Talk:Frot/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

A few months ago, I took it upon myself to rewrite some parts of this article, and especially the first several grafs, with an eye to addressing the concerns of the curmudgeonly Mr. Weintraub AND his Wiki critics.

In full disclosure: I'm a great admirer of Weintraub for the work he's done at the expense of making himself a pariah -- note that he's been an out-and-proud gay dude since before Stonewall -- yet I also think that he tends to shoot himself in the foot sometimes by being just a bit of an asshole.

Anyway, I've just recently returned to this article and am editing my own edits based on constructive feedback I've gotten from gay friends and straight friends to whom I've referred it. I will freely admit that there are more weasel words ("many gay men sometimes argue...", etc.) than desirable, but in my defense I will point out that "frot" as discussed in this article is a relatively new conceptual framing for a practice that some guys have done since cavemen days. Not only that, but it's a concept that (because of cultural inertia and political silliness, IMO) remains woefully neglected and under-discussed in mainstream gay media both online and off -- hence the difficulty in finding linkable sources.

All that said, I do welcome feedback and edits on the current version.Throbert McGee (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources do not have to be linkable. It helps make them easier to check, but ultimately sources just need to be reliable. Books, magazines and newspapers (including the gay press) would be good sources to document the controversy. Even if sources are not neutral, it would be OK to say that Smith advocates X while Doe argues against it that... etc., with their positions sourced from published works (not blogs). Asking your friends is just Original Research. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I clicked that link from the bonobo page having no idea what it was and did not expect to see a badly drawn picture of two human males rubbing their dicks together. I've got no problem with gay sex, but putting that on wikipedia on the main page of a word that isn't widely known just seems stupid. 153.106.4.94 (talk) 01:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I checked. The only link from the Bonobo article is at the end of the sentence Bonobo males frequently engage in various forms of male-male genital behavior, which is perceived by some scientists as being sexual (frot). No idea what it was? At least now you know. --Simon Speed (talk) 12:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Rather than just revert again, which I will do even if it only lasts two seconds I thought I would also point you to wikipedia's articles on

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.192.81.11 (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This article may be better off as a transwiki to Wikitionary. It doesn't look good when a term is only five years old and its originator is a major contributor to the article. It appears to have gained acceptance among some gay men. How much acceptance is hard to determine. I tried the Google test and discovered "frot" is also a technical computing term and a fairly common French surname. How is this entry encyclopedic rather than a dictionarydefinition? Durova 21:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Bill Weintraub

I must say I'm amused.

At a time when Wikipedia is under attack for entries which are inaccurate and slanderous, I speak about my work under my own name.

And I provide a "user biography" so that Wikipedia editors can verify my statements.

For doing this, I'm called a string of slanderous names -- by people whose only identifiers are a string of numbers in an IP address.

Profiles in courage guys.

Then RfC -- whoever that is -- has a problem because not only is my work signed, but it's "only five years old."

Actually six if we factor in Hyacinthine Love -- which you should.

I have to wonder: If Karl Marx showed up to define communism for Wiki in 1840, would it have been too recent?

In the topsy turvy world of Wiki, it's bad for the author of a contemporary work to sign his work.

But fine if people hiding behind IP addresses slander him repeatedly.

Great.

Then RfC is shocked to discover via Google that there are other uses for the word Frot.

Why?

There are other people named Marx -- you know, Harpo, Groucho, Chico.

There can't be more than one entry?

Give me a break.

(For the record, I coined Frot literally years before Catherine Frot had a PR machine cranking out those releases that are popping up on Google.)

In my view, Wikipedia is a fraud perpetrated upon the public.

I coined the term Frot and I created the Frot Movement.

Which is receiving press.

And which is WIDELY used among gay AND BI men who practice penile-penile.

And I've been watching the Wiki entry to keep it ACCURATE.

Which it is.

So far, the changes I've seen to the entry are clearly coming from people who have, to put it politely, a pro-anal bias.

But hey, you don't think Frot belongs here anyway.

Fine.

If it was up to me, there'd be no mention of Frot on Wikipedia.

Because like I say, Wiki's a fraud.

I sign my work.

If I'm wrong I own the mistake.

If I'm right -- I own that too.

But anyone can come on here and say anything about anybody under cover of the net -- and you'll claim it's as valid as Britannica.

It's not.

Britannica's articles are signed.

Yours are NOT.

Except when they are and you see that as a problem.

Regarding some of these other issues from nameless person at top of thread:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. Risk.

There's never been a documented case of HIV transmission through frot.

By contrast, there've been 65 million cases of HIV / AIDS, some iatrogenic and some due to IV drug use, but the overwhelming majority of them attributable to anal / vaginal sex.

What portion is anal?

We don't know, but Halperin's work

Halperin, DT, Shiboski, SC, Palefsky, JM, and Padian, N. (2002) High level of HIV infection from anal intercourse: a neglected risk factor in heterosexual AIDS prevention. Poster presentation at the 2002 XIV International AIDS Conference in Barcelona.

tells us that anal is a far more efficient vector than vaginal.

Specifically, 10 to 20 times more efficient.

And that anal is more common among heterosexuals in the third world than previously believed:

Halperin, DT. (1999, December). Heterosexual anal intercourse: prevalence, cultural factors, and HIV infection and other health risks, part I. AIDS Patient Care 13 (12):717-730.

While according to Dr. Stephen Goldstone of GayHealth.com, "anal is the highest risk sex act that men who have sex with men can perform."

Why does he say that?

Because the literature on anal transmission of HIV among gay and other men who have sex with men (MSM) is extensive.

Here's a sampling:

• Buchbinder SP, Douglas JMJ, McKirnan DJ, et al. Feasibility of human immunodeficiency virus vaccine trials in homosexual men in the United States: risk behavior, seroincidence, and willingness to participate. J Infect Dis. 1996;174:954-961.

• Coates RA, Calzavara LM, Read SE, et al. Risk factors for HIV infection in male sexual contacts of men with AIDS or an AIDS-related condition. Am J Epidemiol. 1988;128:729-739.

