Template talk:Birth control methods/Archive 1

Archive 1

Where does this go? It seems to be part of a previous conversation...

That all sounds good. On the template, coitus interruptus is considered a form of masturbation by the Catholic Church, and is not part of NFP. Everything else I really like. Lyrl 00:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah... Need alternative heading then in the templates 1st line, How about 'Natural' (meaning as opposed to products or medical). 'Self-administered' or 'User' seem awkward. 'Non-medical' might then imply Condoms are medical, which clearly they are not. David Ruben ^Talk 01:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The 'Natural' heading seems to work. There is even an article natural birth control if you wanted to link to that. Lyrl 01:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah thanks - I had therefore previously assumed Natural Family Planning as being same as Natural birth control - as always thanks for your input, and I shall now add to the relevant articles (we will see have it is received) :-) David Ruben ^Talk 01:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Typography

Is there some significance to the fact that some have () and some have {}? — Omegatron 02:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No - just where I copied the list from I guess. Well spotted - correcting now David Ruben ^Talk 02:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Scope of method inclusion

Separately I think any method undergoing research and not yet on open market in places this English Wikipedia likely to be read (US UK, Ireland, Australia, NZ etc etc) should not be added to this template that in essence is a summary of common & established methods. David Ruben ^Talk 02:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok. As I suggested on your talk page, we might consider putting it on its own "experimental" line.

As a comparison, the HPV vaccine is included in Template:Vaccines, though it is not yet on the market. — Omegatron 02:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Natural Family Planning

Fertility Awareness does not belong under Natural Family Planning. NFP is a religious form of FA. Both methods use several different fertility indicators together to determine fertile/infertile times of a woman's cycle. The only difference is that NFP requires abstinence during fertile times when used for birth control, and FA allows for barrier methods during those times. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 12:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification - a quick review of articles led me to belive only a difference in how fertile time assessed, rather than what is then done. I'll move it back out of NFP :-) David Ruben ^Talk 17:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I've moved FA out from being exclusively NFP, but the remaining items to the right seem more associated with NFP although not exclusively. Is this now more approprate (as all things NFP are acceptable to Natural Birth Control, but clearly not all things NBC ar eacceptable to NFP) as my brain tends to classify things into sets and sub-sets, but do let me know if this is still poorly structured and we can revert back to the plain list :-) David Ruben ^Talk 17:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It's better, but FA includes those things too. I don't know if your categorization implies that. NFP basically is FA, but with further restrictions. Celibacy isn't really part of NFP, either. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 17:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I played around with the organization some more. Feel free to tinker and talk. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib)

• Yes control methods&diff=58424554&oldid=58420620 your edit makes sense. I had rather assumed basal body temp etc might be indirectly obtained via FA, but I think you are correct in adding to the template.
• The Natural methods clearly seem a little long on the line, hence your moving the Avoiding techniques to their own line.
• I remain confused having read Creighton Model as to how this differs from the more general Fertility awareness - is it just that blood tests & ultrasound may be additionally used to more precisely define the fertile window ?
• WIth the new extra line - would moving the Sterilisation techniques up onto the end of the intra-uterine list be better or not. For: template less long. Against: until now each line a distinct class of approach.
  • control methods&oldid=58428450 Option1 - Sterilisation up a line - looks wrong to me
  • control methods&oldid=58428716 Option2 - sterilisation down a line and placed at end of list as supposedly perminant - looks compact and neat, but see general against thought above. David Ruben ^Talk 18:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

FA also includes Basal body temperature (BBT) and cervical position, which are not part of the Creighton Model

However else you want to organize the lines is fine with me

MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 18:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed Natural Family Planning from the list of Natural methods, as Natural Family Planning is not a specific method of birth control. All forms of Natural Family Planning are already listed under Natural. Joie de Vivre 21:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sterilization

