User talk:Gwib/Wikiproject Sex and Sexuality

Complex articles

I got a lot of detailed articles on Sexual Anatomy from En Wiki. Do we need all of them? --Gwib^-(talk)- 16:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so. I think we should go through the "Sexual Anatomy - detailed" section, remove all the entries that already appear in "Sexual Anatomy - basic" to avoid duplication, then consider carefully whether the remaining articles are really necessary. Somehow I doubt that readers who want information about the "internal pudendal artery" or "ischiocavernosus muscle" will come looking for it at Simple English Wikipedia. — Cheers, Truth's Out There ^–talk– 08:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed all duplicates and most of the very complicated titles. Any more you see, and you can remove them. --Gwib^-(talk)- 08:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missing

Seems like you are missing a couple items on the list. {{Reproductive system}} has a lot more items listed which would apply to the basic category some of which are not listed anywhere (like Corpus cavernosum). -- Creol(talk) 17:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip, am adding them to the list as I type. --Gwib^-(talk)- 17:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming this WikiProject

Shouldn't this WikiProject have a more general name, like "WikiProject Human Sexuality"? "Anatomy" is a very specific term that only covers the study of the parts of the human body. Strictly speaking, it doesn't even cover human physiology (how the body works), so even topics like "erection" and "orgasm" would be excluded, much less wider topics like "homosexuality". — Cheers, Truth's Out There ^–talk– 11:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, the articles listed fall into separate categories themselves. Some are anatomical and not to do with Sexuality. Some are purely Sexuality. I chose Anatomy since all articles revolve around using anatomy. Sexuality could be interpreted differently. --Gwib^-(talk)- 21:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most things in life revolve around "using anatomy". Just because I'm typing this message with my fingers, it doesn't make my keyboard related to my anatomy. How about "Wikiproject Sex and Sexuality" - that covers everything. Archer7 - talk 21:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Censoring things...

A quick thought. On the penis talk page an editor makes a good point. It is feasible a non-native English speaker may not know what they are clicking on. Hence it probably makes sense to have an anatomical diagram on a penis before the photograph. Would this be a good way of treating the rest of the articles, rather than having someone open an image of an erect penis, clitoris, vulva, etc, at the top of their screen? MindTheGap (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't argue, but on most pages, there is an anatomical diagram before a 'real' one anyway. We could compromise? Put a less explicit one before a photograph, but only when it can't be avoided.

For articles like breast I think it's appropriate to have a real breast before an anatomical one, since so many of us are accustomed to seeing breasts anyway. Hell, we fed from them. --Gwib^-(talk)- 21:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I've been trying to do so far is to use an unobjectionable image as the main image at the top of an article, and only use more explicit images lower down: see "Ejaculation", "Erection" and "Sex organ". Also, I try to use diagrams instead of photographs, and only use photographs if they bring out the meaning of the text more clearly. — Cheers, Truth's Out There ^–talk– 17:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One problem with ejaculation, though, is the first image is on a couple kissing. Now if the article was about snowballing (the practice of passing semen from mouth to mouth), this may be okay, but I can't see how it relates to ejaculation MindTheGap (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to bring out the idea of intimacy without showing the subject of the article right at the top, which would bound to attract controversy. I think the image caption helps to show the connection. — Cheers, Truth's Out There ^–talk– 04:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One problem I can see, though, is that intimacy and ejaculation do not necessarily go hand-in-hand (pardon the pun) Perhaps no picture would be better? MindTheGap (talk) 17:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the picture to a video of ejaculation. It's on topic, not excessively over-the-top. Shows and explains how it works side by side with the article. Don't mention censorship or I'll put a huge disclaimer on the Wikiproject header. There isn't better than the real thing. --Gwib^-(talk)- 17:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a good idea. There has been heated debate over at English Wikipedia over the use of this video, and while it does appear in the article at least it requires the reader to scroll down to access it. I'm afraid it will make the article a target for vandalism. I suppose the use of the video in the article generally cannot really be objected to, although one might question whether it is necessary for readers to understand what the article is saying. But I'm in favour of using an image at the top of the article that is less likely to cause offence. — Cheers, Truth's Out There ^–talk– 10:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mammary intercourse

I've added Mammary intercourse. Regards MindTheGap (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Gwib^-(talk)- 09:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Female ejaculation: Which one should be the main article?

At the moment, the subject of female ejaculation is dealt with in a section of the main article "Ejaculation", and the article "Female ejaculation" is a short summary that refers readers to the main article for details. Gwib has suggested that it may be better to make "Female ejaculation" the main article for that subject. I don't disagree, but feel that it is useful to treat the subject of ejaculation in the human body, both in men and women, in a single article. Views of the members of the WikiProject are welcome at the talk page of "Ejaculation". — Cheers, Truth's Out There ^–talk– 13:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be two distinct articles as the two are different. Well, probably. So little is understood about female ejaculation compared to male ejaculation, it's hard to justify putting them together. MindTheGap (talk) 20:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking from experience, I can say that the two bear no distint relation. Since they're so different, wouldn't two articles be appropriate? It's entirely funtionally different, isn't it? --Hayley talk 22:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Membership

Hi Gwib! Is there any way that you could add my name to the member list (or lower the protection of the page so editors can add their own usernames); I'd love to help out with this project. Cheers, ★ Braingle^{(Contact me + Contribs)} 22:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added you to his list of members for you because your account is not old enough to edit that page yet. You have to be a member on this site for a couple of more days before you will be allowed to edit semi-protected pages. Once you are able to edit them, come back to this page and add your signature to the list in place of the template that I added you onto the list with. Cheers, Razor flame 22:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I hadn't realized that there was a membership-time prerequisite to edit semi-protected pages. ★ Braingle^{(Contact me + Contribs)} 23:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Cheers, Razor flame 00:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]