• Darrow WW, Echenberg DF, Jaffe HW, et al. Risk factors for human

immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection in homosexual men. Am J Public Health. 1987;77:479-483.

• van Griensven GJ, Tielman RA, Goudsmit J, et al. Risk factors and

prevalence of HIV antibodies in homosexual men in the Netherlands. Am J Epidemiol. 1987;125:1048-1057

• Melbye M, Biggar RJ, Ebbesen P, et al. Seroepidemiology of HTLV-III antibody in Danish homosexual men: prevalence, transmission, and

disease outcome. BMJ. 1984;289:573-575

• Ostrow DG, DiFranceisco WJ, Chmiel JS, et al. A case-control study of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 seroconversion and risk-related behaviors in the Chicago MACS/CCS Cohort, 1984-1992. Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study. Coping and Change Study. Am J Epidemiol. 1995;142:875-883.

• Seage GRR, Mayer KH, Horsburgh CRJ, et al. The relation between nitrite inhalants, unprotected receptive anal intercourse, and the risk of human immunodeficiency virus infection. Am J Epidemiol. 1992;135:1-11.

• Schechter MT, Boyko WJ, Douglas B, et al. The Vancouver Lymphadenopathy-AIDS Study: 6. HIV seroconversion in a cohort of homosexual men. CMAJ. 1986;135:1355-1360.

• Vittinghoff E, Douglas J, Judson F, et al. Per-contact risk of human immunodeficiency virus transmission between male sexual partners. Am J Epidemiol. 1999;150:306-311.

Typical is Buchbinder et al J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Volume 39, Number 1, May 1 2005, who state: "Many studies have demonstrated that receptive anal sex is most strongly associated with prevalent and incident HIV infection in MSM and carries the highest per-contact risk of acquiring HIV. ... and should be targeted in prevention strategies for MSM."

What those who question the safety of frot are doing is presenting hypothetical possibilities of an almost infinite remoteness against a huge, known, proven and present danger -- anal penetration.

Regarding other STI -- Haldrik's formulation "many times safer" is accurate.

It's difficult to say more than that.

Most "safer sex" people will tell you that STI risk from Frot is negligible -- see for example this discussion from Jeffrey Klausner of SF DPH on gay.com.

I've done Frot for 34 years, not just with my partner who was poz and eventually died of AIDS, but with many other men who perished in the epidemic, and who certainly carried pathogens like HPV and herpes.

Yet I've NEVER had an STD.

That's what most Frot men report.

I know that's inconvenient for those "men into anal" who want to believe that all sex is as fraught with risk as anal penetration.

It is NOT.

There are vast differences in risk between Frot and anal.

That's the truth.

5. Finally -- "neutral point of view"

Frot v anal is about the politics of sex -- the governance of desire.

Such issues do not lend themselves to neutrality.

The best you can do is be openly partisan, and, like me, SIGN YOUR NAME.

I've had five years of ad hom attacks from people hiding behind hotmail accounts and IP addresses.

And predictably, they're already here on Wiki -- pretending to be friends of NPOV.

No.

These are anti-Frot, pro-anal, partisans.

In hiding.

Fact: The anatomy and physiology of the anus and rectum are such that they are extraordinarily vulnerable when penetrated.

Until anal is displaced from its central role in gay male life, gay men will remain at terrible risk.

Bill Weintraub

I reverted the Sexual politics of frot section back into the article. Please discuss concerns in Talk before making massive deletions. The author of the linked site is hardly the only gay person involved in an ideological avoidance of anal sex. For example, a number of conservative religious (Jewish, Christian, Muslim) organizations accept homosexuality while perceiving anal sex (specifically!) as religiously taboo. Much of the Hellenistic world subscribed to a similar sexual "political" ideology, and no doubt the modern religious ideology likely derives from the Hellenistic notions. On a related point, the bonobo primates are the only animals on earth that engage in every form of sex that the human primates engage in ... except they dont have anal sex. Why dont bonobos have anal sex? Perhaps anal sex isnt a biological drive among humans, but only a learned habit based on gender-assumptions? Moreover modern homosexual humans grow up internalizing the behaviors of their heteosexual parents, who have a cultural monopoly on raising children. The culture has historically used violence against gays who parent children, thus denying children with social awareness of homosexual rolemodels. Who knows what being "naturally" gay really means? If society says only women are allowed to have sex with men, why wouldnt male children learn to become unnatural "females" in order to satisfy their sex drive. Gay identity is just in its nascent formative stage. Who knows what being gay will mean 100 years from now? Etc. Etc. These are extremely important questions.

People dont need to agree with the linked website to acknowledge that it touches on a number of issues of consequence. For example, I disagree with the website on one point. Let me explain. I feel very strongly that "gender" is more-or-less unrelated to "orientation". For example, I met a women, who was born biologically male but her "soul" (for lack of a better word) was female. Nevertheless she was attracted to women only. Even with her male anatomy she felt like a Lesbian trapped in a man's body. She had her sex-reassignment operation and she became a true Lesbian. She never regretted her decision. (Interestingly, she is one of the few women in the US who is legally married to another women, because she married the woman while she was still anatomically male.) Anyway. Sex, gender and orientation are separate. It's like flipping I-Ching coins to see all the permuations of human sexuality. That's not even counting people who are androgynous, and truly neither male nor female, or rather both male and female. And so on. There really are males with feminine gender who are attracted to males with masculine gender. And they should be that way, because for them that's who they really are. And it's healthy for them. (And so on.) When the "politics of frot" demonizes these innocent "feminized fag" humans, the "politics of frot" is wrong! Very wrong. Just because some male-oriented males dont feel feminine, doesnt mean they should attack those who do. Humans are diverse. The "frot movement" needs more nuance.

