Talk:Frot/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Anecdotal STI transmission [comment not by Bill Weintraub]

I have a close friend who - without any doubt - contracted penile gonorrhea from frot or oral. The other partner did not ejaculate but had a visible discharge. There was no penile penetration of the anus and this person never engaged in anal sex. This requires statistical evidence but a major problem in this kind kind of research is separating out behaviors - many people engage in all kinds of sexual acts and do not always self-report accurately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.131.102.6 (talk) 09:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

from "The IP address"

It doesn't matter what people want to hear, you can carry on you work at your own site. Wikipedia is supposed to provide as close to a neutral point of view as possible. Not a good moral point of view, nor a bad destructie point of view, but neutral. The article as I edited it contained an external link to your site, an in text link and a mention of your name. Most people in sex education will say that abrasions, open cuts and semen entering the urethra are to be avoided during any sex, we could, of course simply not discuss the safety/risk of male genito-genital sex specifically if its so controversial. I understand you protectiveness of your term but you are not the sole authority on male-male gg sex, if you prefer you could ask another member to write the article under another name (i.e. Frication_(sex) or Princeton Rub and you could write a subheading describing you your group and your views, or the word frot could simply be avoided.

I wrote nothing about anal sex, I see no need to mention it unless you wish to describe you organization. I wrote nothing about outercourse between men, only heterosexual outercourse. I wrote nothing about sexual orientation, the words gay and bi do not appear in my edits of the page. If you have a problem with my wording please feel free to adjust it. But if you wan't your say on those other topics, please go over to those articles where your comments will be on topic and appropriate.

Bill Weintraub

1. Do you have any documented proof of HIV transmission during Frot?

No, you do not, because if you did, you would have said so.

I have been in touch over the last six years with literally tens of thousands of Frot men.

NONE of them have HIV.

These include many men like myself who had passionate long-term sexual relationships with guys who died of AIDS.

We're all negative.

Which is not surprising.

HIV is a persnickety pathogen.

It requires very specific conditions to infect.

Can you provide any proof of the open wound theory?

I'm not talking about a man placing his penis in an open wound and purposefully ejaculating into it.

That's a bizarre, bug-chasing, scenario and it is not fair to ask us to answer for it.

What I'm talking about is ejaculate flying through the air or flowing down skin and entering a wound.

Can you provide any proof that that's ever resulted in seroconversion?

No.

Rough, tough guys whom we may assume have abrasions on their hands masturbate each other to orgasm all the time, and get ejaculate on each other's hands -- and they do NOT get HIV.

I repeat what I said: You are presenting hypothetical possibilities of an almost infinite remoteness against a huge, known, proven and present danger -- anal penetration.

And that is sickening to me -- literally.

As someone who lost his lover and more than 200 friends to HIV -- it is sickening.

2. Also sickening to me is that I'm having this discussion with an IP address.

Because what this is -- is a star-chamber proceeding.

Nameless faceless people, of whom I and anyone else reading this know nothing -- are making the rules and accusing me.

That should be repellant to any person of decency and good sense.

I am a real person, with a verifiable history, and I'm being in effect put on trial and dictated to by people of whom WE KNOW NOTHING.

I know nothing and the reader knows nothing.

That is wrong, it strikes at the heart of a democratic system, and if the people running Wikipedia do not understand that -- they have a moral blindspot the size of a black hole.

It's appalling.

For example, are you a "safer-sex educator?"

I've been very critical of the "safer-sex" establishment.

Because under that establishment, our MSM HIV infection rates keep rising.

You could be someone from within that establishment whom I've criticized by name -- like Tom Coates.

And who's taking this opportunity to get even.

Far-fetched?

No.

The reason free people demand the right to confront their accusers is so that things like this do not happen.

But Wikipedia doesn't care.

It permits this monstrous and unjust process to go forward.

3. And to top it off, you propose that someone else post for me.

So that my ideas are not under my name.

NO.

That's repugnant to me and again should be to any person of good sense.

I own my work.

I'm not just talking copyright.

I'm talking morally.

That for me is a fundamental moral precept.

If I created it, it's mine, I take responsibility for it.

What my life has been about -- for more than three decades -- is telling the truth about men who have sex with men.

And on a higher plain, men who love men.

And that means including telling the truth about me -- being out, and open, and owning what I say and who I am.

I will not participate in a charade.

I've never done that.

There's something VERY wrong here.

No accountability.

IP address, I think -- I'm not sure -- you're the person who slandered me.

But you don't apologize do you?

Why?

Because you don't have to.

It's the Klan -- we'll put on hoods and go beat up and terrorize and kill and no one will know who we are.

Bill Weintraub


Bill Weintraub - the importance of a topic does not exempt the article or its editors from Wikipedia policies. In particular I'd like to draw both editors' attention to Wikipedia:Three revert rule. Other relevant policies include:

Durova 17:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

"Durova" -- the same things I said apply to you.

Have you no shame?

Bill Weintraub

Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia. By coming here you agree to its rules and you agree to have your content edited. If you aren't comfortable with that then there are plenty of other places where you can retain more control over your content.

Right now there are several problems associated with this article. Some of them have to do with the article itself and some of them have to do with associated user conduct. I like to be supportive of new editors. If you'd like to assume good faith then we can proceed and be productive. Durova 22:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Bill Weintraub

Hi Durova

First a word to IP Address, who said, "you are not the sole authority on male-male gg sex..."

I don't know of any others.

I have a colleague -- Chuck Tarver -- and I am going to, if allowed by the powers that be, add an article of his to the entry:

But Chuck has other interests.

I by contrast have spent six years on Frot, I've been in contact with a huge number of Frot men, and I've collected more than 2,000 internet "oral histories" and statements from men into Frot.

And I've published seven times.

So when it comes to Frot, so far as I know, I'm it.

There are, by the way, indeed many things we (myself and Chuck) don't know which we'd like to know:

  • how many gay-identified men don't do anal?
  • how many gay and bi and other MSM do Frot?
  • why -- why do they choose Frot; and how do they resist the incessant pressure and coercion to do anal?

We've asked people like Coates to look at issues like those, and he won't.

(Tom Coates, who used to be head of the Center for AIDS Prevention Studies (CAPS) at UCSF, and is now at UCLA, is widely regarded as the architect of AIDS prevention programs in the US, and has a lot to say about what gets funded.)

Durova:

1. It's difficult for me to assume good faith when you're using an internet pseudonym.

Because I don't know what biases you bring to this work.

Eric Newton, in his op-ed "Wicked truths about Wikipedia show weakness of online encyclopedia" posted January 11 2006 on the Sun-Sentinel website

said:

"I would not call my holiday trip though the utopian, anonymous society a satisfying one. Wikipedia would be a better place if all users registered. Jimmy Wales has decreed those writing original entries for his free encyclopedia must be identified. Let's name the editors, too. That would help give us the "fair and open" encounter John Milton wrote about so long ago. Only in such a battle, Milton cautioned us, would truth prevail."

I agree with Mr. Newton.

"Let's name the editors, too," says Mr Newton, who, as the article relates, had problems with one of your editors.

Durova, can you tell me what's wrong with a "fair and open" encounter?

Wouldn't that be the case at Britannica, say?

Wouldn't the writer know the name of the editor he or she is dealing with?

And what expertise, if any, the editor brings to the task.

2. This article, at least in its present form, did not originate with me.

As I said earlier, I didn't want a Wiki entry because our work is very controversial, and my experience with message boards is that good faith is the last thing you can assume.

Nevertheless, sometime in December, I believe, someone using the internet pseudonym "Haldrik" or something like it contacted me and said he'd done something here.

So I took a look.

I edited the entry for grammar and style -- he purports to live in a foreign country and presumably is not a native English speaker.

And corrected a few errors.

But basically I changed very little.

I thought he did a good job of covering all the bases in short, summary fashion.

3. You say "we can proceed and be productive."

I'm willing to entertain what you have to suggest.

You can write me here or at bill@man2manalliance.org

I'll be busy most of today -- I can't promise that I'll get back to you before tomorrow.

Bill Weintraub

I'm going to go over some things point by point. I'm not an administrator, just an editor with a pretty high edit count responding to RfC. Check my user history: I'm politically neutral.

1. Encyclopedic value: the strongest thing in this entry's favor is the public health matter of safe sex. This needs to be verifiable. Cite any scientific or medical studies that measure HIV or STD infection rates against this practice.

2. Outside sources: besides scientific studies, cite press reports (magazines, newspapers, etc.) that discuss this in relationship to sexual practices among gay men. If this has become part of safer sex instructions, cite that too.

3. Cautions: Wikipedia has policies against original research and self-promotion, and neologisms. There may be ways for this article to conform with these policies. All external links belong at the bottom of the page in standard Wikipedia format. The tone of the article should be neutral and encyclopedic. Address the neologism issue by citing literature that quotes the new term, and by citing published references to the practice from before this term was invented. Downplay any personal involvement.

4. Consider alternatives: if there isn't enough third party material to support this as a separate article, then consider merging the content with a larger article. The current title "Frot" would redirect searches to the larger article. Another possibility would be a transwiki to Wikitionary, a sister project to Wikipedia.

5. Summary: in its current form this article would be a legitimate candidate for deletion. I'd like to see it corrected and retained, if that's possible. Keeping a positive and cooperative relationship with other editors is one step toward making that happen.

Regards, Durova 15:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


What I ment is that no one is the sole authority on a sex act, there is no official ambassador of cunnelingus or inventor of masturbation, you yourself (directed at Bill Weintraub) say on your site that frottage was common when you came out. I would say that male gg sex deserves an article just as much as anal sex, tribadism, sexual intercourse, oral sex, or mutual masturbation. I simply think it should be structured along the same lines, seperate discussion for homosexulas and heterosuals if necessary but no needless "it doesn't make you gay!" disclaimers (and in return the words gay and bi could be avoided as well in favor of "between men" MSM ect.) some basic discussion of safety from more than one viewpoint with aknowlagement of disagreements, and links to more than one web domain.

-The IP Adresss 1:11 ET 1/15/06

All of that looks reasonable to me. My suggestion is to proceed. Keep as much of the current content as is valid for encyclopedic presentation. If another revert war begins, do your best to discuss it on talk. Proceed to mediation if necessary. It looks like both of you have some good things to contribute to this article. Best wishes, Durova 18:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

No one coined the word "frot" any more than they coined the word "sex". I prefer "frot" or "frottage" as my primary mode of sexual expression, but that doesn't mean that it is completely safe nor necessarily the most pleasurable, nor the most masculine mode of sexual expression between men. And the reason why I prefer anonymity when addressing this subject, is to avoid ad nauseum diatribes and attacks from self-styled, self rightous, "authorities" on the subject. (Anonymous)

Animals

The article mentions bottlenose dolphins and bonobo monkeys. I've also seen documentaries showing play among orca males which involves a number of things (like rubbing along the seabottom) in addition to rubbing that probably conforms to the same sort of behaviour discussed here among dolphins. If I find the source again, I might add it, but I thought I would mention it here. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I added the necessary citation to "Other forms of frot are also common among homosexually active mammals." And yes, the book discusses this behavior in orcas, along with dozens of other species. Artdyke (talk) 01:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

NPOV citation needed for sexual practices of gay men during the 1950's and 1960's

I have removed the citation on this sentence:

Others argued that the popularity of anal sex would decline (presumably with a corresponding drop in HIV rates) if gay men could somehow be persuaded to stop thinking of anal sex as a "vanilla" practice, but rather as something "kinky" and not-quite-respectable—as was the case in the 1950s and 1960s, when homosexual men who preferred to do only mutual masturbation and fellatio sometimes used the mildly disparaging slang term "brownie queen" for aficionados of anal sex.

The former citation pointed to work done by Bill Weintraub who is an avowed frot advocate.

Mijopaalmc (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

We could add "According to Bill Weintraub" and use the source that way. Until we get more sources. Flyer22 (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure where the former citation pointed to, but I've added a citation that goes to a "Gay Today" interview with Weintraub. It's the interviewer Jack Nichols, and not Weintraub, who makes the following remarks:
I remember a time, the 1950s, when anal sex was talked about only in whispers in the nation's capital where I came out at thirteen and grew to be twenty-nine. The 1950s and early 1960s were big on oral sex. People who invited anal sex were called by a pejorative name, "brownie queens." [...] I vividly remember many gay men in those days gossiping with this tidbit: "Well, he's a brownie queen, you know." Anal sex, truly, was not chic.
So Nichol's use seems to provide a confirmation for the historical gay disparagement of anal sex that doesn't come from someone who's clearly a Frot Partisan.
(Edited to add: By the way, I'm "Throbert McGee", although I was logged in through my ru.wikipedia.org account when I originally posted this -- "Роберт МакГи" is not a deliberate attempt at sockpuppetry!) Роберт МакГи (talk) 07:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Is the term "Frot" POV?

I am having a hard time finding references to the term "frot" that do not themselves refer to the work of Bill Weintruab, the Man2Man Alliance, Heroic Homosex, or the g0ys. All these sources have a very specific approach to the relationship among what they call frot, anal sex, and male homosexuality/homosociality. Moreover, the word used to describe the act that the above sources call frot in print publications such as gay sex manuals is invariably "frottage". Therefore, I wonder if titling the article "Frot" present a subtle pro-frot POV. Mijopaalmc (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Mijopaalmc, I would have preferred you waited until the move discussion was over (as I stated above). No need to be in a rush to change this article's title or have it merged. But, yes, for the other editors reading this, the title of this article has been an issue for some time, and was the main issue in its first (and currently only) AfD debate: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frot first nomination). Problems with renaming this article are cited in that and above on this talk page. While the act of male-to-male genital rubbing is notable, such as beyond humans, what to call it if we are to have an article on it has been the main issue. As well as if there should be a separate article on it at all. Flyer22 (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Flyer22-
I'm sorry if I misunderstood your intent in your last post. My intent is not to dispute the notability of "frot" per se, just the titling of the article that discusses male-male genital-genital rubbing. As far as I can discern, "frot" is primarily a slang term and slang terms for sexual acts are not used to title articles (e.g., titty fuck, blow job or eating pussy). I understand the notability of frot as a way of gay men negotiating their sexuality, but I think that an article the main purpose of which is to discuss a sex act such as male-male genital-genital rubbing should be titled as neutrally as possible. I have no objections to having an article entitled "Frot". However, it should be about the way gay men construct their sexuality with reference to anal sex and male-male genital-genital rubbing, not the act of male-male genital-genital rubbing itself as "frot" itself is also so much more than just the act of male-male genital-genital rubbing. Mijopaalmc (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see you did explicitly state that you would prefer that the RfC be posted after the move discussion is over. Despite having read your post several times, I missed that statement completely. I'm sorry. I'll read your posts more carefully in the future. Mijopaalmc (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It's okay. And I know you are not disputing the notability of the act, just the title; as I pointed out above, that was the main issue in the deletion debate as well. But what do you mean the article "should be about the way gay men construct their sexuality with reference to anal sex and male-male genital-genital rubbing, not the act of male-male genital-genital rubbing itself as "frot"? Almost all articles about sex acts here at Wikipedia (sexual intercourse, anal sex, oral sex, etc.) are mostly about the sex act and not much about the way people live their lives in reference to the sex act (with the exception of health effects or cultural issues). The way people live their lives in reference to sex acts is covered at the Human sexual activity article. Flyer22 (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
"Frot" doesn't just describe the act of male-male genital-genital rubbing it represents a specific ideological approach to identity construction through male-male genital-genital rubbing. In fact, when most publications unconnected to Bill Weintraub, the Man2Man Alliance, Heroic Homosex, or the g0ys label male-male genital-genital rubbing they use "frottage". In other words, there is a distinct lack of independent attestation for the use of "frot" to mean anything independent of the ideologies espoused by the aforementioned sources. Therefore, titling the article on male-male genital-genital rubbing "Frot" presents a pro-frot POV because it uses the word in the way that people with a specific ideology, and apparently no-one else, have chosen to define it. Mijopaalmc (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
The specific ideological approach is covered in the Frot vs. anal section, though. And it's just one aspect of the article, which isn't that big. But having read the deletion debate and your points about the title, I understand what you mean. Indeed, "Frot" is not the common name, per WP:COMMON NAME. The problem is...what else to call it? There is nothing else to call it but "frottage"...if we are going for a common name title. But "frottage," encompassing more than male-to-male genital rubbing, is already covered at the Non-penetrative sex article. That article is all about frottage, with different names. Therefore, we need to let that article cover male-to-male frottage...if we are not to have an article titled Frot. To point out something, though, "Non-penetrative sex" is not common wording either and yet that's what that article is titled...instead of the more common word Frottage. People also use the words "scissoring" and "tribbing" more than they use the word Tribadism. In that case, however, we go with Tribadism because it is the more proper term with origin-history and "scissoring" and "tribbing" are more slang terms. Not to mention, "scissoring" is just one aspect of tribadism. Needless to say, you and others have made a point about not having the sex act titled by its slang term here at Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't see what the problem with male-male genital-genital rubbing not having a specific name is. There's no specific name for male-male fellatio or male-male mutual masturbation. Why not call it male-male genital-genital rubbing? Mijopaalmc (talk) 05:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
It not having a name is the problem that keeps being brought up. You are the latest to bring it up. It's a problem because this article has given it a name that you and some others say is not a common name for the act; that it's longer name "Frottage" (which encompasses more than male-male genital rubbing) is what is used more often to describe it." You even call it POV. That is what I meant. And of course there's no name for male-male fellatio. Fellatio is fellatio, no matter who is performing it. It always involves a mouth and a penis. With genital rubbing, however, the "ingredients" are not always the same. And as for mutual masturbation, I'm not seeing why there would need to be a name to describe this act between males either. No more than specific names for it in regards to heterosexuals and lesbians. While the "ingredients" are not always the same here either, it does always involve genitals and hands. I suppose the acts of vulva-to-vulva and penis-to-penis are seen as needing names because they are very specific acts. Either way, I am not saying male-male rubbing needs a name other than what it is. I am saying that it not having a name other than what it is has been one of the main issues at this article. Flyer22 (talk) 00:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Frot POV (frot=male-male genital sex ONLY)

I have been really slow in typing up an explanation of my edits for which I apologize.

