Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

JC's Girls

I have started an FAC for the article about JC's Girls, an organization of Christian women who evangelize to female workers in the sex industry. The reviewers who have contributed to the FAC so far seem sharply divided. Any constructive contributions would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Please join to discussion

I am proposing splitting in Talk:Brothel. Please join. NiceDay (talk) 05:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Split article

The article Sex offender which is tagged as being of interest to this project was split today. The new article is Sex offender registries in the United States. If this is of interest to the project, feel free to add the project's tag there as well. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  02:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion notification

A new discussion has been started at: Talk:Sodomy#POV and "Sodomy". Comments appreciated. GregKaye 11:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

History of swimwear

I have started the article. Please, check and advice. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Balance

There seems to be an unbalance in focus between same-sex attraction for males and females.

Lesbian is its own article while gay male (or male homosexual) does not have its own article, just a subsection on human male sexuality.

Why does lesbianism get its own article instead of being relegated to a subsection on human female sexuality like with males? Ranze (talk) 07:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that male homosexuality should have its own article. As to why there isn't one already, it's because someone hasn't made one yet! *hint* *hint*

As an aside, human male sexuality is a horribly incomplete article. I've been looking at that one for a long time, but I never seem to have time to do the research/writing for it. kyledueck (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Ranze (talk · contribs) and Kyledueck, see Talk:Gay/Archive 6#Gay article vs. Lesbian article?, which shows that this matter has been discussed before. See the valid reasoning given for why there is a Lesbian article, and why there has yet to be a Male homosexuality article. Flyer22 (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Also see Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 23#There is no main article for male homosexuality; I noted there, and in the discussion seen at Talk:Gay/Archive 6#Requested move, that I disagree with "male homosexuality" redirecting to that horrible Human male sexuality article. Flyer22 (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the reason for lack of focus, perhaps not just in Wikipedia but perhaps real life too, would be a lack of uniformity of language. Lesbian is a catchy single term and much easier to search for and name an article after than putting together various combinations of words to reflect its opposite-gender counterpart. That doesn't necessarily mean it's a less important topic, but that it's a topic for which it's harder to source properly due to search engine difficulties and due to phrasing differences in those who write on it. Ranze (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Ranze, yes, that has been one of the issues, if not the main issue, as indicated in the aforementioned Talk:Gay/Archive 6#Gay article vs. Lesbian article? discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 00:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Not in Front of the Children - at Peer Review

I've requested Peer Review for Not in Front of the Children.

Feedback would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Not in Front of the Children/archive1.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 06:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Epigenetic theories of homosexuality article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Epigenetic theories of homosexuality#What about Epigenetic theories of heterosexuality ?. It concerns the lack of a heterosexual comparison, what to title the article, and the fact that better sources should be used for the biomedical information (unless there is a WP:MEDDATE aspect preventing better sources). See this comment I made. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Sexuality after spinal cord injury at Peer Review

I've requested Peer Review for Sexuality after spinal cord injury in hopes of getting it ready for an eventual FAC. If anyone can spare the time I'd love to get any feedback at Wikipedia:Peer review/Sexuality after spinal cord injury/archive1.

Thank you! delldot ∇. 21:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

AfD

Hey guys, the article for Courtship disorder was nominated for deletion. I completed the nom despite thinking that the topic looks to be notable enough for an entry, but I note that the nominator also said that the article was biased. I'm not familiar enough with the topic to know if it is or isn't, hence why I'm posting here. Can one of you take a look? I don't see anything that particularly stands out offhand, but I figured I'd ask. I'm also going to cut/paste this to another WP. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Party and play

The topic of party and play a.k.a. chemsex seems to be in the news at the moment. However, our current article on it is both out of date and poorly sourced. Would anyone else like to help with bringing it up to date? -- The Anome (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission

See Draft:MGTOW. Thank you, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

MGTOW

The usage and purpose of MGTOW is under discussion, see talk:MGTOW -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

It is also being discussed at Talk:Men Going Their Own Way -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Sexuality after spinal cord injury at FAC

I have nominated Sexuality after spinal cord injury for Featured article status. If you have time I hope you'll take a look and let me know what you think at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sexuality after spinal cord injury/archive1. Thank you! delldot ∇. 20:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't the penises in Wikipedia be of representative size?

I just noticed that I've overlooked how big the size of the male genitals are in anal sex. Shouldn't the representative picture of a major kind of sex be average sized? Especially for anal sex? (poor girl). Porn sites distort peoples' judgement of what the average size of a penis is, there's no need to further this. I don't feel like doing an analysis of the penis size of every article with a penis but fellatio also has this problem (plus that the woman is fellating a penis that she can barely cram past her lips makes her look like a whore (though her face helps), she could be licking the outside while rubbing it instead). Does the penis-width to lip-width ratio of the drawing have to be so high that it's degrading to the woman? I'm sure that average instance of fellatio in real life is not "can barely fit in the mouth". Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Sexuality after spinal cord injury needs reviewers at FAC

Hey all, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sexuality after spinal cord injury/archive1 is getting elderly. It has gotten very little input and I'm starting to get anxious that it'll get archived for lack of attention. If you have time I'd love it if you could let me know what you think! Thanks! delldot ∇. 02:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Intervention in entry that has been targeted by edit warring

I'd like to solicit Project members to weigh in on the entry Biology and sexual orientation, which has been the target of arbitrary content removal by User:Flyer22 Reborn (though she'd argue it's I who's edit warring. These are the sections of the entry she insists on removing, all of which, as can be seen by anyone, are properly sourced to peer reviewed sources but which for some reason, in my view unsupported by editing guidelines, she considers biased (see Talk Page). Her justification for the continuing removal of the sections for 3 months is the need to establish consensus (she along with two other users want to keep it removed; me and another user have expressed the desire to have it re-inserted). I think both she and I said everything we could in this regard, so please, give us YOUR opinion and help debate advance and true consensus be built. Rafe87 (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Anyone wanting to know why I and others keep removing Rafe87's poorly sourced material can see this section. And it was already explained to him that peer review by itself is not the same thing as literature review or systematic review; WP:MEDRS prefers the latter two. Primary sources like the ones he's adding are discouraged for very good reasons, noted at WP:Primary sources and WP:MEDRS. The next stop is WP:ANI if he continues to edit war. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Under your argument, most of that entry - in fact, of most entries on Wikipedia - would be deleted since most don't consist of "systemic reviews". You're policy shopping to keep out content you dislike. Rafe87 (talk) 05:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of what you assume about me (which is dead wrong, I assure you), if the content was well-sourced, I wouldn't mind it. It's already been explained to you that bad or otherwise poor sourcing in an article is not a license for more bad or otherwise poor sourcing. I do not like the current state of the Biology and sexual orientation article at all, but I am just one person working on, or looking after, these types of articles; there are not enough others doing this kind of work, and I do not have the amount of time or enthusiasm I once had for Wikipedia. It's also already been explained to you to that this type of content needs better sourcing. Most of the other material on Wikipedia does not need this type of better sourcing for reasons that should be obvious; South Park, for example, is an entirely different ball of wax. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Please take a look at Sexual jealousy

Would someone from this project please have a look at the recent changes made to this article? There's some kind of school assignment involving it, and I'd like a review to see if the edits made by the students are appropriate. I've had a few minor problems on Sexual suggestiveness with students from the same program, so I think a closer look at Sexual jealousy is warranted. Thanks. BMK (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Duplication in articles on consanguinity, incest, etc.

Participants in this project may be interested in a discussion I have (hopefully) started on the WikiProject Law's talk page. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 17:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

A deletion discussion of File:Autofellatio6.jpg is taking place on Commons

I am posting here on this talk page with the intent of getting participation of some of this task force's members in the deletion discussion which is now taking place on Commons for the file mentioned in the heading of this section. I am not here to canvass, and am not here to advocate for deletion or preservation of the image— I am here to solicit participation from editors claiming an interest in the topic. The deletion discussion can be viewed here. Please consider visiting, reviewing the discussion, and expressing your thoughts. Thanks! KDS4444^Talk 06:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Girl in cake

Do we have an article or content in a section of another article for the type of giant cake from which a model pops out for festive occasions? I understand that these are sometimes made largely or entirely of cardboard and frosting, but sometimes there is a real cake outside of the hidden compartment. I have tried surprise cake, pop cake and popup cake.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I.e., is there a page for this video?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I have created pop out cake.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for input at Talk:Call girl

A dispute is beginning at call girl as to whether call girls should be described as "prostitutes" or "sex workers" in the lede. Your input would be welcome! I have also asked at the Sex Work task force page, but since that task force is labeled as "semi-active" I thought it would be wise to cross-post here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

A discussion of interest to this project...