Anyway. I think this whole subject matter and everything related to it is extremely important, and I'd rather see contributors adding to the discussion than deleting the discussion. Peace. --Haldrik 03:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

". For example, a number of conservative religious (Jewish, Christian, Muslim) organizations accept homosexuality while perceiving anal sex (specifically!) as religiously taboo."

that would be part of the sexual politics of anal sex not frot

R:ather it's the politicization of frot-vs-anal into the gender politics of male-vs-female. It belongs here because the most people who discuss frot as a distinctive form of sex are precisely the ones who juxtapose it against anal sex. The very concept emerged from this polemic. It has to be discussed. It is important. --Haldrik 02:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"Much of the Hellenistic world subscribed to a similar sexual "political" ideology, and no doubt the modern religious ideology likely derives from the Hellenistic notions. " but that has nothing to do with penile penile frot

Frot is understood as licit sex. --Haldrik 02:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"Why dont bonobos have anal sex? Perhaps anal sex isnt a biological drive among humans, but only a learned habit based on gender-assumptions?" again you're talking about anal sex, not frot

It's part of the discourse about what aspects of sex are "nature" (frot?) and what are "nurture" (anal?). It's part of the polemic that defines (structurally) the social meaning and relevance of frot. The polemic is notable. --Haldrik 02:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"People dont need to agree with the linked website to acknowledge that it touches on a number of issues of consequence." its already linked as a refernce in the first paragraph, one link is plenty.

128.192.81.41 20:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Again. If you dont like the POV, I'd rather see you rework it, or add a second POV to rebutt it. Censorship should be avoided. --Haldrik 02:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the Politics of Frot back in. However, this time I described the notable elements. --Haldrik 03:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

""Much of the Hellenistic world subscribed to a similar sexual "political" ideology, and no doubt the modern religious ideology likely derives from the Hellenistic notions. " but that has nothing to do with penile penile frot

Frot is understood as licit sex. --Haldrik 02:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)"

you don't even bring this up in the article nor have you cited any particular source for it

"It's part of the discourse about what aspects of sex are "nature" (frot?) and what are "nurture" (anal?). "

which might make a fine addition to the human sexuality article, but theres not need for in depth discussion in any one given sexual act article,

What you're discussing is not a social movement its a website (which is just as much about anal sex as frot so it doesn't rightly go here), some websites have wikipedia articles,

The act of frot includes a concept, and that concept is notable. --Haldrik 22:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That sentance makes no sense to me. Could you explain what you mean 128.192.81.41 17:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"Potentially, the gender language seems to even reinforce archaic patriarchal structures to subordinate the anal "submissive females" who are out of power under the frot "dominant males" who are in power."

1. uncited 2.Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material placed in articles by Wikipedia users that has not been previously published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished material, for example, arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories, or any new analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, that would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".

"A central task of the frot-vs-anal discourse is to redefine the gender connotations of sex. Frot is to shift out of a heterosexual rubric, where frot is "false" sex being used as foreplay for "real" sex, which is penetrative vaginal sex, which is only "mimicked" by anal sex. Purposefully, frot is to shift into an exclusively homosexual rubric, where frot is the "real" sex, in and of itself, because it is the means of intimate cooperation with other males, none of them having vaginas, and thus making penetrative anal (as if vaginal) sex "false". By this polemic, frot achieves both homosexuality and masculine prestige, but alienates anal sexuality"

1. uncited again 2.Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material placed in articles by Wikipedia users that has not been previously published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished material, for example, arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories, or any new analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, that would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".

"Some gays feel frot is the defining form of sex of their masculinity. Groups advocating frot as essentially male sometimes polemicize it against anal sex. They may employ gender terminology to equate anal sex with femininity - and oppositely frot with masculinity, especially as a mutually cooperative activity for male bonding. Also groups may employ medical terminology to deter anal sex by emphasizing vulnerability to disease - and in contrast imbue frot with connotations of health."

and

"Some gays criticize the frot-only polemic for seeming to perpetuate homophobia and intolerance of gender variation. Even gay males who promote frot may express concern.

"For years I’ve been doing something that I’ve always considered a little odd, perhaps even subversive. It’s a sexual act that I thought had no official description or wording, and it’s something I’ve had a hard time describing to my friends. It turns out that what I’ve been doing my whole life, and constituting as sex, is “frot”. I just never knew I was so commonplace. It seems a widespread, growing activity that a number of men engage in (and probably many more, like myself, are engaged in it without really knowing that’s what they’re doing)". Yet this same advocate of frot worries about the intolerant language that may sometimes accompany it.

"What’s surprising about the literature and rhetoric of the anti-anal stance is the refusal to allow for different sexual practices. There is the slightest whiff of self-hatred and intrinsic homophobia in all of this. Shelton and Weintraub make some reasonable points, but none are fully questioned or explored. It is extremely dangerous, particularly in this troubled time, to judge someone else’s sexual activities. To join in such judgment and condemnation is risky business at best, and to lash out against “effeminacy” in the gay world is ludicrous and selfdefeating".[7] "

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well. 128.192.81.40 22:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Toward a consensus text

Attempts to improve the text are welcome. Attempts to censor the text are not. Wikipedia texts must include multiple points of view. Please add notable points of view that may be missing. Perhaps editors can reach a consensus by proposing an alternative text. --Haldrik 17:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"Attempts to censor the text are not." Editing for the sake of encyclopedic relavance is not censorship.

"Wikipedia texts must include multiple points of view." You've said that several times, its simply not true.

So, why should such a large section of the article should be devoted to analysis of a relatively obscure website and a few blog entries (you'll find no paralell in any of the other articles in this category) and furthermore why should you be exempt from wikipedia's policy against original research? 128.192.81.10 16:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• The expansions of text were attempts to meet your concerns in a compromise.
• The amount of text can be reduced.
• The "relatively obscure websites and blog entries" are the ones who pioneered the concept of frot. They are the fathers of it.
• Generally, sources that arent part of the discussion, tend to never mention frot at all. If any editors can find other sites that talk about frot, it would be greatly appreciated.

--Haldrik 20:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

*The expansions of text were attempts to meet your concerns in a compromise.

my concern is that a large chunk of this article is not encyclopedic, or at very least should be in an article about the website your referencing, not here, how could making it larger be a compromise?

