Talk:Coitus reservatus

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Split karezza to its own page?

I propose that karezza be moved to its own page. Since the release of Robinson's Cupid's Poisoned Arrow (Robinson,M 2009) there is a distinct and active karezza movement forming. The connection between karezza and Coitus reservatus is pretty fragile in my view. I get the impression that Coitus reservatus is a historical term, more commonly applied to a birth control technique than a love making practice carried out for its own sake. Hatjungle (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, wanna cocreate a dedicated karrezza entry? Chimpp (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amen to this! Everything from edging to ancient Hindu, Tantric yoga and Taoist practices under one lump makes little sense. An overview article and individual discussions would help greatly. MartinRinehart (talk) 14:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

contraception

It seems like a really dodgy form of contraception and I strongly protest against it. Men don't have enough will power if you know what I mean ;)

It is not a form of contraception, seems to be more of a philosophical approach to sex with the goal of enhancing the relationship of the partners - Krappyappy, 6/29/07

NPOV tag

I don't think there's any cause to keep the NPOV warning up. The article isn't recommending any particular practice and more than adequately covers the unsuitability of coitus reservatus for contraception. Eodell93 23:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no cause to keep this as disputed as the article is balanced and informative about the unsuitability of Karezza for contraception. it is really for mature adults.7ware3mess 19:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that NPOV isn't really serving much purpose at this point. The article notes the origins of the practice, its applications, and its drawbacks. It doesn't seem to encourage or discourage its use, and adequately notes that it is not a suitable contraceptive technique. Feel free to correct me/it if you think otherwise. --146.186.238.7 07:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bias

This article is written incredibly poorly. It is biased and uses very un-encyclopedic mannerisms. Recommend someone rewrite it. -Nightfighter89 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This suggestion needs clarification, please. An example(s) of the poor writing, bias and unencyclopedic mannerisms would be helpful.MartinRinehart (talk) 14:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JDPhD

These edits looked suspicious, but now I've looked at them in some more detail, they look less suspicious and I may have been too hasty to revert. Perhaps they just need some tidying up. Comments please. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks more plausible now, so have put it all back in (except the cliché) Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

not encyclopedic

This article reads like something from a Carezza Society Webpage. The people who came up with the practice may not have liked gay prostitutes and have meant it for a particular sexual situation, but it doesn't seem inherently inapplicable. And sickness from masturbating for too long?

"Presumably, the principles of karezza also apply to masturbation, whereby a man attempts to delay his ejaculation as long as possible to prolong pleasure in a process known as "edging." However, Karezza to be successful requires the maturity of a heterosexual married couple. This precludes masturbation, prostitution and homosexuality. Its cornerstone is a married heterosexual couple who is willing to undergo the discipline of coitus sine ejaculatio seminis.[3] Any one alone trying to prolongue the orgasm in masturbation as if it were karezza would not only be showing excessive morbid self-love but will only succeed in getting sick." Flounderer (talk) 04:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on homophobic editorial

"However, Karezza to be successful requires the maturity of a heterosexual married couple. This precludes masturbation, prostitution and homosexuality."

"The primary purpose of karezza is the maintenance, and indeed, intensification of desire and enjoyment of sexual pleasure within the context of long-term relationships."

The opinion from the article, that Karezza, or coitus reservatus, requires a heterosexual, married relationship (which it seems to say is the only kind of "long-term relationship"), is obviously quite homophobic and reads like an editorial commentary on homosexuality and lack of commitment to another person in a gay relationship. If this was being cited as an opinion from an expert source on Karezza, it would be valid if explained as such but that would need to be clarified in the entry. I understand, by definition, that Karezza precludes lesbian sex because the purpose is for a man to experience orgasm without ejaculation, but there doesn't seem to be any other characteristic that should exclude gay male sexual partners in a long-term relationship.

If not clarified, this is NOT an encyclopedic entry containing unbiased, factual information and needs to be edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nfugitt (talk • contribs) 18:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True but the information is correct from above. The idea to to regenerate similar to Taoist sex where it needs to be male/female to create the full circuit as the Masters of their tradition put it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.36.139 (talk) 06:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lead needs to say what this is

Currently, reading the lead of this article gives no clue what Coitus reservatus is. Covering the derivation of the term is okay, but should also give some idea of what it means. Zodon (talk) 06:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

It may be construed as a form of birth control but it is really a way of prolonging sexual pleasure to the point of achieving mystical ecstasis, as explained by J. William Lloyd, a practitioner of Karezza, whose own experience of Cosmic Consciousness appears in the magnum opus Cosmic Consciousness by the American psychiatrist Richard M. Bucke M. D., an intimate friend of the American poet Walt Whitman. In fact, the goal of this practice is to enable the man to actually separate orgasm from ejaculation, being able to experience one without the other.

This is just one of the clearer examples. The page should not be left without some sort of tag at the top in its current condition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.152.117.83 (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Controversy" section seems to go a bit off-topic

It begins referring to Alice Stockham's prosecution which is relevant to the rest of the article, but then it begins a small history of sexual prosecution and oppression primarily centered around Anthony Comstock. While the information itself is interesting, useful and properly cited, it doesn't seem related to the rest of the article enough to belong in it. I'd suggest it is moved to a more generic article on sexual rights oppression or something equivalent.

2.85.18.175 (talk) 00:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amplexus reservatus

I came here looking for amplexus reservatus. Amplexus is defined as "pseudocopulation". Could amplexus reservatus be an intercrural form of coitus reservatus, i.e. thigh-fucking without cumming?--88.74.194.50 (talk) 08:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First person, book plugs, grammar in tatters

I am not sure what's going on on this page. It looks as though someone was plugging their book. Kalman Andras is writing in the first person and quoting himself. And they've got a link to their book on the google play store. Or at least it looks like that - I'm not following that link. Two links actually, in the body of the article and not below.

I can't be sure, but it looks as though this 'author' had C&P'd whole paragraphs from his own manuscript, effectively putting it into the public domain. Interesting, but not what wikipedia is for. Nor is it a marketing gambit.

71.164.205.169 (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"eiaculatio" in Latin

With respect to "coitus sine ejaculatione seminis", there's no letter J in the Latin alphabet; I think it should read "eiaculatio[ne]" instead. Joe Forster/STA (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confused sentence

Normally I would just fix a little mess and call it a minor edit. In this case, I can't figure out what the sentence is supposed to say.

"By the prior methods maximum “dry orgasm” or retrograde ejaculation can be achieved and the question arises if we can do anything with we managed to preserve skillfully in the course of the sexual intercourse."

Help, please?MartinRinehart (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it Karezza or karezza?

Is the 'K' (or 'k') capitalized? I'll go either way, but not both.MartinRinehart (talk) 14:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]