First of all, I have not been able to find very many attestations of frot meaning "specifically [...] male-male genital sex" which does not directly or indirectly reference Bill Weintraub's sites. Mr, Weintraub himself claims to have coined the term; however, a brief look through the Oxford English Dictionary demonstrates that the word has been in the English language since at least 1320, and that all Mr. Weintraub did was to coin a explicitly sexual definiton and narrow its lexical range so that it was not completely redundant with and did not carry the negative connotations of frottage. The one seemingly independent attestation comes from the Urban Dictionary a site which allows its members to post defintions to words, causing the some definitions to be idiosyncratic or even racist (e.g., Swede) or homophobic (e.g., brokeback). The lack of independent attestion for the defintion of the word frot seems to imply the defintion may in fact be in and of itself POV, because it does not stand alone as a defintion of a word but actually forms a integral part of the philosophy espoused by Bill Weintraub on his various sites (which includes a denigration of anal sex, effeminacy, and gay men who practice them). Frot in this context serves as the True and Only Way to have sex; all else is just degrading to one's masculinity because being penetrated turns one to a "pseudo-woman" as one is "obviously" treating one's anus like a vagina (for more in depth analyses see a debate that I engaged in with Bill and several of his supporters, or, if you want something a little less self-promotional, several blog entries 1 23 4). There has been nothing published in academia about the frot movement so all of what is known is based upon opinions posted on the web and and editorials published in the print media by Mr. Weintruab.

While there is very little independent attestation of the definition frot, there is plenty of indenpendent examples of frottage being used as a neutral term to describe mutual non-penetrative genital sex, occuring in many diferent sex manuals (e.g., The Joy of Sex, The New Joy of Sex, The Joy of Gay Sex, etc.). Therefore I propose that the articles on frot, frotteurism, and tribadism be combined in to an article on non-penetrative forms of sex, or some other NPOV terminology, such as Frottage (sex act). It is only within the milieu of Mr. Weintraub's sites that the term frottage a particularly negative connotation; however, I do suggest that the current title of the article be changed because of the associations of frotteurism with the paraphilia. Mijopaalmc 03:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Even if the current word we use for Princeton style happened to be invented by the head of the US Nazi party it would still be relevant, Bill Weintraub may have ideas that you disagree with but frot is currently the most well known term for GG sex between human men. Yes, there is little written on frot, but that reflects a heterosexist POV in the broader culture, heterosexuals do not frot, and do not define themselves by not frotting, therefore its not worth mentioning. Yes the word frot is often used by people with a strong POV, but its still a word thats used and can be neutrally, mechanically described in an artcle. We have an article on coitus, which is nothing more thatn a heterosexual form of sexual penetration, why not articles on tribadism and frot, which are homosexual forms of frottage? I would support a frot and tribadism/frottage merger only if there were a coitus and anal/sexual penetration merger as well. I am going to put back the citations, simply as examples of use (even if there not of the highest quality they show that people are using the word) but I wont remove the merger recommendation. The IP Address 12:18 Feb 1 2005

Currently the most well-known term for GG sex between human men? Okay, then. I would like to see reliable sources showcasing that, and that gay men do not generally just say "frottage" instead. Flyer22 (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Rename page "Frottage"

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved: no concensus after 33 days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Frot → Frottage — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC) The title of the article appears to e NPOV because, as the article itself describes, "frot" itself was coined by persons who were advocating a specific approach to the sex act and who used it a center piece in their approach to gay rights. Moreover, "frottage" appears to be the predominate term in use. Mijopaalmc (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem with moving this article to Frottage is that the term "frottage" encompasses more than just male-male sex. It is also used to describe any type of act where a person rubs their genitals on another person for sexual stimulation. See Non-penetrative sex#Frottage. And Frottage by itself seems to be an important dab page. Flyer22 (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Why is it so necessary to make such a distinction? The articles on anal sex and mutual masturbation don't make such a distinction. The issue is that "frot" is that it is only used to specifically describe male-male genital-genital rubbing. Both The Joy of Gay Sex and The New Joy of Gay Sex use "frottage".Mijopaalmc (talk) 04:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I suppose for the same reason there is a need to make a distinction with Tribadism. There could be an article titled Frottage which encompasses all forms of frottage, but we have the Non-penetrative sex article for that (which is what Mutual masturbation redirects to). And their being addressed or somewhat covered in one article doesn't mean that they shouldn't have their own articles. Flyer22 (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Flyer22, but add that the term is a Neologism, which is why it is not yet in the The New Joy of Gay Sex. Atom (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
It's possible that there simply is no term for male-male genital-gential intercourse. The issue, as I have mentioned before, is that "frot" is a highly politicized term used to describe male-male frottage. In fact, those who advocate using it are explicit about the fact that the are coining new terminology to describe a act that already has a descriptor. All the gay sex manuals I could find (all of which were published after the coinage of "frot") use "frottage" to describe genital rubbing.
That said, I am not opposed to having a discussion of the frot movement within the frottage article, but it needs to be clear that "frot" is a term that is not mainstream and is used primarily (if not exclusively) in contradistinction to anal sex.Mijopaalmc (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Mijopaalmc, what would you say to (a) having a discussion of the word "frot" as a specific term for male/male frottage subsumed within the article about "Frottage" as a sex act, while (b) creating a new and separate article called "Frot movement" -- or something along those lines -- that primarily discusses Weintraub and the g0ys as a political phenomenon that encourages gay men to avoid anal sex, and (c) deleting this "Frot" article, since (a) and (b) would make it redundant? Throbert McGee (talk) 09:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the term "frot" is in the mainstream within the interested group. It refers to the sex act, not the political movement. Atom (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - The subject of this article clearly is different from frottage in general. It's a specific form of non penetrative sex that is and is being advocated by some members of the gay community as an alternative to buggery. I'd say good luck to them and the article has enough references to establish notability, though it may well have POV issues that need fixing: an encyclopedia article should describe not advise. --Simon Speed (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Mijopaalmc has cut out some POV. The remaining POV is the needed stuff -- Frot vs anal. And I've done what I could to fix up the article in the meantime (such as with formatting), until I add better references and such. Flyer22 (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
That's precisely the problem, though. The frot article should not be about "frot vs anal"; it should be about the act of "frot". As far as I can discern, none of the other articles on sex acts explicitly discuss the relative risks or benefits (both physiological and psychological) of the title act compared to any other acts; only the frot article does. It is thus not in keeping with the general style Wikipedia articles on sex acts. In fact, the explicit comparison of frot and anal sex mirrors the rhetoric of the frot movement itself, which strives to prove the superiority of frot over anal sex through relative risk analysis, and therefore presents a subtle pro-frot POV in the article.Mijopaalmc (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
The Anal sex article discusses the risks or benefits (both physiological and psychological) in comparison to other sex acts, just not all in one section. For example, anal sex is mentioned as riskier than vaginal sex enough times. And it is reported that plenty of gay men don't have anal sex for some of the reasons mentioned in this article. It is even thought that heterosexual couples have anal sex more. As for mentioning the frot vs. anal issue here in the Frot article, it seems only natural to do so when considering that there are a lot of gay men who are either frot advocates or simply don't engage in anal play. Flyer22 (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
The only places that I have seen male-male genital-genital sex called "frot" is in the writings of and writing referencing Bill Weintraub, the Man2Man Alliance, Heroic Homosex, and the g0ys. All of these primary sources have a very specific philosophy concerning anal sex and "frot", which is underscored by using "frot" to describe what is more commonly described as "frottage".Mijopaalmc (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
You may have a point. We'll see what others think. We should probably even take this to the wider community, such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment, Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexuality or Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies, after this move discussion is closed. Flyer22 (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me assure Mijopaalmc that the short term "frot" is very much in currency on gay sex forums, in gay male personals, and as a search tag on video sites like Xtube, without specific reference to Weintraub or g0ys. (Although I would concede that the term "frot" might be encountered more often on forums that specifically aim at the "J/O Club" and/or "circle jerk" subculture, such as nyjacks.com and bateworld.com, and less often on "general interest" gay male sex sites.)

My "original research" gives me the impression that "frot" has become accepted as shorthand meaning "I really like mutual masturbation but I'm not so much into anal" (or possibly, "I'm not looking for anal at this particular time"). In other words, it isn't necessarily used to convey a radical rejection of anal sex (as Weintraub and the g0ys would have it), but emphasizing "frot" by name is nonetheless understood to signal a relative lack of interest in anal sex. The difficulty here, of course, that the main sourcing one could provide to substantiate all this would be links to ephemeral "seeking a frot buddy" posts on gay male sex sites, which amounts to OR. Throbert McGee (talk) 09:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose Term is clearly distinct and different than Frottage. Frottage is a general term for "sexual rubbing". Frot requires that the participants are male, and involves the act of rubbing two penises together. In the case of Tribadism, the specific body part is noe a requirement, although the two participants are female. Atom (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Now or not a requirement? Because for Tribadism, it does not only mean genital-to-genital sex. Flyer22 (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Penis-to-penis rubbing is called "frot" (фрот) by Russian wikipedia

The Russian definition for фрот is вид гомосексуального секса без проникновения между мужчинами, когда партнёры достигают оргазма путём взаимного трения членами и яичками друг о друга, which translates as "a form of homosexual sex between men without penetration, when the partners reach orgasm via the penises and testicles mutually rubbing against each other."

Not only that, but apparently the shortened coinage "frot" with the very specific meaning of non-penetrative male/male sex has been embraced by some gay/bi wiki editors who speak Bulgarian, Croatian, Spanish, Indonesian, Polish, Chinese, etc. (Although admittedly, the Italian article seems to treat "frot" as just a variant of "frottage.")

The fact that speakers of various other languages have recognized "frot" as an English slang term in currency, with the specific meaning of male/male genital rubbing, seems to me a very strong argument for maintaining "frot" as an independent article, rather than merging it into a sub-section of the "frottage" article. Throbert McGee (talk) 10:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point -- looking at other Wikipedia articles in different languages that also go by the title Frot. Flyer22 (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't be surprised if they a derived from the English. Moreover, I'm not sure that it matters what other languages use, because, in English, "frot" is associated with a very specific ideological outlook on homosexuality and anal sex. 76.178.146.128 (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Judging by the fact that most of the articles in other languages borrowed the little cartoon drawing of two men "doing frot" from the English Wiki article, I think it's safe to assume they all derive the word from the English slang. But that in itself is an argument for maintaining the English article -- English is the world's favorite second language and lingua franca, and articles in English Wikipedia are therefore going to be a disproportionately important point of reference for users developing articles in foreign-language Wikis.
As an example, I can tell you from firsthand knowledge that Russian and German are popular foreign languages to study in Turkey -- but "İngilizce" is even MORE widely studied than either of those, so a gay/bi Turk who encountered the word "frot" on the Web and wanted to add this term to the Turkish Wikipedia would most likely go to the English Wikipedia first, notwithstanding the fact that there are some Turks who happen to be more conversant по-русски or auf Deutsch than in English.
And despite the ideological connotations that "frot" may have in English, these aren't necessarily carried over when other languages borrow the word -- neither the Russian article nor the Spanish one, for example, compares anal sex unfavorably to frot, since neither one even mentions anal sex at all. (However, both the Russian and Spanish articles pointedly distinguish "frot" from "frotteurism".)
And incidentally, earlier versions of the English article specifically mentioned "kissing while face-to-face" and "often done all the way to orgasm" in the lede graf -- and though they've subsequently been edited from the English version, equivalents of these phrases do appear, respectively, in the Spanish and Russian articles. (Edited to add: I brought up this point as possible evidence that foreign-language articles do in fact use English Wikipedia articles as a template/starting point. And after thinking about it, I decided to restore the "often leading to orgasm" language to the 1st-sentence definition, since the Big Philosophical Question of whether frot is conceptualized as "sex in itself" or "foreplay to sex" is mentioned later in the article. However, I didn't see any reason to include kissing as part of the essential definition.)
Throbert McGee (talk) 05:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
This is the English Wikipedia, and, in English, not only is "frot" a slang term it is also a term specifically contrived by a group with a specific approach to anal sex within the LGBT community to replace "frottage". Do you think that the English Wikipedia should reflect the etymology and usage of "frot" in English? Mijopaalmc (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Do I think that the English Wikipedia should reflect the etymology and usage of "frot" in English? Yes, I do -- and it does, in fact, discuss both the etymology and the usage of the word. I'm not sure what your hang-up is with slang; Wikipedia has an entry on the slang term bareback (sex) (rather than "condomless anal sex," or whatever). There is also an entry on queer -- which, when used to mean "LGBT", would not only be flagged as slang by many dictionaries, but was also "specifically contrived" to reflect a particular philosophical and political outlook about the identity of non-heterosexual people. Throbert McGee (talk) 13:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
My "hang-up" with slang is that the majority of publications about gay sex practices do not use "frot" to describe penis-to-penis intercoruse; they call it "frottage". The only place where I can find a consistent (though not exclusive) use of "frot" to refer to penis-to-penis intercourse is within the community of gay men (some of who vehemently reject the label "gay", because of its links to anal sex and effeminacy) who are virulently anti-anal-sex. Using a word that was coined by an in-group which a very specific approach to anal sex and homosexuality heavily suggests that POV.
By the way, the bareback article does not single out anal sex or gay sex for the label. Moreover, it in fact links to the safe sex article, which explains safe sex in general terms as a collection of sex acts and leaves the particulars of the life-style choice to practice unprotected sex to the bareback article. Mijopaalmc (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of the term '"frot" and its meaning

"Frot is a slang term (ult. from the French verb frotter, "to rub") describing a form of male/male sex that is completely non-penetrative, usually (but not exclusively) with an emphasis on direct penis-to-penis contact that leads to orgasm for both men"

And, in the Etymology section: "Although it's not known with total certainty who originally coined the word, or when, frot (rhyming with "dot") was shortened from the term "frottage" (rhyming with "massage"), a more generic and unisex term for various types of non-penetrative genital rubbing."

NOw, is the article about the activity, or is it about the current debate? Certainly the activity of male to male penis frotage has existed prior to the debate in the gay community indicated in the article -- right?

The article itself says: "The physical act described by the term "frot" – that is, penis-to-penis rubbing between males—is thought to have preexisted, according to some evolutionary theory, the development of hominids into humans and bonobos, and may or may not have occurred in the homosexual activity of both of these genetically related species.[2]"

And, related: "Genito-genital rubbing or GG rubbing is a term frequently used by primatologists to describe tribadism among female bonobos.[4]"

So, apparently this is an activity that has existed among primates for a long time, possibly a hundred thousand years or more?