...can be found at Talk:Prostitution#Sin. BMK (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Diagram "penis sizes" – correct chart, spelling/grammar?

Am I normal? #Studies on penis size

Hi, what do you think about the diagram and it's description in #Studies on penis size? I'm not a native speaker – feel free to correct. I'm worry, it's not correct and nobody registers… ;) --Gsälzbär (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Leeds Revolutionary Feminist Group

Just wrote the article a couple of weeks ago. Would love people to contribute! EricthePinko (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Jane Langton and Jane Langton - ‎Certified Adult Sexual Health Educator

• is she wikipedia worthy ? ;)
• Jane Langton - North Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada - ‎Certified Adult Sexual Health Educator - ‎LinkedIn
• A motion for masturbation -- the naked truth | Jane Langton | TEDxSFU - YouTube
• "A motion for masturbation: The naked truth: Jane Langton at TEDxSFU" - TEDxTalks

Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk)

• • Jane Langton - Google+Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 01:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Sex doll

I proposed splitting the sex robot section in that article. Can you participate in the discussion please? Pwolit iets (talk) 10:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Sadomasochism article

The sadomasochism article is in a poor state at the moment; large parts of it read like an essay, and lack any detailed source citations. For such a high-importance article, I think it currently falls short of Wikipedia's standards, and its "C" grade needs re-assessing. -- The Anome (talk) 11:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Merge discussion at Talk:Orgasm

Thought you might want to know. It concerns merging with Coregasm. Sizeofint (talk) 22:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Chandra Levy

Input welcome here. Bus stop (talk) 00:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

White genitalia

There seems to be a distinct bias toward white genitalia in the photos on many articles. Perhaps an effort should be made to source more globally representative photos. Sizeofint (talk) 02:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Shemale porn redirect discusion

There is a redirect discussion for Shemale porn. Please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 23#Shemale porn. You can add your opinion over there. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

"Rape is not sex"

Lately I've gotten the impression that the proposition "Rape is not sex", "Consensual sex is just sex. There is no such thing as 'nonconsensual sex.' That's called rape." is going to win the prerogative of interpretation on the web and it also has made its way into mainstream media (The Guardian) and sex guidebooks for teens. Is this already sufficiently relevant to be mentioned in the related articles? --KnightMove (talk) 09:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the question. Can you give an example of what you'd want it to say? —PermStrump(talk) 15:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, possibly a subsection in Rape#Definitions mentioning the existence of this position, and explaining it would be adequate... or not. --KnightMove (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Rape definitions should include legal definitions though, shouldn't they, since that is what medical professionals, police, laws, courts, and victims advocates use, and so, the legal definitions are what have the most impact.Awolnetdiva (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Well legally rape is defined literally. The law rarely piggy-backs off the definitions of other words and this is no exception. I remember finding the attorney general's officially recommended definition somewhere prompting some heated MRA debate (it specified penetration of the victim as being necessary, which has certain obvious implications).

Anyway, this seems more about the definition of sex than about rape. Whether the term sex is inclusive of the term rape, actually has no effect on the definition of rape what so ever. This is because examples of rape would still be applied to rape and no longer applied to sex, so even, if the words used in the definition of rape are changed, the semantic stays the same and the definition's words are only changing because the definition of the words used in the definition has thusly changed. Make sense? xD Eaterjolly (talk) 04:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Take a look at a draft?

Can someone take a look at Draft:Scales of Sexual Orientation? It looks like it should be good, but I'd like someone familiar with this stuff and the sourcing needed to take a peek. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

It needs work. I don't like the over-reliance on very old sources either. And since the Kinsey scale article addresses different scales, and the Kinsey scale is the most prominent of the scales, I'm not even sure we need a "Scales of sexual orientation" article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

• And this is why I wanted to check here - it looked good to me, but I figured that someone more familiar with this stuff would be able to spot any issues with the article. Thanks! :) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Tokyogirl79, as you may have seen, Robert McClenon passed the draft to become a Wikipedia article. The article is a poor essay, but I'm really not motivated to significantly improve it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages

Greetings WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/Archive 6 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

• Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Polygyny

Please provide comment at Talk:Polygyny#Map of polygyny w.r.t. Russia. (This project is being pinged because the topic-in-question is listed as a topic under this WikiProject's umbrella.) --Izno (talk) 13:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Please help evaluate a draft at AFC

Draft:Evolutionary Psychological and Biological Explanations for Prostitution needs opinions from topic specialists. If you do not want (or are not registered) to do a full AFC Review, please post your opinion on the draft's talk page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Impromptu edit-a-thon to reestablish the Ecosexuality article

I am hosting an edit-a-thon on 2017-01-02 from noon to 4pm PST to work on reestablishing the Ecosexuality article, minus the POV, COI, PROMO, primary sources, & other problems. Folks are welcome to help edit remotely. I have some instructions at User_talk:Peaceray/sandbox/Ecosexuality draft & Wiki markup from one or two versions before it was deleted at User:Peaceray/sandbox/Ecosexuality draft (please leave the latter be). We are starting a fresh version at User:Peaceray/sandbox/Ecosexuality. Please add & edit individual sections rather than the whole article.

The Facebook event page is at https://www.facebook.com/events/178307402644082/. Maybe you can message me from the event page.

Peaceray (talk) 08:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Debate about NoFap and Masturbation

Hello, Talk:Masturbation#MEDRS is a bit of a wide-ranging debate about whether NoFap is based on spurious medical claims, whether it is a relevant cultural phenomenon, or if is a soap-box in the sense of WP:SOAP, and mostly, about whether a paragraph on it should be included in the Masturbation article. Perhaps some experts on human sexuality could weigh in on the talk page, to help us find some consensus on these issues. Thanks! Arided (talk) 03:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC on Masturbation

There is currently an RfC on whether or not to include a reference to NoFap in Masturbation. Interested editors can join the discussion here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Merge of Pinafore eroticism into Feminization (activity)

We should take the opportunity to merge Pinafore eroticism into Feminization (activity), thus eliminating a redundant hyper-specialized article which covers a topic can be dealt with in no more than a paragraph in the main article on the topic. -- The Anome (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Rough sex

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 21#Rough sex about what should happen to the Rough sex redirect, which currently targets BDSM. Your comments there would be welcome. Thryduulf (talk) 10:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Help with duplicate articles

Please see Talk:Sex trade in Senegal#Discussion, and any help appreciated. Andrewa (talk) 09:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Better yet, comment at Talk:Prostitution in Africa#Ghana and Senegal. Andrewa (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report is back!

Hi all, the Community Tech team has been working hard to bring back the Popular pages report. The report for this project can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/Popular pages. I've made a redirect from the older link Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sexology_and_sexuality/Popular to make the link consistent across projects. If you're not happy with this change and want to stick with the older link (not recommended), please ping me and I will take care of it. Thank you. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 18:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Transgender sex workers

Hi there! I have been working on the transgender sex worker article over the past couple of months and would love to connect it with this WikiProject! I welcome any feedback! Brookeenglish (talk) 05:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC on the WP:ANDOR guideline

Hi, all. Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Should the WP:ANDOR guideline be softened to begin with "Avoid unless" wording or similar?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Jews and Harems

There's currently a discussion ongoing on the Harem article based on changes made to the section "Slavery and the Harem System in the Ottoman Empire" The questionable insertion is as follows:

"Andrew Handler has written that Jews were the "main suppliers" of eunuchs.[21] In the medieval Ottoman Empire, Jews were one of the few groups who could move and trade between the Christian and Islamic worlds.[22][23] Although slave merchants were officially supposed to be Muslims, "unofficial" Jewish traders also participated.[24]When Islamic legal scholars prohibited the practice of castration, it became customary for Jews and Christians to carry out castration in areas outside Christian dominion.[19]"

Consensus on the talk page has unanimously been that the insertion is undue, but the editor who added it has refused to remove it. My view is that the section is completely undue and seems very sketchy, but I'm unfamiliar with the details regarding Judaism in the Ottoman Empire, so would need help from more experienced editors regarding balancing the section. Thanks Drsmoo (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Naturism

I've noticed that the articles on Naturism and Freikörperkultur (FKK) are included in WikiProject Sexuality. Someone has asked on the Freikörperkultur Talk page whether the article should be in this project, as "FKK is a movement that is about nakedness without a direct relationship to sexuality". Indeed, this assertion is made in the article. In general, there is a widely (but not universally) held belief that naturism is and should be non-sexual. Are there any opinions as to whether Naturism articles should be included in this project? --Polly Tunnel (talk) 11:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

New article about pussy torture

Could someone from this WikiProject review and assess Pussy torture? It's a newly created article that did not pass through WP:AFC, so it's yet to be reviewed. I am asking this here beause I found this project's banner on the talk page of one of the articles listed in the "See also" section. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC about the author credits of first edition in first sentence in book article

RfC about the author credits of first edition in first sentence in a book article.