Texts that talk about this specific sex position are few. These websites (more than one) represent almost all of what is said about frot. They deserve much more space than they are getting. ... Until other texts start discussing this sex position too.--Haldrik 17:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Not only are these websites the default authorities on the sex act (because few others talk about it), they are the "discoverers" who first investigated frot and described it. Like any encyclopedia article, they must be credited. And the context of their discussions understood. --Haldrik 17:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

*The "relatively obscure websites and blog entries" are the ones who pioneered the concept of frot. They are the fathers of it.

frot is not a concept it is a sex act, they simply appear to be the first to call it by this particular name, please look over the other articles in this category for examples of how these articles should look and what sort of content they should contain, and what amount of space in the article different sorts of content should be given 128.192.81.15 17:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"Frot is not a concept". Except it is. The word handshake is a concept. Just saying the word also communicates all its associations of what is and isnt socially acceptable. Not all cultures shake hands. And even if individuals happen to do it randomly, it has no meaning in that culture. A kiss is also a concept, a symbol that conveys social meaning. It's not just a physical position.

Frot is a specific form sex: genital-genital sex. Obviously humans have been doing this kind of sex, since before they evolved into humans. However, at least in English, there was no word for it. People couldnt express it as a concept. And people just didnt think about it. These websites invented a word for it. They organized the specific sex act as a concept. Now the position has meaning.--Haldrik 17:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

As you admit, "They simply appear to be the first to call it by this particular name." They are the first ones to call it by any name. Therefore, what motivated them to come up with a name is notable. Very important. And if you say the word "frication" was used before the word "frot", to refer specifically to genital-genital sex, you might want to know that these people who used these words also belong to the same group of people who you hate and who you are trying to censor. --Haldrik 17:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Except it is. The word handshake is a concept. Just saying the word also communicates all its associations of what is and isnt socially acceptable.

thats your opinion, I would add that handshakes are synonymous with a certain assisgned meaning because they are culturally created behaviors, frot predates human culture and symbolic reasoning, while a cultural interpretation could be signifigant on a broader scale you're just talking about a website and a couple of blog entries here.

Are you suggesting humans didnt hold hands before the gesture was given the cultural meaning of the handshake?!--Haldrik 17:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Like the Kiss article, the Frot article must include both the physiology of the gesture and the cultural meanings associated with it. To not do so would be unencyclopedic. And since the origin of the word for the gesture and the context in which it was invented is known, it must also be listed. --Haldrik 17:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

And if you say the word "frication" was used before the word "frot", to refer specifically to genital-genital sex, you might want to know that these people who used these words also belong to the same group of people who you hate and who you are trying to censor.

1. stop being such a drama king, you're not being censored or oppressed or anything, your trying to insert what amounts to a breif scholarly review of a website into the middle of an encyclopedia article, it doesn't belong here, if you think the website desrves an article then go write one (but please be mindful of wikipedia's No Original Research policy, I won't try to enforce on the new article but that doesn't mean other editors won't) and there could be an internal link to it in "frot in gay and mainstream culture" or "see also", but what you're doing here is against wikipedia policy

I'm not being censored at all. I'm neutral. I personally dont care one way or the other. I feel anything that is notable and relevant needs to be mentioned and must not be censored by you. You are censoring important information. It is irrelevant whether you like them or not, or whether you agree with them or not. --Haldrik 17:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

2. no, it was in an independent online dictionary that doesn't reference that website (check the link), here's another [[ http://www.aaronsgayinfo.com/AlphaMenu/Fterms.html]], (I'll put that up as a refernce when the page goes off protect), the word frot appears in neither source, and then there's the terms princeton rub and climax wrestling.

According to how the given website uses the word "frication", it does not specify genital-genital sex. It is simply synonymous with what the Wikipedia article calls "frottage" (not "frot"). While the website has added a secondary meaning that does include "mutual genital friction" (= frot), nevertheless it adds yet a third definition of intracrural sex, which again is irrelevant to frot. Not to mention, the word applies to both females and males, which is entirely beyond penis-penis sex.

• "FRICATION (n.): A method of gratification practiced by a minority of male homosexuals (and female homosexuals, with certain modifications, and also heterosexuals) wherein pleasure and orgasm is experienced through fondling the body of another person through body contact and friction as well as mutual genital friction; or friction of the penis of the aggressive participant between the thighs or buttocks of the passive participant.

Only a "minority" of sexual partners rub against their partner?! Anyway, the website's use of the word is simply a synonym for "frottage", not "frot". (Of course, this link should be added to the Frottage article, rather than here.)--Haldrik 17:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

3. furthermore there's been pretty much no verifiable proof presented that the word frot actually originated on that website, just the claim, I've seen it elsewhere as a personal ad abbreviation for frottage, 128.192.81.24 16:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It's an undisputed claim. I've researched the word myself, and as far as I can tell it appears unattested anywhere until Weintraub himself coined it. He obviously had the motive to invent the word. There is no reason to doubt the claim. He coined it. It's a fact. --Haldrik 17:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Check the link on the page directly afer the word frication first appears it specifically refers to penile-penile frot, the second includes genital friction as part of the primary definition, not the secondary definition

and as I said there are still the terms climax wrestling and Princeton rub

I'm not being censored at all. I'm neutral. I personally dont care one way or the other. I feel anything that is notable and relevant needs to be mentioned

it was already mentioned under "frot in gay and mainstream culture" and given an amount of space appropriate to its relavance to the topicWikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight

and must not be censored by you. You are censoring important information.

by asking it be moved to the appropriate article? If this website is so important why can't you simply write an article about it rather than cramming it in here? As I said earlier we could put an internal link in "Frot in Gay and Mainstream Culture"

It's an undisputed claim. I've researched the word myself, and as far as I can tell it appears unattested anywhere until Weintraub himself coined it. He obviously had the motive to invent the word. There is no reason to doubt the claim. He coined it. It's a fact.