Now, the article was written in 2004 as a redirect to frottage, and then the first text was added in 2005. "Frot is a colloquial term for male-male genital sex. That is, penis-penis rubbing until mutual orgasm, typically while kissing. It is also known in slang terms as "phrot", "swordfighting", "cockrub", "manrub", "penis fencing", "bumping dicks", "frication", "wrestling", "cock knocking", "cock2cock", "the Woodberry Hello" and "the Princeton Rub". Advocates of frot note it is more erotic, more pleasurable, more intimate, more masculine, more egalitarian than oral sex or anal sex. Frot is also much safer against the risk of STDs. The slang term "docking" is a variant of frot that puts the foreskin of one penis over the glans of the other penis, and is to somewhat more vulnerable to STDs because of the exposure of the urethra and the inner mucal membrane of the foreskin to the partner's semen."

Bill Weintraub edited the article shortly thereafter (in 2005), Bill claims to be the person who coined the term "frot". Which seems to be disputed. He added a link to his web site (man2manalliance.org)

As I can find no scholarly references to the term anywhere, It is possible that Bill did coin the term, and possible that the term existed prior to 2000.

In any event, the term as described by Bill does not say anything about the things mentioned in the current description.

"Frot is a slang term (ult. from the French verb frotter, "to rub") describing a form of male/male sex that is completely non-penetrative, usually (but not exclusively) with an emphasis on direct penis-to-penis contact that leads to orgasm for both men"

This really should read more like "Frot is a slang term (ult. from the French verb frotter, "to rub") describing a form of male/male sex with an emphasis on direct penis-to-penis."

I base this on the fact that the act itself apparently has existed for along time, regardless of the word used, and this article is about the act, and not the etymology of the word. (although that is a fair sub-topic on the article about the act itself.)

Also, nowhere in biological descriptions of the primate act, nor at Bill Weintraub's web site describing his definition of the term, does it say that the act must lead to orgasm for it to qualify as "frot". Also, similarly, no one says anything about exclusively or completely non-penetrative. Sure, penetrative sex is not frot, and frot is not penetrative penile-vaginal or penile-anal sex. But a gay couple could engage in frot as foreplay to anal sex, or erotic play where neither partner had an orgasm and "frot" would still have occurred, regardless of what other things did or did not happen.

I think since there has been a minor debate in the past for some people advocating the act of Frot being used exclusively without anal or oral sex, that this has carried over into the article in the past by one or more editors.

The article should describe the act of "frot" accurately, and some other sub-section can describe that there is a debate and different aspects of that debate. The fact that there is a debate though, has not changed the act of frot from being exclusive(no other sex acts coincide with it -- no anal sex for instance), or from orgasm being the end goal of the experience.

For that reason, I am correcting the lede para to remove the misinformation and focus on the act, rather than the debate. Atom (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

A couple weeks ago, I had re-added the phrase "usually to orgasm" to the lede, because the question of whether frot ought to be conceptualized as "Real Sex, or foreplay to Real Sex" frequently does come up when frot is dicussed. But I would agree that the orgasm part, although relevant, isn't essential enough to go in the lede.
Along these lines, I've been thinking for some time that the "Etymology" and "Synonyms" sections should be merged into a single section. As a sub-section definition (not the main def) for "frot," I would consider the following to be important elements of the definition, IN THIS ORDER:
(1) "Frot" is a form of non-penetrative sex that is gender-specific and male-male, as distinguished from "frottage" (which is gender-unspecific) and "tribadism" (which is female-female).
(2) "Frot" emphasizes (but doesn't require) direct penis-to-penis contact (as distinguished from, e.g., male-male intercrural sex.
(3) "Frot" is often understood to imply (but doesn't always mean) a comparatively low degree of interest in anal sex, without necessarily signifying total abstinence from anal sex.
(4) "Frot" is sometimes understood to imply (but doesn't always mean) an expectation of continuing to orgasm, as distinguished from being a form of foreplay to other forms of sex, such as fellatio or anal intercourse.
(5) Via the Internet, the short form "frot" has been borrowed from English into other languages, often with the same general meaning of "male/male non-penetrative sex", but the definition has not always stayed exactly the same in every language.
As discussed in the article, point (4) was part of the rationale for promoting "frot" to in preference to older terms like "Princeton Rub," etc.; and (3) has been heavily emphasized both on Weintraub's site and by the g0ys, but not everyone who identifies as "into frot" is strongly anti-anal. I just wanted to throw in 5 as a service to ESL readers who happen to read the article, as a reminder that if they see references to "frot" in their own language, it doesn't necessarily have the same meaning.
Part of me is really inclined to add point (3) to the lede -- since the "less interested in anal" is pretty key to the "notability" of the term "frot." But of course I understand what a can of worms it opens to have that in the main definition.
Throbert McGee (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Terms/synonyms for Frot

The reason I removed the misc terms listed in the article is firstly because the link that was there at out.com did not resolve, but also because in researching the terms, there seem to be no sources that support any of those terms being used. SO, either the terms were recently made up, or they are slang terms of such low incidence that they do not exist in any literature or dictionary.

Also, the article is not here to collect all of the slang on the topic. Like other articles, such as the Penis article, there is not a long list of all of the slang term that people use for penis. Instead the article says "As with nearly any aspect of the human body that is involved in sexual or excretory functions, the word penis is considered humorous from a juvenile perspective, and there are many slang words and euphemisms for the penis."

Having one or two synonyms for the topic could be acceptable, but a sub-section acting as a dumping ground for all slang that people have thought up, or have heard for the topic is not appropriate.

Recently the link was re-added, going through archive.com to get to the now non-existent out.com article. Reading the article I see a few problems. It is human interest column by an out.com writer, and not what we in Wikipedia would say was a reliable source. Also-- the term used here are discussed in the article in this manner, "Strangely, frottage has almost achieved mythic status in an academic context. It is known colloquially as “the Princeton rub” or “the Ivy League rub,” or an “Oxford style” of sex, in reference to the activities of horny young men during the long, cold winters away at all-boys schools in the 19th century." The problem with this, other than that the writer offers their opinion about how these terms have been used with no documentation or citations or sources, the author is referring to "Frottage" and not the word "Frot".

In my editorial opinion, we should remove slang terms for the act and stick to the topic. Atom (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Atom. You removed the link without checking at Internet Archive for a replacement. But many Wikipedia editors are unaware that they can get archived links or that there are such sites, so I'm not sure if I should fault you on that or not. Either way, slang terms do not have to exist in literature to be mentioned on Wikipedia. Plenty of slang terms don't exist in literature, but as long as they are backed by reliable sources, they can be included.
There are Wikipedia articles that have sections specifically devoted to synonyms or slang terms (or both). Oral sex, Buttocks, Split-quaternion, Sprite (computer graphics), Milling machine, Transient synovitis, etc. (though some of these articles need fixing up). Not trying to use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as some great argument but rather as an example that Wikipedia does not consider it inappropriate...as there are decent, good, and featured articles with synonym sections.
Out.com is a reliable source, per WP:Reliable sources. I'm not seeing how it (the source in this Wikipedia article) being "a human interest column" has anything to do with it. Nor do I see anything wrong with the fact that the author says "frottage" instead of "frot." It is well-established, especially on this talk page, that "frot" is a slang term for "frottage." The author is clearly mainly speaking of male-male sex, which means he is speaking of the term in the same concept as this Wikipedia article. All "frot" is...is the term shortened to refer specifically to male-male frottage.
Those are my thoughts on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it is true that I could not find the link, so I removed it. It is cool that you found it at archive.com. Now, just because some articles have lots of slang words, doesn't mean that we should collect slang words for the term. I try to keep that to a minimum in any article I see. Like other things, we have to say to ourselves, does a given term benefit the article by being there? If a term were a common term, then a reader would recognize it, and think, "Oh, yeah, I know what that is.". If it is a little used or obscure term, or a list of obscure slang terms, then what purpose is there in having it in the article?
Of course I know that the term "Frot" originated from the term "frottage". But, Frot and Frottage currently have different meanings and are not the same thing. The article cited does not differentiate. So, assuming that in the past the slang given did have something to do with frottage. How are we to know that the term was used in the same context as the current (recently coined) term Frot? Without some kind of scholarly citation, we have no way to know. Maybe the term is speakign of intercrual sex?
As for Out.com being a reliable source, an citation is not reliable or not reliable just because of the banner of the periodical. Some out.com articles I am sure are reliable. But, the source is the author themselves. My opinion is that it was a fluff piece where some write threw in his opinions about the topic. Fine, but without some reason to believe he is an expert, or a professional writer who has done appropriate research. Someone writing an editorial in a paper is not authoritative as a reliable source, for instance. Atom (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
The Synonyms and definitions section in this article is valid, in my opinion. It's not even that big. How can we decide "People don't know this synonym" for any one of them and remove? I don't see the problem with letting it all stay. And there should definitely be a Definitions section speaking of how the act may or may not be defined, since it does not always mean penis to penis among gay men.
When speaking of male to male frottage, it is usually called "frottage," not "frot." So, yes, the two terms often mean the same thing. The only difference is that "frot" cannot be used to describe frottage among heterosexuals or lesbians. The word frot is distinct in that way, I agree. This has been the topic of recent debate above, the move discussion, etc. If frottage is being talked about on a gay male site, with specific mention to gay males, then it is clear that the context is male-male frottage...not frottage among everyone.
For what you are speaking of in regards to the Out.com source, I defer to Wikipedia:Verifiability. We could check out the author and see if he is an expert on gay male sexuality, etc. But right now, I see the source counting as reliable. Flyer22 (talk) 02:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
"How can we decide "People don't know this synonym" for any one of them and remove?" Hence the need for some reliable citation. A scholarly journal for instance. Otherwise a collection of slang terms that people add randomly that can not be verified in any way is not useful. You say that you feel that the cite given is solid. I think it is a gay writer writing a fluff piece for a gay magazine. He has heard the terms used before and relays it to us, the same way that our gay next door neighbor might. It is interesting, but doesn't meet the standards for Wikipedia inclusion, in my opinion. It really isn't a big enough deal to worry about. Misinformation or misunderstanding will not cause any life treating problems or anything, it just doesn't really follow the policies. It is just my natural inclination to remove collections of slang terms in sexuality articles when I see them. Atom (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
The word Frot and Frottage are not synonyms. They mean something different. Having heard some of those terms used before (as I was once an academic) I am of the opinion that in the past they were used to mean general frottage and intercrual sex, and not always between two males, sometimes with objects. As the citation uses the term Frottage, which could accurately describe those activities, that is the context I see it. They don't refer to Frot specifically. (I mean terms like "The Princeton Rub" and "oxford style") Do a Goggle lookup on the terms -- can you find anything at all on those? Don't you think that if they are so obscure that slang references for them are not significant on a google lookup, that telling others that they mean "Frot" is marginally valuable at best?" You are a Goddess. I'll refer to your judgement, it isn't that big a deal. Atom (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
People being unfamiliar with alternate words for a term is no reason not to include the information. In fact, it is more reason to include them. That is the main reason such sections are created, from what I have seen. Otherwise, what is the point of informing people of names they are already quite familiar with? Wikipedia is not a dictionary. And I wouldn't say any of these names, other than "frottage," are generally used by the general public. But these alternate terms are sourced, is my point. You disagree with the source. I have showcased above why the material does follow policy. You disagree. Nothing more substantial can be stated from us on this matter.
The words Frot and Frottage are clearly often synonymous, as Mijopaalmc (and others before him) wonderfully showcased above. The sources I have included in this article showcase the same thing. I did not say they are always synonymous. What I am saying, however, is that reliable sources clearly show that when speaking of male-to-male genital sex or a male rubbing his genitals on any body part of another male, the word frottage is generally used over the word frot. "Frot" is hardly ever used. This article is only designated under the title Frot...because "frot" specifically refers to male-male sex, while "frottage" encompasses more than just male-to-male sex. That is the only way the terms are not synonymous. I'm not sure what you mean by me being a Goddess, but I don't have much more to state on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
You are missing my point, I think. Of course helping people to become familiar with terms they are unaware of is a useful function in Wikipedia. Helping them to become familiar with terms that don't really mean what we say they mean is not useful though. Putting a slang term that we have one questionable reference for, and can't find any citations anywhere else (like a Google search) is not useful. If we can, according to Wikipedia policies, be confident that a term means what we think it does, then we as editors have the optin of adding it into the article. That doe snot mean that we must put it in just because we can cite it. For example, putting all 287 available sland words for penis in the penis article is, at this point, not seen as useful, even though many if not most of them can be cited. In this case, we can not with confidence say that, for instance "Princeton rub" is discussing Frot, when most people I know would say that it means "Rubbing the penis against your bedsheets", and even then, we can find no reference for the term in literature. Atom (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree that the terms "Frot" and "Frottage" are synonymous. For one, if they were, this article would be a sub section in the Frottage article. They both have commonalities in that they involve Rubbing. It would not be correct to say that Masturbation is synonymous with Frottage, even though rubbing is done there too. Synonymous means that they mean the same thing, and could be used interchangeably in a conversation or other usage with no confusion. Despite what this article says, "Frot" requires two penises (penii?) rubbing together. If the term Frot and Frottage were synonymous, one could say "The two lesbians found great pleasure in performing Frot together." If there is only one Penis, then it is Masturbation, if there is two penises, and they rub against one another's legs and thighs, it is called intercrual sex, and not Frot, even though Intercrual is a form of Frottage too. Frottage is a more general term. One could say "Homosexual men and women often engage in Frottage with their partners." This does not specifically say that a penis is involved, and would be accurate even if no penis is involved. To say something like that using the word "Frot" implies a form of frottage that involves two penises rubbing against one another. If the two men were rubbing their penises against each others face and mouth, for example, this would also be an example of activity that is not Frot. Frot requires at least two penises rubbing against one another. Atom (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not misunderstanding you on that; I just disagree.
Frottage, however? I'm not seeing how you are disagreeing that "Frot" and "Frottage" are sometimes synonymous, given what I stated above. Again, I am not saying that they are always synonymous. But to say they are never synonymous is not backed up by reliable sources. Reliable sources show otherwise. I already mentioned the only way that "frottage" and "frot" are distinct; one ("frot") refers to male-male sex specifically. The other ("frottage") encompasses more than just male-male sex. The reason there is no subsection on Frot in the Non-penetrative sex article (Frottage has no article)...is because "Frot" and "Frottage" are sometimes synonymous. Notice I said "sometimes." They are synonymous in that "frottage" encompasses "the act of achieving sexual pleasure with a partner or partners, whether naked or clothed, without penetration." You are disagreeing with reliable sources. Also, I see no reliable source saying "frot" only means "penis to penis." Flyer22 (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is why we have different views. Frot requires penis to penis rubbing. If it did not, then there would be no difference between Frot and Frottage, other than it involves two males. The reason that I say that the two words are not synonymous is because they can not be used interchangeably in the same context, which is what synonymn means. I haven't disagreed at all with your stated definition of frottage, or reliable sources that describe frottage. We have only been discussing the term "frot". As I said elsewhere in this talk pages, the article is about the act (of two men rubbing the penises together, not the etymology of the word.) Just as Tribadism is a special case of frottage, so is Frot. That does not mean they are synonymous. Words are not sometimes synonymous. There are terms where one is more general, and one is more specific, and so the first term term can be inclusive of the other, but the converse is not the case (which would be true with synonynms.) For instance, all frot is frottage, and all intercrual sex is frottage and all masturbation is frottage and all tribadism is frontage. One could use the term Frottage to describe any of them accurately, but one could not use Frot or Tribadism or Masturbation in all of the same situations that one can use Frottage. Frottage is more general and inclusive, and the others are more specific special cases (subset). So 'frottage and frot are not sometimes synonyms just because one can use the word frottage in a sentence when one means Frot.

You said there is no reliable sources that say that it means penis to penis sex, and yet Bill Weintraub, the self described person who "coined" the term, says "I don't use the word "Frottage" because it is an ersatz French word which can indicate any sort of erotic rubbing. Frot by contrast, is always phallus-to-phalus sex." [2] (my emphasis) and "The offical term for cock rubbing is Frot.[3] So, here are two reliable sources that support what I have said.

