Sexology and sexuality Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Archive 1

I was looking for a general sex overview template, but all I found was this. Its first link is Feminist Sex Wars (all caps), and it just gets worse from there. So I thought I'd look through the history of the template and how it got developed. It was apparently started by a banned abusive sockpuppet, and its first incarnation was all mostly tacky. Its current state again is one without topical or logical order, which can be corrected somewhat, but such efforts will no doubt be hampered by the fact that it still appears to conform to the tacky list example of the original. Needs work -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 06:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am reverting a previous user's deletion of the articles I added to this template for the following reasons:

• The most-appropriate possible category listed in this, the main Sexuality template (for lack of a better one, which I believe should be developed), "Relationships and Society", is the one under which I have put celibacy, involuntary celibacy and single person. I am going to fight to keep those there, because I firmly believe they should be there.
• If sexual abstinence can be there, so can things like the ones I added, plus, I would even argue, asexuality also. If people working on this Template want to make a more appropriate (i.e. sexology-centered) template because they feel that these things don't belong in the Sex template, then I encourage them to do so. But there is apparently no such template and given the development of the Sex template and how closely associated with the Sex WikiProject it is, I am placing these things here the best I can until someone professional can take it upon themselves to make a more appropriate overall template.
• Please also see this issue I raised here for my opinion on the template issue more generally.

If other people want to revert my mods again, they should have the decency to reply in-depth to this note I have left. Continued discussionless reversions of those mods will be periodically counter-reverted by me. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed celibacy, involuntary celibacy and single person again. Single person has nothing to do with sex (sure, single people may or may not have sex, but same goes for plumbers or obesity or ...), celibacy is more a philosophical/social view than a mechanical one and both it and involuntary celibacy are explicitly not sex.

The purpose of navigation templates is to link closely related articles that readers are likely to want to navigate between. wp:Navigation templates It seems unlikely that somebody interested in reading about celibacy is also going to be likely to want to read about aspects of the sex industry or the laundry list of sex acts. Navigation templates aren't the only option - Regular wikilinks, categorization, etc. provide more appropriate connection to/from celibacy, etc.

Agree that sexual abstinence is somewhat peripheral, but at least it is a subset of sexual acts. (Last time I looked Celibacy claimed to be absence of all sexual activity, which is probably not possible - but I digress.) Sexual abstinence also should provide an avenue to other articles about asexuality, celibacy, etc.

This template suffers from an over-broad focus, so it tends to attract all sorts of fluff. Therefore it needs fairly careful pruning to keep it from getting too large to be of any use. (Something that had a smaller focus might allow more leaway on peripheral items, but if added everything directly to do with human sex this template would be unusable, much less adding peripheral items - like antonyms, etc.). Zodon (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zodon, thank you for re-adding involuntary celibacy. I continue to make the overall case that celibacy, involuntary celibacy and single person belong in the Relationships category as serious relevant articles, but for now I will accept involuntary celibacy alone as staying in there, and I will wait for further discussion to accumulate before pursuing a counter-revert of any kind. Kikodawgzzz (talk)

I didn't re-add it - that was another user.

If you think they belong there, make a case for it. (e.g. give reasons, etc.)

The main concept for that group of articles, Sexual Abstinence, is here already - no need to have all the detailed bits here (this template being an overview, not all the the detailed bits). Just as there is no reason to have all the birth control methods here (just having Birth control and Safe sex covers it - for further details - those articles and related templates get you there). Zodon (talk) 04:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a case already, as you see above, but on the other hand I've also now made a navbox Template:Human sexuality, which has different groupings and a different focus, as you sort-of suggested I do in some or another earlier thread here; I never nor could I ever claim this new navbox to be any 'good', but it definitely fits in sexological topics a lot easier and is specifically NOT focused on sex ACTS and related phenomena (speaking generally, why even have that kind of focus as the basis for the main Sexuality template to begin with??). As soon as the code's fixed (by someone more qualified) on my new navbox there, it should be good to go and in turn, we won't even have a need to have involuntary celibacy etc even under the "Sex" navbox to begin with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kikodawgzzz (talk • contribs)

The only reason so far presented is that "you firmly believe they should be there." That doesn't explain why, it doesn't respond to the issues raised. However, if they fit better on another template - great.

