Talk:Vanilla sex
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale. |
 |
The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page. |
[edit] Woman-on-top
I was wondering about the picture that illustrates the article. Does woman-on-top hetero sex counts as "vanilla sex" in conservative cultures? SaintCahier 17:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- yup, it would. however plain old boring missionary sex would be an even better example picture. Mathmo 16:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- As the article explains, "Different cultures, subcultures, and individuals have different ideas about what constitutes vanilla sex." Hyacinth 18:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- However, it's probably not the right picture for this article, as at least a significant number of cultures would view it as not vanilla. Really need a picture of the most boring missionary-style activity you could find. Fan-1967 18:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I removed the photo. IMHO, it'll be pretty hard to find a photo that's culture-neutral. --Umalee 22:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Speedy deletion
The reported link [1] is not the source of this article, but the other way round. This is exemplified by (among others) this edit [2], where the last words of the alinea about the term where added seperately (, in both sexual and non-sexual contexts.), but which is also present in the suggested link. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 18:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
This article is so confusing. It defines vanilla sex as anything from vaginal to anal to oral to non-penetrative sex to mutual masturbation to cuddling. Complete contradictions. All I got out of reading this article was that it cannot be used to refer to BDSM, but not to what specifically it DOES refer. -Emiellaiendiay 17:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Everyone interprets it differently, it isn't possible to definitively say what it refers to. What is "normal" in sex varies from place to place and even person to person. It is true that the term is probably most widely used in BDSM circles but it is by no means exclusively so. Mallanox 18:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] See also
The see also section has but one link. If in the future there is a problem with it having too many links, it should be dealt with then. However, it should not be preemptively removed because there is a chance it might become a problem in the future. It is pretty standard for articles to have a "see also" section pointing at related articles. Neitherday 17:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Is that first paragraph serious? Clockwork-artichoke (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
