Talk:Sex/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Sex. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Hermaphrodites

Hermaphrodites have both sexes simultaneously, so, no sex to specify there... How would someone call a being with a single sex without specifying which sex the individual has? Is there a term for this? It must have a place somewhere in this or a related article...

Sexual Orientation/Sexual Partner

With regard to the psychological section in the table on the article sex, I noticed the terms androphilic and gynephilic for "usual sexual orientation" to explain the common differences between human males and females. I am not sure if these are accurate descriptions because there is not a verifiable way to measure sexual orientation or romantic attraction (as in the suffix -philia) between people, because such a thing I would consider subjective. Would it be more appropriate to say "usual sexual partner" rather than "usual sexual orientation", because pairing of sexual partners can be directly observed?
Thanks, Omgitsasecret 04:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd hope that a reasonably representative indication would be obtainable with confidentiality and a sufficiently large sample, but whether or not this is how sociologists have tried to obtain information on sexual orientation is something I don't know. I wouldn't say trying to observe the pairing of sexual partners is any more reliable!  Regards, David Kernow 09:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC) via WP:CS.

The idea that scientists cannot make any meaningful observation or description of a human psychological phenomenon with a subjective component is obsolete by 50 years. It was epitomized by B. F. Skinner and is termed behaviorism: the brain was a black box that we should not pretend to understand, and the only scientific psychology must be restricted to observations of actual behavior. This is now considered a quaint and obsolete historical perspective like Freudian psychology. As we can now non-invasively measure changes in the function of tiny sets of neurons during all sorts of subjective experiences and phenomena in people (e.g., religious feelings), your position is simply wrong. Usual orientation is readily defined in several ways and can be measured by several methods that usually give the same results for individual people. Like gayness or many other human variations there are degrees of distinctiveness, and people in between or inconsistent or capable of changing or operating both ways in certain environments. While this particular dimension of sexual differentiation has alway carried enormous amounts of social significance, and the behavioral expressions of orientation even more, you shouldn't confuse the social uses and misuses with the core concept. These days it is politically correct to assume there is at least some direct component of biological determination. The conventional wisdom about orientation is certainly susceptible to political distortion and misuse, and has changed greatly over the last century, and will undoubtedly change further over the next, but nearly all of the arguments revolve around the nature and determinants of orientation, not whether there is such a thing as a "usual orientation" that is associated with other aspects of sexual differentiation. I think that may be the source of your confusion on this topic. For better or worse, encyclopedias are repositories of educated conventional wisdom. We are happy to contribute to your education. alteripse 13:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

If you'll note farther down in the article on sexual orientation, as well as the demographics of sexual orientation, there are many scientific stuhomosexual and bisexual percentages well below 50%, almost always in the single digits. They include verifyable measures like actual sex acts, self-evident measures like self-identification, as well as reports of spontaneous attraction. While it is certainly true that methodological problems persist in pinning down exact percentages, the scientific consensus seems to support the notion that people are usually heterosexual (by a number of criteria). The other editors are right; spontaneous attraction does have involuntary physical manifestations which can be verified. There's no credible evidence to suggest that anything near 40% of people experience significant same-sex attraction on a regular basis, or are having significant amounts of gay sex, but lying about all this on surveys and to their friends, or that 40% of the population is nebulous and confused about their sexual orientation. -- Beland 00:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Sexuality, the Modern World, and the Catholic Church

And how would it make sense for people to have partners as to hide their sexual disorientation if the majority share said disorientation? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.106.40.22 (talk) 10:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Definitely defined

"The female sex is definitely defined ..." is a nonsensical sentence. Please make it sensical. -Pgan002 07:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the "definitely"-Bri2k1 04:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Cut-off section

The piece on biological discordance appears to cut off in mid-sentence. it's not clear how long it was supposed to go on. I was enjoying reading it until it ended, though!  :)

How about "variation" instead of "discordance"... 72.26.70.190 03:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Left out on Article Page

The article talks about human and non-human reproduction but leaves out inter-species erotica.