Could you find me a reliable source (a book or scholarly article, rather than a web page influenced by the Wikipedia article) that defines Frot is a context that does not include penis to penis rubbing? Atom (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Frot requiring penis to penis rubbing is your opinion, and apparently Bill Weintraub's too. To me, that is like saying Tribadism requires vulva to vulva rubbing. Just because "frot" usually describes penis to penis rubbing doesn't mean penis to penis rubbing is the only definition for it. And, yes, the Frot articles exists because it is specifically about male-male grinding. As for "sometimes synonymous," maybe I should have said "interchangeably." Because interchangeably? In the context of male-to-male genital rubbing, "frottage" and "frot" are clearly used the same way the majority of the time. The following sources, for example, are describing male-to-male genital rubbing under the title frottage, and not frot: [4][5] All sources, except a few attributed to Bill Weintraub, are like that. When discussing male-to-male genital rubbing, the term "frottage" is usually used instead. Why? Other than "frot" not being a well-known term? Because, as the Non-penetrative sex#Frottage section (which is backed up by a reliable source on this) states: Frottage can include mutual genital rubbing, sometimes called genito-genital or GG rubbing and most of the other forms of non-penetrative sex. Of course, Bill Weintraub is going to say that frot only means "penis-to-penis" rubbing. A little after that, he even says "because that's what sex is: genital-genital contact," as if all other forms of sexual activity are not sex. Even the author notes that some of his opinions are controversial. And with just about every interview he is in, the interviewer attributes him as saying "frottage" or uses "frot" and "frottage" interchangeably when referencing his websites. Furthermore, your first source uses the words interchangeably, despite Weintraub's distinction. And your second source even says, "The official term for cock rubbing is frot (or frottage)." What we truly disagreed on, it seems, is whether terms are "sometimes synonymous." But, in the context of male-to-male genital rubbing, you cannot disagree with the fact that "frottage" and "frot" are used interchangeably. Sources clearly show that they are. That's what I meant when I said the two terms often mean the same thing. Flyer22 (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and that first source mentions "Princeton rub" too. Seems we now have a Google Books source for it. Flyer22 (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how a source saying that frot is a type of frottage makes your point at all. And the source on Princeton rub seems to indicate that it is Frottage, which makes my point that it is not Frot. As the term Frot is not used, it is not Frot they are discussing. I gavce a reliable source that clearly indicates that Frot and Frottage are considered to be two different things. You may not like the source, but two different books that say that by people other than Weintraub (even if they quote Weintraub) seems reliable to me. Atom (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how my points are not made clear at all. It's right there above. My points are the main reason this article has been so debated and even went through a deletion debate. I just noticed you were also in that debate. I also noticed that no one in that debate was able to show that "frot" is usually distinguished from "frottage" in the gay male community. In fact, the opposite was proven true time and time again. It's a wonder this article was even kept at all. But Haldrik was persuasive as to why this article should be kept, just as Tribadism is kept. However, it is still a fact that "frot" and "frottage" are used interchangeably to refer specifically to male-to-male genital rubbing, as the sources above show. Other than Bill Weintraub, "frot" in the sense of only referring to gay male genital rubbing is hardly used at all. When gay men mean genital-to-genital frottage, or any other type of frottage within their choice, they simply say "frottage." That is what the sources you displayed show me. That is what the sources I displayed show me. Why you keep acting as though these words are never used interchangeably is beyond me. The sources show that the only one distinguishing is Bill Weintraub. It's not about what I don't like. It's about what the sources show. If "frottage" never meant male-to-male genital rubbing in the gay male community, then this article would not exist, considering that "frot" is not widely used or notable enough on its own as a slang term. The only reason this article is notable is because it deals with male-male frottage specifically. Male-male frottage is notable. But the term "frot" is not. Flyer22 (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Also, this Google Books source you provided is just a longer version of the Out.com source you complained about earlier. Yep, the author definitely seems reliable enough to report these slang terms. Flyer22 (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Should "often signifying de-emphasis on anal sex" be added to lede graf?

I'm not necessarily in love with that particular wording, but I'm wondering whether the whole "frot vs. anal" controversy ought to at least be acknowledged in the top-of-the-page definition.

As I mentioned in one of my comments above, "frot" is solidly in currency as a user-generated search tag on pr0n sites like XTube -- where it may variously signify "penis to penis rubbing" or "penis between thighs rubbing" or simply "mutual masturbation", but typically is not inclusive of solo masturbation, fellatio, and anal sex. So in that sense, "frot" has moved away from the overt and strident anti-anal advocacy of Bill Weintraub (and also the g0ys). But at the same time, as I've been thinking about the "Etymology" section, there's just no denying that "Frot, Don't Fuck" advocacy was part of the word's short history.

Moreover, I think this is important to the "notability" of the term frot -- Weintraub's shortening of "frottage" to "frot" would be utterly trivial if not also for his radical challenge to the "Use a Condom Every Time You Have ButtSexksc" model of safe-sex in the age of AIDS; but the anti-anal stance of a small minority of gay men wouldn't be nearly so notable had it not been accompanied by the coinage of the slang term "frot," which provided a shorthand way to convey generally abstaining from anal sex, but definitely NOT abstaining from sex with other men. Throbert McGee (talk) 03:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, the term "g0ys" was also trying for this shorthand meaning -- NB that "g0y" is "gay" respelled with a zero in place of the "a", in order to signify "No Anal".
Unfortunately, while Weintraub is an erudite, classically-educated, Jewish but secular, lifelong gay activist who can effortlessly draw parallels among Gilgamesh, Achilles, and King David to make his case, the anonymous founder of g0ys.org appears to have been a sincere but less educated born-again Christian who is still in the closet -- so all of these may be strikes against "g0ys.org" as a reputable source, quite apart from the fact that the coinage sounds confusingly like the Hebrew term for "Gentile." Throbert McGee (talk) 03:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't feel it should be in the lead. My Reasons: The anti-anal stance is by more than just a small minority of gay men now; plenty of gay men, like yourself, would rather frot than have anal sex, and enough of them are anti-anal even though they aren't saying that no gay man should have anal sex. There is also the fact that plenty of gay men like frotting and anal sex about equally, or with no preference at all. Because of this, there is simply no way to say that men who want to engage in frot are "often signifying de-emphasis on anal sex." Some of them may want to frot as foreplay and have anal sex afterward. The term "frot," as said to have been coined by Weintraub, originally meant a de-emphasis on anal sex, but the term has been embraced by gay men who do not hate anal sex as well. Besides that, we must take into account the act, as distinguished from the term. The act is more notable than the term thus far. The lead, I feel, should not give emphasis to frot vs. anal sex, as though most gay men who engage in frot would rather not have anal sex or hate anal sex. As this article is not that big, the frot vs. anal sex section is seen readily enough.
That said, I wouldn't be opposed to something about frot originally being promoted as a safe sex alternative to anal sex during the AIDS scare, and how it is still considered a safe sex alternative (though the lead already mentions its safe sex benefit). Weintraub's and similar feelings about anal sex should not be in the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Very good points, and I agree. But how about a sentence like:
The term frot was originally popularized by gay male activists who disparaged the practice of anal sex, but is now often ("sometimes"?) used merely as a shorthand synonym for "male/male frottage" without implying an aversion to other sex acts.
I still think it's worthwhile to briefly acknowledge in the lede that the term frot had "anti-anal roots", since that was part of the rationale for its coinage. Throbert McGee (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
You could give it a try, but I'm sure Mijopaalmc will disagree. And, yes, I would say use "sometimes" instead of "often," and end the sentence at "male/male frottage." Flyer22 (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
In fact, if you go ahead with adding this, the end of the sentence would flow better as "but has evolved to merely signify "frot" as a shorthand synonym for "male/male frottage." or "but has evolved to merely signify "male/male frottage." Something like that. Flyer22 (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


New section for frot vs anal debate

I apologize for removing the Frot vs. anal sex section without any explanation. It was ill-advised and generally unproductive.

However, I do think that the previous placement in inappropriate, because it implies that the "frot advocates'" perceptions of frot are in some sense fact rather than opinion. I understand that the section itself is careful to cite opinions where opinions are expressed. However, the section is sandwiched in between two sections that state more-or-less objective facts about safe sex and the observation of frot in non-human animals. I therefore feel that such placement, when seen in the context of where other articles of sex acts place sections about societal and religious perception, implies that the perceptions of frot among frot advocates is somehow more objective than the perceptions of other sex acts. Moving "frot advoactes'" perceptions of frot to a separate section seems to me to reduce the aforementioned implications while keeping the perceptions of frot within the frot article. Mijopaalmc (talk) 02:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

As I stated in my edit summaries: It should stay under the Sexual practices section, not all the way down, under the bonobo section. It's a fact that some gay men prefer frot over anal sex, and see it as an alternative to anal sex, for various reasons, which means it belongs in the Sexual practices section. It being a subsection of the Sexual practices section does not imply that the frot advocates' perceptions of frot are in some sense fact rather than opinion. All it does is show that it is a fact that "frot over anal" is a sexual practice, and not just by frot advocates; gay men who simply prefer frot over anal without denouncing anal sex are also mentioned (right at the beginning).
I did, however, tweak the title again, to As an alternative to anal sex. Flyer22 (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Have you checked the other articles on sex acts? Those that have section on health keep those sections separate from the sections on societal perceptions. Mijopaalmc (talk) 04:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't need to check other Wikipedia sex articles; I work on the most prominent ones. And for the last time, it is not a societal perception that some gay men prefer frot over anal sex. That is a fact. They prefer it for reasons that have to do with sexual activities, which is why it belongs in the Sexual practices section. The other sex articles, including the Anal sex article, do the same thing. I'm taking this matter to RfC right below, because you are letting your distaste for this subject hamper the article, and I do not need to violate WP:3RR. Flyer22 (talk) 05:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I got overzealous in insiting on my edits. Mijopaalmc (talk) 07:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I also listed this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies. Flyer22 (talk) 06:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I also listed this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexuality. Mijopaalmc (talk) 06:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
That project isn't very active, which is why I didn't list it there. Flyer22 (talk) 15:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Should preference for frot over anal sex be a subsection of the Sexual practices section?

One view is that "frot vs. anal sex" is merely a societal perception and should have its own section. The other view is that this is about a sexual practice, and does not belong in its own section because it is not societal perception that some gay men prefer frot over anal sex. So the question is...should the information regarding a preference for frot over anal sex, whether as a means of safe sex or otherwise, be excluded from the Sexual practices section?