Because Wikipedia has only one sterilization article, the template now has three links to the same article (vasectomy and tubal ligation are just redirects). Is this to avoid confusion by users (they can click on whatever they want to)? Lyrl 22:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and also... The table sets out in a structured way a summary of available options (Fertility awareness also lists some of the specific methods listed but is a useful distiguishing term that might be sought by the reader). Also I suspect that the sterilisation article is quite long and in need of splitting - ie issues of sterilisation and consent from partner being or not being required - Also issues if existing child dies, partner widowed or partnership split and later new relationship may all result in requests for reversal of procedure are appropriate to Sterilisation; the specific methods then in their own article. David Ruben ^Talk 02:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Infobox for individual birth control method articles

Let's all work on reaching a consensus for a new infobox to be placed on each individual birth control method's article. I've created one to start with on the Wikipedia Proposed Infoboxes page, so go check it out and get involved in the process. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 12:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Infanticide

I know this is a controversial topic, which is why I'm opening the discussion on the talk page, not by changing the template!

From the infanticide article:

In sociology and biology, infanticide is the practice of intentionally causing the death of an infant of a given species, by members of the same species. In many past societies, certain forms of infanticide were considered permissible, whereas in most modern societies the practice is considered immoral and criminal. Nonetheless, it still takes place — in the Western world usually because of the parent's mental illness or violent behavior, and in some poor countries because of tacit societal acceptance.

As this clearly shows, although infanticide should not be used as birth control, it sometimes is, and definitely has been. I therefore suggest that infanticide be listed in the template. Comments? --Slashme 08:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Disagree - infantacide is merely killing of a child for any reason (if due to parent's mental illness or violent behaviour then it is not a deliberate attempt at limitation of family size). I agree that infanticide specifically for purpose limiting number children has occured in past and probably occurs in some countries to this day (especially where daughters are seen as a burded compared to boys), but I do not think it should be included - it is not a routine practice, it totally fails to meet the topic in question (ie 'Birth control' vs 'Limiting family size' as birth is not controlled nor prevented - the child is still born and infanticide occurs afterwards). Similarly enforced sterilisation of those thought incapable/unworthy of having children (handicaped in some societies & in the past) does not warrant separate inclusion in the table. David Ruben ^Talk 12:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per David Ruben. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usgnus (talk • contribs) 15:57, 18 July 2006
• Also oppose. As infanticide does not prevent birth, it is not 'birth control'. Lyrl ^Talk _Contrib 21:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Size of box

The "Hormonal" line is now so long it wraps around to a partial second line on my monitor. The line spacing is different with the wraparound vs. a formal break, and it looks a little odd.

I'm not sure how to rearrange to make it look better, though. I've played around with it a little bit and haven't come up with anything satisfactory. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 21:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sterilization naming

In response to the recent edit attempting to make Essure its own listing: I, personally, think of "tubal ligation" as physically disconnecting the tubes, whether through cutting or cauterizing or clamping. Blocking of the tubes, as with Essure or with quinacrine, I think of as alternate methods of female sterilization. I gather that the recent editor shared my view.

Perhaps we could rename the links "Female" and "Male" instead of "tubal ligation" and "vasectomy"? Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 22:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Formatting

Looking at the other entries under Drug navigational boxes, I discovered several formats that are easier to edit, as well as being visually clearer. I chose a simple format and applied it here. I think it will clear up many of the spacing problems that people have been discussing. Joie de Vivre 21:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Good call. I've tweaked the vertical spacing of the lines by moving each item coded on a sepearate line into single lists. I'm a bit dubious about classifying anti-oetrogens as "non-hormonal" as they work on a hormonal system, albeit as antagonists (opposers) rather than agonists - similar oestrogen in the combined pill is obvious oestrogenic in effects, yet is not its contraceptive effect in part that teh exogenous supply suppresses the normal pituitary-ovarian axis ? I think just terming Ormeloxifene as "anti-estrogenic" is simpler, and also far shorter :-) David Ruben ^Talk 02:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

What I would like to do is have some sort of ordering of reversible/natural through to more interventional hormonal, to postcoital to abortion and sterilisation sequence; currently seems a little jumbled. Also I think Post-coital measues have a sequence of EC to abortion - would also compact down the template by one line. David Ruben ^Talk 02:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I like DavidRuben's ordering. My problems with the previous formatting had actually all been resolved, but I like that this new format is more flexible with regard to future additions.