Please see Request for Comment, at Talk:Trump_Tower:_A_Novel#RfC_about_the_author_credits_of_first_edition_in_first_sentence. Sagecandor (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Elijah Daniel for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Elijah Daniel is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elijah Daniel (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sagecandor (talk) 04:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Original research noticeboard inquiry about Texas's age of consent

Please see Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#What_is_Texas.27s_age_of_consent.3F WhisperToMe (talk) 09:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Inquiry on how "age of consent" should be defined?

See Talk:Age_of_consent#Defining_what_.22age_of_consent.22_means.3F WhisperToMe (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Cuckoldry as fetish ....

So, currently, there is only a single sentence on the topic of Cuckoldry as a fetish on the article for said. I posted about an expansion here, but there is no response, thus far. As there is now a decent body of scholarly work on the topic, I think it would be worthwhile to either expand that section or start another article as the main one really focuses on the etymology, history, etc., rather than contemporary sexual subcultures. I'm leaning towards branching off to another article, but thought I would throw it out there for consideration. That and ask for any other thoughts on the expansion. Thanks.--Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 04:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

#MeToo

Are there any project members who care to help improve the Me too (hashtag) article, or participate in any of the related ongoing discussions? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Sexology_and_sexuality

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 18:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Notice of an AfD

Your participation is requested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Lauer sexual misconduct allegations ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment

Your participation is requested at Talk:Demisexuality#Should the Demisexuality article be merged into the Gray asexuality article? ^{Atsme📞📧} 07:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Sexuality in Italy listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sexuality in Italy. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. 70.52.11.217 (talk) 05:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Health inequities for sex workers

PMID 29137869 is a recent, top-quality review that presents information about the health effects of exclusion on "homeless populations, individuals with substance use disorders, sex workers, and imprisoned individuals". The article is free to read, so please consider whether it could be useful to expand, update, or source articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Fictional pedophiles

The discussion about Category:Fictional pedophiles has been relisted twice, more input would be appreciated. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

David Ogden Stiers sexuality RFC

There is an RFC which may be of interest to the members of this wikiproject Talk:David_Ogden_Stiers#RFC_regarding_the_sexuality_of_David_Ogden_Stiers ResultingConstant (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Request for assistance

There is a discussion on Talk:Margaret Sanger#I have reverted the edits of NightHeron, as I think they better be discussed first that failed to attract third-party comments. Your comments are welcome there! Request put down here, as it is listed s in the interest of this WikiProject. The Banner talk 23:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Seeking feedback on a guide for students who edit articles in sexuality topics

Hello! Wiki Education is developing a guide to help students write about all topics related to sexuality. The handout is meant to supplement other resources that they consult, such as an interactive training and basic editing brochures. We’d love to get some community feedback on the draft here: User:Cassidy (Wiki Ed)/Sexuality studies. We're looking to gather feedback by April 18th. Feel free to respond here or on the draft's talk page if you're interested. Thanks so much! Cassidy (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Feedback requested at Drag queen

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Drag queen#Sidebar about changing from one sidebar to another on the article. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of 2suit

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on 2suit, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. 65.94.42.219 (talk) 04:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the speedy deletion nomination tag for 2suit for two reasons:

• In the nine years since it has been recreated, editors have added additional information. To speedily delete this before having a chance to move the material from subsequent edits into another article would certainly lose relevant & useful information.
• After nine years, this article has reached WP:EDITCONSENSUS. A speedy deletion would thus violate the Wikipedia policy on consensus. This requires a fresh nomination for deletion.

Peaceray (talk) 05:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content

WikiProject Sexology and sexuality members are invited to contribute to the 2018 Wiki Loves Pride campaign, which runs during the month of June and seeks to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. In-person events are being organized in some cities, and editors can also participate remotely. Results are being tracked here, so feel free to show off your work. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Portal:Pornography move and update

Hi. I moved the Portal:Pornography to Portal:Erotica and Pornography that seemed to be the original idea of the portal and encompasses broader concepts than simple commercial pornography. I invite you to comment here. Thanks.Guilherme Burn (talk) 12:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Pattern of removing sexual violence allegations in intros to biographical articles

One thing I've noticed as I've browsed the Wikipedia pages of various public figures who have been accused of sexual violence during the #MeToo movement is that, quite often, there is a section of the article devoted to the allegations, but the allegations are not mentioned in the intro, and edits I make adding them are often reverted (e.g. Woody Allen).

I'm not sure whether this is a manifestation of Gender bias on Wikipedia, or of editors of a given Wikipedia page being more likely to support the person the page is about, or just me being in a social bubble where allegations of sexual violence against a public figure matter more than they do to the average person. Does anyone else have thoughts on this matter, and if you agree it's a problem, suggestions for addressing it? - Sdkb (talk) 05:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

More data needed. If there's a pattern, is it coming from one user, or a small group of users? Can you list a half dozen or more articles in which you've seen this pattern? Regardless what is happening, what should happen, imho, is that they should be handled on a case-by-case basis; i.e., what happens at Woody Allen is irrelevant to what happens at Harvey Weinstein or Asia Argento. Each article should follow the recommendations of WP:LEAD in summarizing the body of the article, lending due weight to the much shorter synthesis that is the lead section. If it's a big enough part of the body of the article, then it rates a mention in the lead. Also, there may be an issue in some cases of WP:RECENTISM, especially if there's an ongoing, or newsy quality to the allegations. My feelings about that would change if there is something major to report: someone fired from their job, jailed or convicted of a crime, and so on. In most cases, that would certainly rate a mention in the lead section. But there should be no attempt to militate for some kind of false consistency across different articles, by having them all mention (or not mention) events of this nature. Mathglot (talk) 08:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Sapiosexuality

 Note: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_November_11#Sapiosexuality.--Hildeoc (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Suggested article move: John/Eleanor Rykener → John Rykener

The article on John/Eleanor Rykener, the 14th-century transvestite sex worker, is up for a suggested more to "John Rykener" and I wondered if more people in this Wikiproject might be interested in joining the discussion on the proposed move. You can join the discussion here. --Woofboy (talk) 20:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Is Thot worth it?

Should Thot have an article created. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

BDSM Culture Task Force or WikiProject

Having conferred with a Leather historian amongst others regarding the amount of treatment which BDSM receives as both a unique public sphere and as an historical context, I would like to suggest that a task force be created to contextualize BDSM within Wikipedia - that being said, this may be too much to include under the umbrella of Sexology and sexuality ; the practices themselves, yes, but the history and culture may require their own BDSM WikiProject. Please chime in on this matter! Mr Kalm (talk) 05:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

"Human Male Sexuality" page has MRA language. Promotes rape culture and promotes mistruths.

keep trying to change it, but someone keeps changing my edits back.

This is extremely biased entry that misinterpreted scientific studies, and at times outright lied about the results. If you check the existing citations and read the studies, this will be confirmed. Additionally I removed language that was harmful to women (with no citations and riddled with grammar mistakes), promoted rape as a strategy to get more parters, and parts that misinterpreted studies to promote veiled and implied racism.

Particularly offensive parts are until "Male sexually violent strategies" where it states things like: "There are many sexual strategies that males can employ in order to gain mates. This includes sexual coercion" "Sexual coercion functions to increase the chance of a female mating with a male, and decrease the chance that the female will mate with another male" and whatever weird statement this means. This is a theory that hasn't been proven and they misinterpret the source they site: "Among other behaviors, this means that men are more likely to favour chastity in a woman, as this way a male can be more certain that her offspring are his own. Such a strategy is seen in males, and maternity is never doubted by the female, and so a chaste male is not highly valued by women.[citation needed] However, for men, female chastity confirms paternity, causing the male to compromise his sexual strategies in order to select a chaste mate."

Whoever edited my changes back didn't change back the coded racist part about people from low-income areas being more likely to rape under "factors influencing male sexual behavior" so I believe this is a deliberate attack against women written from a MRA perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.243.213 (talk) 03:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

LGBT

LGBT, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Crediting the Wachowskis

How should the Wachowskis be credited in articles about films/media they worked on before they came out as women? "The Wachowskis" or "The Wachowski Brothers"? You can comment or vote here:

Talk:The_Matrix_(franchise)#Request_for_Comment_-_Crediting_The_Wachowskis

Any input would be greatly appreciated! WanderingWanda (talk) 05:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Just a few days left on this RfC and opinions remain sharply divided. Have any insight into this issue or good conflict resolution skills? Your input could be very valuable. WanderingWanda (talk) 05:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Sex work for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Sex work is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Sex work until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Prostitution in Japan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Prostitution in Japan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Prostitution in Japan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Question about Portal:Nudity is linking to Portal:Sexuality

Hello,

I am new to this editing thing, so I hope I do it correctly... Please let me know if I should have used an other way to ask this question.