Part of this discussion is had above this RfC question on the talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 05:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we are understanding one another. The preference for frot over anal sex, at least in the segment of the MSM population that prefers to call the sex act "frot", is due to the perceptions of these individuals that anal sex in dangerous and degrading. Now, I understand that the majority of MSM may not engage in anal sex but there are a variety of reasons cited in the material listed as references. There is also a heavy emphasis in the text on the attitudes that Bill Weintraub and his associates have towards anal sex, which are in fact based on their perception of anal sex and its relation to HIV transmission, inequality, effeminacy, and non-genital-centric views of sex and frot and its relation to safe sex, equality, masculinity, and genital-centric views of sex. These particular issue are not "facts" in sense that they exist independently of of our perception of them (I realize that this extremely thorny philosophical ground). Therefore these perceptions do not belong interlaced with statistics about HIV transmission and the general prevalence (or lack thereof) of anal sex among MSM.
I don't have any reservations about including information about the perceptions of frot among MSM, but it is imperative that we disentangle opinion and perception from fact. For instance, it is a fact that during vaginal intercourse, the male intromits his penis in to the female's vagina. Similarly, it is a fact that during homosexual anal sex, one males intromits his penis into the other male's anus. However, it is an opinion that the formal equivalence between these two actions (i. e., the intromission of a penis into a pelvic orifice) implies a formal equivalence between the actors (i. e., the insertive partner is, by virtue of penetrating a pelvic orifice, is a man and the receptive partner is, by virtue of being penetrated, a woman). Furthermore, it is a fact that males and females are chromosomally, genitally, gonadally and hormonally non-identical. However, it is similarly an opinion that such nonidentity translates to an inequality in such a way that the supposed gender transformation of a sex partner of one gender to the other gender by virtue of their assuming the sex role of the other gender is degrading or dehumanizing.
My "distaste" for the alternate ordering of the topics is therefore not a "distaste" for the frot itself but a wariness of presenting opinion as fact. There is definitely factual content in the the section under discussion as it is written and regardless of how it is titled. However, the factual content is often juxtaposed (sometimes even interposed) with opinion. For instance, the first sentence of the section contains a factual statement about how most MSM prefer non-anal sex. However, it goes on to describe that the preference for non-anal intercourse is due to due to the perception that non-anal sex is "more affectionate" (which is interesting in contradistinction to the research on barebacking which suggest that one of the reasons MSM choose to forgo condoms is to increase intimacy). I do understand that all of the statements in the section could be construed as statements of facts about opinion, but I understand statements of facts about opinions to be different than statements of facts themselves insofar as the subject of the former is debatable while the subject of the latter is not. For instance, it is debatable (and ultimately a matter of personal taste) that non-anal sex is in fact more affectionate, where as it is not debatable that most MSM prefer non-anal sex to anal sex. Mijopaalmc (talk) 06:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
We're not understanding each other, due to your mindset -- your perception. You keep calling "frot over anal" a perception, as if it is not a fact that some gay men and men who have sex with men in general (MSM) prefer frot over anal sex. Whether we call it frot or frottage, the same is true -- some gay men prefer it to anal sex, and not just because they feel that anal sex is dangerous and degrading. Many prefer it for reasons of pleasure only. And whether some gay men, or men who have sex with men in general, feel that anal sex is dangerous and degrading does not get around the fact that this is related to the sexual practice of frot. You have gutted the Sexual practices section by taking out the very reasons why some gay men (and men who have sex with men in general) engage in frot -- besides your "anal sex is dangerous and degrading" examples, others engage in frot because they feel it is more affectionate, a sex safe alternative to anal sex, doesn't hurt, etc., etc. Therefore, it belongs in the Sexual practices section about frot, plain and simple. It being there does not mean that frot advocates' opinions are fact or are being presented as fact. No more than it means so in the Homosexual section of the Anal sex article. No more than it means so of the opinions of women on anal sex in the Heterosexual section of the Anal sex article. No more than it means so of heterosexual couples feeling that anal sex preserves female virginity. Suffice it to say, I highly doubt that anyone is going to take statements that are clearly opinion as fact, especially Bill Weintraub's opinion that frot is "real sex." Nor do I see how having the section as a subsection of Sexual practices is implying/presenting opinions as fact. The section does not even begin saying that "most MSM prefer non-anal sex"; it says "some," and the reasons why. Further, HIV/AIDS transmission has a lot to do with anal sex, as various sources can attest to. So, yes, that is a fact, and is one of the reasons some gay men/MSMs prefer to engage in frot over anal sex. You equally disregard the fact that the section relays pro-anal sex information as well, and that more can be added on that matter. So needless to say, I do not understand your reasoning at all.
When I stated your "distaste," I meant your distaste for the "frot vs. anal" debate. You have continuously acted as though this stance does not exist outside of Bill Weintraub and his groups, have tried to get this article deleted, moved/merged. Not to mention...recently removing the very reliably sourced Frot vs. anal sex section for no valid reason. You even moved "anal sex" out of the title, which leaves the title not as specific as it should be (which I am definitely going to change, by the way). So, yes, I find it hard to believe that you do not have a distaste for this subject. Your personal beliefs should not hamper this article. In fact, as you have continually undermined this article (from your edits, and past and recent discussions I have read), I feel that it is time you step away from it...completely. Also, I ask that you refrain from your long-winded explanations. Your feelings are clear, and it is clear that I disagree with them. I don't need to read them again or understand them, because I won't understand them (at least not outside of what I already think of your presence at this article). Flyer22 (talk) 15:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I made an In society section and placed it there for now, with the specific subsection title Comparison to anal sex. This is a breakup of the initial title you had going on, so it shouldn't be a problem. Per Wikipedia:Manual of style, the section title should be specific as to what the matter is about...unless the topic is too broad. With the way I have formatted it, I can now see a valid argument for it staying where it is, but I still feel it belongs as a subsection of the Sexual practices section, per my reasoning above. Flyer22 (talk) 15:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
But the section is not only about sexual practices; it's about how those sexual practices are perceived by different groups in society. Or are you claiming that being penetrated makes a man into a woman because a woman is fundamentally defined by being penetrated? Mijopaalmc (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Sigh. It does not only have to be about sexual practices. Of course sections on sexual practices are going to cover people's opinions about those sexual practices. The Sexual intercourse, Anal sex, Oral sex and Non-penetrative sex articles do the same thing. The topic "sexual practices" covers the acts and reasons why people do them. So, again, your rationale is extremely flawed. And your question right there at end just proves why you should completely depart from this article. No where have I given the impression that I believe "being penetrated makes a man into a woman because a woman is fundamentally defined by being penetrated." I am female, if I haven't already stated that on this talk page before (it's made clear on my user page and talk page), and I certainly do not believe that a woman is fundamentally defined by being penetrated. Nor do I apply that to gay men who enjoy anal sex. Unlike you, I have no agenda in editing this article, and my being female makes me the most objective in dealing with/editing it. Flyer22 (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Your being female in no way makes you objective. You seem to be ignoring that the other articles on sex acts (with the exception of the anal sex article, which is similarly influenced by the rhetoric of the Bill Weintraub) separate factual information about the acts from how people perceive them. The sexual intercourse article has separate sections on health effects and ethical, moral, and legal issues, and theoral sex article has separate sections on STD risk and cultural attitudes. In other words, both articles separate scientific fact from societal opinion. I don't see why the frot and anal sex articles should mix the two, especially when doing so creates POV. Mijopaalmc (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I feel that it does make me objective, as pretty much stated by a gay male editor on my talk page. I simply am not concerned with the same things you are. I have no agenda, such as getting this article deleted or strongly trying to keep it for personal reasons. You do. It makes no sense to say that I am ignoring other articles on sex acts when I just pointed them out above. The Anal sex article is not similarly influenced by the rhetoric of Bill Weintraub. He is used as a reference, sure, but most of the references are not attributed to him. It's a fact that there are men outside of Bill Weintraub and his group who think the same way about anal sex. That paragraph states the opinions/feelings of some gay men. And the Sexual intercourse article? The Sexual intercourse article, which I am largely responsible for designing, has a Sexual practices section which clearly states beliefs about certain sexual acts. People believing that some acts are safer than others is even in the section right below that (still under Practices). People's beliefs about sexual practices can go in the sections about sexual practices. You point out the Oral sex article, but do you not see that it does the same thing in the Utility section? That it also includes people's opinions about the sex act? Are you saying the fact that it's not titled Sexual practices somehow makes it different? You keep pointing to articles that do the same thing. Of course the general society's opinions about health effects are not going to go in the health effects sections. Those sections are for facts and theories by experts. But the general society's opinions about health effects can go in the sexual practices sections -- which cover why people partake in sexual acts and some sexual acts over others. Flyer22 (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
To make something clear, though, I don't mind as much with the way the section is formatted now. I already felt that it needed a more encyclopedic title than Frot vs. anal sex. And it's clear that we won't be getting much help in working out issues with this article this time either. Flyer22 (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe we can try to work it out amongst ourselves. To give a specific example of a perception about anal sex listed in the section, it says "while other frot advocates denounce anal sex as an unnecessary health risk, as mimicking heterosexual vaginal sex, and degrading to the receptive partner". The issue here is that, while it is a fact that the man penetrates the woman's vagina during vaginal sex and one man penetrates another man's anus during homosexual anal sex, it is not clear how the formal equivalence between the actions translates to the real equivalence between actors. In particular, it is not clear how homosexual anal sex "mimics heterosexual vaginal sex", except that there is an orifice being penetrated, or "is degrading to the receptive partner", except that it formally equates the receptive man with a woman. Yet both the frot men and the g0ys make both the mimicry claim [6][7] and the degradation claim[8][9] and connect it to effeminacy in gay men[10][11]. Neither mimicry, degradation, nor effeminacy are logically entailed by the fact that one man penetrates another man during homosexual anal sex. They are all derived from perceptions about the proper roles of men and women during sexual intercourse and the relation of men to women, and therefore don't belong in a section that describes the fact about the health risks and prevalence of the act. Mijopaalmc (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not seeing what more needs to be worked out. You have your compromise -- the section separated from the Sexual practices section and renamed, even though I disagree with the placement for the reasons I mentioned above.
It does not need to be made clear "how homosexual anal sex mimics heterosexual vaginal sex," as this is the opinion of some gay men. It is clear that it is the opinion of some gay men. It is also clear to me (and this could be elaborated on in the article, if you want it to be made clear, but it would be leaning too much toward WP:UNDUE) that they are making the comparison based on what you stated -- that there is an orifice being penetrated; they feel that the anus should not be penetrated for sex and that therefore gay men who engage in anal sex are mimicking vaginal sex because they want to penetrate/be penetrated too. They are saying that anal sex only became prominent among gay men because of the heterosexist view that one of the partners needs to be penetrated for both to have "real sex." While I don't agree with their belief about gay men being turned into women and all that other stuff by engaging in anal sex (interesting that they don't feel the same about oral sex), I understand what they mean about the heterosexist view of sex. I have also heard it in the lesbian community; for example, the Lesbian bed death article, which I am also responsible for fixing up, touches on this. As for these views on anal sex belonging in the Sexual practices section as a subsection, I already stated just about all I have to state on this matter above. We simply disagree. But you have your compromise. Removing these views completely because you don't like them is not up for debate. Flyer22 (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I never said that I favored removing the societal attitudes section; I just said that it should be in a similar place as the sections on Ethical, Moral and Legal section in the Sexual Intercourse article and the Cultural Attitudes section in the Oral Sex article. I have amply explained my reasons in my above post, and they have nothing to do with "not liking" the frot vs anal sex debate. Rather, I object cultural attitudes being presented as scientific fact. Therefore, the information about how degrading anal sex is perceived to be does not belong in the section containing the scientific fact about frot's practice as a safe-sex alternative and its STI transmission risks. Again, this just echoes how cultural attitudes towards sex acts are dealt with the in the Sexual Intercourse and Oral Sex articles.
If nothing else, the the section under discussion is different from the beliefs stated in the comparable section in other article because it would make the bulk of the Sexual Practices section if it were places where it originally was, giving undue weight to the frot vs anal sex debate. Mijopaalmc (talk) 23:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
By "Removing these views completely," I was speaking of removing any one statement. You have thoroughly explained your reasons, and I have thoroughly disagreed with them. And, yes, you have in the past made it clear that you do not like the frot vs. anal sex debate in this article. Your concerns with that section a month ago or so were valid, which is why I improved it. And yet it seems you had/have even more of an issue with it now. No doubt due to statements such as the vaginal sex comparison. Again, no cultural attitudes were/are being presented as scientific fact in that section, and it being a subsection of the Sexual practices section did not make that any more true. I am not understanding what you do not understand about that. I ask that you stop trying to convince me of it, because I don't see it...at all. I have been more than clear about that. You act as though people's opinions were in a Health effects section. They were not. They were presented in a subsection of the Sexual practices section. Just because there is a Safe sex subsection above that...does not mean that these opinions were in/a part of that section. These were two separate sections, a part of a larger section titled Sexual practices. And, yes, a Sexual practices section should cover people's attitudes about those sexual practices. The other articles do the same thing. Because, make no mistake about it, the Utility section of the Oral sex article, is a Sexual practices section addressing people's attitudes about the act. The only reason this article -- Frot -- did not have a Cultural views or In Society section is because this article isn't as big as the Sexual intercourse, Anal sex and Oral sex articles, and the information fit well where it was. In either regard, the matter is resolved now. Flyer22 (talk) 00:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
You are misattributing a dislike of the frot vs anal sex debate to. The only thing that I objected to was the possibility that the article was presenting a pro-frot POV through its titling and organizational structure. We clearly disagree on both counts and I think that the "compromise" that we have come to is acceptable. We'll just have to agree to disagree, but it is inappropriate for you to accuse me of "hindering the article" and of having a hidden agenda.
Why should the attitude of the normative culture be placed elsewhere than those of other cultures? Mijopaalmc (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Mijopaalmc, you have tried to have this article deleted/merged/moved, and have displayed questionable edits on it. In the move discussion, you even said, "The frot article should not be about 'frot vs anal'; it should be about the act of 'frot'." So, clearly, I have had reason to believe you were editing this article with an agenda. As for your question, I'm not understanding it very clearly, but, similarly, I ask why this article should keep these opinions (MSM's opinions about anal sex) out of a section that is supposed to discuss sexual practices and why people engage in them...when the major three articles on sex acts do not even do this, despite having cultural views sections to tackle the subjects more thoroughly. But then again, you already know how I feel on this matter, so there is no need to keep repeating ourselves. Why ask me questions that are going to lead back into the same, settled discussion? I don't like repeating myself like this. We disagree. Let's leave it at that. I do apologize if I misjudged you, however. Flyer22 (talk) 03:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Anti-anal negativity "agenda" and the article title and organization

How is trying to make the article (including the title) NPOV "hindering the article"?

How is it succumbing to some "agenda"?

Look, the neutrality of the title has been discussed at length elsewhere on the talk page, and I would be happy the acquiesce if someone would provide a reliable source that defines frot in the way the article defines it, uses "frot" in contradistinction to "frottage", and cannot be traced back to Bill Weintraub. Currently, the sources that appear to have no obvious connection to Bill Weintraub (Gay Perspective: Things Our Homosexuality Tells Us about the Nature of God & the Universe, Gay men and anal eroticism: tops, bottoms, and versatiles, "Myth: All Gay Men Have Anal Sex") all call the act "frottage", as do the other sources that I have previously cited. Furthermore, The sources that are attributed to Bill Weintraub use "frot" and "frottage" more-or-less interchangeably and, when they do use "frot" situates firmly in a emphatically anti-anal sex ideology, which is why I question the neutrality of titling the article with such an ideologically charged term as "frot".

Mijopaalmc, I didn't view you as helping the article when you tried to get it deleted/merged/moved, or when you recently removed the reliably sourced Frot vs. anal sex section. That is why I viewed some of your edits/some of your talk page discussions as hindering the article.
The above -- trying to get the article to disappear, wanting certain aspects out, is what I saw as an agenda. It seems to me that you don't want this article to exist because you feel that the title represents an anti-anal sex stance. I can understand that, but this article is about so much more than an anti-anal sex stance or Bill Weintraub. It seemed to me that you wanted any negativity about anal sex to stay out of this article. I'm not sure if that was because of your concern with Bill Weintraub or whatever. But Bill Weintraub should be mentioned in this article, as long as he is not given UNDUE WEIGHT, and he isn't. He is the self-proclaimed creator of the term "frot" (in the male-male sense anyway, because I'm sure others had shortened "frottage" to "frot" as a shorthand term for "frottage" before he took the word and made it apply only to male-male sex), and he is often credited as the biggest frot advocate (the godfather of frot), which is why he should be mentioned in this article.
As for your "frot or frottage" points, I made the same points above -- at #Terms/synonyms for Frot -- but I don't see the article as POV for being titled Frot. I have read your arguments already, and I disagree that the title is POV; as stated above, the article covers more than an anti-anal sex stance and is not about Bill Weintraub. Some MSMs outside of Bill Weintraub, and who are not against anal sex, have embraced the term "frot" (the ones who use it interchangeably with "frottage"). The title seems more of a necessity to me, if there is going to be an article on this act specifically. Because what else would it be named to where it is specifically about male-male sex? "Frot" can at least be attributed to some reliable sources, even though they mention Bill Weintraub. And, I know, you say there doesn't need to be an article on male/male genital rubbing, but I say it is clear that enough other editors disagree; this article remains titled Frot...no matter how many times this is brought up. I do agree that the term "frot" is not too notable, but the act of male-to-male genital rubbing is and it seems that's why the article remains. There's nothing I can do about that. You've tried various things and even an RfC to tackle the Frot title, so it seems it's time to move on from that. Flyer22 (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I never tried to have the article deleted. I just don't think that it is NPOV to title the article "frot" for the reasons that I have listed above, especially that using a term that primarily describes a sex act within a specific ideology does give, in your typography, UNDUE WEIGHT to that ideology. It is strange that you think upholding the principles of Wikipedia is "hindering the article" and adhering to an "agenda".
Trying to merge or move articles doesn't delete the content or said article. It is therefore far from clear that I was "trying to get the article to disappear". Objecting to where the content about a particular subject appears is not the same thing as objecting to appearance of the content itself.
I don't object to "any negativity about anal sex" being in the article. (I apologized for removing the then-titled "Frot vs anal" because, upon further, reflection I did think that it was at least relevant to the topic of the article.) I do however object to the "negativity about anal sex" being interposed between objective, factual material about the prevalence of frot and its STI risks for the reasons that we have discussed at great length above.
In sum what I am objecting to whit respect to our interactions is your attribution of an "agenda" that "hinders the article" to me. The sum total of your actions with respect to the recent editorial decisions about the article has been to maintain the status quo. Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with the status quo or its maintenance, but maintaining the status quo does not entail having an agenda that supports it. So why does objecting to the status quo imply an agenda against it? Mijopaalmc (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Wanting the article merged/moved equates to deletion. This article would no longer exist, and it has no other name to be moved to. The only option would be to merge it to Non-penetrative sex, where most of what is here would not be included there...as this article is not small and a section this big on male/male sex in that article would be UNDUE WEIGHT unless we give the other couples (heterosexuals and lesbians) at least one section of equal or close to equal weight...unless, of course, it's argued that the male/male section deserves its length because it is more notable than some other sex acts and doesn't have its own article. So, yes, this article would no longer exist, and some of the content would likely be lost.
I do not think that upholding the principles of Wikipedia is hindering the article and adhering to an agenda. I have already made clear why I considered you as having an agenda, however. I also apologized if I was wrong. No need to dwell on it. I have nothing much more to state on that matter. And we've already been over the following: Negativity about anal sex was never interposed between objective, factual material about the prevalence of frot and its STI risks...unless you mean how the actual section (now titled Comparison to anal sex) is designed itself; it was included last, as there was (still is) a General subsection (which deals with the act in general, not really the prevalence of the act), a Safe sex subsection, and then the Frot vs. anal subsection. All three of these sections were under the bigger title Sexual practices, and the first two still are, because they are all aspects of the sexual practices of frot. But we have been over this time and time again. I no longer need to see your reasons for wanting the section excluded from the Sexual practices section, as you no longer need to see my reasons for why it should be included there. I don't have much more to state on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Merging or moving/renaming an article does not delete the content of a given article it just changes its location. What the essence of our disagreement about my conduct with respect to the article appears to be is a disagreement of what constitutes "the article". To me, "the article" is the content of the an article regardless of how it is titled, while apparently to you understand the title to be a fundamental part of "the article". While I did temporarily delete the content pertaining to the frot vs anal sex debate, I apologized for deleting it without explanation and explicitly said that I did consider it relevant to the article. Moreover, I (nor anyone else for that matter) did not seek to completely remove the article from Wikipedia. Thus, your attribution to me of actions that I did not take and reasons that you inferred from these alleged actions and your continual insistence that you apologized if you were wrong (nb: your phrasing seems not to acknowledge that you think that you are wrong, only that you could be wrong) focus on the contributor and not the contribution. In short, you should never have speculated about my motivations as they are irrelevant to the quality of the content that I presented. Mijopaalmc (talk) 02:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I clearly stated above, "This article would no longer exist, and it has no other name to be moved to." That is true, no matter if the content still exists somewhere else. There would no longer be an article titled Frot, which is what you want. To say this article would still exist because the content still would is not accurate in this case. If the Frot article were to still exist after a merge, then there would be no need for a merge. What would be the point of merges, if the articles still existed afterward? It's not like articles are merged on the basis of simply getting rid of article titles, not usually anyway. The content being in another article is not considered "an article within another article." It considered "one article" covering different aspects of a topic. That is my point. I also made clear that some of the content would likely be lost, and why. This is also deletion, even if partial. Plenty of merge discussions do not end with a person actually merging the content; they just redirect the article and that is that. I know this because I am thoroughly familiar/experienced with Wikipedia. You say, "Moreover, I (nor anyone else for that matter) did not seek to completely remove the article from Wikipedia." No one? Really? Then what is this deletion debate? Past discussions have also tried to get the article deleted. Merging counts as deletion here at Wikipedia, in some form or another; if you were to experience Wikipedia more often instead of being so concerned with this article for most of your time here as a Wikipedia editor, you would know that. My saying "If I was wrong" about you having an agenda will remain worded that way, because I do not know that I was/am wrong. Your explanations have not made me feel that "Yep, I was wrong," nor will any other explanations. Speculation about an editor's motivations are absolutely relevant to the quality of the content of an article when warranted, and is acceptable in enough cases. For example, the Pedophilia article. Myself and others have to constantly keep pedophiles from editing that article (more so in the past). When editors are revealed or suspected to be pedophiles, who they are is absolutely relevant; their edits are examined, and they are banned from the article and Wikipedia if thought to be pedophiles. Of course, my focus on you was not as extreme as that, and I apologize for resorting to that comparison (am only trying to make a point), but felt that I had reasons to suspect you had an agenda. You believe that such a conclusion was not warranted; I do. You are not going to get me to state that I shouldn't have felt that way. All you will get from me on this matter is my saying, "I apologize if I was wrong." Flyer22 (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Did you notice that the initiator of the "deletion debate" only moved to have the article merged and then revised his position to "move". I know you think that moving/merging is tantamount to deleting, but moving/merging doesn't necessarily delete content so I don't see how you can atribute an "agenda" to those who want a move/merger. Mijopaalmc (talk) 03:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm through with this discussion. We are going in circles. I notice everything in deletion debates. That nominator most definitely had an agenda. Merging makes the article go bye-bye too. If it didn't, there would be no point of merging. Moving, as in renaming the article, is not tantamount to deleting. In this case, however, there is no title to move this article to. Therefore, this means merging or deletion. And merging is tantamount to deletion, no matter if the content is sometimes saved, per everything I stated above about it. I know what merging does to the content in most cases. I know what I am talking about through years of editing experience at this site. You can continue to have your opinion. I really have no desire to debate with you any further. Flyer22 (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thumbs up on the rewritten "frot vs. anal" section!