On the sterilization - should we really includ hysterectomy and castration as birth control options? I know they result in sterility, but does anyone (human) actually go through those procedures for the primary purpose of preventing pregnancy? Similarly with oophorectomy and penectomy - those procedures result in sterility, but are not used for the primary purpose of birth control, and so in my opinion should also not be in this list. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 03:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree Lyrl, not primary purpose and we should remove. Although occasionally is a secondary issue, eg for those with heavy (menorrhagia) or painful (dyspareunia) periods, if they also wish to have perminant birth control then this may be final part of decission on treatment approach. Likewise for younger women requring hysterectomy, the issue of resulting infertility can be huge issue (e.g. cancer, or in catastrophic haemorrhaging following miscarriage or birth) - but we're not including the sterilisation effects of chemotherapy here either David Ruben ^Talk 04:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Celibacy

The logic used in removing hysterectomy and castration from the list was that birth control is a side effect of these operations. In accordance with this logic, I have removed Celibacy from this list, leaving Sexual abstinence. Certainly, some people might maintain sexual abstinence primarily for birth control. However, if you look at the Celibacy main article, birth control is not listed as one of the primary reasons for maintaining celibacy. The state of celibacy is associated with deep religious, social, or personal convictions which are unrelated to birth control. As in the case of hysterectomy or castration, birth control seems to be a side effect of celibacy. Sexual abstinence is a more accurate description of the behavior of those who abstain from sex primarily for birth control, and it remains in the list. Joie de Vivre 19:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Behavioral vs. Physical

I see there being a major distinction between physical and behavioral methods of birth control, a distinction supported in the listing of methods in the Birth Control main article. Physical birth control methods work to physically interfere with fertility, fertilization or conception. Behavioral (including "natural") birth control methods make no change to fertility, but require users to manage or halt their sexual behavior in order to avoid conception. This distinction is currently reflected by placing the Behavioral methods at bottom. Joie de Vivre 18:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

As explained by DavidRuben (above), there is logic in listing the methods with most invasive/permanent at one end and least invasive/most reversible at the other. I don't care which one is on top vs. bottom, but I do not understand why all the other classes would be listed one direction (barrier - minimally invasive/rapidly reverisible -> sterilization - irreversible), and the behavoiral methods (least invasive of all/just as reversible as barrier) would be listed out of order. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 22:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

One of the reasons I set them apart is that I don't think it's possible to determine empirically how "invasive" a behavioral method is. Consider that some fertility awareness users choose abstinence during the fertile period. While these people may find it natural and comfortable to abstain from intercourse for over a week out of every month, others may find that proposal to be so 'invasive' as to be impossible. Another example: I would guess that most sexually active adults would find maintaining abstinence to be enormously "invasive", when compared to the use of the birth control pill. Yet your proposed ordering would label abstinence less invasive than the Pill.

Determining how invasive the physical methods are is fairly straightforward. However, the extent to which a behavioral method is considered 'invasive' is entirely dependent on the individual. Opinions vary too widely to categorize behavioral methods this way.

Also, importantly, the fact that these methods are immediately reversible does not mean that they are 'less invasive' than other methods. The required modifications to behavior will seem minimally invasive to some and hugely invasive to others. This is another reason that I prefer to see the behavioral methods set apart in a separate section. I am learning more about coding templates and hopefully will soon be able to make this distinction more visibly clear. Joie de Vivre 00:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no opinion on them behavoiral methods being set apart. I don't see any benefit to isolating them further than just on their own line, but don't see any harm in it, either. I also have no opinion on whether they are on top or bottom of the infobox. But if the rest of the list is ordered with respect to physical invasiveness and reversibility, putting behavoiral methods next to sterilization looks odd and is something I oppose. If the rest of the list is ordered in a different way (alphabetically?) then my opinion might be different.