I noticed "Portal:Nudity" is automatically forwarded to Portal:Sexuality. I think that is not correct. Naturists emphasize that naturism is social nudity and has nothing to do with sexuality. Is it possible to create a Portal:Nudity landing page and then give a choice for continue reading about naturism, or sexuality, or any other relevant subject?

Thanks for the help.

my user name: ErikAmsterdam — Preceding unsigned comment added by ErikAmsterdam (talk • contribs) 12:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi @ErikAmsterdam:. The portal was redirected by consensus, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Nudity. Now I have restored it with new dynamic features. See P:NUDE.Guilherme Burn (talk) 12:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi @UnitedStatesian: Portal:Nudity was not a mass creation, it is in the process of rebuilt. The fact that an article is deleted, or redirected by Mfd, does not prevent it from being re-created.Guilherme Burn (talk) 11:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Recreation using automated tools is not helpful after such actions were frozen. Legacypac (talk) 23:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Utah Polygamy and Law Since 2000

I'm wondering if someone from this WikiProject could take a look at this article and assess it. It was created by a student editor as part of Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Brigham Young University/HIST 221 - Gonzales - The United States Since 1877 (Winter 2019), and student moved the article to the mainspace on their own without submitting it for WP:AFC review. There are some WP:MOS and other similar errors which can be cleaned up, but my main concerns are that it's a WP:CONTENTFORK which might not need it's own stand-alone article. I don't believe the university course this student created the article for has ended; so, it's possible that they are still going to get graded on their work; at the same time, it's been added to the mainspace which means that it probably shouldn't be left as is just because it's part of a student editing project. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Merge Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch into WP:Sex

There simply isn't enough activity for Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch to remain a standalone Project. I recommend merging this into WP:Sex as a subproject or task force to make it simpler to sort content that can be assigned to this Project in the future. SKay (talk) 08:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I just want to say I'm puzzled by the decision to give the Pedophilia Article Watch a cutesy paw print logo. Yes I get it - it's a play on P.A.W. - but pedophilia does not seem like subject matter that ought to have an endearing logo attached. Also paw prints are used by several groups, including bears and furries, whose members generally would not want to be associated with pedophilia. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 22:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Sub-Comment: I agree, to be honest. The Project as a whole is long dead. I personally would not know where to begin to have it changed. (I suppose as the only active member I have consensus. X3 ) SKay (talk) 08:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Last call for objections before I begin moving this page. SKay (talk) 12:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support merging it in as a taskforce or something similar based on activity levels. IIRC it was created at a time when there was a lot more activity and controversy around Wikipedia's coverage of paedophilia related topics (including several POV warriors). That isn't the case today, our policies (especially regarding BLP and child protection) have matured a lot since then and the well-meaning but not actually helpful "why doesn't anybody think of the children!" folks have moved on. Thryduulf (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Transgender for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Transgender is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Transgender until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Sadomasochism, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Discussion about a photograph depicting an intersex person

There is a discussion at Talk:Main Page#Graphic but educational image of intersex person on main page? about the publication, on the Main Page, of a photograph depicting an intersex person. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Sexual assaults covered up

This is extracted from WT:FEMINISM#Sexual assaults covered up

I consider this as a meta-issue and find it appropriate to discuss. Currently, I am in a discussion at Talk:Neymar. But that's not my issue here, RFC is the place to go for that. My problem is that why are these types of issues getting covered up so often? Certainly a sexual assault allegation is not the same as a football transfer rumor, isn't it? Maybe this is a result of gender gap of registered users? I am up for open discussions. Interested articles are also up at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost, the latest edition. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 13:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Remove Macalda di Scaletta from the Sex Work Task Force

Macalda di Scaletta wasn't a sex worker. I think the confusion came about because of different meanings of the word "courtesan." Macalda was a courtesan in the old sense of being a female courtier associated with a royal court, not the modern sense of sex worker. While her biography is rife with sexual scandal, there is no basis for classifying her as a sex worker. The sense of "courtesan" as a royal mistress doesn't apply, either (she tried to become a mistress of the king, but he wasn't having any of it). I'll have to switch the category of courtesan to courtier to remove the confusion. Please remove her from this project and task force. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 10:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Johanna-Hypatia: You seem to misunderstand the use of the word courtesan, as used in relation to what the French call Demimondes. They were women who furthered their careers, social standing or bank balance by offering sexual favours. To compare them to modern sex workers if fundamentally flawed, which is why they are called courtesans, not sex workers, prostitutes etc. Your changing of the category is inconsistent with the lead of the article where is is described as a courtesan. --John B123 (talk) 16:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of misunderstanding, John, the comparison to sex workers wasn't mine. Someone from the Sex Work Task Force added the article to it. I was writing to correct that misunderstanding and asking for it to be removed. As I noted in my post above, the word courtesan can have different meanings. I translated the article from Italian. The original calls her "una dama di compagnia e cortigiana." The former term means courtier, and in my translation I rendered it "lady-in-waiting," which she was.

When I originally translated "cortigiana" as "courtesan," that choice was based on the English term being the etymological cognate of the Italian one. In retrospect, it wasn't the best word choice to avoid misunderstanding. Italian cortigiano literally means 'courtier', and its feminine form cortigiana also means 'female courtier'; i.e., an aristocrat who takes regular part in royal court doings. That's what Macalda was. The word cortigiana has the same dual meaning in Italian, so context is needed to disambiguate what it means.

She tried to use her sexuality on King Pedro, but he didn't accept it from her. Her political influence at court instead derived from the favors owed by the king to her husband Alaimo, as well as her baronial status in her own right. Her attempted use of sexuality on the king was a failure. Therefore she doesn't fit the role of demimondaine that you described.

That leaves "courtier" as the only word choice to remove confusion. Maybe Macalda can stay within the Sexology and Sexuality project, because she made a name for herself defying conventional sexual mores with her behavior, but "sex work" misses the mark. It was recreational for her, not work. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 04:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I added the sex-work template on the basis you had included Macalda di Scaletta in the Category:Italian courtesans and from the first sentence of the article "Sicilian baroness, warrior woman, lady-in-waiting, and courtesan". It would also appear from your initial post "modern sense of sex worker" that you are using a very narrow definition of sex worker: sex worker = prostitute. Whilst prostitutes are sex workers, not all sex workers are prostitutes.

Also worth mentioning, the tagging of articles with WikiProject templates shows that project has an interest in that article. It does not define the article as adding an article to a category does. For example, anti-prostitution campaigner Julie Bindel is tagged by the sex-work-task-force, but that in no way is a suggestion she is a sex worker.

Looking at the Italian it:Categoria:Cortigiane, which the Italian version of the article is included in, it is linked via wikidata to the English Category:Courtesans. With one exception, where there is an article in both languages, the articles are included in the categories Italian Cortigiane and English Courtesans (or sub-category). This includes Dorothea Jordan who was Anglo-Irish and Maria Versfelt who was Dutch. As neither of these were connected with Italy, the ambiguity over cortigiana doesn't apply. it:Categoria:Cortigiane also has as a sub-category it:Categoria:Etere (Hetaira), further suggesting the category should be taken as Courtesan not Courtier. As the article is mainly unreferenced, I can see no evidence that the categorisation of the Italian article was incorrect.

I would ask you comply with the WP:BRD guidelines whilst this is discussed rather than reverting. The general principle is that the article remains unchanged until discussions are complete. --John B123 (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Donald Wuerl RfC

There is an RfC open at the article for Donald Wuerl, the Catholic Archbishop Emeritus of Washington D.C., over whether or not content detailing his purported knowledge of sexual misconduct by Theodore McCarrick, former cardinal and his predecessor as Archbishop of Washington, should be included in the article. Here is a link to the discussion in case anyone is interested. Display name 99 (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

International audience: Demoting Gender articles

Sex informs gender in many but not all cultures. For example, Japan's social role "senpai" reflects societal expectations expressed through grammar (the honorific) therefore qualifying as gender in a strictly literal interpretation of gender's definition.