^your point? Saha chariki: This expression is one of the popular expressions in Algeria. Basically there are two ways of saying that expression. One of them is when you see your friend and you just say saha chariki, which stands as “How are you doing dude”. But the other one is more serious, and it is when you see your friend going somewhere with a beautiful girl, then you have to say that expression with different pronunciation, which can be done by several practice and reaped. If there is anymore word that you are intersted to know about, please feel free!!!

Are these Unprovable Dates Necessary Here?

The scientific method requires that for something to be considered proven it must be able to be duplicated in the laboratory at will. Regardless of the evidence (or lack thereof) for the age of the universe being postulated at 4.5 billion years, it cannot be duplicated in the lab. Or if it could be duplicated in the lab, if one were to start now it would require at least 4.5 billion years IF it could be proven. There are some terminally degreed scientists who postulate a much shorter time period from the beginning of man to his present state. To only use the opinion of one group (even though they may be in the majority) is to be intellectually dishonest. Why not just leave out the numbers and leave that discussion to another article? DSG2 01:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

First, can we clear up a couple of your errors? First, the scientific method most certainly does not require that something "must be able to be duplicated in the laboratory" to be considered proven. Second, scientists have proposed many estimates of the "age of the universe", "age of the earth", "duration of life on earth", "duration of human life on earth" over the last 2 centuries and educated people understand they are estimates consistent with current evidence, and not a single real scientist "considers them proven". Third, there is a big difference between age of the earth, age of life on earth, and "age of the universe", and an even greater difference between these three periods and the time "from the beginning of man to his present state"-- you just gave away your game if you think all four of those things began in the same week. Fourth, a neglibly minuscule fraction of "terminally degreed" biologists (the relevant scientists here) postulate a duration of life on earth substantially shorter than many millions of years, or a duration of human life substantially shorter than a couple of million years, and an encyclopedia need not cater to every fringe "scientist". Finally, there is nothing "intellectually dishonest" about citing a current widely accepted estimate-- in fact, a much better example of intellectual dishonesty is a religious concept pretending to be science or falsely claiming that scientists consider those time estimates "proven". And, gosh, that just about disposes of every premise in your post. alteripse 03:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Except that you did not answer my original question, that your dates are both unproven and wrong, that I have no game other than the truth, that minorities are often correct (because truth is not a voting matter) and that the classsical scienctific method did require duplication. You have the right to personally throw away what has been made known and chose ignorance for yourself, but you do not have the right to write what is wrong. (And btw, do YOU have a game and worship something called a "gosh"?) DSG2 02:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This is all irrelevant per the Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy undue weight clause. JoshuaZ 03:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe the currently accepted date for sex is about 1.2 bya. You need multicelled creatures for sex and they just weren't available until the Cambrian outburst. I hope someone changes it with a better reference when the article becomes unlocked. The date given is way off.67.8.205.130 22:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The dates 4.6-3.5 bya represent the time period in which life may have arisen earth, not the beginning of sexual reproduction, even according to the reference provided. Neitherday 21:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sex in non-human animals?

OK, so there's a section about sex in non-animal species and about sex in humans, but shouldn't there also be a section about sex in non-human animal species? --24.11.177.133 07:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I understand what you're getting at, you mean a section on organisms in kingdom Animalia other than humans to add to the sections on humans and plants? Darthgriz⁹⁸ 04:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

荒らししてすみませんでした♪♪sorry☆ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.231.188.19 (talk • contribs).

My apologies, English please? :)  E. Sn0 =31337= ^Talk 03:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

My Japanese isn't the best (unlike my l33t Maldovanian skillz), but I believe it says "Sorry for ruining it". I'm not sure whether they meant ruining sex, or ruing the page itself... but it made me chuckle. --Node 00:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Species with more than two sexes

Maybe this does not belong in the lead as a confusing complication, but I wondered about the species that have 3, 4 or 5 sexes?--Filll 19:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

For example:

• the clam shrimp Eulimnadia texana has three sexes, that is, it is a triploid organism
• harvester ant genus Pogonomyrmex has three sexes or maybe four sexes
• the lizard tuatara that might have four sexes
• Coprinus macrorhizus (Pers.) Rea might have three or four sexes
• Coprinus lagopus has four sexes
• Fausto-Sterling proposes that there are five sexes of humans (THE FIVE SEXES, REVISITED, Sciences, Jul/Aug2000, Vol. 40 Issue 4, p18, 6p, 1c, 2bw )
• Other species have exhibited evidence of 5 sexes

A careful search of the literature will reveal far more information. Is this page the appropriate place for this? Is there another page? Should a new page be produced?--Filll 19:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Eulimnadia texana is actually a triploid organism. Even if it is, that doesn't mean it has three sexes. These two things have nothing to do with each other. The reference you provide doesn't really say that it has three sexes, it says that it has three genotypes that can lead to two sexes, male and female. Other sites list it as having males and hermaphrodites. All the examples in this section should probably be checked over.

Yes, seconded, Eulimnadia is not triploid. Yes, that would not mean it had three sexes.

I've done what you suggested, and checked the links too. The links are not of uniform reliability. The first appears to be a classroom exercise in the mathematics of sexual evolution with a number of simplifications (including terminology) being made for the purpose of the exercise. Although it looks like good educational material in that context, it is not published by its author as a statement on the subject of "Number of sexes in Eulimnadia". The author's work is being quoted out of context, which is not fair to the author.

Peer reviewed sources on the species typically talk like this.

Other sources do not actually state what the article claims they state. Aditionally, googling the species named provides a lot of additional information. Some of that information specifically addresses definition of the number of sexes in the species, but analyses this in terms of two sexes.

Finally, there are recent reliable sources available that state categorically that "all known sexual reproduction is binary".

Frankly, I can understand why a reader may form the impression that a clam with two hermaphrodite and one male genotype had three sexes, and an ant with two distinct genotypes for females and for males had four sexes. However, I defer to the experts who classify these as ultimately binary. The experts may be constrained by "outdated stereotyping of gender issues", however, to suggest this appears to be original research. Alastair Haines 03:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

PS It is significant that Fausto-Sterling classifies CAIS women as "ferms" rather than women, which is not what CAIS women (or their husbands) think of themselves. I suspect she must have done some arm-waving to moderate this, in which case the moderation needs to be expressed as part of the view. Nonetheless it is POV without reference to the substantial criticisms of her suggestion. Alastair Haines 04:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Table

Usually both sexes: Pubic hair, underarm hair, hair round the base of the penis
Really?

It seems Andeggs has improved that section now, clearing up that mental imagery landmine. Anthonypetre 00:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes - I left out this row because the table is meant to show differences between the sexes, not similarities. Since the table doesn't mention the fact both sexes have two arms, legs, a brain etc - why mention the pubic/underarm hair? Andeggs 11:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Popularity of article

According to the statistics almost 35,000 people a day are reading this article. It would be really great if we could get it cleaned up a bit and the references tags removed. - SimonP 20:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Redirect from secks

I'm changing the redirect of Secks to Sexual intercourse because that spelling more commonly refers to copulation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.254.226.175 (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Photo

I have an idea. Rather than use drawings for illistrations, I will take a picture of me and my girlfriend making love. It will be nice pictures as we are both 16. Then I will post it here. It will be a sharp, full colour image. Will detail. I will do it in multiple positions. I just want to ask permission first. 75.109.100.86 20:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Sexual_intercourse#May_I_use_a_photo --Strait 02:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I strongly suspect this is the same user as 75.109.101.139. Mathmo ^Talk 16:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you should take a picture. I know four year olds aren't going to read about sex on wikipedia, but if I just wanted to search something simple about sex, I don't really want to find a picture of two teens having sex. Elfizabeth 23:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)elfizabeth

I do :D--BMF81 17:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

GROOS!

