Talk:Foreplay

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
High traffic

On 24 October 2007, Foreplay was linked from xkcd, a high-traffic website. (See visitor traffic)

All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.

WikiProject Sexology and sexuality (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

foreplay[edit]

This article needs to be partially rewritten - not all of these activities are a prelude to intercourse. For a gay or lesbian couple (and, though I'm not an expert, I assume for some straight couples too), oral sex can constitute the "main event," if you want. I would rewrite it, but I'm going to bed. (Alone, smart mouth.) - Montréalais

What about sucking and light nipping of breasts? 24.54.208.177 02:13, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, if you're in a relationship that's still progressing, whatever point you reach before calling a halt is, by default, the "main event". -MBlume 18:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

are the last two paragraphs ok??

I've removed the junk. TPK 18:09, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Reverted POV additions[edit]

I don't know if the additions made by the anonymous author where serious additions or not but they where certainly not either POV or in some cases accurate. Describing sex as a violent act or referring to "overt and dirty" sexual acts is not POV. That foreplay is always intended to bring about a "screaming" orgasm (as opposed to a less vocal orgasm) is inaccurate. The rest of the added words create similar problems. --Cab88 16:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Inhibition and Comfort[edit]

In the second paragraph "Psychologically, foreplay lowers inhibitions and increases the emotional comfort of the partners"

I am now thoroughly convinced that foreplay is essentially this - to lower inhibition and increase comfort. But inhibition and comfort are too mild to properly describe the importance of foreplay as a prelude to intercourse. Its essential role is to reduce fear. Fear of a stranger in some cases, fear of invading personal space, fear of penetration or castration, perhaps fear of pain and fear of the unknown (particularly for virgins both male and females), but also fear of being a personal or socially proscribed activity. Shyness is a fear too (I say a fear of saying Hello) so even going so far as making the introductory moves towards foreplay is a fear to be overcome.

Unless these fears are properly resolved before intercourse it may actually be unpleasurable or painful, and further more may lead to a more pathological, general fear of the opposite sex or even intercourse. This is the case when there is little or no foreplay accompanied by threats of harm or helplessness as in the case of rape.

But as some people fear the thrills of the big dipper rides others find them enjoyable, so it seems that some people find the fear of helplessness, as in bondage, enjoyable part of foreplay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.32.87.250 (talk) 19:12, 14 September 2006

Eh, I disagree. As a female, the only reason I want foreplay is because if I'm not aroused before sex, god it hurts. People who are "good to go" don't normally bother with it. 128.84.58.89 13:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
There is a distinction to be made in courting, which is seeking a mate with whom to establish a long-term relationship (for the purposes of reproduction – sex and children), and foreplay (sex only). An example is two neighbours already in established relationships, who wink with a view to some "extra-marital" or occasional sex and no view to establishing a long term relationship. In this case there is a risk, a fear, that discovery will disturb or destroy the existing relationship and responsibilities if there are children. The distinction between courtship and foreplay though is not necessarily mutually exclusive. While courting, foreplay may seen as opportunistic - you may get lucky. Here though one is more careful not to upset the primary goal of establishing a longer-term relationship. But then again opportunity may be the essence of all foreplay - wink and see if there is any chance of taking things further.
The issue of pain is not necessarily straightforward. Not all pain is conscious. And memory of pain is greater than the memory of pleasure. Within long-term relationship the role of foreplay in fear reduction is often largely not considered at all, so if pain or fear (physical or psychological – conscious or unconscious or imagined – personal or social in origin), comes with sex then there are serious risks not only to a maturing and growing sexual intimacy but to the relationship generally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.11.233.243 (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2006
"Not all pain is conscious." WTF? How do you define "pain" then? This is a bunch of bullshit. 128.84.58.89 13:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Exkayceedee[edit]

Looks like my external reference to the xkcd page was removed. I thought it was noteworthy enough to at least mention at the bottom of the page, but others apparently disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.42.107 (talk) 05:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This huge template at the top better then? --Kizor 10:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It's funny! This wiki page deserves a bit of fun, if any does! Here it is, for posterity: http://xkcd.com/333/ and it's even creative-commons licensed! Emrys2 06:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Randall kicks ass. 70.250.112.231 05:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The page doesn't deserve that link I believe. The discussion page does, just so people would know why there are so many edits today. – b_jonas 11:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm a fan of the XKCD comic, but it doesn't even deserve a link on the page, it doesn't add anything to the discussion of foreplay. I'm taking it off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.94.238 (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree, by the way. It's sort of become funny how every time I draw a comic about something, it gets added to the Wikipedia article about that subject. Sometimes it's actually noteworthy (like when I used the Hilbert curve to represent the IPv4 space) but generally it's not. And sorry for any vandalism :) If anything, I expect my mention will lead to some needed cleanup. --Xkcd 16:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)xkcd


Agreed. XKCD, while cool, adds nothing to this article. Keep it off. 198.49.81.33 15:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that if the vandalism continues, the page should be locked for a day or two. 198.49.81.33 15:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Disagree, XKCD! I love your work! Thank you! BUT The xkcd cartoon depicts a geek who prefers wikipedia to having fun. He literally turns away from having fun to browse wiki. And here we geeks are on wiki solemnly agreeing to turn fun away from wikipedia. This cartoon, and this talk page, is so full of irony that entire PhD theses will be written about it! Put the cartoon on the entry page! But maybe the page should be locked for a few days. Emrys2 17:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I love XKCD, and loved the comic, but it has no place on this wikipedia entry. This entry is about foreplay, not about cartoons that reference the foreplay article. The infobox at the top of this talk page lets people who are interested know it was referenced inXKCD, but doesn't add irrelevant information to the article for people who are here researching foreplay. Improbcat 17:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the comic be there just for people using wikipedia to research foreplay as a warning to them that there's something wrong with them? :-) Hansonc 18:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Nope, Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook. Thanks to all the XKCD related vandalism, this article has been protected by an admin from editing. Improbcat 18:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I smell a SIHULM in the works. In any case, I fully-protected it because registered accounts were also being reverted for the XKCD stuff. I'm keeping an eye on it in case it pops up again. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 22:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Protection Should Be Lifted[edit]

