what type of sex toys. You make it sound like the lead stating "Anal sex or anal intercourse is generally the insertion and thrusting of the erect penis into a person's anus, or anus and rectum, for sexual pleasure." is telling readers that all anal sex, including as part of lesbian sexual practices, includes "the insertion and thrusting of the erect penis into a person's anus." The lead is clearly not stating that. The lead clearly states "Other forms of anal sex" and then notes what they are. This 2017 "The Psychology of Human Sexuality" source, page 410, states, "When most people hear the term 'anal sex,' they tend to think about penile–anal penetration. However, this is not the only way that the anus can be involved in sexual activity. Some people may insert a finger or sex toy into the anus during masturbation or partnered sex. Others orally stimulate the anus, a practice known as anilingus (colloquially referred to as 'rimming')." Just like with the WP:LEADIMAGE representing what the topic is generally/usually about, so should the lead sentence. When we direct readers to the Anal sex article, what we are usually directing them here for is the "penis in anus/rectum" aspect. And this is not only because it's what people usually think about when they think of anal sex, but because the vast majority of the literature on the topic (which leans more so toward men who have sex with men research, as noted by the article) is mainly about that aspect. There is no valid reason to have the lead sentence be broad in its definition...when most of the content in the article (including the health material) is about the "penis in anus/rectum" aspect. We want our readers to know what the article is mainly discussing from the beginning, and we certainly don't want them guessing as far as "anal sex vs. anal intercourse" goes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

There is no reason to change the current lead. MOS is a guideline that generally should be followed, but this is one of those cases where "generally" is precise English that conveys the sourced facts regarding what "anal sex" generally means. There is no UN Committee that issues definitions for terms describing sexual acts, and there is no WP:DUE or helpful way to list all variations in the lead. Johnuniq (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)