Mind you, I think the "Comparison to anal sex" heading is not quite descriptive enough of the section's content. How about "Gay male debates regarding frot and anal sex", or something along those lines?

But apart from that, the expansions and new links are great! Throbert McGee (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Did you just now notice its improvement? LOL. Or are you just now commenting on it? As for your suggested title, I'm not sure Mijopaalmc will go for that. But since the section is now a part of the new In society section instead of where it used to be (see above, as I'm sure you've noticed), he might. I'd suggest shortening your title to "Frot and anal debates," though. There's no need to state "gay male," and we must also take into account the Men who have sex with men title, as not all men who engage in sex with other men identify as gay. Flyer22 (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I think that the In society section is a decent compromise for the title. I'm not sure the Comparison to anal sex is as appropriate, because it is specifically about how MSM perceive frot. I propose that the section be retitled Among MSM and that section be broken into to subsections, General and In identity formation (provisional). I also think that the various groups that promote frot as part of a identity as an MSM are notable enough that they merit their own article with brief (no more than 250-word) summaries in this article and links to the main article. Mijopaalmc (talk) 03:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Comparison to anal sex is extremely appropriate. It is specific to what that section is about, and is a part of the title you originally constructed. It being about the way men who have sex with men (MSM) view the frot vs. anal sex topic is exactly the point. What do you think "men who have sex with men" encompasses? Read Men who have sex with men. The term is not only about men who do not identify as gay or bisexual. It is also used as a title to cover all men who have sex with men (gay or otherwise). This article is about men who have sex with men. Therefore, the views in this article are of course going to be primarily composed of MSM's views. Therefore, titling a section "Among MSM" is redundant. Titling a section "Construction of masculinity" is your POV, especially since the information you put under that title isn't even mostly about that. Only one part of the information questions a man's masculinity by being the bottom in anal sex. Most of it is about pleasure, preference, comfortableness, and health effects. And there definitely should not be a very small section with only one to three lines in it. Furthermore, there is no reason that this section needs to be split up into subsections, and nothing you state will convince me of this. Lastly, I'm not sure what you mean by "the various groups that promote frot as part of a identity as an MSM are notable enough that they merit their own article with brief (no more than 250-word) summaries in this article and links to the main article..." Because, do you have any reliable sources that state this? If you mean Bill and his advocates. No, they are not notable enough for a split-off article. It would fail WP:Notability. And if you mean otherwise, what reliable sources are there stating that MSM view frot in the way you described?
You keep tampering with the section, and for trivial or odd reasons, I feel. I don't have time to satisfy you every few days (or weeks), by spending full days compromising with you after we already reached a compromise, and then you again find another reason to object to/complain about something. On a side note, I ask that you somewhat familiarize yourself with WP:Manual of Style for some of the points that I mean about your article titles. Flyer22 (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I changed the section to this. I removed the In Society title, as it is not needed, and was only holding a single subsection (which should not be done, for stylistic reasons). I left the Comparison to anal sex title as the main title, per above (it is specific as to what the section is about). And I split that section up into two subsections. Preferences, to cover the general reasons why some MSM prefer frot, and Debates, to specifically address the debates in regards to frot vs. anal sex. The main title is clear as to what the subject is about, and the two subtitles are clear that these are the opinions of people. Thus, this setup should be satisfactory for all three of us. Flyer22 (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Also, the Preferences section needs a bit added to it about why some MSM prefer anal sex, to balance out "the preference for frot" material there. The Debates section already has views of MSM who prefer anal sex, but that section is more about debating frot vs. anal sex...and the "pro-anal MSM who debate frot" material needs a few more reliable sources and bits added to it. Flyer22 (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I balanced out the Preferences section a bit,[12][13] but more is needed of course. I'll do that when I get the time; the same goes for the Debates section. If no one else does it first. Flyer22 (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I tweaked the section again, and added more to it. The Comparison to anal sex section now better shows why some MSM prefer anal sex, and specifically touches on the masculinity issue, with research showing that a male engaging in anal sex (being the bottom specifically) does not necessarily mean that he is less masculine. Flyer22 (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed all of this. Does this balance things out for you enough to agree to remove the POV tag in that section? Or do you feel that more pro-anal information needs to be in the section first? Because, really, the POV tag is for articles or sections in articles that lean more toward one specific POV. That section has two paragraphs devoted to anti-anal. And two paragraphs devoted to pro-anal. It's just that the second paragraph isn't really a paragraph right now, and needs more added to it. Flyer22 (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

If you are going to remove those lines, why not remove the whole debates section? It's just as opinion based as what you removed. Mijopaalmc (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Because the other stuff is sufficient enough to get across the point without leaning too heavily on that position, is reliably sourced, and something about the frot vs. anal sex debate should be mentioned in this article. I am not sure if these frot advocate sites count as reliable sources; however, they should not all be removed until we know for sure if they should be allowed in this article. And their being allowed in this article does not mean that they should be used to include so much POV. Flyer22 (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editor assistance

Update: Mijopaalmc has reported the discussion at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Disputes on Frot with Flyer22...without alerting me, and I just now had to weigh in. Flyer22 (talk) 08:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Editor assistance requests are to seek new editors for the article. I did not need or particularly want to inform your as it is already quite clear the we have reached an impasse on the topics mentioned in the EAR. Mijopaalmc (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Uh, no, Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests are not only for new editors. It is for resolving disputes, period. It is clear why you did not alert me -- wanting to have your say, and slant things in your favor so that editors may come in here and make changes to this article all on the basis of your statements. No matter how you look at it, it was an opportunity for you to get to say whatever about me and the situation...without my being there to defend myself and my edits. Furthermore, you are not new...no matter that you are lacking in contributions and experience. Flyer22 (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
There you go again. You assume bad faith and construe what I wrote in a way that I did not intend and is relatively questionable. I said EARs are "to seek new editors for the article" not that they are "for new editors of the articles", which is obviously how you interpreted what I was saying. Moreover, I stated the dispute neutrally in EAR, so I don't understand what your objection is. If you want to discuss the actual dispute, you have this talk page on which to do it. Mijopaalmc (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I cannot help but assume bad faith when an editor doesn't alert me to a dispute discussion that has to do with me. It may be your "newness" that made you act in such a way, but, generally, the opposing editor should alert the other editor of the discussion. Even though you worded things neutrally and provided a link to the past debates, you got to have extra say and give more of your own POV on the matter. That is clearly what my objection is. But what is done is done. Flyer22 (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
You don't need to be "alerted" to an EAR. EARs are to seek different editors than the ones that are already editing the article. The disputes can then be discussed on the article's talk page. What you seem to be doing is invoking some "unwritten rule" of wikiquette where "opposing editors" must "notify the other editor of the discussion". As far as I can tell from reading the procedure for how to submit an EAR, there is no such requirement or even a suggestion to do so. If you have an explicit citation, please link to it. Otherwise, you should desist from complaining about how you should have been notified and insisting that you weren't because I was acting in bad faith.
Frankly, I am getting tired of your continual accusations of various forms of bad faith. They are what truly hinder the article, because they make the regularly active editor appear hostile to change and focus the discussion on the talk page on the character of the newer editors rather than the actual content of the article. Mijopaalmc (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Did I say I need to be alerted? No, I stated what editors usually do -- experienced and good-faith editors. And why I objected to your actions of not alerting me. So, yes, an "unwritten rule" of wikiquette. You said you didn't understand why I objected. I tried to make it clear why I did. And as far as I'm concerned, editors should be alerted of things posted about them there just as much as places that require editors to do so.
You're tired of my actions? I have long been tired of your nitpicking at this article over things that are OPINIONS, with the irrational stance that opinions should not be mixed in with fact. Opinions are mixed in with fact all the time here at Wikipedia. Even opinions on health-related issues. And when they are, it is still clear what is opinion and what is fact. You talk about unwritten rules. Look at your "no opinions mixed in with medical facts" reasoning. I am not the one who has hindered this article. I am the main one who has fixed it up and provided reliable citations, while all you have done is complain, complain, complain, remove, remove, remove, nitpick, nitpick, nitpick; basically nothing that improves the article. And you wonder why I don't see you as helping most of the time. I have not called you out on "various forms of bad faith." The only thing (other than my comment above) I have accused you of is having an agenda, and I already stated that I will not apologize for having felt that way (or feeling that way now). These disputes of ours aren't going anywhere. This is why I end my comments with statements such as "what is done is done," but then you come back here and keep things going. Flyer22 (talk) 22:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Not mixing opinions with facts is part of the Wikipedia NPOV policy. The sources cited in the Debates section are arguably from a fringe group. Very little effort seems to have been made to determine the prevelence of the attitudes on masculinity and promiscuity expressed therein.
You also seriously need to review bad faith accusing another editor of having an agenda is the 11th and 24th example of assuming bad faith, and your continual refusal to apologize is further evidence that you are assuming bad faith. Mijopaalmc (talk) 00:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Wrong. Where does Wikipedia:Neutral point of view state that opinions should not be mixed with facts? Opinions are mixed in with facts all the time here at Wikipedia, and is quite allowed. The other articles on sexual topics do the same thing. We've been over this before. The AIDS article and many other articles are examples of this as well. Medical facts might be stated, for example, and then an opinion from a doctor or researcher may be included. For the Frot article, frot advocates are not claiming anything outrageous about the health effects of anal sex. All that is mentioned there about the health effects is AIDS/HIV. By your view, we shouldn't state some MSM do not have anal sex because they want to avoid the health risks associated with anal sex? That makes no sense whatsoever! I did not add those frot advocacy sources that go right to the frot websites. If they are not reliable, then you should get that checked out, but their views are not "fringe," seeing as plenty of MSM feel the way they do regarding some aspects of anal sex, per the reliable sources I have added to this article.
You seriously need to stop trying to make me apologize. I only assume bad faith when I have reason to. I apologized if I was wrong. If I was wrong, you should have nothing to worry about. Flyer22 (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm really not sure what to say, maybe I should let the "frot advocates" talk for themselves:

And that of course is what Robert's talking about in The Ultimate Defeat. Analists routinely claim that men do not have to experience anal penetration as degradation. They're wrong and Robert's right. What the analists are attempting is to use ideology to deny biological reality.[14]

Nevertheless, this is how it works: As sexually dimorphic beings, we conceive of men as penetrative and women as being penetrated. This is not simply a function of culture. Rather, it's a function of our most basic biology, and that's how we experience it. On a visceral, subconscious, and indeed inchoate level.When a man is penetrated, the act, he feels, turns him into a pseudo-woman. And he is effeminized by it. This point the gay leadership will not accept. They insist that men experience penetration as degrading only because a patriarchal culture tells them it is, and that with enough education or what is really indoctrination -- and at this point, the AIDS Service Organizations (ASOs) and their "safer-sex" educators are the prime agents of that propaganda -- a man will understand that it's not intrinsically degrading to be penetrated. That is nonsense. It might not be nonsense if human sexuality was purely a function of culture. But human sexuality is not purely a function of culture -- it's primarily a function of biology. Of course culture shapes some of our expression of that biology. But it cannot change the underlying biology, nor the essentially dualistic nature of the process.And for that reason, men experience penetration as degrading. That's why, in the ancient world, and no doubt in many places still in the contemporary world, victorious soldiers raped their male prisoners -- to degrade and humiliate them. What happens among contemporary gay men, though, is in some ways worse, since those gay men are taught to be in denial about what has actually happened. The reality of the experience, however, breaks through in effeminacy, in self-loathing language, and in self-destructive behavior. Thus it's common, as we've discussed, for anally receptive men to refer to themselves as mancunts, bottombitches, and pussyboys -- and -- most significantly -- as sluts and whores. Sluts and whores of course are promiscuous women. And that's the role these men assume. So: anal penetration leads to effeminization which leads to promiscuity which leads to more anal penetration. And so it goes. Over time, the behaviors feed into and reinforce each other. Effeminacy, for example, is both consequent to and facilitates anal penetration. While a degraded, effeminate self-image leads to more promiscuity. Were the leadership correct that men can be taught to accept penetration and not experience it as being in variance with their masculinity -- we would not see this process. But men cannot be taught that. We've had thirty years, after all, of analist propaganda about the allegedly masculine glories of being penetrated. And still anally-receptive men refer to themselves as bottom bitches and sluts and whores. It's more than apparent, after three decades of this particular social experiment, that anal penetration is, for a man as for a woman, intrinsically degrading. [15]

Mijopaalmc (talk) 03:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not seeing what that has to do with this article. This article notes the views of the masculinity issue, but only briefly, and I added a source which disputes it. The AIDS part, like I stated, is only relayed as a factor for some MSM choosing not to engage in anal sex. It should stay because it is one reason some MSM do not engage in anal sex. You are especially preoccupied with the "mimicking heterosexual vaginal sex" line too. Since I am indifferent to that line, and as a compromise, I would be okay with you removing it. I understand how it sounds too hostile, POV-ish, and that it is more so the belief of one or two groups. Furthermore, it's not included in the Anal sex article either. Flyer22 (talk) 04:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

De-eroticizing anal sex and condoms in the Debates section

It's as simple as this: citations should accurately reflect the material cited. Neither one of the articles[16][17] mention the risk of HIV infection outweighing the pleasure of anal sex. Thus, it is inaccurate to cite both articles in relation to the risk-benefit analysis.

