Sex with animals[change source]
Sex with animals? Isn't that a bit too far? Archer7 15:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- Next time, just take that stuff out. People are always messing around with this article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- Although it is probably meant to be vandalism it is true. I think some reference to this is acceptable. The Ungovernable Force 07:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
And blatantly false statement: "Sex is penis in vagina between heterosexuals, but homosexual (same-sex) partners have sex in different ways" heterosexuals also have anal and oral sex (not to mention a wide range of other sexual practices).
also rather heterocentred and fails to mention other practices such as oral sex (probbaly more common than anal sex): "For example, some men have sex with women's anuses instead of their vaginas. Sex with anuses is called anal sex. Sometimes men also have anal sex with each other."
it is also highly tendencious to refer to a foetus as a baby.
--Neal 09:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- You left out something: the act of inserting the erect penis of the male into the vagina or anus of another person for reproduction or for sexual enjoyment Pacific Coast Highway (blah • lol, internet) 02:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
"Because people can have sex for fun, they can have sex in other ways where they can have lots of fun"....the word 'fun' is repeated. It's also too simple. - nocturnal.cat
Yeah, people do have sex with animals... kinda creepy. It's called bestiality.
Definition of life terminology[change source]
Sorry Eptalon, but "unborn child" is neither politically neutral nor clinically correct. I've tried to rewrite that part with more of a nod to colloquialisms, but this is clearly difficult ground. (And obviously this needs to eventually move into sexual reproduction, but I'm not going to do it right now.) Could anyone intending to edit that part please read the relevant pages on regular English Wikipedia first. Vagary 17:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Sex as power[change source]
Does this really need to be here? If there's an article on sexual politics, let's link it. Otherwise, that seems a bit out of place. Would there be a section on how drunk driving is bad in the article about cars?126.96.36.199 06:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Protection by Eptalon on Aug 9th[change source]
Thank you Eptalon, however it's not really an edit war. It's just two people editing at the same time. Gwib has been very useful in re-editing to contain the bare minimum necessary. He has even made sure to transfer some parts to appropriate articles instead of outright deleting them. I agree with his deletion of some sections such as bestiality and pedophilia which belong in their own articles (which I previously edited because they were grammatically wrong). (You probably want "See also" links to those on the bottom, but I can't add them with protection enabled.) I would think it's not really an edit war unless the same thing is getting overwritten over and over.
Note to Gwib: Careful though; some words you changed were necessary for clarity, and removing them changed the meaning, but I think the current article seems fine now as it is. Also the part about anal sex possibly causing pregnancy due to semen dripping down the perineum is in the "actual" wikipedia article.
- I appreciate all the info you added as well, but some of the bits were inappropriate in my view and I removed them, but if you feel that I was wrong, please put them back in or ask someone to (if the protection in still on).
- We try not to go into great depth here (hence the "Simple" in Simple Wikipedia), but if you think that the "semen dripping down the perineum" is necessary information, I'll leave it be.
- Gwib-(talk)- 17:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I have unprotected Sexual Intercourse! (sorry, I couldn't resist that one) Archer7 - talk 18:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
A confusing sentence[change source]
The meaning of this sentence is not clear: "Most sexually transmitted infections, like HIV, are as much likely to be transmitted through oral sex." I think some words may be missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackie31337 (talk • contribs)
- Thanks. To my knowledge, the statement that is trying to be made is incorrect. So, I have removed it. EhJJTALK 16:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Prefer illustrations over pictures[change source]
I think it is a good idea to use illustrations of sexual acts instead of photographs.
Photographs are of real people, and those people might not want their private pictures published: COM:PEOPLE#Moral issues (identifiable person). For example, at the time of this writing, the image demonstrating fellatio clearly shows a participants face. Because of this, the image has been marked for deletion. Any photograph replacing it will have the same problems to some degree. It's safer to go with an illustration that does not clearly identify people.
Illustrations of sex acts are also usually seen as less taboo than pictures. Since a primary audience of the Simple English Wikipedia is children, it makes sense to err on the side of caution, and use media that is less likely to be seen as "inappropriate" for younger readers.
For precedent, it looks to me like the regular English Wikipedia favors illustrations over photographs of sex acts.
- The article is there for anyone to be edited; I therefore propose you either replace the offending images with pertinent graphics directly, or you give links to such graphics here so they can be discussed. As to myself, I am quite open-minded, and I do not think that the images we currently use are taboo or bad for younger readers. So please be bold and go ahead...--Eptalon (talk) 07:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Once again, censorship appears to be raising its ugly head. The photograph of the oral sex act is far more clear an illustration than the line drawing. That's all that matters Soup Dish (talk) 14:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm fine either way. I know the English Wikipedia prefers artistic work (line drawing, painting) over a photograph. On closer inspection of policies, I see that there is none and that it's case-by-case on both Wikipedias. Since I don't really care enough to go through discussion on the topic, I'll leave it with the photograph, as I agree that it is the most clear portrayal of oral sex on a woman. EhJJTALK 15:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
A close-up photo has been added and removed several times. I believe that it should be restored, due to it being much more illustrative that the two current pictures. One of them shows lions and does not show penetration; the other is a drawing which does not show it close-up. If three pics is too many, then one of the others should be removed. Wikipedia is not censored, and the photo does not identify the participants, so I don't see a reason to exclude it. Jim Michael (talk) 08:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
If sexual intercourse is defined as it is, then it does not cover animals which no not have an insertion device like a penis, and it does not cover other kinds of sexual activities. It does, however, include other mammals than humans. The inclusion of same-sex acts, and the use of "animals" where "mammals" are intended is unencyclopedic. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- "Sexual activity" (a much broader term) redirects to this page, and it should not. We do have a page "Human sexual activity", which is the natural place for some of the contents of this page. At present it is just a one-liner, but it is the obvious place to put non-intercourse acts of sex. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)