Saying "its a fact" doesnt verify anything Wikipedia:Verifiability and even if it did that doesn't justify an entire multi-paragraph section, its already mentioned in "Frot in Gay and Mainstream Culture" 128.192.81.24 00:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to propose an alternative text. --Haldrik 00:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Create an article named Man2Man Alliance, cut and paste Frot in the Construction of Gay Male Masculinity there and add an internal link in the last part of Frot in Gay and Mainstream Culture, like so

[[Man2Man Alliance|his website]]

128.192.81.41 01:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The proposal is not acceptable. --Haldrik 07:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Since this doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere I've sought out a third opinion. 128.192.81.40 17:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the Frot_in_the_construction_of_a_masculine_gay_identity section is bogged down by unverifiable statements. All the unsupported statements should be removed. On the positive side, the statements that are supported make excellent points, and there is good potential there for an excellent, enlightening section. I'd be happy to be a third, uninterested voice in your debate. RogerJ 16:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Now that the situation appears to have calmed, it seems worthwhile to start polishing it up. Some statements need support, and some need to be clarified further. --Haldrik 00:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Which one of us is going to start the process? RogerJ 18:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll put whats left once you remove the unverified statements here

Some gays feel frot is the defining form of sex of their masculinity

"There is a growing movement among some gay males to encourage frot as a safe alternative to penetrative sex such as anal or oral intercourse. Frot [is] a replacement for more traditional means of homosexual lovemaking. 'This growing movement of men into frot ... is not simply a matter of sexual taste. It goes farther than that, for it's a rejection of the overly and unhealthily feminized self-image of gay men that has dominated our lives for generations'. ... Tenderness, intimacy, equality, sensitivity, touch, and communication are valued and emphasized over dominance and submission."[1]

Some gays criticize the frot-only polemic for seeming to perpetuate homophobia and intolerance of gender variation. Even gay males who promote frot may express concern.

"For years I’ve been doing something that I’ve always considered a little odd, perhaps even subversive. It’s a sexual act that I thought had no official description or wording, and it’s something I’ve had a hard time describing to my friends. It turns out that what I’ve been doing my whole life, and constituting as sex, is “frot”. I just never knew I was so commonplace. It seems a widespread, growing activity that a number of men engage in (and probably many more, like myself, are engaged in it without really knowing that’s what they’re doing)". Yet this same advocate of frot worries about the intolerant language that may sometimes accompany it.

"What’s surprising about the literature and rhetoric of the anti-anal stance is the refusal to allow for different sexual practices. There is the slightest whiff of self-hatred and intrinsic homophobia in all of this. Shelton and Weintraub make some reasonable points, but none are fully questioned or explored. It is extremely dangerous, particularly in this troubled time, to judge someone else’s sexual activities. To join in such judgment and condemnation is risky business at best, and to lash out against “effeminacy” in the gay world is ludicrous and selfdefeating".[9]

the first quote's footnote doesn't work the next two are fairly large chunks of text from the same article and there's currently no special permission for use of copyrighted material.

128.192.81.40 17:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

As the third opinion seems to have been given above, I will delist

The physical act of frot would appear to preexist the evolution of hominids into

humans and bonobos as it occurs frequently in the homosexual activity of both of these genetically related species.^[1]

In 2005 Larry Kramer reccommended his freind Bill Weintraub's, website The Man2Man Alliance in an interview on Gay.com, thus, frot became part of a debate within the gay male community about the role of anal sex in gay culture. Usage of the term frot may still connote hostility to anal sexuality, as the earliest instances of use appear to be on Mr. Wentraubs's website and op ed peices ^[2]. For example, the Urban Dictionary of slang has its first definition of frot: "Used in the gay community as a term for an activity involving sexual gratification by rubbing that occurs between two men, who do not wish to engage in anal intercourse".^[3] Nevertheless, the term frot no longer requires the assumption of hostility to anal sex, and the second definition is simply "rubbing penises together", in and of itself.

This, I feel, leans heavily towards psychobabble and does not belong in an encyclopedic artice. This paragraph should be removed in its entirety. It's interesting, but it doesn't belong on the Wiki's frot page.

Commentators on frot often refer to Weintraub, including Joe Perez who advocates what he feels is the "dominant ethos" in the "mainstream gay culture": "Everyone’s definition of sex is equal. Real sex is whatever somebody says it is. You should always avoid making judgments of others". In this context, he welcomes the contributions of the frot movement.^[4]

However, Perez also mentions frot advocates who "go overboard", who are "wrong to say that supporting frot sex means disowning anal sex". Nevertheless, even "these sex activists are more than entitled to challenge a few sacred cows, however controversial their questionable views may be".Even proponents of frot may express concern with the polemic language.^[5]

This is an off-topic distraction and is beyond the scope of this article. I would remove it completely as well.

The term g0y often occurs in self-descriptions of members in various dating services ^[6], and originates from a similarly themed internet site ^[7] which, amoung other things, promotes frot and decries anal intercourse. Some websites have banned members who refer to this term.^[8] Urban Dictionary defines g0y as "a homosexual man who does not practice anal sex".^[9]

RogerJ 16:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Your advice is noted. If you can, try to incorporate some of the information previous to the extreme POV deletions by the anonymous sockpuppet, User:128.192.81.40. --Haldrik 22:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

A sockpuppet is a second screen name someone uses to edit, I've only been using an IP address, and the way I've been editing it has been removing less from the article than is suggested here, (though I wholeheartledly second his suggestion that we remove more) it just looks like I've taken out more because I've removed the voluminous quotes (the copyright status of which you still haven't addressed). 128.192.81.40 23:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The anonymous user sockpuppet User:128.192.81.40 has 5 reverts on 28 September 2006. --Haldrik 23:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

"annonymous sockppet" is an oxymoron, a sockpuppet is an additional account used by an editor. Upon looking at the history I see I made four reverts and for that I apologize, I think I ran into an editing conflict or something. 128.192.81.16 16:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The blanking occurred on 5 separate occasions on 28 September 2006. --Haldrik 18:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I am no on in particular, but am responding to the RfC. I edit primarily sexology and sexuality articles. I'm wondering if you guys mind if I check this article out and give opinions? I will read the article first, and then the talk section. If I can help, I am glad to. Atom 21:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course. Please contribute! --Haldrik 22:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. 128.192.81.3 02:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I've read a bit, and here are some comments. I'll look at it further, but this is a first pass.

