Talk:69 (sex position)

Misc

• I propose deleting the last two sentences of the second paragraph, as they are a) poorly written and b) shoehorned into the text with little context or applicability. They only make sense in this article in the context of a "Advantages and Disadvantages" subsection, such as that in the Missionary Position article. Lacking such a section, I believe they interrupt the flow of thought and contribute nothing of value to the discussion and are as such unnecessary. Nonstopdrivel 21:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think that the "Advantages and Disadvantages" sections that a bunch of these articles have are pretty stupid, especially since they are probably all V:OR. However, the sentences you refer to do seem to have actual information in them which is not just someone's opinion. I'd rather see them massaged into a better state than deleted outright. --Strait 20:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I can work them into shape in terms of tone and style, but they still seem appended there without any context. Maybe they belong in their own paragraph with some sort of transitional clause. I think a citation would also be useful. I agree that the "Advantages and Disadvantages" sections are stupid, but thus far I've refrained from outright deleting sections of articles, preferring the role of a stylistic editor. I vastly improved the "A&D" section of the Missionary Position article, if I do say so myself. Nonstopdrivel 00:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I have accordingly rearranged and reworded the sentences to improve flow. Moreover, I have consolidated the reference to "68" into the paragraph by relating it to the obstacle of concentrating on giving while receiving. While it was in its own paragraph, it seemed to be hanging and its relevance was questionable. Now the entire passage feels more cohesive, IMHO. Nonstopdrivel 00:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Might it not be more general for the image to depict heterosexual intercourse?

Nah, how about some video though? 69.22.126.20 15:39, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not really - the image would be no clearer as to what the 69-position is if one of the participants lacked breasts. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 15:53, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

69.22.126.20, I second that.

The downside is that the picture might compel someone unfamiliar with 69 into thinking that it's just for women.

I'm pretty sure men will figure out that they can get into that mix too. —rebug (talk) 05:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Some mention should also be made of 69 double rimming, or mutual analingus; because 69 is not always mouth to genitals.

• Best way to sum it up is, 69 is a fine way to have sex and trust me i would know bescause i do it alot!

I have requested my new image shown across replace the image of two lesbians in the oral sex article which is the same one which is used here. I'd make the same suggestion for this page to. I've tried to make this (which is one of a set of three diagrams) less shocking than the original ones created by User:Rama. I've also made it so that although the gender of the top person is clearly female, the bottom person is not so obvious. It could easily be male or female and I leave it up to the reader to decide what gender they want to read into it. The diagrams are a little more medical and a little less pornographic than the originals. If there is consensus that a change is in the best interest of this article then I will go ahead and do it at the end of this week. --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 08:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

as there has been no opposition to this move and also now that this image has been adopted on the oral sex article I have ammended it here aswell. I have replaced the lesbian image with a gender impartial one to fit in line with the oral sex article. Equally whilst we all appreciate the efforts of User:Rama who drew the original image (he has contributed over 1% of the entire commons library of images), I believe this one is more helpful to the article and slightly more aesthetic.

Pop culture references

For some of these, it's not so obvious that they refer to the sex position. Maybe they should be moved to 69 (number).--Army1987 19:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

funny

Am I the only one who finds the quotations marks around "nonsexual" for the north-south demonstration picture hilarious?

Don't forget the auxiliary "77" - Just like 69 but you get "8" more...

Or how's about 96? It's just like 69, but you do it back-to-back, and it takes another couple.

69.175.141.196 15:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Jos. S. Theragman

don't get me wrong...

this article is great. but seriously... some of this stuff clearly does not belong.

As well as 6 and 9 being the same digit rotated 180 degrees, they are also binary complements:
6 = 0110
9 = 1001

Are you kidding me? I almost want to look through the history to figure out which nerd decided to sneak that in. While interesting, this "fact" is totally irrelevant to the sex act. Shy 07:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC) I agree. Removed it. --Army1987 10:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

seriously now, a lot of people could find that backwards meaning fascinating. it is basically saying the same as how 6 and 9 are related in a complementary sense, but it works in a base two as well. Mathmo ^Talk 07:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

While the binary elaboration is a cute excercise in numerology, it is also original research. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 10:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

original research?! Nope, not me! Mathmo ^Talk 15:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

merge

Is there some reason this article exists separate from oral sex? I didn't find anything in the talk archives there to jhustify splitting this out, and to be honest most of this article is original research, unrelated anecdotes, and duplication of the section in the Oral sex article. I've recommended that they be merged, with a redirect here to aid the search engines. -- nae'blis 15:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Bizarre category

Was there a good reason for this article to be categorised as a sexuality-related list, or is there some mistake? Dev920 (Tory?) 22:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It appeares under "LIST OF SEX POSITIONS" in the sexuality-related list, so there is a somewhat good reason. -Diabolos 22:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's bizzare, because it is not a list. All of the other things in that category are lists. I have removed it. --Strait 23:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Good, I didn't think it was just me. :) Dev920 (Tory?) 07:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