Psychological "invasiveness", a.k.a. acceptability of a method to a particular couple, varies widely - and this is not only true of behavoiral methods, but of physical methods as well. But physical invasiveness is easy to measure. While many couples may find sterilization, for example, less invasive to their sex life than barrier methods, we seem to have agreed that, physically, surgery is more invasive than barriers, and ordered the list appropriately. Behavoiral methods are most similar to barriers with respect to reversibility - every sex act has the choice of whether to use the method or not. Unlike systemic methods, and to a greater extent IUDs, and ultimately sterilization. Because they are most similar to barriers both in terms of reversibility and physical invasiveness, behavoiral methods should be placed next to barriers, not sterilization, in the list. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 00:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I see behavioral methods as an entirely separate class of birth control methods than the physical methods. Behavioral methods require making changes to sexual behavior or abstaining from it entirely. I realize that the current formatting does not clearly visibly reflect this, but I feel the physical distinction is important. Joie de Vivre 13:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the fact that abstinence requires abstaining from intercourse is rather obvious. Or that pulling out requires a man to pull out. I fail to see why this means similarities and differences in other characteristics of the methods should be completely ignored.

I also believe Joie de Vivre's absolute seperation of behavoiral methods from all other methods (rather than just using it as a classification, similar to hormonal methods being classed under "hormonal") is rather unique. I have not seen behavoiral methods presented in this way, and would be curious if Joie de Vivre could present a source. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 00:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, people have no objection to the distinction between Physical and Behavioral methods in the Birth Control main article. It is useful to distinguish those methods which physically interfere with fertility or pregnancy, and those that require fertile people to change their sexual behavior in order to work around their existing fertility. Judging by sheer numbers, it seems that most sexually active people find the requirements of behavioral methods to be incompatible with their lifestyle. I think most people can readily make a distinction between methods that involve a chemical, device, or surgical procedure, and methods that involve a set of behavioral controls. I think that that maintaining this distinction is quite useful, especially, as you stated below (under header "Natural"), if people may use this infobox to view and select a method that they can use. Joie de Vivre 18:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Are classes of methods in this list listed in a particular order? Is there a reason for barrier methods to be near one end, hormonal methods in the middle, and sterilization at the other end?

I believe the current ordering of the list tries to reflect the physical invasiveness, side effect levels, and reversibility of the different classes of methods. Methods with similar levels of such characteristics are listed next to each other (hormonal, centchroman, IUS can all have systemic effects; barrier and hormonal can be discontinued at user discretion; IUD, IUS, abortion, sterilization all involve inserting things into the uterus, etc.) Except for behavoiral methods, which are currently listed next to sterilization.

If the list is ordered as I described above, I do not understand why behavoiral methods should be listed next to sterilization. If it is not so ordered, then I propose we rearrange the methods to make it clear that similarities between methods are not implied by the ordering of the list. A possible order would be Intra-uterine, barrier, anti-estrogen, post-intercourse, sterilization, hormonal, behavoiral. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 00:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to deliberately shuffle away what order we have created. I am currently learning more about templates and formatting so that this can be resolved. Joie de Vivre 20:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

"Natural"

Faithfully[sic] following the Neutral point of view (NPOV) official Wikipedia policy, this template highlights Natural Family Planning as "Natural" (even if a digital basal body temperature thermometer, a commercial ovulation predictor kit, and a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet or PDA program is used to intentionally plan to have non-procreative sex).