Anonymous Kekistani
16:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Can you explain as it's not clear what you are suggesting. --John B123 (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

For example, I demoted 'Gender identity' from high project importance to middle project importance. No more than that. Anonymous Kekistani 00:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1740:2ca0:1d43:8a98:ec54:cfe5 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Please do not use fancy formatting for a signature. Discussions are common at Wikipedia—imagine what talk pages would look like if we all did variations on the "text-align:right" in your first comment above. Per WP:SIG, all comments should be signed with a signature that includes a link to the user page or user talk page of the author. Use ~~~~ like everyone else. You can make an account if not wanting to show an IP address. Johnuniq (talk) 03:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I still don't understand the reason behind demoting the importance of gender articles. --John B123 (talk) 06:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussed at ANI here; IP */64 was CU-blocked for six months. Mathglot (talk) 17:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Thanks for the update. --John B123 (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed New Article

I plan on creating a new article called “Sexuality under Colonialism” because colonialism has shaped the way we think about every part of society, including sexual relations. This new article will be important in helping people understand that pervasive norms about sexuality are neither inevitable nor natural. Rather, cultural ideas surrounding sexuality are incredibly diverse across time and space, and it is crucial that people have access to knowledge about what is possible, despite historical erasure. Here are some potential sources:

Staff. “Africa Must Decolonise the Violent Patriarchy Solidified by White Colonialism.” The Black Youth Project, May 17, 2018. http://blackyouthproject.com/africa-must-decolonise-the-violent-patriarchy-solidified-by-white-colonialism/. This source will help me understand how colonization brought western concepts about gender roles to colonized countries and how these ideas impacted relationships between men and women for years to come. It will help me learn how power dynamics within sexual and romantic relationships transformed before and after colonization.

Gill, Colin. “Transcending the Binary: Gender and Colonialism.” The Radical Notion, October 31, 2017. http://www.theradicalnotion.com/gender-colonialism/. This source will help me understand how western concepts of gender conflicted with other cultures that understood gender as more of a spectrum than as a binary. It will help me explore cultures that collectively respected non-binary people, and examine how these cultures were impacted by colonization.

Val Kalende, for Think Africa Press. “Africa: Homophobia Is a Legacy of Colonialism.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, April 30, 2014. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/30/africa-homophobia-legacy-colonialism. This source will help me understand how homosexual relationships were stigmatized in some countries as a result of colonization. It will help me explore to what extent heteronormativity was a colonial import.

Cogswell, Betty E. "Variant Family Forms and Life Styles: Rejection of the Traditional Nuclear Family." The Family Coordinator 24, no. 4 (1975): 391-406. doi:10.2307/583026. This source will help me understand the possibilities of families beyond a family unit tied together by marriage. For example, it used to be customary in many cultures for a child to be raised by a community.

Here is the link to my Sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HappyGourd/sandbox

My sandbox includes a much more extensive list of potential sources I will be drawing from. HappyGourd (talk) 06:25, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Same thing was posted at Human sexuality, where I replied. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:37, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Sexual practices defined as paraphilias

I apologise if this is inappropriate here. A number of sexual practices, including Urolagnia, and Coprophilia, are currently defined as paraphilias. This seems unduly judgemental to me, however other participating editors unanimously thought it correct, preferring medical texts, to the O.E.D., as Urolangnia is a medical issue. Is it so? (Talk:Urolagnia#A_paraphilia). ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 15:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

What separates what is normal and what is a fetish/paraphilia is a very grey line and highly subjective. What I may think is in the normal spectrum you may think is a fetish or vice versa. To avoid continual changing of the articles and their categorisation to suit differing opinions, we need some sort reference. The only reference points for these articles are from the medical point of view so we need to accept that. That said, these medical opinions seem to be written by people with a very vanilla outlook on sex. --John B123 (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

You appear to have already raised this issue twice at Talk:Urolagnia. As you admit, other editors did not agree with you. I did not participate, but I would have agreed with them, as these are paraphilias per reliable sources. Don't forum shop. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Review for a draft on the link between homosexuality and being a sexual molester

Someone here might be interested in reviewing or cleaning up this draft: Draft:Homosexuality and likelihood of being a sexual molester. I'm having a hard time finding a good title for this article. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

New BDSM article

Hello, I have created an article about small penis humiliation and it is currently in the list of drafts. The page was protected 12 years ago, so I can't create this article that I believe is relevant enough for Wikipedia.

I'm here to ask someone to check my draft and rate the quality and relevance of the article, please. The whole article has decent references to prove the relevance of the fetish.

There are over 270,000 SPH-themed videos on xvideos, for example. I think this fetish is notable enough in the BDSM scene. It is certainly more notable than some fetishes that already have an article here.

gabibb2 ^✉ 03:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Interracial attraction

This stub was proposed for deletion. I would agree with merger, but think it could be a whole article. Should we halt the proposed deletion process, be bold and merge or develop it, or send it to WP:AfD? I'm concerned that deletion without debate will be controversial, and the clock is ticking on the prod timeline. Bearian (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

The tagger Sridc removed the tag, so I'm going ahead and merge it. Bearian (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Done. Bearian (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Bearian: Well done. There is nothing to stop Interracial attraction being split off again in the future if it is sufficiently developed within Interracial marriage. --John B123 (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Gender dysphoria article discussion

Please see Talk:Gender dysphoria beginning with Let's move away from U.S.-centric articles (DSM-5 vs. ICD-11) for the debate and associated edits and reverts to the article lede (introduction).   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 06:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

This specific discussion/debate has been resolved, but your input is always welcome! Many thanks   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 22:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Cake and cunnilingus day

Hello , I am not an editor, actually i dont know how to edit here.

There's no any article about the subject above , while there's one , steak and bj day, that is, that seems very old , despite the deletion nominations. Why ? I wish i could create one but i cant. In my opinion ,the fact that there's only the one side presented here ,might give the 'wrong' message to young people and of course could make Wikipedia look unreliable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeof1001 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Georgeof1001: welcome to Wikipedia! I've not heard of this day. Are there any reliable sources (not Facebook or Reddit, for example) that show this a "real" day? EvergreenFir (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Thank you! Yes, it is a well known Holiday , in Europe mostly, not less reliable sources from other Wiki artiles, like MSN, Bild, and many others. With a quick google search , one can find endless references from known media, still , it's a surprise that there is no article yet here.Georgeof1001 (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I can't say I've heard of it before. A google search brings up lots of results, but most are not what would be considered reliable sources. However, there are probably enough RS's to back up an article. You could also argue that for the sake of equality on WP, we need the article to balance Steak and Blowjob Day. --John B123 (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Exactly ! We need the article to balance Steak and bj day.I was hoping to get some help or prompt editors to create it. There are many reliable sources out there , actually more sources than steak and bj had about when it was created. Georgeof1001 (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: @John B123: Hi !

There are already links on page User:Georgeof1001/Cake and Cunnilingus Day, also part of the text for the article, but I don't know how to post it, if you want to help because I'm not relevant,it would be great Georgeof1001 (talk) 22:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Interracial marriage and Miscegenation‎‎

Would someone please check the spate of edits to these two articles by newish editor Buzinezz‎? I'm not sure what to make of them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Hi. I've had a look and can't find anything wrong with the edits per se. However, both articles are unbalanced in regard to coverage, some countries having detailed content and others only a couple of lines, and Buzinezz's edits are adding to this imbalance. Regards --John B123 (talk) 11:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Tax on Women's breasts - Breast Tax

There is a discussion to delete the article about the Breast Tax on women. Please share your opinions here - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breast Tax. Your opinions are needed. Many of you in this project might be interested. 2402:3A80:190C:BA58:D59C:FF64:4BFF:FE66 (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Rape and Mutual Sex

I think there should be a subject about how rape is different from mutual sex. Wale18 (talk) 01:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Why not just try reading the first sentence of Rape? And maybe then read on for extra clarity. And then read Sexual consent. What do you actually mean by 'mutual sex' and what specifically is the area of coverage you feel we are missing? Nick Moyes (talk) 09:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

i found an image that is not good or healthy for teenagers / biology students/otherRavinesh rds (talk) 11:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Ravinesh rdsRavinesh rds (talk) 11:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

this is ravinesh rds gmt 11:53

the image is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Femdom_at_Eros_Pyramide.jpg including two people doing inappropriate act . in the page of wikipedia censorship there is written that wikipedia is not censored but we don't use images of sex instead of we use 20 th century paintings or animated but not actual images which are actually part of pornography. wikipedia is an encyclopedia it must not be like other bad sites which show this. please think maturely about the impact of it on >18 age group as there are millions of those users all over the world using wikipedia .in my opinion you must replace it by either a painting or an animation so that it may not impact the visitors as well as the topic of the page. thank you

Hello revinesh. It is not required, but I encourage you to create your own Wikipedia account as it makes so many tasks much easier. (I see now that you in fact do have an account. My bad.) ¶ I doubt the image in question harms adolescents, particularly since it is included in the context of encyclopedia articles, Dominatrix, Master/slave (BDSM), and Sex show. ¶ At the same time, on Wikipedia it is certainly appropriate and legitimate to discuss whether or not an image should be used for an article. Relevant Wikipedia policies include Offensive images and Offensive material ("Wikipedia articles may contain offensive words and images, but only for a good reason"), including "Not censored" does not give special favor to offensive content. I am not personally offended by the image in question, but one editor's experience is not what's important. From Offensive images:

... a potentially offensive image—one that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers^{[nb 1]}—should be included only if it is treated in an encyclopedic manner i.e. only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. ¶ Note 1. Here a "typical Wikipedia reader" is defined by the cultural beliefs of the majority of the website readers (not active editors) that are literate in an article's language. Clarifying this viewpoint may require a broad spectrum of input and discussion, as cultural views can differ widely.

  - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 21:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

specific image that could be misleading for teenagers

THE THING I WANTED TO DISSCUSS IS THAT THE IMAGE

• https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/BDSM_slaves.jpg

IS MISLEADING FOR TEENAGERS THAT TEENAGERS CAN COPY IT WHICH COULD BE DANGEROUS FOR THEM. AND ALSO ONE ANTISOCIAL ELEMENT COULD IMITATE THIS AFTER VEIWING IT BY MAKING SEXUAL ASSAULT . I WANT TO SAY THAT THERE IS A CHANCE OF SERIOUS ISSUES CAN ARISE BY THIS IF A RAW YOUNG TEENAGER UNINTENTIONALLY CAN MAKE SEXUAL CRIME SUCH AS HARASSMENT OR SEXUAL ASSAULT OR IMITATION OF ACT WITHOUT THE WILL OF ANOTHER PERSON . THE ESPECIALLY FOR A MALE TEENAGER WITH >18 UNDER LESS MATURITY COULD ATTEMPT THIS FOR FUN WITHOUT THE WILL OF FEMALE WHICH COULD BE HAZARDOUS ASSAULT . THE CASE CAN BE THIS SERIOUS SO I PREFER YOU TO USE AN ANIMATED OR 20 TH CENTURY PAINTING WITHOUT HARMING THE CONTENT AS WELL AS A SOCIAL ISSUES FOR ALL OVER THE WORLD USERS . THANK YOU Ravinesh rds (talk) 10:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Ravinesh RdsRavinesh rds (talk) 10:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

(1) I suggest not writing in ALL CAPS since most people interpret it as SHOUTING. From the Wikipedia article, All caps:

Studies have been conducted on the readability and legibility of all caps text. Scientific testing from the 20th century onward has generally indicated that all caps text is less legible and readable than lower-case text. In addition, switching to all caps may make text appear hectoring and obnoxious for cultural reasons, since all-capitals is often used in transcribed speech to indicate that the speaker is shouting.

(2) I see what you mean about that BDSM image. I fully support safe-sane-and-consesual BDSM as a legitimate and healthy form of sexual expression, exploration of relationship dynamics, etc., and I do not personally find the image to be offensive. But, as you know, it's how the average Wikipedia visitor would feel about the image that matters. I do not know the procedure for requesting a deletion of an image, but I bet another editor will know.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 22:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The image is not hosted on Wikipedia so it can't be deleted from here. @Ravinesh rds:, you would have to request the deletion of the image at Wikimedia Commons. Whether it is eligible for deletion there is doubtful, since it's used in several articles both here and at other language versions of Wikipedia, so make sure that you read up on their deletion policies before requesting deletion there.

I have removed the signature from the heading of this post and added it after Ravinesh rds's post. Please don't sign the heading, only the post. Thanks! --bonadea contributions talk 18:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

New improved article Aroused (film)

I researched and improved the page Aroused (film) - let me know if you want to help out with further research, thank you! Right cite (talk) 03:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The Big Butt Book

I created a new article, about the literary work which traces the cultural history of the buttocks -- The Big Butt Book. Let me know if you want to help out with further research! Thanks very much, Right cite (talk) 02:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Age-structured homosexuality

Please help provide input at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 6#Age-structured homosexuality. Thank you.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 02:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Unusual editor in circumcision topic area who I've blocked

See particularly my last few messages at User talk:WriZeo. Graham87 07:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Help needed with semi-protected template

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Would an autoconfirmed editor be willing to remove an inappropriate link from Template:Sex by copying the contents of Template:Sex/sandbox which I've just edited? The diff should clarify the change I'm requesting. 209.166.108.199 (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Please explain why you wish to remove [[Adolescent sexuality in the United States|United States]] & why you want to change [[Sex therapy]] to [[Sex therapy]] ([[PLISSIT model]]). Peaceray (talk) 01:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Who could help me out in the future?

I will focus on subjects concerning child abuse and so on but there is no one in the list of participants that tells me if he or she works on articles like that. Who can I ask if I have questions about this (unpleasant) subject? PsychoPinball (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@PsychoPinball: Ask here on this talk page. The conversation will probably be clinical and suitable for everyone, but if necessary, someone can arrange for a sub-conversation somewhere.

If you want to get started on any Wikipedia topic, this one included, the place to begin is by collecting a bibliography. Perhaps start by creating a list of citations on your userpage. Wikipedia only publishes content from sources so the only possible place to begin is by collecting the best possible sources on this topic for what you want to share. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, I will do so, then. (I'm foreign) What do you mean exactly by: a list of citations? PsychoPinball (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@PsychoPinball: Wikipedia is a summary of what other reputable sources say. Every Wikipedia article has a list of citations at the bottom. See for example - Child_development#References. The sources that anyone cite comes before the ideas of what to add to an article, and without sources, it is not possible to add anything to Wikipedia.

You do not have to have a list, and instead you could just have one source that you like. However, most people find it easier to consider and use a few sources. Ask questions if you have them. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, now I get it what is ment by "citations". I do understand how that works, my only problem was the translation of the word citation. My English ain't all that bad but you can't know everything, can ya? Anyway, most of my edits will be small and I don't intent to make major changes so I guess, with that in mind, most of my edits won't need citations. Thanx for all the answers and I look forward to what Wiki and I can do for each other. PsychoPinball (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

PsychoPinball Regarding "I look forward to what Wiki and I can do for each other," I appreciate your enthusiasm and look forward to your contributions. 209.166.108.199 (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

209.166.108.199 I was browsing Wikipedia for years cause it is such an huge source of information. Time to return the favour! I have my reasons why I think I can add info to this topic most others can't. PsychoPinball (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

PsychoPinball, care to elaborate on what you mean by that? Crossroads ^-talk- 05:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I know somebody that has, let's say... Done time. PsychoPinball (talk) 12:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

If you have time

Wikipedia:Peer review/Cleavage (breasts)/archive1 needs reviewers. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Input sought

Hi folks - would welcome additional input into a discussion on article pronouns at Talk:Killing_of_Tessa_Majors#Tess_Majors'_Preferred_Name_and_Pronouns. Best, Darren-M talk 20:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

TERF has an RFC

TERF has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Loki (talk) 08:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Category:XBIZ Award winners has been nominated for deletion

Category:XBIZ Award winners has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Right cite (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Category:AVN Award winners has been nominated for deletion

Category:AVN Award winners has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Right cite (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Aroused peer review

I've put the good article on the documentary film Aroused (film) for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Aroused (film)/archive1. Feedback to help improve its quality further would be appreciated, thank you, Right cite (talk) 14:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

The page Transsexual has been proposed to be renamed and moved to a different title. Interested editors may wish to join the discussion on the article talk page. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

When God Writes Your Love Story Featured article review

I have nominated When God Writes Your Love Story for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser

Sandbox Organiser A place to help you organise your work

Hi all

I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.

Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.

John Cummings (talk) 11:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Super straight (sexual orientation)

Hey, just giving y'all a head's up that someone has tried to create a draft for this. I've declined it, but I wanted to make sure that the editor has as much help in improving it as possible. I'm going to post to the LGBT WP as well. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

BBC (sexual slang)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Talk:BBC (disambiguation)#BBC as a porn/sexual term – apparently the entry to for the sexual term keeps getting censored off the disambiguation page, despite there being an ideal article section to point to.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Foreskin is rated high importance - needs attention.