Furthermore, the statement on de-eroticizing anal sex does not belong in the section because it is irrelevant to the comparison of frot and anal sex. One need not compare anal sex to frot at all in order to de-eroticize anal sex. Mijopaalmc (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It's as simple as this: The citations accurately reflect my rewording of the material. You had a problem with the citations backing up the wording that "that even with a condom, the objective medical risks of being anally penetrated outweigh the subjective pleasure." I reworded the line to something frot advocates and others who campaign against anal sex actually do state -- that part of the reason they and others do not engage in anal sex is because of the medical risks. That is cited above in the links you now showcase. So your removal is without merit. If you want to specifically put these medical risks they are referring to -- HIV and AIDS -- then fine. But you cannot removal valid material that is accurately cited simply because you want it out of the article.
The statements on de-eroticizing anal sex belong in the section because they are partly about discouraging anal sex in favor of frot and other sex acts. Bill W. discourages it for reasons we already know, and he counts as "frot." The word "some" should be used because Bill W. in that interview is not the only one discouraging it, and the source also mentions his sites which have men on it who feel the same way he does. Thus, the source does have to do with frot, and is not only about Bill W.
Because of all this, I will be reverting you yet again. Before considering reverting me again, I ask that you see that I am absolutely correct on both accounts, and to take into consideration WP:3RR. If I have to report your continued removal of reliably sourced material, I will. You must make a valid case for removals such as that, and you have not. Flyer22 (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
You seriously need to stop making edits like this. I can most definitely report it as vandalism, since the references absolutely support the statement that frot advocates feel that the medical risks of being anally penetrated are not worth the practice of anal sex. The sources specifically point to men (such as the men on Bill W.'s sites) engaging in frot and discouraging anal sex because of health risks such as HIV and AIDS, so to say that the text is not accurately cited by the sources is false! 3RR doesn't apply when reverting vandalism. And I do view this continued removal of accurately sourced material as vandalism. Trying to get past 3RR by waiting several hours doesn't work either. Flyer22 (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
And what are you talking about "Previous citations"? Previous wording and previous citations do not matter. What matters is the current wording and current citations. And the current wording is backed up by the current citations. Flyer22 (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Uh, per this edit of yours? Still wrong. And I'm going to keep warning you (one or two more times is how many it should take) before I report you if you keep removing accurately sourced material. You said, "Still doesn't accurately portray the view stated in the sources." Simply false. The sources accurately attribute frot advocates such as Weintraub being concerned with the medical risks associated with anal sex. It clearly demonstrates AIDS and HIV as one of the reasons Weintraub does not partake in anal sex and as one of the reasons he advises against it. What are you reading that does not make that clear? The text is also accurately attributed to that one opponent who feels that anal sex should be de-eroticized. The fact that you keep reverting without discussion only further proves that your objections do not hold up in this case. Not to mention...removing the support of de-eroticizing anal sex without removing the psychologist's view that it should not be de-eroticized looks silly. Further, this edit by me adds more references to frot advocates feeling that anal sex encompasses disease, which, yes, is about medical risks, and this edit also takes care of everything. The section is now clearly balanced with attention on neutral and positive views on anal sex, as well as the negative, and even criticism of Weintraub and his followers by another frot supporter. There is no reason for you to nitpick or complain about this version of the section anymore...even though I know you'll find something to pick on. Flyer22 (talk) 05:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I also further tweaked the article section, and removed "mimicking heterosexual vaginal sex" from the Preferences section, which is something you have wanted for the longest now. Flyer22 (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Other editors

I have personally asked a few editors to help weigh in on discussions here and look after this article. I have no desire to keep having to converse with you alone. It never helps, and asking the LGBT WikiProject and RfC for assistance have not helped either. Thus, I asked four editors for assistance; all of them have been involved with LGBT topics here at Wikipedia in one way or another and are okay with such topics. I feel that the article is fine now, per my statements right above. But it can only help to have other editors' views of my improvements. Not to mention, it may help stop idiotic revert wars between us. Flyer22 (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

As I responded on my talk page, can you provide page numbers for the disputed source? I have no desire to read both long articles. CTJF83 17:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. I just stated this on your talk page: Page 40 (to the right) of this source mentions how some gay men (whether frot advocates or otherwise partaking in some other sex act) campaign against anal sex, Bill Weintraub included. It also shows the quote from the male who specifically said one of the reasons he campaigns against anal sex is to save gay and bisexual men from HIV/AIDS, which is part of the text Mijopaalmc kept removing.
This source discusses all over why some gay men (or men who have sex with men in general) do not engage in anal sex, and mentions AIDS among the reasons; it also includes Bill Weintraub, but I know you don't feel like reading all that.
And I added two of these next three sources several hours ago (the Bill Weintraub interview was already there; I just moved it to support the text in question), also confirming that the reason some frot advocates do not engage in anal sex is due to diseases that may be acquired through the act, which is probably why Mijopaalmc hasn't yet removed the material again (as it further backs up the text he kept removing):
Here, it is made clear. It's a bit further down, where it mentions Bill Weintraub and his followers.
This source, which I only left in the article because it is an exclusive interview with Bill Weintraub, has Weintraub discussing health risks he associates with anal sex -- further down the article, but, again, I know you don't feel like reading or skimming over the article to locate what I mean there.
And then this, already there. So, basically, if Mijopaalmc removes the text again, he has even less of a valid reason to do so. There certainly was nothing valid in his removal before, since Bill Weintraub (his followers) and the one male were properly attributed to the references. Flyer22 (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
On a side note, Ctjf83, regarding this edit, we included the link to Non-penetrative sex#Frottage to show the general act (including all types of couples) and because that's where the term "frot" is derived from. This is also why it is linked in the Concept and etymology section. But if it is felt that people generally know what frottage is, I understand the removal. Flyer22 (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Reverted, good enough reason for me. I didn't realize Frot was penis to penis and frottage was any contact. CTJF83 21:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
LOL. Well, that has been one of the main problems with this article -- the fact that a lot of gay men (and men who have sex with men in general) either simply refer to penis-to-penis rubbing as frottage or use it interchangeably with "frot." Thus, concerns have been raised regarding the notability of the term "frot," since it is mainly used by a specific community and not by gay men/MSMs in general. While the act of male-to-male genital rubbing is notable, whether or not the term "frot" is has been called into question. See Talk:Frot#Rename page "Frottage", Talk:Frot#Is the term "Frot" POV?), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frot first nomination). Flyer22 (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
The top of P. 192 confirms what you added to the article, I don't see a problem. CTJF83 22:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Which source are you referring to specifically, though? Flyer22 (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Opps, thought I mentioned it [18] CTJF83 04:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I added that source with this edit. But my main point was that, before that, the first source, though not explicitly, pretty much confirms the same thing -- that frot advocates such as Bill Weintraub and his followers worry of diseases associated with anal sex (medical risks). It's why the source mentions how he remained HIV negative. The second source mentions how some prefer other sex acts to anal sex, partly because of diseases such as AIDS. "Other sex acts" to me includes frottage...even if not always direct penis-to-penis contact. It also mentions Bill Weintraub. I can see how that second source is "iffy" on backing up my statement, but the first was sufficient enough, I felt, and certainly sufficient enough to back up that quote from the man about saving the lives of gay and bisexual men. Either way, the line now has more sources, and I thank you for weighing in and deciding to help watch the article. Flyer22 (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't feel the first one was adequate (that's why I didn't mention it). I felt there was a little WP:OR jumping there. Flyer, I think you see that since you said, "the first source, though not explicitly, pretty much confirms the same thing"...those statements cause OR concerns. CTJF83 15:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I figured that's why you didn't mention it or the second one. But I still feel they confirmed the statement about frot advocates and health risk concerns. In addition to stating how Weintraub, a frot advocate, remained HIV-negative, there is the quote from the male who identifies as bisexual. I at first considered him to be a frot advocate as well. I realized later that it isn't stated whether or not he engages in penis-to-penis rubbing, but it does make clear that he does not engage in anal sex because of health risks associated with it. This whole revert war matter started because Mijopaalmc said Weintraub was the only one who was advocating de-eroticizing anal sex in the article. I reverted because that is false, and the statement is actually attributed to the other male. Mijopaalmc also reverted on the grounds that "Neither one of the articles discuss sex with a condom as being too risky." That revert was no longer valid because I had already reworded the quote away from the line about condoms. Per the section right above, Mijopaalmc had a problem with the citations backing up the wording "that even with a condom, the objective medical risks of being anally penetrated outweigh the subjective pleasure." I reworded the line to something frot advocates and others who campaign against anal sex actually do state -- that part of the reason they and others do not engage in anal sex is because of the medical risks. He then kept removing the material again, not just the medical risks part, but the accurately attributed de-eroticizing part as well.
Other than that, the health risks concerns were/are already made known earlier in the Frot article, such as in the Preferences section; before I removed Weintraub's websites, it was pretty clear from those sources alone, how he feels about anal sex in relation to diseases. And the term "frot" emerged as a way to disparage gay males and MSMs away from what was perceived as the dangers of anal sex. Needless to say, I didn't (and still don't) understand Mijopaalmc's removals, except for when he removed the sources because they were wrongly attributed to the line "that even with a condom, the objective medical risks of being anally penetrated outweigh the subjective pleasure." That is the only valid removal I saw, which is why I attempted to fix it. Flyer22 (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll have to wait for his/her comments. CTJF83 17:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


I keep removing the articles from The Advocate and Out as citation for the first sentence in the second paragraph of the Debates section, because they simply do not support the claim for which they are cited. The original claim was:

Additionally, frot advocates feel that the medical risks of being anally penetrated are not worth the subjective pleasure of anal sex

and The Advocate and Out articles say respectively:

Perhaps most sensational among the new AIDS activists are those who campaign against anal sex. Bisexual blogger Jim Lynch describes it as "shit sex" and says the way to avoid the "supervirus" includes no longer depicting anal sex as erotic. "It's truly unfortunate that some folks perceived [me] to be antigay when nothing could be more pro-gay than keeping gay and bisexual men alive and healthy," Lynch says.

Bill Weintraub, who runs the Web site Man2ManAlliance.org, also encourages gay men to give up anal sex in favor of what he calls "frot," or frottage—rubbing bodies and genitals together. He remained HIV-negative without using condoms during his 13-year relationship with an HIV-positive man because they stuck to frottage, Weintraub says. He insists frottage is "hotter" because anal sex "cannot give you the same experience as direct genital-on-genital sex."[19]

Even more surprising may be the fact that those men still have fulfilling sex lives. Activist Bill Weintraub runs a site called HeroicHomosex.com that contains hundreds of messages from and articles about men who prefer frottage (a word of French derivation that means "rubbing") over anal sex. Weintraub writes that his online community "values equality and masculinity, and seeks sex that is prolonged and sensual." He calls for an end to what he sees as the "cultural domination of anal sex" among gay males. While his point of view may be extreme, at the heart of it is a simple message: Many men have very satisfying sex lives without engaging in anal intercourse.[20]

Neither one discusses the relative risk of frot and anal sex with a condom or the "subjective pleasure of anal sex". Now, Flyer22 did change make the statement more neutral by changing "subjective pleasure" to "practice", but neither one of the articles actually mentions the relative valuation of anal sex and frot with respect to their HIV transmission rates. The current version is also problematic in its portrayal of the information expressed in the article because it neglects to mention that "anal sex advocates" are also concerned with "the medical risks of being anally penetrated". In fact, the bulk of The Advocate is about how public health workers are becoming more aggressive in promoting safer sex to reduce the transmission of HIV through anal sex without a condom. Citing the articles as support for any of above statements is subtly inaccurate, and should not be allowed in the article. Mijopaalmc (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Your original removals were based on the wording "that even with a condom, the objective medical risks of being anally penetrated outweigh the subjective pleasure" and that Weintraub was the only one de-eroticizing anal sex. And you kept removing the quote by the other male without any adequate reason whatsoever. I do feel that the two sources support the statement, but I will remove them from the statement since I can also see how including them could be considered interpretation. The current version is not problematic at all, in my view. It neglecting to mention that "anal sex advocates" are also concerned with "the medical risks of being anally penetrated" is something you could fix by adding that statement in the section yourself, with a reliable source attributed to it. Flyer22 (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I hestitate to get back into this fray, but I'd appreciate an answer to a very narrow question. The article now says: "In The Advocate, in 2005, one opponent of anal sex supported no longer depicting anal sex as erotic to help avoid the transmission of AIDS." Putting aside the awkward wording, Flyer, can you please tell me (1) who is the opponent and (2) what statement(s) in the Advocate article support the assertion? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
The article cites blogger Jim Lynch as the source of the quote. Mijopaalmc (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
If the wording is awkward, it can be fixed. If it is awkward, it became that way after nitpicking and my trying to find a good way to include it. As for your questions, the opponent does not have a Wikipedia article here, which is why I don't feel he is notable enough to be mentioned by name. True, Weintraub doesn't have a Wikipedia article either, but he is the most notable frot advocate, according to reliable sources. I also mention Joe Perez by name because he is an author who has written about these issues. As for supporting the assertion that "one opponent of anal sex supported no longer depicting anal sex as erotic to help avoid the transmission of AIDS," it is right above in this section of the discussion: Perhaps most sensational among the new AIDS activists are those who campaign against anal sex. Bisexual blogger Jim Lynch describes it as "shit sex" and says the way to avoid the "supervirus" includes no longer depicting anal sex as erotic. "It's truly unfortunate that some folks perceived [me] to be antigay when nothing could be more pro-gay than keeping gay and bisexual men alive and healthy," Lynch says. Flyer22 (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I've reworded the sentence. Hopefully, it's better. Just so it's clear, though, my rewording doesn't mean I support inclusion of the material - it's essentially a copy edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Edits like these[21][22][23] are what I mean about Mijopaalmc's constant nitpicking and making things worse every time I fix up the article. No matter how much I fix up this article, he is never satisfied. Or he pretends to be satisfied and then finds something else to complain about the next week or next month later. There was a POV problem with the Debates section, which you complained about, and I recently balanced it out. Your changes, however, make the section lean back toward presenting the same POV you complained about earlier. Which is no doubt what you want so that you can complain some more about this article. Your insistance that "Repeating the claim about the the intimacy of frot give WP:UNDUE to frot" is absurd. The Preferences section is about opinions, and is of course going to include men preferring frot because they feel it is more intimate, or because of whatever other reason they prefer frot. Your "substantial edits" are always to hinder/damage the article, and you have not proved otherwise. I'm beyond tired of having to constantly alter and tweak this article due to one editor's viewpoints. I am the one making improvements to the article all the time, while Mijopaalmc complains and complains. Flyer22 (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, we disagree about what constitutes your "fixing the article", although it is telling that you couch any substantial edit I make as reversing your "fixes" to the article. Mijopaalmc (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I said "fixing up the article," which is what I did, according to three editors, by adding reliable sources, balancing things out, etc., etc., etc. You are the only editor who objects to my improvements, and every time, and it is about time you admit that it is due to your utter detest for this article. Your contributions show it enough. There was a POV problem with the Debates section, which you complained about, and I recently balanced it out. Your changes, however, make the section lean back toward presenting the same POV you complained about earlier. Which is no doubt what you want so that you can complain some more about this article. Your insistance that "Repeating the claim about the the intimacy of frot give WP:UNDUE to frot" is absurd. The Preferences section is about opinions, and is of course going to include men preferring frot because they feel it is more intimate, or because of whatever other reason they prefer frot. Your "substantial edits" are always to hinder/damage the article, and you have not proved otherwise. I have reported this matter at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Neutral point of view violation at Frot article. Let's see how well your argument holds up there. Come to think of it, you haven't even made a valid argument for those three edits and reverting me...other than throwing WP:UNDUE back at me. Which is silliness. Flyer22 (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Your self-righteousness astounds me, especially since have repeatedly refused to assume good faith, which is one of the admonition for participating on this talk page. Mijopaalmc (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Your constant nitpicking astounds me. And you have given me ample reason to not assume good faith in your involvement with this article, this recent stunt by you being a prime example. To say what you just did is an improvement or that I should assume good faith in it is laughable at best. The fact that you cannot even provide a valid argument for the changes speaks volumes. Flyer22 (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps WP:DR CTJF83 20:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree. This constant wrangling interferes with a cooperative discussion about content disputes.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't work. No one ever wants to be bothered with this article. That's why I asked for editors to help. And only one has thus far. Before that, I asked one other active editor, the one who awarded me a barnstar, to help too; he hasn't yet. The place I reported this most recent dispute should help, though. Flyer22 (talk)
Well, we've both dug in our heels really deep, so it is hard to admit that either of us could be wrong (as I just did in the section below). However, Flyer22's constant assumption of bad faith makes it nearly impossible to do anything constructive, because everything I do is considered an attack on the article. Mijopaalmc (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Which procedures do you suggest we try?
Everything you do is an attack on the article, from what I have seen. You just made the Debates section problematic once again!!! Flyer22 (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
RfC and EAR haven't garnered very much interested or help. Mijopaalmc (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
WP:DR is next CTJF83 20:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
This is about neutral point of view, which is why I took the matter to that noticeboard. Flyer22 (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
The ultimate dispute may be about neutrality, or it may be about other issues as well. However, as a separate issue, two editors are constantly battling each other. That issue may be resolved at WP:DR ("This policy describes what to do when you have a dispute with another editor.").--Bbb23 (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

POV in the Preferences section

Let's start over. I am not trying to create or maintain a POV in the Preferences section. I moved the information about Bill Weintraub's opinions to the Debates section because his opinion are stated once again in that section. It was initially not my intent to remove the information about anal sex as, not because I thought (or still think) that it belongs in the Preferences section (it does not), but only because I was streamlining the Debates section, which contained a more detailed description of the "hotness" of frot.