The article describes itself as a neologism. I think that is accurate, however, you should know that in Wikipedia, that can be a problem.

See below, as copied from the article on the Wikepedia policy

Articles on neologisms
Some neologisms and protologisms can be in frequent use and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or even in larger society. It may be natural, then, to feel that Wikipedia should have a page devoted to this new term, but this is not always the case. There are several reasons why articles on (or titled with) neologisms may not be appropriate:

• The first is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and so articles simply attempting to define a neologism are inappropriate.
• The second reason is that articles on neologisms frequently attempt to track the emergence and use of the term as observed in communities of interest or on the internet — without attributing these claims to reliable secondary sources. If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use.

In many cases, articles on neologisms get deleted (either via proposed deletion or Articles for deletion). Articles on protologisms are almost always deleted as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term.

The term "Frot" seems to be as described here, the emergence of a new term by a community of interest. Documenting neologisms can be very difficult, as much of it is needs to be original research.

It is only a matter of time before someone on wikipedia (some right-wing religious conservative type) sees this article, is "offended" that it exists, and tries to have the article deleted, using that it is a neologism as a basis. A second pass will be someone trying to merge it into the frottage article as a sub-category.

Now, I am not making a judgement either way. I'm warning an advance so that you can take appropriate defensive actions. First, I wouldn't advertise it as a neologism on the page. Second, although there are many references, they all point back to 1) a blog -- not a reliable source b) "Urban Dictionary" and "Aarons dictionary" -- bad, because you want this to be more than a dicitonary entry. I think on reference to a dictionary is ok. c) "gaymart.com"which will be criticized as a commercial site and removed d) g0ys.org (too many references to the same place)

So, cleaning up references, finding alternative references, and focusing on high quality references would be good. Academic references would help the best in trying to show that it is beyond the beginning stages of being a neologism, and that research by academics has been done on the subject.

The point is made, numnerous times, about Frot being non-anal. Of course, this is integral, and needs to be mentioned. But, by it being said over and over, it sounds like it is being pushed. One of the Wikpedia policies is Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox. I suggest making the point strong, early in the article, and leaving it at that.

NPOV is important. You want to present alternative views fairly. Not just the PRO view. You have a section of "advantages of frot" Add a "disadvantages" or "criticisms".

The existing external links need to go. External links should rarely be in an article. When they are, they need to be specific and to the point, and provide information directly related that is not in the article. This begs the question of why it is not in the article. Sometimes with a detailes scientific or analystic subject additional low level detail can best be referenced by an external link rather than making a too long article longer by bringing it in. I don't think that applies here.

The section "Frot in the construction of a masculine gay identity" is too long and rambling, and needs a good copyedit. Probably it is largely the work of one editor. I think having the section is probably appropriate, but needs the help of other editors to copyedit it down to the essentials. There is certainly good information there. The problem is that the average reader misses the meat of the meaning because it is too big.

To fend off the merge to frottage that could occur, make a section on how it *is* related to frottage, and how it is not. It seems to me that the sociology of Frot is substantially different, and that it is a subject sufficiently seperate that including it all in frottage would be a disadvantage. It needs to be seen that way to those who would propose a merge.

Some slight reorganization/rewrite of the article might be beneficial. Maybe a start by a solid web search to develop a list of quality references on the subject, and then an outline based on that research, and a rewrite/reorg based on the outline.

I see that there has been a battle between editors on reverts and the like. I would like to see more "assume good faith" and discussion about the article on the talk page instead.

I recommend that the editor with the anon IP get a login. For whatever reason, editors with anon IP address get little respect. Probably because there are so many anon's that vandalize pages. Also, because it is hard with other people to identify. I am sure being at the University of Georgia, you probably want to remain anonymous because of the topic, or your sexuality. My recommendation is to get a login name that is anonymous, so that other can work with you better. "Bulldog" or something like that.

Just a few ideas off the top of my head. I will think on it some more.

Atom 12:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Just saw the suggestions above now. Sounds good. By the way, frottage refers to any form of sexual rubbing (whether clothed or unclothed, whether gay or straight). However, frot specifies the male-male equivalent of "coitus". It is erect-penis-on-erect-penis sex. It's a specific form of sex that is only possible between men because of the features of the male anatomy. Particularly, because of the location of the male frenulum of the glans. --Haldrik 23:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I know what "frot" is. I did read the article. My point was not that Frot and Frottage were the same, but what you just stated. That "frot" is a sub-set of the larger super-set, "Frottage". Which is exactly why someone would want to merge Frot into Frottage. Atom 00:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Well one solution to a few of those concerns is to move the page to "Penile-penile sex" since frot is both a neologism and a lingusitic derivitive of frottage that makes the page vulnerable to mergers and deletions. As an added bonus Penile-penile sex would include docking, which would give a home to a subject that is also frequently deleted or merged. Onhm 15:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Masturbation can occur *in addition to* frot. However, frot has absolutely nothing to do with masturbation. "Docking", which is a form of masturbation involving the foreskin, can occur *in addition to* frot, however it has nothing to do with frot itself. --Haldrik 05:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The page never said that docking and penis to penis masturbation and penis to penis frottage were the same things, simply that they were all were forms of penile-penile sex.Onhm 17:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright then, seeing as there are no objections I'll just go ahead and get on with that and try and incorporate some of these suggestions into the article. Onhm 01:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You waited enough time for a response, but unfortunately I had missed your post. There is an objection to the name change. --Haldrik 05:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Which is what exactly?Onhm 17:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a near-zero chance anybody would enter the name in the search box to ever find this article. "Penile-penile sex" is a terrible, terrible name.