Hello, as far as I can tell the page has a strong pro-circumcision bias. It lacks a good description of anatomy and sexual function of the foreskin. There's a summary of things that I think are wrong on the talk page. If someone has the expertise it needs some serious editing. Thanks all! Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Human

Hi. Over the last few months the Human article has been transformed from this to its current state. This has involved a lot of citation hunting and reorganisation. This is in a push to get it to GA standard (see Talk:Human#Good article). It has been suggested that some input be sough from various wikiprojects as to further improvements. Please feel free to contribute or offer advice at this article. Regards Aircorn (talk) 00:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Terminology: Sexual minority, LGBT and "gender and sexual minorities"

There is a redirect discussion going on about whether Gender and Sexual Minorities should redirect to the LGBT article (which discusses the term as a more inclusive form of the LGBT(QIAP+) acronym), or the Sexual minority article (and a proposal to move that page to Gender and sexual minorities or something similar). I thought this would be of interest to this WikiProject, and perhaps have the eyes of someone who knows more about sexology and terminology than I do (AFAIK the term "sexual minorities" often includes gender minorities in sexology research, although I could be wrong). --Bangalamania (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Seedfeeder at AfD

Project members may be interested in participating in the ongoing AfD re: Seedfeeder. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move discussion in progress

An editor has requested that Fucking be moved to Fucking (disambiguation). Please join the discussion at Talk:Fucking#Requested move 28 August 2021. Thank you. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Most viewed stub in this Wikiproject

Handjob 87,651 2,921 Stub--Coin945 (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

If everyone gives it just a few key strokes it'll be expanded in no time. WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 12:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I was going to write something funny, but then I'd feel like a jerk ;-) --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:26, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia faces huge backlash after saying pansexuality and bisexuality are the same thing (PinkNews article)

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

This is already handled at the actual talk pages. PinkNews does not properly understand what the article said, nor do they know they know the academic literature. They are regurgitating Twitter opinions. And "huge backlash" is a huge exaggeration. I have no respect for them for brigading us like this. It is no wonder WP:RSP states "caution should be used" about this source. Crossroads ^-talk- 14:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Autism and sexual orientation article

Hey! I have recently created the Autism and sexual orientation article. I am not an expert in the area but I couldn't see the topic mentioned elsewhere. If anyone here has any additional information, or could look over and check what I have put in the article is accurate, I would greatly appreciate it! --Bangalamania (talk) 19:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:James Deen § Allegations

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:James Deen § Allegations. — Bilorv (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Science Competition 2021

Hi. I am here to inform you all that Wiki Science Competition 2021 has started last week. It will last until November 30th or December 15th, depending on the areas.

WSC is organized every two years, and people from all countries can upload files (the goal are the international prizes) but specific national pages are also set up, for example for the USA or Ireland or New Zealand. Such national competitions (when they exist) act as an additional incentive to participate.

We expect a sitenotice to show up for all readers here on enWikipedia as well, but probably during the second half of the month when all countries with national competitions are open for submission at the same time. In the meantime, if you are planing to upload some nice descriptive photos, infographics or video files to Wikimedia Commons, please consider submitting them using the WSC interface, you might win a prize.--Alexmar983 (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

RfC about rapid-onset gender dysphoria

Comments would be welcome at Talk:Irreversible Damage#RfC: Should rapid-onset gender dysphoria be described as "fringe"?. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:25, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Notice of WP:DS tags

Hi! I have added a bunch of gender and sexuality discretionary sanction tags to a number of articles, mostly in intersex-related articles and a number of sex/gender difference medical articles as well. Please see my contribution log to see which ones (this is a short, on-going process). Just thought I'd give a notice here. Feel free to discuss the merits of these actions in my talk page, as this has been a WP:BOLD edit and I am very open to discussing/reverting these changes. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Improving List of coupled siblings

Hi! I'm looking for assistance with improving the List of coupled siblings article on Wikipedia, if anyone is inclined. It could use some work, especially with formatting and attribution, and I would be very grateful to anyone willing to help out. Thanks! Tyrone Madera (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of feature films with LGBT characters

Hello! Advising the project of this AfD which may be of interest to members of the project. Thanks. --Historyday01 (talk) 14:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Nefarious: Merchant of Souls FAR

I have nominated Nefarious: Merchant of Souls for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 20:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Project name

It may sound like a dumb question, but have you ever considered shortening the project name? Wouldn't WikiProject Sex stand for both meanings, sexology and sexuality? —Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 07:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your proposal. Sexuality is about human experience, expression, and behavior. Sexology is the academic and scientific study of that behavior. Sex, on the other hand, is about biology, including in animals. It is not about sexual behavior itself, but rather is a trait of an animal. It could create confusion over the purpose of this WikiProject. Talib1101 (talk) 02:39, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Mohammed Tabet#undefined

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mohammed Tabet#undefined that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 18:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Project scope

I've come across several historical biography articles of early feminists recently, and some of them were particularly known for activism in sexuality-related topics like free love or the abolition of prostitution. Should I be tagging them for this WikiProject? I'm not sure if this WP is more specifically about science/social science or if the scope is broader than that. -- asilvering (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

"Transgender and transsexual" renaming discussion

There is an ongoing discussion concerning renaming "Transgender and transsexual" categories to just "Transgender". The discussion can be found here. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 04:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine currently:

• is proposed for deletion (AfD)
• has at least one dispute about what incidents or patterns of sexual violence in the invasion are Wikipedia-notable.

Participants in this project may be interested in commenting or editing. Boud (talk) 14:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move discussion in progress

A user has requested that a topic within this WikiProject, Transsexual, be moved to Transsexuality. Interested editors may wish to join the discussion at Talk:Transsexual. Thank you. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Peepoodo & the Super Fuck Friends for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Peepoodo & the Super Fuck Friends is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peepoodo & the Super Fuck Friends (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

--Historyday01 (talk) 00:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Move request at LGBT

A user has requested that a topic within this WikiProject, LGBT, be moved to LGBTQ. Interested editors may wish to join the discussion at Talk:LGBT#Requested move 28 May 2022. Thank you Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Trampling

Opinions are welcome at Talk:Trampling (sexual practice)#Separate article or not?. – Uanfala (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Rebel_Wilson#The_LGBT_categories

Informed opinion sought. Subject came out this week. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge at Talk:Sexual orientation change efforts

I have proposed merging the article Sexual orientation change efforts into Conversion therapy, which are of interest to this WikiProject.

You are invited join the discussion at Talk:Sexual orientation change efforts § Proposed merge to Conversion therapy. Regards, RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 17:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Sexual abuse, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

RfC notification

Members of this project, and readers of this page, might be interested in participating in the RfC here: Talk:TERF#RfC: Oxford English Dictionary. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

AfD for Female (gender)

Comments are requested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Female (gender). Crossroads ^-talk- 01:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

RfC on first sentence of Trans woman

Comments would be appreciated at Talk:Trans woman § RfC on first sentence. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

RfC: A TikToker, ... , other accused constitute 'Public figure' or not?

Some of other related policies for current requested RfC discussion: WP:BLP, WP:SUSPECT, WP:BLPPUBLIC, WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE.

Requesting inputs about WP policies regarding, WP:BLP protocols and naming of the accused in relation to mentions of allegations and counter allegations in the given article, against a female victim of sexual assault, her associates and also other accused.

Requesting well studied, carefully thought inputs @ RfC: A TikToker, associates, other accused constitute 'Public figure' or not?

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 11:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Gender studies, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Islamic sexual jurisprudence, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Post infidelity stress disorder

Do we need an article on Post infidelity stress disorder? There seem to be several references to it, online. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy has an RFC

Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Nil Einne (talk) 11:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Project name and categories

• The project is named WikiProject Sexology and sexuality (WP:SEX)
• The category is named Sex and sexuality user templates
• The banner is named {{WikiProject Sexuality}}
• The portal is named Sexuality (P:SEX)

Can we pick a single naming convention for all of the above? Considering sexology itself the study of sexuality, I would propose Sex or Sexuality, the latter being more comprehensive IMHO, but I'm open to your proposals. Thanks. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 02:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Did the earth run out of talent?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of pornographic performers by decade#Did the earth run out of talent?.Guilherme Burn (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Sexual practices involving the prepuce

Only one is listed on Foreskin article - docking. I added intercourse and masturbation - immediately deleted. Masturbation for 'male' is written without the word 'foreskin' or 'prepuce' occurring. Would anyone like to join our lively discussion? Thelisteninghand (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Is Prof. Brian Morris fringe?

Frenulum of prepuce of penis talk page would welcome your view. cheers. Thelisteninghand (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

LGBT and Wikipedia

New article: LGBT and Wikipedia. Project members are invited to expand and improve. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 06:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

WP Pedophilia Article Watch

WP Pedophilia Article Watch has been taken over by the Arbitration committee and I contacted the editor who initially started it and they stated it would likely not be restarted. I removed the link to it from the Project page. Demt1298 (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Gender identity and Gender

Much of the content between Gender and Gender Identity is largely the same. I have proposed a merger at this link, notified the other wikiprojects involved, and invite people knowledgable in the area to comment. Born25121642 (talk) 05:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Blanchard's transsexualism typology

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Blanchard's transsexualism typology#Splitting off "Autogynephilia" into its own page, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. An editor has proposed recreating the autogynephilia article, by splitting the relevant content from Blanchard's typology. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Lists of LGBT figures in fiction and myth

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Lists of LGBT figures in fiction and myth#Expansion of LGBT figures in fiction and myth page, asking how to expand the "Lists of LGBT figures in fiction and myth" page so as to more fully encompass topics about LGBT characters and media within the scope of "fiction and myth", which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Thanks! Historyday01 (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Splitting discussion for Clitoris

An article that you have edited or that may interest you, (Clitoris), has content that I have proposed to be removed and moved to another article, (Human clitoris). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 05:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

category for deletion: Women who experienced pregnancy loss

Hello! Your input is requested at en:wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 April 6#Category:Women who experienced pregnancy loss jengod (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Condom

Condom has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Help?