Anyone else notice the idiotic vandalism at the end of the second paragraph? Just curious, since the page is protected right now. (at least, for me.) 70.91.178.185 20:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Persian Poet Gal! 70.91.178.185 20:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

What this page should be about

Seeing as Sex is one of the most popular pages on Wikipedia (and would be the-most popular if we were not Wikipedia or a Wiki ;-)), this page does need to be claned up. But what do you think the majority of visitors are expecting? Seriously, if someone looks for sex, they are most likely looking fopr the page sexual intercourse, NOT this page which is about sex as a biological parameter. IMHO, sex should be a redirect to sexual intercourse, and a notice should be placed at the top of that page saying "Sex redirects here...", because honestly of the masses who come to this page, how many of them do you think wanted to know about the topic of this page? Probably a very small percentage. --24.251.240.229 08:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I came to this site looking for any information I could find on sex, for the thesis I am writing. I was surprised to find exactly what I was looking for for my thesis. If someone wants to search for porn they should try using something other than wikipedia. Just a thought. 86.62.5.250 15:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Renamed

This article need to be renamed back to Sex.--Jet123 23:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the move. Please discuss any proposed moves on the talk page to obtain consensus. Thank you. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Name

Following the move without concensus, could there be a discussion as to whether sex is the appropriate name for this article or whether it should be renamed and sex turned into a redirect to Sexual intercourse? I have no opinion. WjBscribe 23:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Assuming you mean consensus, this talk page seemed rather inactive, and I certainly didn't expect anyone to oppose the move. Thus, I was bold.

I assumed that a consensus existed because it seemed logical and it had never been discussed before as far as I could tell (and it's hardly a strange idea). Just because there was no explicit show of community support for the move beforehand does not mean it was without consensus, that implies that there was some sort of discussion here already and that I moved it before the parties could come to an agreement. As far as either of us knows, there already is a consensus to move the page. The fact that quite a bit of time has passed already and so few people commented on the moving of such a popular page speaks to me. Now, please tell me why you moved the page back if you have no opinion. --Node 00:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to make a case for the move you propose, rather than expressing your irritation with me? WjBscribe 00:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I moved the page back. This is a highly visible and highly visited article, and, WP:BOLD notwithstanding, it only makes sense to make sure that there is support for such a move. At any rate, there appeared to be no reason for the move because Sex remained a redirect to this article, and the lede did not support using "Biological sexes" as the article's title. I also found the reason you provided in your edit summary to be very weak. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps someone reverted me before you saw, but I changed sex into a redirect to sexual intercourse. For the fuller justification please see a couple of sections up. --Node 00:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I should have checked the history. Let's come to a consensus on what the page name should be; plural article titles aren't in line with our naming conventions. Is biological sex, with sex as a redirect to sexual intercourse a better choice? —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 16:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I do know that plural article titles are against naming conventions. However, biological sex currently redirects to sexual intercourse because intercourse is biological, is it not? The template at the top says that the page is about the biological sexes. We can't use "gender" obviously (that is a psychological, cultural, sociological etc. concept), but "biological sex" is still ambiguous. What about Sex (biological attribute)? The plural article title would be an easier solution, certainly, but it is (as you noted) against naming conventions and sounds a bit awkward as well. --Node 03:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Despite reading the above discussion, I'm still lost as to why the term "gender" is unsuitable. Naysie 12:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"Gender" and "sex" are two different things. A gender can be assigned to things such as electronic connectors, music, and even words in many languages. A sex cannot. In my opinion, this article should stay where it is. Neitherday 13:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree because again, Wikipedia is for the readers, not the users. What do you think most people going to Sex are looking for? The article that is here now? No. --Node 09:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You asked me what I think, and I think a lot of people come here looking for an article along the lines of what is here now. Neitherday 17:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I really doubt that very much. Someone looking up sex... hmmm... I'm sure they want to know about the differences between the sexes biologically! They certainly can't be looking for information on the human reproductive process... that's definitely not the topic that people look up the most on every website.... --Node 08:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

People looking for information about the human reproductive process on every website or people looking for porn on every website? Neitherday 01:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Okey dokey. Naysie 00:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Community Portal

Is there any Community Portal on this subject? --Nemissimo II 19:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)