As clearly explained by The Couple to Couple League:

(founded in 1971 to teach NFP to married and engaged couples in response to Pope Paul VI's recommendation that married couples help other married couples with Natural Family Planning when he reaffirmed the traditional Christian teaching against unnatural forms of birth control in 1968 through his encyclical Humanae Vitae) [1]

Contraception is "unnatural by definition in that the sexual act is inherently procreative, or at least should not be altered in such a way as to prevent the natural consequence of possible pregnancy."[2]

Following the official Church teaching of its celibate Latin Rite Popes, this template should note that coitus interruptus/Onanism is contraception, unnatural, and a mortal sin.

This (NPOV) template should not merely highlight that ONLY abstinence (or periodic abstinence provided it does not lower "the number of births in their family below the morally correct level") and lactational amenorrhea are Natural, it should also explicitly highlight ALL contraception as Unnatural. 68.255.17.155 21:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your labeling. "Natural birth control" is a term which generally refers to birth control methods which do not involve the use of chemicals or devices. The main article for that term is explicitly clear in stating that "proponents of the Catholic concept of natural family planning define 'natural' somewhat differently...". This differentiation of the various usages of the term supports the usage of the phrase "natural birth control" outside of the more specific Catholic definition. To put it more clearly, using the word "natural" does not necessarily specifically refer to the Catholic definition. Therefore, this usage does not create license for labeling everything else "unnatural". Joie de Vivre 22:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your labeling. It is superfluous and WP:POV to label only behavioral methods as "Natural", thereby implying other methods are "Unnatural". 68.255.17.155 22:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

"Unnatural act" is not the opposite of "natural birth control" in this usage. As I already explained, the word "natural" can be used simply to signify that these methods do not involve the use of chemicals or devices. Including this word allows us to provide a Wikilink to the Natural birth control article, which more fully details this term's various usages and meanings. Please do not reinstate your edits; it is visually disruptive and POV to label the other methods with a Wikilink to "Unnatural act". Joie de Vivre 23:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't find the link to "natural birth control" useful. I also see how labeling some methods natural (which, although intended to be neutral, does have a positive connotation) will be seen by some people as implying other methods are unnatural. Considering the non-utility of the "natural" wikilink, I support removing this minor POV from the list. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 00:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that the distinction is not useful. The link to natural birth control provides additional information about herbs which may be useful, also experimental heat-based contraception, as well as information which clarifies the Catholic usage of the word "natural". Also, I don't view the other methods as being implicitly labeled "unnatural" when the "natural" label is used. I see the distinction as being between natural and artificial methods, which carries a neutral connotation. Joie de Vivre 13:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If experimental (such as heat-based) methods are useful to this list, then should male contraceptive be in it? Or the specific research areas of male contraception, such as RISUG?

My impression of the list had previously been that it was aimed at people looking for actively available methods, that they could decide they liked and then go use. I'm unsure what the target audience is for including experimental methods.

As far as NFP definitions, those are in the main birth control article, the FA article, and the Rhythm article. I'm not convinced a fourth link with an NFP definition is more helpful than the first three.

Artificial (from Wiktionary). While the first definition of artificial is neutral, the second and third definitions carry negative connotations. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 00:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

If you find the title of the Natural birth control article to be offensive, or if you find the concept in and of itself to be offensive, your options are to change the article or nominate it for deletion. The fact that you take offense with the label or the concept does not mean that it should be stricken from this list. I agree that the experimental methods should not be listed in the infobox, but I do not agree that the link should be removed. Joie de Vivre 18:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

In the context of the article, the neutral definition is clear - there is an entire article's worth of text explaining how the term is being used. In the context of a listing in this template, users will bring their own POV when interpreting what it means. Some users will legitimately see the less common definitions of natural's opposite, "artificial". So there is a minor POV in listing the "natural birth control" article.

