Talk:Reverse receptive partner on top (sex position)

WP Sexuality|importance=mid|class=stub

Posting[edit]

Don't bother posting anything on Wikipedia any more since nearly everything I post, actually ends up being removed. Seems likes theres a petty bunch of people who patrol wikipedia removing everything, just for the sake of removing it. Theres me thinking that the whole idea of wikipedia was to be an open source for people to refer to about anything and everything, seems like some people are on a bit of a power trip to me.

misc[edit]

I wrote a mail to the Reverse Cowgirl if she'd like to link here, and she did. Cool :-) --Kurt Jansson 12:42 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

To whom it may concern: Nobody in the universe calls this the reverse amazon. --24.21.101.75 08:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

at least easily a thousand plus links disagrees with you [1] Mathmo 14:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

also while in the position the girl on top as access to the guys big toe, pulling the toe increases the pleasure of the guy due to a simmilar nerve

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed 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 debate was move. --Muchness 10:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse amazon → Reverse cowgirl … Rationale: Far more common -- see comment on Talk:Reverse amazon [above, 8 January 2006]. More to the point, Google gives 321,000 results for "reverse cowgirl" vs. 1,330 for "reverse amazon" (many, if not most, of which are WP mirrors). --zenohockey 04:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Support per nom. --Muchness 05:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Nightst a llion (?) 08:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Should "man can fall asleep" really be listed as an advantage? Not to mention that the man being able to view penetration is no better for the reverse cowgirl than for the regular cowgirl. And that for most couples the man's arm is not long enough to reach the clitoris without being propped up. 58.108.109.76 11:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think that the view is better than for the "regular cowgirl". Given no consensus on this issue and the lack of any citations, it should not be listed either way. --Strait 20:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

come on, does this really need to be tagged as "unreferenced"?[edit]

I got rid of the "unreferenced" tag. Come off it. I mean, seriously, let's not be childish. Next you'll want references on "water is H2O" and "the sky is blue". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.19.13.91 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

This page contains all sorts of information besides the very fact that this position is possible, which I assume is what you are reacting to. Therefore, it needs references. --Strait 20:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naming[edit]

Mathmo: I have the same concern here as I have voiced at List of sex positions. I do not think that there is any general agreement among English speakers that the position shown in the second picture is called "amazon", and therefore we should not label it that way. --Strait 09:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see what the problem is, it is mentioned in the article itself that this is an alternative name of it. As for including the image, it makes sense because then the reader can easily see where that term came from just by glancing at the image. Plus it is not as if I'm making this the main image of the page, rather is a secondary image underneath the main one. I'll restore the images, if you can't see the points I've outlined here then go ahead and remove it again. And we can discuss this some more here. Mathmo ^Talk 17:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reader can easily see where the term came from just by glancing at the image? I don't understand. Are you saying that the position is obviously Amazon-like somehow? (If so, I vehemently disagree.)

It is, if she rotates around (i.e. "reverses") then she is at basically the same position. Otherwise the average reader could wonder right at the start of the article how the hell does this get called reverse amazon some of the time if they are not familiar with it already. Mathmo ^Talk 20:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Separate from the naming issue, I don't want that image here because it does not illustrate what this page is about. This page is explicitly about the position where the woman is facing away from the man. It makes no sense to show a picture of her facing towards him. You might as well put a picture of a dog on cat. --Strait 18:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is related, to say dog with cat though is not a similar example. A better example would be an early glider on the plane page, could be possible because planes developed from gliders. Likewise the name reverse amazon came from amazon, I'd support also a picture of cowgirl too but I expect people are more easily able to see and understand that besides they can with ease go to the cowgirl page and see it all explained. Mathmo ^Talk 20:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the image could be appropriate if it were used to compare and contrast. I don't think it's really necessary in this case, as the concepts are very simple and there's a link to the other position for interested readers. And I'll say again that I don't think there is a real distiction between "cowgirl" and "amazon". But more on that elsewhere... --Strait 20:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed video[edit]

I have removed the video illustrating the position. I do not think that it added anything to the article.--Kelmendi 02:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]