I frankly don't see the relevance of the material discussing anal sex in the Preferences section. It is completely self-contained and does not discuss a preferences for anal sex over, just the motivations for MSM to engage in anal sex. If removing the material on anal sex from the Preferences section mitigates the POV issue, I support it. However, the repetition of an opinion in two different place does give undue weight to the opinion, so Bill Weintraub's opinions on frot belong in one section or the other, not both, especially since the two statements are just rewordings of one another. Mijopaalmc (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you both summarizes in a few sentences what the issues are. I'm gonna be honest, I don't like reading as it is, and when I come in with paragraphs and paragraphs to read, usually of rambling or irrelevant material, I usually don't bother. CTJF83 20:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Some MSM practice a sex act that involves rubbing one's penis against various parts of his partner's body. Some MSM even prefer this act, which is most often called "frottage", to anal sex.
A subset of these MSM refer to the specific act of rubbing their penises together as "frot". They tend to justify their preference in that they perceive it to be more masculine than anal sex, which the denounce as leading to effeminacy, promiscuity and inevitably to death from AIDS.
It is not clear how large this subset is, yet the bulk of the Comparisons to anal sex subsection depends on their specific opinion on anal sex and frot. Mijopaalmc (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok...so the dispute is what exactly? CTJF83 21:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
In response to Mijopaalmc: Fine. I will try to start over and work something out with you yet again. My response is this: There is going to be POV in the Preferences section. It is about people's opinions -- about why they engage in frot over anal sex, or the other way around. What is it with you and not understanding that these are opinions, not fact? To me, you are trying to create and maintain a POV in the Preferences section, because you removed the POV of some frot advocates preferring frot because they consider anal sex to be a health risk and find it degrading to the receptive partner. These are preferences, and not ones just expressed by Bill Weintraub. Removing Bill Weintraub's statement is one thing, but you removed two preferences for frot that others beside Bill Weintraub have for engaging in frot. Further, Bill Weintraub's opinion that frot is hotter or any other feeling he has about frot being better was not stated in two sections. The line "two genitals coming together by mingling, caressing, sliding" and rubbing as "sex" more than other forms of bodily pleasuring is not Weintraub's statement; it is someone else's statement. Similar opinion or not, all the reasons for why people engage in frot should be summarized in the Preferences section. So are you okay with adding back the brief mention of "health risks" and "degrading to the receptive partner" without mention of Weintraub?
There is relevance in discussing anal sex in the section to balance things out and to show why some gay men engage in anal sex, such as finding it to be "their version of intercourse." The anal sex information there should be cut down now that you have cut down the frot information. And the text about Weintraub and his followers that you moved to the Debates section should be removed to once again balance that section out. Not to mention, it is redundant. Flyer22 (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
How about we try and do something like 2 pro Frot 2 anti frot, 2 pro anal, and 2 anti anal...which pro frot would probably be anti anal, etc, and then everyone is happy we have a NPOV. CTJF83 21:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
No-one that I am aware of is "anti-frot" at least in so far as "frot" can be described as the act of two me rubbing their penises together. What people object to is the "frot advocate" overt hostility to and denigration of anal sex based the same logic that has been used to stigmatize MSM, so I don't see how it makes sense to have an "anti-frot" viewpoint. Mijopaalmc (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Well whatever...but you get the idea of being neutral, and equally representing all view points based on weight CTJF83 21:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
And it is that neutrality I am trying to represent. Mijopaalmc, you still haven't answered my question. Are you okay with adding back the brief mention of "health risks" and "degrading to the receptive partner" to the Preferences section as two other reasons for people preferring to engage in frot...as long as there is no mention of Weintraub? Once we do that, we can cut down the reasons for engaging in anal sex as well; though we could go ahead and do that now.
I would say we should just combine both sections back under the lone title of Comparison to anal sex, but splitting the material was a compromise with an editor from earlier on (at #Thumbs up on the rewritten "frot vs. anal" section!) who wanted the word "debates" somewhere in the title. But if it is thought to be best to just combine both sections together, then let's do that. Flyer22 (talk) 21:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
For someone who claims to be the paragon of neutrality with respect to this article, you certainly don't pay attention to where you praise is coming from. Thorbert McGee is a frot advocate[24]. If you're going to criticize me for being steadfast in my convictions, maybe you should consider that his praise may not be the most neutral. Mijopaalmc (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
He isn't the only one who has "praised my edits." As for doing background checks on editors, I am not interested in doing so unless they are pedophiles trying to edit the Pedophilia article. Furthermore, he admitted on my talk page what sexual act he has a preference for. That doesn't mean he cannot tell good editing when he sees it -- adding reliable sources, balancing things out, etc., etc., etc. He has actually been pretty neutral in his edits regarding this article. Since you keep avoiding my question, I will go ahead and make the section singular again. Flyer22 (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You can keep on arguing about neutrality if you like, but I want to get back to basics for a moment, which is the overall justification for this article. I've brought this up before at EAR, but I don't get anywhere. The article states: "The term "frot" was originally popularized by gay male activists who disparaged the practice of anal sex." I don't see any real support for that statement. Mijopaalmc above says something different (which you didn't dispute here): "Some MSM practice a sex act that involves rubbing one's penis against various parts of his partner's body. Some MSM even prefer this act, which is most often called "frottage", to anal sex. A subset of these MSM refer to the specific act of rubbing their penises together as "frot"." That seems to say that frot is just a shorthand term for frottage (which is pretty much what I think). So, why the article? Why couldn't any truly important information here simply be merged with Non-penetrative sex, which covers frottage?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is something that Bill Weintruab wrote on this talk page:
  2. Outercourse: Frot is not outercourse. Frot is sexual intercourse, which Merriam-Webster's (1983) defines as "physical sexual contact between individuals that involves the genitalia." Frot is male-male sexual intercourse. That's both apt and accurate.
  3. The purpose of my work is to move "men who have sex with men" away from anal and towards Frot: One reason is that I have no doubt that the next epidemic is on its way. You can picture gay men as tied to the railroad tracks of anal, and the next epidemic as the locomotive bearing furiously down upon them. We need to get them off those tracks ASAP.
  4. To that end, and as someone who's lived through all 21 grisly years of "safer-sex," I can tell you that terms like "outercourse" and slogans like "on me not in me" do not work: People don't want outercourse. They don't want condoms. They want intercourse. That's why we stress, correctly, that Frot is mutually genital sex. Frot is male-male sexual intercourse.
He clearly defines "frot" as being exclusively genital-genital intercourse. However, as I stated before, I have not been able to locate any source not derived in some way from Bill Weintraub's work that uses "frot" in that way. Given that his stance is almost purely ideological, I don't understand how titling the article "Frot" doesn't present his POV. Mijopaalmc (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Weintraub's defnintion of frot:

Frot is the male-male erotic practice of aligning the erect penis of each partner so that the undersides of the penises are touching, and rubbing them together until orgasm. As such, it is the only m2m erotic practice which, like penile-vaginal sex, involves direct and mutual genital-genital contact. Consequently, Frot is highly and mutually pleasurable for both partners simultaneously. And because during and after orgasm, ejaculate is not contained within a bodily orifice such as the anus, rectum, or mouth, it is very low risk for HIV and a number of other STIs which are most commonly anally- or orally-vectored. In addition, since the partners stand or lie facing each other, Frot is a very connected and intimate practice both emotionally and spiritually. Frot facilitates full-body contact, and partners experience a heart-to-heart connection as well as a genital bond. Because European-Americans and African-Americans sometimes use different slang terms for the penis, Frot is known colloquially under a variety of names, including Cock To Cock, Dick2Dick, Bone on Bone, and Cockrub. It's also sometimes referred to as "Front" and "Frontalism." The term "Frot" itself was coined by Frot activist Bill Weintraub in October of 2000 in order to provide men with a race-neutral term for the activity, and to provide a substitute for the word "frottage," an ersatz French word which most sexologists use to refer to any sort of sexual body rubbing. Frot, by contrast, like the slang terms cock2cock and dick2dick, refers specifically to the rubbing of erect penis on erect penis. Readers who are over 18 and who wish to see a colloquial and adult explanation of Frot, intended for a mature audience, which includes graphic depictions of men having phallus against phallus sex, may click here. Please do not do so, however, if graphic depictions of sex will offend or upset you.[25]

It is even more restrictive than the definition provided in the lead paragraph, because it requires the penises to be on top on each other, not as they are in the Princeton Rub. Mijopaalmc (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Guys, we aren't getting anywhere. I don't even wanna read all that after my last post, becuase i'm 99% sure it is stuff that has already been argued to no consensus. CTJF83 23:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
(ec - even though I know CT doesn't want to hear it) In my view, this article cannot be justified based on the opinion of a gay activist who isn't even necessarily notable in his own right. But even if he were, I would feel the same - it's not enough. The stuff about frottage itself, i.e., the Concept and etymology section, to the extent it is not duplicative, should be merged with the Non-penetrative sex article. The rest of it belongs in its own article if a debate about frottage vs. anal sex is sufficiently notable to justify an article. As presently constituted, the article makes no sense.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Bbb23, I believe Throbert McGee said something about the origin of the term "frot" being covered in this interview. "Why the article?" has already been brought up numerous times, as I stated to you. It exists because of sources such as this, this, this, and this. I'm not sure why you're asking me, "Why the article?" when, as I stated at Wikipedia:Editor assistance, Bill Weintraub... This has been the biggest issue with the article -- the fact that "frot" has a lot to do with him; the term, not the act of male-male frottage. The columnist of the Out magazine source you cited is not claiming to have coined "frot." Bill Weintraub is. If the term "frot" comes up, Bill Weintraub is there being interviewed...and by reliable sources, such as this and this. These reliable sources were missing before I added them, and everything he stated was only attributed to his own websites. But as can be seen from the sources, he has gotten some attention from the gay media. Also seen in those sources is his stance on anal sex, which is also attributed to the men who take part in his websites. This, and men who simply prefer frottage to anal sex, is why I state that the term "frot" is not just about the practice of frottage and has a lot to do with anal sex, and why Mijopaalmc tried to get the article moved or merged (see Talk:Frot#Rename page "Frottage" and Talk:Frot#Is the term "Frot" POV?). I have extensively agreed with Mijopaalmc that the term "frot" is not notable outside of Weintraub and his followers (see Talk:Frot#Terms/synonyms for Frot), but the practice of male to male genital rubbing is. This has been the main issue with the article all along, whether the article should even exist under the title of Frot. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frot first nomination).'
That is why. And why the article makes sense to enough people. If Mijopaalmc finally gets this article deleted, which is what he has wanted all along, I won't be crying over its loss. Except the wasted time I put into it, especially trying to appease/please him. I'll finally be free of it, and Mijopaalmc. Thanks again for diverting the attention back to the existence of this article, instead of how the content should be handled. You just gave Mijopaalmc a platform to once again bitch about it. Flyer22 (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah, well, Flyer, unlike you, I'm not invested in any of this, and I don't see this as giving you or Mij a "platform". And, just so it's clear, I don't agree with just about anything you said above. However, in the interest of CT making some headway here (good luck), I'll bow out again.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh thanks Bbb....CTJF83 23:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
No good deed ever goes unpunished. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
That's where you're wrong. Unlike Mijopaalmc, I am not obsessed with this article. Unlike Mijopaalmc, I have plenty of other articles tagged onto my user contributions. I simply like fixing up articles, and often edit sexuality topics. What I saw was an article that needed fixing up, at least with formatting and reliable sources, and that is what I did. I care not if you disagree "with just about anything" I stated above, and that you seem to agree with just about everything Mijopaalmc states. If you cannot recognize that Mijopaalmc violated WP:Neutral point of view with his most recent edits, then oh well. But about disagreeing with why this article exists? I listed facts as to why it exists...such as the deletion debate. Not my opinion. And it is pretty much the same thing Mijopaalmc stated to you anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
The practice of male-male genital-genital rubbing is called "frottage" outside of the works that can be attributed to Bill Weintruab. That much is a fact.
Also, I don't want the article deleted, I just want the information appropriately title. If you can provide a source that cannot be attributed to Weintraub I will happily accept the article as it is currently titled, but continuing to insist that I have some nefarious plan to silence the news about frot is just further evidence of you bad faith issues. Mijopaalmc (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
It is not up to you to accept the article or not. Just because you do not like the article does not mean you get to nitpick at it every time it is substantially fixed up. It is not up to me to choose a different article title. It is not fair to take it out on me. Read the deletion debate again if you want to know why this article remains titled Frot. I did not state that you have "some nefarious plan to silence the news about frot." I stated that you have an agenda, and I made that agenda clear in some of my arguments with you. You just admitted part of that agenda now. Flyer22 (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah yes, the old "agenda" canard. It's only an "agenda" because you disagree with it. You said I want the article deleted, and that is simply not true. I don't want all, or even most, of the content removed. I just want it titled in a way that reflects the consensus of human knowledge. To that end, I have noted that "frot" is a slang term that occurs in reference to an online community the notability of which even you have question. The much more common term is "frottage", which, while it covers a much wider range of acts, occurs in a number of gay sex manuals and is the word used by safe sex educators.
You, however, continue to advocate a niche usage, which you have not bothered to verify beyond reference to the online community the notability of is questionable. If you present some independent attestation to the usage of frot, I will drop this argument, but so far all you have put forward accusations of bad faith. Mijopaalmc (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I have expressed valid concerns about why I feel you have an agenda. For one, you are a single purpose account. And then there's the other stuff I stated. It's only "not an agenda" because you say so. And we've been over the deletion matter extensively. I clearly stated what merging will do to this article. Either way, a lot of it will be deleted. You don't see it as deleting, whatever. Stop dragging me back into past discussions that I'd rather not have with you again.
I'm not the one advocating anything. Per past linked discussions above, I agreed that the term "frot" is not notable, but that the act of male-to-male genital rubbing is, and stated that there is no other title to move this article to that can be backed up by reliable sources. Frottage is a dab page. All I have done is supply this article with various sources, while you have removed things, a lot of the times with no valid reason, constantly nitpicked (more nitpicking than when the article was in a very sad state) and complained, complained, complained. And now that I have combined the sections, I do not doubt that you will find something else to complain about. And it is clear that you will continue to be a hindrance to this article all because of its title and because you have a disliking for some of the information relayed by some frot advocates. For the last time, the article title is not up to me!!!! I am no frot advocate. I am a female Wikipedia editor who feels that if this article is going to exist under this title, it might as well be fixed up. Flyer22 (talk) 00:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I am not a single purpose account, although yet another bad faith accusation is noted.
You are not neutral. You accused Bbb23 of giving me "a platform", when he mentioned that he had some of the same concerns about the titling of the article, further demonstrating bad faith against people with whom you disagree. If you continue the personal attacks, I will report you. Mijopaalmc (talk) 01:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Did you read what a single purpose account is? It is "...a user account or IP editor whose editing is broadly limited to one very narrow area or set of articles, or whose edits to many articles appear to be for a common purpose." That's you. Nothing wrong with stating it.
I am neutral, and have compromised with you time and time again. But nothing ever satisfies you. And it is clear that as long as this article is titled "Frot," nothing ever will. Go ahead and report me, see how successful you are with that. Bbb23 didn't see my saying you have an agenda as much of an attack either. Flyer22 (talk) 01:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
You are not neutral; you cannot stand that someone else might actually agree with me, and, when he/she does, you attack them for whatever is the perceived slight du jour. You accused Bbb23 of giving me "a platform", instead of considering that his concerns may be valid. Therefore, you have taken a particular stance on the article, which destroy your neutrality.
You have continually show that you assume bad faith (both with me and Bbb23), which you are admonished not to do at the top of the page. Why don't you recognize that? Mijopaalmc (talk) 01:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I am neutral because, unlike you, I am not obsessed with this damn article or its title. I am not pro-frot or pro-anal, or anywhere in between gay male issues. My concern is having this article reliably sourced, cleaned up, and neutral. My edits to it attest to that. My past comments attest to that. I cannot stand someone agreeing with you, you say? All three of us are in agreement about the article title. Except I don't view the title as POV, and we don't know if Bbb23 views it as POV. I did not attack Bbb23. You seriously need to redefine your definition of an attack. I stated that Bbb23 gave you a platform to once again bitch about the existence of this article...because that's what he did. You were right there bitching about it again. I did not state he did it intentionally. Due to his questioning about the article title, which diverted the attention away from the subject at hand, it gave you a platform to once again bitch about the article title. That is true! I have not assumed bad faith in Bbb23. It is you I have assumed bad faith in, and that will not change. You will not change my mind. You will not get me to apologize, and certainly not with the type of edits you made very recently. So stop trying. Flyer22 (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, there is way too much drama here for me to want to deal with it. Flyer, I have the same issues with a user who wants his way only and complains till he gets it. CTJF83 03:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Will you at least still look after it? It won't do any good to leave us two to it completely, as every other person/WikiProject seems to do. And sorry that you are dealing with pretty much the same at another article. Flyer22 (talk) 03:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I think your edits are the best...we just need Mijopaalmc to accept that...CTJF83 03:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frot/Archive_2&oldid=1086315290"