Talk:sexual intercourse

Gay
Gay men and women have been known to have sexual intercourse, although this does not mate with the above definition. Does somebody want to change the definition? Something along the lines of "to have sex"? -Unsigned
 * if a gay person does it it's not intercourse. "sexual intercourse" is a narrower term than "to have sex". for example, oral sex would not be considered intercourse. -Unsigned

Addendum

 * "..causing sexual excitation of at least one of them"

Where did this come from? I don't recall a requirement for sexual excitation for it to be considered intercourse. Tyciol 03:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Excitation is a (requirement for) man's erection. Shell the need for erection be explained? ;) --Javalenok 13:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed from entry
Just removed from entry:


 * Cantonese: 性行為

71.66.97.228 02:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Where's the rest of the article
Shag. A very British term for your Yanks fucking.

Get worldly or sink.Molbrum 14:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

RFV discussion: February–April 2016
What's the f-ing (!) difference between these definitions? I mean #1 is just a special case of #2: --Hekaheka (talk) 06:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Coitus or genital-genital sexual contact; copulation.
 * 2) Sexual interaction, usually involving vaginal and/or anal and/or oral penetration, between at least two organisms.


 * It appears that the second one includes oral and anal sex; the first one doesn't. However, "normal" traditional sex is covered by both definitions, which seems a bit redundant. Equinox ◑ 07:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Some authorities consider true sex to only be genital to genital (i.e.penis in vagina). I have heard this stricter, more technical definition on sex talk shows, so it does exist. Everything else (sense 2 above) would be considered "sexual activity" (by them) Leasnam (talk) 07:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's an RFV issue (no-one's challenging existence are they?) so much as we need a penis-in-vagina definition and one to cover other forms considered intercourse. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Which issue would it be, then? --Hekaheka (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Tea room, RFC or RFD. Personally I'd go with Tea room. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether this is best handled here, or at "sexual". The distinction is carried over into other phrases such as Bill Clinton's notorious "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" - because nothing penetrative happened. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Closed: not an RFV issue. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 12:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)