References in popular culture

While I will agree that the article reads better in its current state, I am still at a loss as to why these topics merit their own encyclopedic entries to begin with. In any normal encyclopedia, names of sexual positions would merit only a "See also . . ." heading, with discussion of the various positions being confined to the main article on Sex, Sexual Intercourse, Human Sexuality, or what have you. I believe in time these numerous short articles on sexual positions (most of which are headed with "slangy" terms anyway) should be consolidated under a heading at least as general as "Sexual Positions" and possibly something more encompassing, such as those mentioned above. Nonstopdrivel 19:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I am removing this section as it is completely irrelevant and unreferenced. It is basically a trivia section that attracts cruft and original research. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm open to your opinion that it is irrelevant and unreferenced. Why do you suppose that a dozen or more people added those in? Maybe because they had an interest, and it was related in some manner. Sure, some of them could go with little difficulty. None of them are truely encylopedic, but it does little harm to let general interest references remain for those who have a differing opinion that you. Atom 21:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

People add onto it because it is, in effect, a giant banner that screams "Hey! Add irrelevant, content-free trivia here!" And it definitely does harm Wikipedia to add irrelevant, unreferenced, unencyclopedic material, see WP:V, WP:AVTRIV, WP:NOT, WP:OR etc. Now I appreciate your openness to my opinion, but what in the world does that mean? Do you agree that this content is irrelevant and unreferenced, and if so, why keep it? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is trivial, but much of it is related. Social usage sometimes indicates things about a term. I don't believe that an encyclopedia need be cold and sterile. wp:V doesn't really apply as there is a number of other things mentioned in the article that does not has specific references. Also, some of this "trivia" probably could be cited. WP:AVTRIV is not a policy, it is a manual of style, and a guideline. It says quite clearly "avoid". It does not say "not permitted". The same guideline says "Lists of trivia can be useful for developing a new article, as it sets a low bar for novice contributors to add information without having to keep in mind article organization or presentation - just tack a new fact on to the list. However, as articles grow, these lists become increasingly disorganized and difficult to read." So, when this article becomes more than a stub, maybe we can weed out the trivia as more interesting facts will be in the actual article itself. WP:NOT makes no reference to it, and [[wp:OR] applies to theories, opinions, and research developed for wikipedia. In this case, many of these are facts, intended to be interesting to the reader. Frankly I think you are working to hard on to unimportant an article. If this were a more expansive article, about a different subject, such as say george bush that might be less appropriate. And, per the guidelines, less appropriate for a more fleshed our article. Atom 01:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, WP:NOT is the most pertinent one: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Using the logic that a poorly referenced list of cruft will help add to the actual content of the stub is misguided - it will only add more poorly referenced cruft. Most edits to this article are indeed to the ill-titled "references in popular culture" section, if it is removed passers-by might actually feel inclined to add to the substance of the article, rather than tack on another entry to the laundry list. If one were to write a paragraph of prose on the significance of the 69 position in popular culture and use one or two specific examples, however, then the article would be enriched. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, our readings differ. I view indiscriminate as "deficient in discrimination and discernment". I had thought that the trivia was, in each case, related to the topic of the article, rather than unrelated. Hence my view that WP:NOT was not applicable in thie case.

"Using the logic that a poorly referenced list of cruft will help add to the actual content of the stub is misguided" Perhaps you are correct, but it was the guidelines you quoted (WP:AVTRIV) that indicated that.

"If one were to write a paragraph of prose on the significance of the 69 position in popular culture and use one or two specific examples, however, then the article would be enriched." Indeed, it might, but that would be what is called "original research", not allowed by WP:OR.

Atom 01:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Indiscriminate collection of information as in "69, dudes!" from Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure or The 69 Eyes horror-rock schlocks from Finland. As in completely and utterly useless and uninformative. As in irrelevant. As in not belonging within ten feet of an encyclopedia. That's my reading, ya dig?

As for the sensical solution, the paragraph on cultural relevance, as long as it is descriptive and referenced, it would not be original research. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• LOL* Well, "Bill & Ted" are pretty much the definition of "indiscriminate", so I won't argue that one. I'll give you that a little trimming would not hurt. I admit that they could all go without reducing the quality of the article substantially. I'm just open to a little trivia if it draws others. Since it really is of little consequence, there is no need to draw out the discussion any longer really. Consider that there are others who may find other things valuable about Wikipedia than what you or I do. Best regards, Atom 02:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Anetode that the trivia section wasn't adding much to the article. Nandesuka 03:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Saboteur

It would appear from a scan of the recent history that we have a saboteur on our hands. Too bad there isn't a way to ban IP addresses for activity like this. I can't stand cowards who play pranks under the cover of anonymity. Some of us have tried really hard to make this article presentable and their actions only bring down the quality of this community. Ah, well, a natural disadvantage of a "group-think" model such as Wikipedia. Nonstopdrivel 23:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You're likely to see a lot of childish vandalism on this page. IP addresses that vandalize persistently can be blocked from editing. For more information, see Wikipedia:Vandalism, Help:Reverting and Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I submit that vandalous changes should be reverted as opposed to edited out, as this will make it more apparent to would-be editors that these are indeed examples of vandalism and not poor writing on the part of the editors. Nonstopdrivel 06:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Kipling

The line from Kipling ("There are nine and sixty ways/Of writing tribal lays/And every single one of them is right!") is about poetry, not sexual practices. I have therefore deleted the reference.

Agemegos 13:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point. I always thought the allusion was a weak one at best, but I wasn't familiar enough with the passage to feel justified in deleting it. This is a hilarious example of a misinterpretation of the word "lays." Thanks for clarifying the issue for us. -- Nonstopdrivel 11:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Importance Scale Rating

I question why this article is rated as 'High' on the importance scale. I fail to see how this particular article is that significant and I don't believe the probability of the average Wikipedia user needing to look up the topic covered by the article is high. Yossarianisdead 04:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)