Is this the main sexuality template? This one says (by it's name) that it is about sex. Zodon (talk) 05:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To any and all who have problems with these articles being in the Sex navbox-- you can now relax. These subjects have now been included in a separate "Human Sexuality and Sexology" template that is more appropriate. Happy now? ;) Kikodawgzzz (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list of sex acts has gotten too large. There are a few options:

1. The whole laundry list should be moved to {{sex positions}}. Sex acts used to be a section of that template[1], after they were removed there they seem to have accumulated here. But it doesn't make much sense to make this template so huge, especially when the various acts seem more closely related to the material on that template about positions and instruction manuals. It might be reasonable to leave just the general human sexual activities and sex manual items here.
2. Could create a separate template for sex acts (although differentiating from sex positions might be problem), or
3. Make the sex acts section here collapsible (so at least the template wouldn't be quite so overwhelming).

I think moving it to sex positions would be best. Are there other suggestions, or what do others favor? Zodon (talk) 06:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems very relevant in its relation to sexual media as an alternative to classy erotica or less classy porn. It's the area of humour or mocking which still deals with it. I've added this template to the page and I would like to include the page in the template between Prostitution and Sex Museum. Any objections? DB (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is appropriate here. The big problem with this template is that it could get so large. Perhaps there is an opening for a more specific template covering sex in entertainment/media? (Even that is probably a big can of worms.) I just happened upon an article about sex in star trek even. (There are more general ones about sexuality in fictional worlds or some such too.)

If added ribaldry here, then would probably need to add American burlesque, etc. Zodon (talk) 09:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That seems quite odd. Jun-Dai (talk) 12:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's because they all have a "Sexuality in X" page  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why no mention? What about changing Pregnancy to Pregnancy/Reproduction? 92.20.169.188 (talk) 11:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are other templates that cover reproduction, such as {{reproductive health}} and {{pregnancy}} Zodon (talk) 06:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please add Survival sex in the "Sex industry" section. Thank you. 85.230.127.113 (talk) 06:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Survival sex comes under prostitution, which is already in the template. Thanks andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 23:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently no mention of survival sex in the Prostitution article. Granted they are similar, but the extent to which the two are voluntary are vastly different, are they not? Weltoners (talk) 05:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As there are two articles, it's better in - I've added it. Maybe the articles need a merge? - that's another question!  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Argeed. In the mean time I think I'll add something about survival sex to Prostitution. Weltoners (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Survival sex should not be on this template - another variant/subdivision of prostitution. It is already mentioned on sex and the law template. If want a template to go into greater detail on some area, should probably create area specific template (and remove coverage from this one). There are probably enough articles to make a template just about sex industry, or even specifically about prostitution. That would shrink this template (which is again getting over-large) and that template could provide more complete coverage of the area. Zodon (talk) 06:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most people engaging in survival sex do not see themselves as prostitutes. I am going to replace this because it is different enough to reasonably balance the categories. I suggest that the sexual practices category might need trimming, but I don't think this template is particularly large compared to, e.g., {{employment}}. Npmay (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it appears on the template, it should be a sub-item under prostitution (since it is a form of prostitution, see for instance the lead of the article on survival sex).

It is not clear to what extent somebody reading about erectile dysfunction or gender identity is really going to need a quick way to get to survival sex.

The variants of prostitution are already covered by {{sex and the law}}, no clear reason to duplicate that coverage here.

I don't think need either forced prostitution or survival sex on the template (this is of necessity an overview and should not cover all the variants). But why include survival sex rather than forced prostitution?

As far as template size - the topic is so broad that this template could and has grown tremendously. It tends to attract additions, especially of articles on particular variants of major topics covered. It is only through periodic trimming that it has been kept down to a manageable size. (Thanks Npmay for trimming sexual activities).

As I noted above, if coverage of prostitution in sex and the law is not adequate for navigation of the prostitution articles, we should create a template just about prostitution. Then could include all the variants, subdivisions, etc. Zodon (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think perhaps Sexual fantasy would be appropriate to add to the template, under sexual activities. That would encompass/lead to interested readers to coverage of the other major sex organ - the brain. Zodon (talk) 07:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with this. I am going to add it and remove some of the more esoteric and porn-movies-only categories. Npmay (talk) 13:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ran a quick list of Wikipedia:Top 5000 pages as of 2/21/2013 for another project. Noted quite a few sex topics are of very strong interest to users of WikiPedia. Following is the list in descending order based on hits counts during 7 days. (Yes those are just 7 day counts!) I may have missed some, or tagged pages you don't agree with, which is fine. I’m just introducing the information here.

If the object of the template is to help users navigate to where they want to go there is great information embedded in just the hit counts.