Can someone help? An editor on a page (SafeSport) dealing with an organization meant to address sexual abuse continually deletes material they appear to dislike. No cogent reason is given. Only baseless words, and baseless accusations of vandalism. Efforts at conversation on this have been unavailing. Thoughts as to how to proceed would be helpful. Thank you.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Center_for_SafeSport&diff=prev&oldid=1151327957

And the related page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Protecting_Young_Victims_from_Sexual_Abuse_and_Safe_Sport_Authorization_Act_of_2017&diff=prev&oldid=1151328121 2603:7000:2101:AA00:5CEE:2E4E:D6CE:2CBB (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

RFC on MOS:GENDERID and the deadnames of deceased trans and nonbinary persons

Hello! Over at the village pump, there's an RFC on MOS:GEDNERID addressing the deadnames of deceased trans and nonbinary persons. Alerting here because the page transgender is listed as being part of this WikiProject. Thanks, everybody--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:LGBT#Requested move 5 June 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:LGBT#Requested move 5 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Merge discussion at Talk:Incel

Hello, per point 3 of WP:PM, I am notifying this project of the merge discussion at Talk:Incel. This is based on a just recently closed AfD (see page of incels.is). The AfD closed with a consensus to merge, but since that consensus, I have increased the incels.is article a lot in sourcing and content though, so a merge may now not be necessary. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Help with Double penetration article

Can anyone please help me with replacing the main illustration with the original one from Seedfeeder if it’s possible? Every time I try to replace it and see in the review section, it doesn’t work. If you want me to leave it how it is, that’s okay. The autisticeditor 21 (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. The only reason it would normally not work if formatted correctly is if it no longer existed or if it requires special permission to use on pages. But what's the reasoning for replacing it? Biofase ^flame| stalk  19:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay then, never mind. 2601:2C5:847F:9FC0:BC98:7D77:F8ED:8753 (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Better description at Handjob article

I would like a better description than “manual stimulation… …by another person” and replace it with “stimulation… …by the hands of another person” since “manual” is used twice in the intro’s sentence as well as to explain what “manual” means for “manual sex”. The autisticeditor 21 (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at List of intersex Olympians

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List_of_intersex_Olympians#Suggestion_gathering:_improvements_to_coverage_of_intersex_and_DSD_athletes , which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Kingsif (talk) 06:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Skull Games

See THE ONLINE CHRISTIAN COUNTERINSURGENCY AGAINST SEX WORKERS. Shouldn't this organisation have an article? But I don't know if it passes GNG. Doug Weller talk 06:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Help at Fellatio article

The intro’s definition for this article describes it as “…an oral sex act involving a person stimulating the penis of another by using the mouth, throat, or both.” Not everyone is able to perform this act with the throat included due to the potential gag reflex. I was wondering if it’s possible to remove the last three words of that? If not, that’s okay. Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's necessary. It does say "or" plus the article already includes the part about the gag reflex. Biofase ^flame| stalk  20:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I understand however, it’s just that the throat it is not technically part of the actual mouth. Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 21:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't actually care either way and the way the sentence is worded sounds awkward as well. I think a rewording is in order as for some the aspect of the throat is important in causing gagging as a part of humiliation. Biofase ^flame| stalk  23:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Legality of child pornography#Debate

I feel it helpful to inform here that I listed the debate section on Legality of child pornography as in need of a neutrality rewrite. Everyone is invited to either make changes to the article or to weight in and discuss the issues. Biofase ^flame| stalk  11:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Evidence for Autocunnilingus

Nika Legran has many videos online successfully performing this act. How de we put in new info like this without getting sources from porn sites? Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 18:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Request for input on Talk:Sex

There's a discussion on Talk:Sex that may be of interest to this WikiProject. Loki (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Ferdinand's penis

There is a discussion at Talk:Ferdinand VII of Spain#massive penis that may be of interest to this wikiproject. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

German editors? Pedophilia article controversy

Any German speaking editors may be interested in what is unfolding on the German Pädophilie article and talk page. I noticed that the DE pedophile page claims that 50% of pedophiles are homosexual, citing a powerpoint by the Dunkelfeld project. This is false. It has been on the article for about 6 years. The dunkelfeld data refers to their sample of 241 pedophiles within their program. It does not aim to be a representative sample of all pedophiles in general. I noted that the only estimate carried out was done by Kurt Freund and Watson in 1996 and put the prevalence of homosexuality among pedophiles at 8%. One user BurghardRichter provided significant reasoning as to why this was likely the case. Another user, Andrea, has been reverting to keep the 50% claim on the article, claiming that I am simply biased and trying to hide the truth. Users Seeler09 and Itti have also done the same and are now asking for page protection to stop my editing there. Because my German is terrible, it is difficult for me to edit there. Any German speaking editors (or those who edit DE Wikipedia) may wish to weigh in there because citing guidelines is trickier on DE Wiki. At the very least, I suggested they remove the claim of 50%, and just have no estimate since Andrea seemed to complain about Freund as a source because she didn't like him. Sigh. It feels like guidelines on that DE article are arbitrary or not enforced, instead it's just majority ruling against people who are trying to be accurate. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

RFC at Sex

This WikiProject has tagged Sex as being within your scope. You may be interested in Talk:Sex#RFC: Definition of Sex. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Not My Life Featured article review

I have nominated Not My Life for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Blue balls#Requested move 28 November 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Blue balls#Requested move 28 November 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Remsense留 17:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Request for input on Declaration of Sexual Pleasure

I recently created the page declaration of sexual pleasure (Talk:Declaration of Sexual Pleasure#Contested deletion), but was given notice of a speedy deletion, I assume because I quoted the contents of the declaration. The inclusion of a list of rights is done in other, existing Wikipedia pages (see: Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Declaration of Sexual Rights). I have removed the contested content for now and have contested the deletion. Without the inclusion of the list of rights (or a close paraphrasing), it's difficult to engage with them properly. Is there a way I can quote from the document so that readers can understand the specific declarations, without copyright infringement? Thanks! Plantbella (talk) 14:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

"Mommy kink" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Mommy kink has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 5 § Mommy kink until a consensus is reached. Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Vectorised Seedfeeder images

File:Wiki-cowgirl.png

Original

Vectorised

I have vectorised a couple of Seedfeeder's sexuality images. I am mentioning it here in case anyone would like to use them instead of the bitmap versions. I also made a guide to how to vectorise them, in case anyone else would like to do some. I am not Seedfeeder (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Topfreedom

While undoubtedly an important topic, I feel like this article and Female toplessness in the United States ought to be properly analysed by members of this WikiProject and that of WikiProject Law to make sure the detail given is not unduly intricate, whether the number of images are gratuitous (yes yes, I know Wikipedia is uncensored), and whether the sources given are reliable for the claims made as there seems to be some issues on the talk page for this. Thank you in advance! GnocchiFan (talk) 21:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Cannabis and sex/Archives/2024#Requested move 5 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Cannabis and sex/Archives/2024#Requested move 5 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel#Requested move 8 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel#Requested move 8 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Sexual revolution could do with a once-over from members of this WikiProject

Article needs some copyediting and attention, especially the "Modern revolutions" section, which seems unsourced, possible OR and contradicting the lead. Thank you! GnocchiFan (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Transvestic fetishism

Can someone please look at some recent unsourced edits on transvestic fetishism - I have tagged the article accordingly. Thank you.

(Sorry if it seems like I am bombarding you folks) GnocchiFan (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Sexual surrogate#Requested move 28 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sexual surrogate#Requested move 28 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —Alalch E. 20:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Major problems with Effects of human sexual promiscuity

This article seems like a mess of SYNTH and neutrality. Take the large sections on increasing prevalence of STDs, but the original sources don't attribute this to promiscuity, nor discuss the 'effects of promiscuity'.

In addition, a bunch of primary source studies are being used to argue correlation is causation. E.g. 'high number of partners = depression' and not 'depressed people might have more unstable relationships and thus more partners'.

I'm wondering if this article should be merged/deleted. Or are there decent RS that properly discuss the topic? Zenomonoz (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

A user actually recommended this should be merged with promiscuity and this makes a lot of sense to me. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Merge discussion here: Talk:Effects of human sexual promiscuity#Why is this a (separate) article?. Cheers. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)