Talk:Sex/Archive 2

message: Why is "Usually both sexes: Pubic Hair, Underarm Hair" relevant here? It seems out of place to me. I would change it, but I can't (not registered). 61.9.204.168 12:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: One Small Thing

message: For what it is worth, I have tried to provide a more systematic way to organize information in the article. See what I have produced so far at User:Patrick0Moran/Sex_discussion and edit and/or discuss if you like. P0M 05:35, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to rewrite some of what you described as muddy to make it clearer. I softened a couple of the sentences that seemed to me a little overbearing and a little too US-centric in instructing the reader how to interpret the information provided. Alteripse 03:19, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganize Article?  

message: "Sex" could mean either 1) The biological distinction between male and female, or 2) Sexual intercourse or sexual behaviour. Currently we take the approach of "primary topic disambiguation", but I think this is inappropriate, as "Sex" has (arguably) the slightly predominant meaning of "Sexual intercourse", rather than the biological distinction, when in general use. If someone types "Sex" into the Wikipedia search box, what article will that person be looking for? I'd argue that it wouldn't be this current page the majority of the time (it's the looking-up-naughty-words-in-the-dictionary effect...!).
For this reason, I think we should use "equal disambiguation", and have a disambig page at Sex, and move this page article to Sex (biological distinction), or some such. — Matt
:Strongly disagree. This would be a case of disambiguation creating more confusion than it prevents. -Sean Curtin 20:22, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could you elaborate a little? Thanks. — Matt 23:44, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Sex", as a technical term, applies to the area covered by this article. Technical terms should be placed at their actual names, not the common terms used in reference to them (qv heart attack). Sex already says "see also sexual behavior, in particular sexual intercourse" at the very top of the article. A user looking for an article on sex acts isn't going to be brought directly to the relevant article(s) regardless of whether or not a disambiguation page is placed here, but a user looking for what the term "sex" technically applies to will need to follow a link to another page if this one is moved and replaced with a disambiguation. -Sean Curtin 06:38, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  What should be at [[Sex]]? 

message: This text is too restrictive. The individuals of many species can be divided into two sexes. This is true. But Sexual processes, sexual reproduction occurs also in species where the partners are practically indistinguishable. The kernel processes are meiosis and fusion (syngamy, fertilization). The article should start out by describing the sexual mode of reproduction. Then describe sexes as special cases. Etxrge 11:06, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't that be more appropriate for the article on sexual reproduction? -- Beland 22:52, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too restricted concept 

message: Just looking at the table under the "Sex among humans" heading, it says that the "Usual sexual orientation" of females is "gynephilic" and that of males is "androphilic". Doesn't that convey the meaning that most people are homosexual? Are they around the wrong way? - Mark 13:48, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's backwards again, and I'm unclear as to if I can actually fix it myself. Usonophile 23:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed it. Androphilia = male-loving; gynephilia = female-loving. It's pretty straightforward, so I can't imagine why someone would be changing this. --David Iberri (talk) 00:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Androphilia 

message: (WikiProject Decency template was here, but has since been deleted)
Any help which could be provided would be greatly appreciated. -Godfearing Parent.
:OK, here's a little help: talk to your kids and supervise them in an age appropriate manner. If your kid is too young to see something as benign as this article, you should supervise his use of the Internet. Once your kid is old enough to handle this kind of content, hopefully you will have instilled in him enough sense to not have his mind warped by a discussion by adults of sex throughout the animal kingdom.
:Just because you refuse to supervise your kids, that does not mean it is our job to do so. The Internet is no more an appropriate baby-sitter than is television. -NickGorton 05:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Troll, obviously.  Don't jump the way he's trying to manipulate you.  ObsidianOrder 01:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Long drawn out subject – should one leave the words of trolling (or legitimately protesting, opining, etc) nutjobs out there without response. Personally, having variously been in multiple disenfranchised minority groups my entire life, I tend to respond simply to ensure that such idiocy isn't allowed to stand unchallenged. But that's my style, not necessarily yours. -NickGorton 05:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something which may interest editors of this page 

message: At this moment, none of the anonymous edits have added useful content, working in good will. This article should be blocked to anonymous edits to given responsible Wikipedians some repite. --Wetman 06:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: The section "Sex in non-animal species" always disappears after a series of reversions from vandalism. Could anybody think of a good way to avoid it? -wshun 04:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sex in non-animal species

message: I would have thought that this article was crying out for illustration. Seriously. For great justice. 17:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why no pictures?

message: In accordance with WP:SPP, I'm suggesting we lift the semi-protection of this page soon to confirm that it's still a target of persistent anon vandals. I propose the lift be done on 17 May 2006 (UTC), at which point the article will have been semi-protected for two full weeks. (This time period is somewhat arbitrary; the policy says SP should be lifted after a "brief period"). If there are any objections, please raise them here. Otherwise, I'll unprotect on the date given above. --David Iberri (talk) 11:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've unprotected the article -- let's try this out for a few days, and if anon vandals persist, we can re-protect. Get your rollback finger ready... --David Iberri (talk) 03:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, that was fun. Anon vandalism has persisted, so I've semi-protected again. --David Iberri (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotecting 

message: I'm not really sure wether this is the right place to post this, but I'm going to assume it is since the original article is locked.
I think this non-wikipedia wiki should be linked to in the sex article: (link removed)
I found it informative and serious enough, and since you even link directly to goatse like material on the goatse page I don't see any harm in adding this.
:The link is not appropriate for this article, and links on talk pages are also picked up by google, so I have removed it. Kusma (討論) 20:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add URI to a sex-informational wiki 

message: I removed the image from inside a table. I really couldn't see how this was relevant. Felixwells 16:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italia 90?