In any discussion of sexual fetishes one has to remember a few points:

• Fetishes are described as polymorphous perverse, i.e. exceedingly diverse. (i.e. to each her own)
• Those who are personally attracted to a particular fetish find it extremely (perhaps compulsively) interesting!
  • However, many to most people will be uninterested or unmotivated by that particular fetish, particularly if its quite unique.
• The minority in each fetish will likely overestimate the public's overall interest in their favorite fetish. Because of thier particularly keen interest they may desire to promot it.
• With enough people as a sample you can easily sort various sex topics by level of general interest
• Some fetishes are quite offensive to a significant number of people and “drive them away”.

A navigation tool should be measured by "do most people quickly find what they are looking for"? Granted hit counts are not perfect, and can be biased towards heavy vs. casual users. However with large sample, it’s a great start.

I'd also argue that the existing template categories seems a tad "restrictive" on the topic of total topic of sex. Gender differences, sexy people / sex icons, physical aspects, social/political/economic aspects, emotional aspects, religion and mythology, history/culture, psychological theories might all be represented according to usage. Sex is after all, a large topic.

What would be cool is a dynamically updated template, of fixed and limited display size, hat automatically resorted topics according to hit count. This might be cool for disambiguation pages also... However perhaps that's a bit far forward…

• Sex 260568 hits
• Fifty Shades of Grey 202426 hits
• .xxx 175803 hits
• Marilyn Monroe 166477 hits
• Human penis size 159493 hits
• Vagina 97827 hits
• Anal sex 96472 hits
• Pornography 95253 hits
• Masturbation 93743 hits
• Sexual intercourse 86122 hits
• Female ejaculation 78019 hits
• Coffee enema 71062 hits
• Sex.com 70707 hits
• Fuck 69094 hits
• BDSM 66973 hits
• Penis 64853 hits
• Orgasm 64481 hits
• Sex (book) 63810 hits
• Sex position 61721 hits
• Circumcision 59958 hits
• Menstrual cycle 59475 hits
• Herpes simplex 59378 hits
• Oral sex 58300 hits
• List of pornographic actresses by decade 57402 hits
• Clitoris 57165 hits
• Pregnancy 57002 hits
• Aphrodite 54053 hits
• Jenna Jameson 53812 hits
• Human penis 53287 hits
• Oxytocin 51917 hits
• Fellatio 51181 hits
• Kama Sutra 51060 hits
• Transgender 49232 hits
• Pornographic film actor 49191 hits
• Incest 49183 hits
• Paris Hilton 48271 hits
• List of sexually active popes 46038 hits
• Pussy 44686 hits
• Female genital mutilation 44003 hits
• List of Victoria's Secret models 43030 hits
• Ejaculation 41032 hits
• Pornographic film 40164 hits
• AVN Award 39927 hits
• Homosexuality 39762 hits
• YouPorn 39291 hits
• Sexting 39079 hits
• Prostate 38744 hits
• 69 (sex position) 38684 hits
• Sexually transmitted disease 38547 hits
• Succubus 38514 hits
• Feminism 38476 hits
• Hedonism 37457 hits
• Pansexuality 37428 hits
• Adolescence 37389 hits
• Abortion 37268 hits
• Misogyny 37009 hits
• Catholic sex abuse cases 36054 hits
• Shemale 35687 hits
• Nudity 35401 hits
• Asia's Next Top Model 35355 hits
• Bikini waxing 34998 hits
• Victoria's Secret 34577 hits
• Hymen 33961 hits
• Creampie (sexual act) 33212 hits
• Rape 33174 hits
• Pornhub 33019 hits
• Women's suffrage 32648 hits
• Libido 31911 hits
• Mons pubis 30905 hits
• Brassiere measurement 30053 hits
• Camel toe 29932 hits
• Sexual arousal 29614 hits
• Cunt 29571 hits
• Asexuality 29453 hits
• Pedophilia 29346 hits
• Fingering (sexual act) 28880 hits
• Barbie 28674 hits

71.176.111.175 (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

you cant possibly have a single navbox which works for an outline of human sexuality. I really dont like this bdeing used. I would rather see more targeted ones.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You think Template:Human sexuality is too limited, and you think Template:Sex is too broad. Both templates, especially Template:Sex, are fine to me; Template:Sex has worked fine for years and, as far as I can see, does not need to be split into more than one template. Flyer22 (talk) 04:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The template should be renamed as human sexuality because the template is only about sexualities of human not about the all devisions of sex. Sharif uddin (talk) 08:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]