Yesterday, this page was featured on XKCD, a high-traffic website. This sent a lot of eyes over to this page, and resulted in a *lot* of edits, most of them unproductive. This has led some admins to choose to protect the page. However, if we take a moment to compare the state of the page when it was protected to that before the comic was posted, it is easy to see that the page was improved, markedly, in those 15 hours. It is now a more polished, more professional article than it was before the comic appeared. And it is easy to see why this is the case. Wikipedia is coated in teflon - nothing sticks to it. Every act of vandalism was corrected by editors almost immediately. At the same time, the mention on the comic brought eyeballs to the page who weren't interested in vandalism, but could see things in the page that could be changed for the better. Though the acts of vandalism drastically outnumbered the productive edits, the vandalism was reverted, all of it, easilly, and we now have a better page than we had before. I firmly believe that we would have an even better page now if the page had never been protected.

When articles are featured on the Wikipedia front page, it leads to a large amount of traffic, and, inevitably, a large amount of vandalism. However, the articles are seldom protected, because the vandalism is easilly corrected, and the end result of all the attention to the article is positive. I think that when an external site directs attention to a Wikipedia page, we are wasting an oppurtunity if we do not respond in the same way. Looking back through the history, there have been few time periods in which the page has undergone as much improvement as it has as a result of the XKCD mention, and certainly none taking place in only 15 hours. If the protection were lifted right now, it might result in the article looking a bit odd from time to time in the coming hours and days, but it will result in a better article a week from now. It will benefit the long-term health of the Wikipedia project, and that should be our top priority.

MBlume 22:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe whenever a wikipedia article needs editing, Randall should draw a comic about somebody consulting it. --131.193.179.146 07:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
That would be kind of awesome actually ^^ --MBlume 08:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
"it might result in the article looking a bit odd from time to time in the coming hours and days, but it will result in a better article a week from now" It could in fact be interesting to have a "self removing edit" feature in wikipedia, the first sensible person to edit some piece of "news vandalism" could simply turn it into a self-removing part. The "news vandals" would be pacified (they see the item they want in the page and therefore won't edit) and the sensible persons will not waste more time on it because they know it will disappear. But, oh, just think of the abuse possibilities (they just have to be out there somewhere, there goes another idea...) 88.65.216.229 02:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: "citation needed"[edit]

In my opinion, that little macro is yelling for vandalism. "[1] Your momma!" anyone? It also seems that having the macro at the end of a paragraph triggers a bug in the parser. (88.235.173.69 16:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC))

As I recall, the MLA does have a format for citing information gained in a personal interview. -MBlume 18:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

OR[edit]

I added the {{OR}} tag back because not only is its section unsourced, I suspect it was written as an ad hoc essay, based on its terminology and style. Surely it is not difficult to find a source upon which the description can be based. Squee23 19:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

New study[edit]

Appparently, according to a new study in the Prague university of Charles, there is a result that foreplay for women has no effect on the orgasm, and that the single determinative factor is duration of coitus. I have trouble accepting this as a wholly well controlled study, because as presented on the (admittedly superficial) tabloids, it seems the focus is on two factors that have many undrelying issues affecting them... Really I have no idea if the study has any relevance to the subject, but just letting folks know this study is out there... -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 13:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Anthropocentric?[edit]

Shouldn't this article talk about foreplay in other animals too? Dogs (http://scholar.google.co.in/scholar?q=foreplay+in+dogs&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=on) for example. -- Sundar \talk \contribs

Agree; I am trying to find an appropriate link for mutual grooming as a precoital activity -- 'coital' won't do! ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 01:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Why does "contrectation" redirect here?[edit]

Term not used or explained in article. 86.159.197.174 (talk) 03:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Tantra principles....[edit]

...say nothing about there only having to be TWO people. Hopehoppy (talk) 18:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Hopehoppy, as you know, I already commented on your talk page. I will not be taking your word on anything regarding tantra or tantric sex. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Me neither. If he wants to edit-war, let him. --Para Forts (talk) 18:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Foreplay. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 23:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

nope, nope, nope, nope[edit]

Thankfully, this page is brief — presently; certainly it has potential to become a fancruft pile — because it's flawed to the root.

  • The key term foreplay is never clearly & concisely defined.
  • Recognition of the concept is not ascribed to some credible outside source.

Lacking definition, the page is a rather random assortment of "things that someone once said aroused someone's interest in sex/love/romance/marriage." For instance, the half-naked girl (cute though she is) is most certainly NOT demonstrating "foreplay," any more than every stripper and streaker and calendar model and porn actor and good-looking person who's stepped out in public.

If showing off in a quasisexual/erotic manner is foreplay, then where's the sex?

If nobody orgasms, is the setup still "foreplay"? Explain the answer fully.

If an attractive woman gives me her number at a party, but we never meet again, was that "foreplay"? If we happen to meet years later, and engage (once) in sex, does that initial contact retroactively become foreplay?

And as addressed above: if the sex to which the "foreplay" is leading is not standard PIV, then what is it that the play is happening before? Is it being presented here that (say) masturbating each other "isn't really sex" and if so are we now allowed to do it in public?
Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Foreplay&oldid=924627349"