Thats why the article lists synonyms and has redirects, if someone types in frot, docking, or Princeton rub they would still find what they are looking for. Frot isn't an appropriate name either since there's so little in the way of reliable secondary sources (see

Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms#Reliable_sources_for_neologisms), I think the best bet in the case of this article is something more along the lines of some kind of a technical description, because the only name for it in the OED is "Princton Rub" and the even more improbable "coitus contra ventrum" Onhm

01:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

One of the reasons there arent any words for frot in English is because frot didnt formally exist in Ancient Greece. Frot is erect penis on erect penis. However, ancient Greek sexuality violently enforced sex between males into an "active" adult role and a "passive" child roll. (It was possible for a teen to perform both the adult role with younger males and the child role with older males.) If the male in the passive child role got an erection, he was severely punished, according to cultural norms. Thus frot, which reflects an egalitarian sexual role between males, was taboo for ancient Greeks. --Haldrik 10:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Technically, the Princeton rub is NOT frot. The Princeton rub has to do with rubbing the penis between the bellies of the partners, which is a form of frottage. Hmmm. This article is about frot and only frot: that is, penis-penis sex. Perhaps it is worthwhile to have a separate article for various forms of male-male frottage, including intracrural sex, Princeton rub, masturbation, and so on. Altho there is nothing necessarily homosexual about these forms of frottage and they can equally occur among heterosexual couples, they are notable in gay contexts. --Haldrik 10:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

OK I'm not sure what happened to my last post, but just in case the problem was on my end I'm going to restate that I think its preferable to rename this article than recommend it for deletion. However it is currently an article about a neologism, I think thats pretty much been established, furthermore it suffers from multiple problems associated with neologism articles, so if we can come up with a better name for this article (my suggestion remains a technical description i.e. penile-penile sex, penis-to-penis sex, something similar to cock-to-cock/cock2cock, which appears to be the way its ususally listed in porn, but less slangy) I think that would be great, otherwise I think it should be recommended for deletion (apparently someone already tried but also proposed another article for deletion along with it) Onhm 16:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Dont rename the article. Frot is the most common term used. --Haldrik 18:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I got to everything but "Frot in the construction..." before I do anthing to it are there any specific suggestions as to what to keep and what to cut? Onhm 03:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

For reference's sake I'm going to post my last edit here. [[1]] Onhm 17:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

AfD was removed for procedural error. Sorry to step on your toes, my apologies. AfD was submitted for both G0Y and Frot together. AfD requires seperate entries for seperate articles. This is the case because they have different subject matter. Please submit a seperate AfD for this article if you still feel that it is appropriate, so that response to this article can be considered on its own merits, or lack thereof. Again, my apologies. Atom 10:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No AfD is necessary --Haldrik 18:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is this article beign considered for deletion? It is enclyopedic information that people should have access to. Unless of course the morality police is coming after wiki now ;( Power for Free speech and right to information! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.38.10.21 (talk) 08:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

-If they delete this, they would need to delete the stuff with heterosexual acts as well. I just think that would be fair, because I didn't see any mention of deletion on those. ChrisRJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.59.118 (talk) 03:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

---Pele Nov 26, 06:--- Why to delete (at least part of it) -> I quote it: -> "Among bonobos, frot frequently occurs when two males hang from a tree limb and engage in penis fencing"... I mean penis fencing... come on people... it's ok to define what Frot means but this... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.221.62 (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I am propsing that this page, and possibly tribadism, be merged with frottage for the simple fact that I don't think that there is a wide enough range of evidence to support their being apart for any other reason than idealogy.

First and foremost, the actions dscribed by frot and tribadism both fall with in the realm of frottage most obviously because they both involve genital rubbing. As far as the morpohlogy of the act goes, all three categories are identical in so far as the all involve genital rubbing. What duistinguishes them, however, are (in the case of the distinction frottage from tribadism and frot) the explicit involvement of another person, as opposed to an inanimate object, and possibly the consent of the person involved, and (in the case of the distinction between frot and tribadism) the sex of the person. Since, however, there is very little evidence of a strict and relatively long-standing distinction (at least in the case of frottage and frot) these subjects do not merit their own separate articles. After all, while Wikipedia does discuss male and female masturbation as separate topics, they both do not have their own articles.Mijopaalmc 19:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• I don't like the idea of merging frot with a word usually associatted with rubbing up against strangers on a bus. Frottage has too many meanings, and merging all of them into one article (which would only be fair) seems like a bad idea. Maxberners 21:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• I am removing the merge tag again. I mean't to leave an edit explanation last time but forgot I was using popups. The reason I am removing the merger tag is that this article has recently (within the past week) gone through an AfD, and the AfD also discussed merger with Frottage as a possibilty, and was voted on. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Frot_first_nomination). The result was a keep, and although there were four votes for merge, there were more against a merge. A renewed merge discussion so soon is unnecessary and a waste of people's valuable time. Atom 23:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't really think its appropriate for you to do that, particularly since one of you was part of the discussion and the other closed it. Velps

I'm not sure what you are talking about. Anyway, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Frot_first_nomination) for the discussion. Results were: Four people voted Keep and merge, Thirteen for Keep, no merge, and one person for delete. This concluded on 4 Nov 2006. Mijopaalmc added a merge tag on 7 Nov 2006. A merge discussion and attempt to merge three days after an overwhelming number of people (13 of 17 voters) voted against a merge is out of order. If a merge is suggested again within six months, it will be removed again. Atom 20:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I looked around and I didn't see precedent for any such policy as that, however it looks as though a merger would be controversial and would need to to be listed on

Wikipedia:Proposed_mergers anyway if anyone is still interested.Velps

01:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm note quoting a Wikipedia policy when I suggest waiting six months. I think it needs to be determined on a case by case basis. In my judgment, on an article that is small and relatively static, such as this one, substantial changes would need to be made to the article before time should be spent in re-discussing a merger. It has been decided for the moment. When is it reasonable for all of those seventeen people, or perhaps more to reconsider their positions? Should we all re-vote every week? Six months may be too little time if there is little substantive change to the article in that time period. Atom 02:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no discussion. The proposal to merge this article with Frottage, has already been discussed and was rejected. Please respect the established consensus of Wikipedia. --Haldrik 03:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I am adding an NPOV tag to this article, because the ideas that frot is only mutually penile intercourse and that frot is the correct term for the sex act represent a POV of a very small but vocal group on the Internet. This point was brought up in the AfD debate, but it seems that its proponents relied mainly on the force of their statements rather than any objective quantification to carry them. I, however, have be able to roughly quantify the the POV on the terminology and definition of frot and feel it is necessary to point out that, while this POV does represent one way of approaching frot, it is not that of the majority because this specific discourse and is part of a much larger one that espouses anti-effeminacy and anti-anal sex POV.