Because this is not a major POV (the most common definition of "artificial" is neutral), the benefits of the listing can be weighed against the number of users that will see the POV. I see no benefits in having the "natural" listing. With no benefits, and a minor POV, the decision should be to remove it. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 00:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it should remain, but I see your point. Joie de Vivre 20:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Creighton model, Billings ovulation method

I removed these specific types of FA because Fertility Awareness is the term used to describe these methods, and a link is provided to this article. I agree that these methods should be given attention, but I feel that the Fertility Awareness main page is a better place to do so. I have requested, on that Talk page, that Lyrl or other knowledgeable users will help to make the FA article a centralized location where the various FA methods are compared and contrasted. Joie de Vivre 14:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Motivation for sexual behavior

Is desire to avoid pregnancy a primary motivation for anal sex, oral sex, or masturbation? Also, these methods may also be included within the topic of outercourse, as Planned Parenthood does. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 01:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It is held that some people choose to maintain abstinence, avoiding all sexual activity for the purpose of birth control. The main article supports that some people may avoid only certain kinds of sexual activity for the purpose of birth control, as does the above Planned Parenthood link that you provided.

Your second concern: Wikipedia's definition of outercourse differs from Planned Parenthood's; stating that outercourse refers to sex without vaginal or anal penetration, with oral sex debated as to whether it is outercourse or intercourse. Legally, forced oral sex, vaginal sex and anal sex are all considered rape, meaning that in a legal context, oral sex is considered to be a form of intercourse. Solo masturbation is not listed as a form of outercourse, as outercourse is generally considered to be conducted with a partner. Like abstinence, solo masturbation does not involve a partner, but may be considered a form of birth control if practiced instead of intercourse. Joie de Vivre 18:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

My main concern is that there are bound to be people offended by the listing of these terms. Especially the anal sex. I consider myself to be pretty open about sexuality, but I was taken aback by seeing anal sex in the template. Other sources do not list these methods as primary level descriptions - they are not listed in the table of contents of the Wikipedia birth control article, and they are not listed individually in the Planned Parenthood link. Both places discuss the methods, but under sub-headings. I'm seeking to make sure there are no such alternative, less in-your-face ways of including these activities - that the shock value for readers is justified.

The articles on anal sex, oral sex, or masturbation do not really address the use of these methods for avoiding pregnancy. They mention that some people use it for that reason, and leave it at that. I'm not sure that these articles should be expanded in that direction, either - I don't believe the desire to avoid pregnancy is the primary motivation of most people engaging in these activities. So I'm not sure the links to these article are useful, from a birth-control standpoint.

Back to the first point, Wikipedia's definitions are mutable. The abstinence article already has several mentions of the debate over whether "abstinence" means avoiding all sexual activity, or only penile-vaginal sex. Even in the opening line it says "...refraining from some or all aspects of sexual activity." The possibility that rises in alternative sexual activities are driven by abstinence-only propaganda is discussed. The Wikipedia article currently focuses on oral sex, but there are certainly sources discussing anal sex from which more material could be added. There are sources that consider solo masturbation possibly consistent with being abstinent [3] which could also be added to the article.

Similar inclusiveness can be put in the outercourse article. Anal sex (per PP, above) and mutual masturbation ([4]) can easily be added to the list, with similar disclaimers as are currently there for oral sex.

I'm not currently convinced that the direct links to the anal sex, oral sex, and masturbation articles are necessary or beneficial to this template. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 01:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I already pared it down as much as I could. The items you listed cannot be put under "outercourse" -- anal sex is intercourse, not outercourse. Outercourse is conducted with a partner, making it separate from masturbation. Most definitions of outercourse exclude oral sex, due to the disease risk.

Listing certain sexual practices as an alternative to vaginal intercourse is not inherently any more offensive than listing that fertile adults may choose to refrain from acting on their desire for sexual contact. Joie de Vivre 20:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article sexual intercourse only covers penile-vaginal intercourse. It does not cover anal sex. The conflict between definitions can certainly be discussed in the outercourse article. Describing forms of sexual activity is inherently more graphic than describing a lack of sexual activity. Lyrl ^Talk _C 21:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1