More will follow.Mijopaalmc 17:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think more should follow, for sure. Firstly, Wikipedia doesn't have a problem with one side presenting a POV. That's fine. The NPOV means that several different perspectives may present their views, rather than trying to enforce one true view, or a predominant/consensus view only.

The solution then is to present the POV given here, and allow others with different POV's to offer their views also. The important thing is that these POV's can't merely be opinion, but have to be backed by reliable references. Sometimes objectivity can be hard to reach, but I don't see a problem with trying.

I'll have to go re-read the article, but I didn't get the impression that the current view expressed was suggsting that "the ideas that frot is only mutually penile intercourse and that frot is the correct term for the sex act". Frot is a new term, but its origin is cited here so it is not original research. If the people who use the term most frequently happen to be fairly biased about their views regarding male to male sex, that is part and parcel of the term, even if many others do not use the term or agree with that bias. Adding a statement that says exactly that "The term frot is only used by s mall minority of the gay male population, and many of those people do not agree with the anti-anal intercourse bias that frot represents." (with a citation supporting that statement)

Atom 19:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

User Velps seems to have concerns regarding the POV of the article, which is seperate from the discussion of merge which has recently been voted on (against) in the AfD discussion. I'm not sure what the objection is, buy NPOV discussions can be pretty subjective, and so can be hard to be a settled issue. In this article, there seems to be a clear POV discussed. If there are alternate POV's, also documentable by citations, I'd like to see them in the article to help maintain as balanced a view as possible. Rather than just throwing an NPOV tag on something that is disagreed with maybe Velps, or others, could describe what it is that they object to in the article? Atom 08:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't put the recent NPOV tag on, I do have other accounts but Mijopaalmc isn't one of them, but I did object to all the removal of the tags on discussions that hadn't appeared to reach any resolution, (here we are still in the POV discussion so I'm putting the tag back on, though I see now that the discussion had been dead for awhile when it was removed so I won't report it as vandalism unless its removed again) I understand the article has recently been in AfD but that doesn't mean its now under protection or anything, But if you want my opinion I think you're idea about adding a statement about the nature of this term is a step in the right direction, if you want my opinion I just think the article isn't transparent enough about this, its treating the word like its much more accepted and widely used than it is, when in reality its more analogous to a

• I think the solution would be identifying frot as a neologism coined in 2000 to differentitate penis to penis frottage from other types of frottage in the opening sentence, (like hir is identified as a proposed term in its opening sentence) and to add that most gay men simply call this act frottage. Velps 17:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The AfD consensus is that this article will KEEP THE NAME FROT and will NOT MERGE into another article. If your goal is to reject the Wikipedia consensus, there is no discussion. --Haldrik 21:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you even read my post? Velps 16:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This claim seems rather ridiculous, but we can give it the benefit of the doubt.

However, it would be unethical and dangerous to state such a claim without scientific experiment to back it up (think of the innocent people who would read this page and think there's no risk in bathing their phaluses in HIV-filled semen), so I added [citation needed] marks to it.

If people can't cite a credible scientific study, it should be deleted. If there is more than one reputable study to back it up, then more power to the claimant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.243.6.65 (talk) 03:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the following from the Advantages of Frot section for the reasons listed below each item

• They can see each other and make eye contact.

A cursory review of the

anal sex positions reveals that it is indeed possible achieve this objective during anal sex

. Though it is possible to be in a position during anal sex where it is impossible to make eye contact, it is not a necessary condition of anal sex to be in such a position.

• They can combine sex with kissing on the mouth including French kisses.

As above pertaining to French kissing instead of eye contact

• They can both caress one another.

As above pertaining to caressing instead of eye contact

• Requires very little suppleness from either partner.

As above pertaining to suppleness instead of eye contact

• Can be done kneeling, standing, or lying face-to-face or head-to-toe.

As above pertaining to suppleness instead of eye contact

• Does not cause pain to either partner.

This is contradicted by Disadvantages of Frot. Additionally, no form of intercourse is completely guaranteed to be pain free. Anal sex can be pain free just as frot can be painful.

Mijopaalmc 19:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

What's a nice way of saying "you don't end up with shit on your cock"? — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

If we list a "polite version" of the one above, I would say that we would also have to list "you don't end up with pussy juice on your cock".Mijopaalmc 18:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That's also a very good point. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I have decided to be bold and pare down the Advantages of Frot and Disadvantages of Frot sections yet again. I felt that the items that I removed expressed a certain subjectivity that would be undesirable the presentation of a NPOV article. They were only advantages or disadvantages if one considered the symmetric pleasure and the relative amount of envelopment of the penis to be desirable or undesirable. Pain and disease are generally more often considered to be aspects of sexual intercourse that are to be avoided. Mijopaalmc 01:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed this section as it was mostly unsourced OR. Mijopaalmc 01:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed {{weasel}} since I see no evidence that the anon who added it has bothered to indicate what s/he feels is covered by the rubric of "weasel wording". Replace the tag only with discussion here on the talkpage of what is believed to be "weasel wording", or better yet, remove what you feel to be "weasel wording" from the article. Skim-by-tagging does not fall within the parameters of "constructive editing". Even a quick note indicating what are believed to be "weasel words" should suffice... Tomer^talk 05:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

some of these citations need clean up and more appropriate ones found. Urban dictionary for example has no editorial oversight and isn't reliable. Anyone can write anything and there is no evidence given that anyone voting for these definitions is notable in their own right, experts, or anything else that would indicate some notability and reliability to these definitions.--

I don't agree with this removal. Or are the advocates of frottage too timid for constructive criticism of their stance?

The issue of frottage is a controversial one in the gay community. Since anal sex is considered (whether rightly or wrongly) a kind of quintessential gay sex act, and frot advocates are proposing a move away from anal sex, then I feel it's only right for such a controversy to be highlighted here.

All content on Wikipedia must be

personal observations. Someguy1221 (talk

) 03:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)