Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality

WikiProject Sexology and sexuality (Click here for project talk page)

Resources & templates

Sex work task force (Click here for task force talk page)

Project talk page Please help review commons:Commons:Sexual content Commons has been developing a proposed policy regarding sexual content at commons:Commons:Sexual content. It is now stable and ready for review by third parties - please look it over and provide any feedback on the talk page. We want to move forward on adoption soon. I'd also appreciate it if you can help spread the news to other relevant forums and local wikis, since this affects everyone. Thank you! Dcoetzee (talk) 22:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Circumcision There is a protracted discussion about the use of the term 'uncircumcised' to describe a penis that has not been circumcised - at Talk:Circumcision, input from experienced editors would be appreciated. - MishMich - Talk - 09:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC) This has now been put before NPOV Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Circumcision. Thanks. - MishMich - Talk - 12:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Positions In the main article, under "other positions" the description of the scissors position should be modified to say "manual stimulation of the breast and/or clitoris" rather than just "breast stimulation." Source: From personal experience, even a previously non-orgasmic woman may reach orgasm if the male partner is inside her in the scissors position, with left hand stimulating her right nipple, and right hand stimulating her clitoris. Rkschaffner (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC) UK Teenage Pregnancy Policy I'm posting this question here because this WikiProject is the closest thing to a project that deals with teen pregnancy. I was wondering if anyone here could help me figure out this article. It's unclear whether or not the article is about an actual official policy in the United Kingdom, a review/critique of such a policy or and article about an evaluation of "he recent guidance papers published by the DfEF." The only way I can see this article being appropriate if it were about an official policy. The first sentence of the article's lead says the article "evaluates the government’s teenage pregnancy policy since 1999." However, most of the article is a summary of a report made by the Social Exclusion Unit (now called the Social Exclusion Task Force). Is the article worth salvaging? --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 21:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Opinions are welcome (Talk:Sexual orientation) On the sexual orientation talk page. I'm mentioning that other new sexual orientations should be mentioned in the page as they are sexual orientation too, right now sexual orientation page only mentions homosexuality, bisexuality and heterosexuality. (and a bit of asexuality) I'm zoosexual so that's one reason I want to push this, second reason is to be fair to other sexual orientations like asexuals, pedosexuals and maybe other future sexual orientations that may come up as more scientific studies are done about human sexuality. Alusky (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Pansexuality should also be included. Pansexuality is similar to bisexuality, but it shouldn't be lumped under bisexuality. This is because bisexuality exists within the gender binary (male/female), but pansexuality describes sexual attraction regardless of the gender binary. --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 19:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Whether or not you want to push something, and what your POV may be (and everyone has some sort of POV, regardless of how WP:NPOV they edit), you'll need reliable sources (WP:RS) to back it up. Such as reliable academic or news articles calling it a sexual orientation. Especially for something so likely to be challenged, you'll need that. If I am not mistaken, the American Psych. Association's Diagnostic manual (DSM) still refers to zoosexuality as a paraphilia (zoophilia), and the international or European counterparts are probably similar. The best you may be able to do is to frame it as is something like The APA defines it as a paraphilia, but source x defines it as a sexual orientation. (if you can find source x, and it is worded in a way that does not violate WP:UNDUE (giving undue weight / i.e. making a fringe point of view seem more established than it is). The same sourcing/undue requirements would apply to calling pansexuality an orientation, even though it is not defined as a paraphilia like zoophilia is. Happy editing, Wikignome0530 (talk) 05:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC) September 2010 (UTC) Zoosexuality is to be considered on similar lines as homosexuality The reliable sources are Hani Meletski (USA), Andrea Beetz (2002 Germany), Williams and Weinberg (USA 2003) drashok (talk) Gokkun A dispute has arisen on this article about whether including an illustration is appropiate. Project members are invited to visit the talk page to contribute to the debate. Exxolon (talk) 12:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Main Page proposal As related to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-09-06/News and notes, subsection: "Main page biases?" Please see Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article/requests#.2B1_for_women. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 22:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Input requested for an EL at sex addiction Hi, folks. I am a professional sex researcher, publishing on a range of topics in sexology. I was recently interviewed regarding sex addiction and thought that the content would be relevant to that page. Although I disclosed my status[1] as the subject of the interview on the talkpage, another editor (user:KimvdLinde) believes that the addition should be made by someone other than me. (That is, Kim did not indicate any problem with the content, only that I should not be the person adding the EL.) Because sex addiction is not being highly edited at the moment, I am posting this here for any interested editor to review the EL, the page, and to decide whether the EL is indeed an appropriate/useful addition to sex addiction. The interview can be linked either from the journalist's original site: http://www.magazine.utoronto.ca/leading-edge/dr-james-cantor-sex-addiction/ or from my faculty website at the University of Toronto, which mirrors it: http://individual.utoronto.ca/james_cantor/page18.html — James Cantor (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Sexuality sidebar/template/side-navbar? Why is there no sidebar for Sexuality the way there is for Sociology and other similar topics? There's a sidebar for "Relationships", which can include sex articles I guess, but Human Sexuality is also its own beast and should be treated as such. Seems a major omission, similar to the major omission recently being started to be remedied in WikiProject Disability. Shouldn't there be one? What are people's thoughts on this? Am I missing something and people have already made a horizontal navbar or something? Kikodawgzzz (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC) A horizontal navbar does exist at {{Sex}}, though I think the only sidebars are for more specific topics (such as {{Sexual orientation}} and {{Sex and the law}}). More sexuality templates can be found in Category:Sex and sexuality templates and its subcategories. Wikignome0530 (talk) 00:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC) I think I'm more talking about a type of sidebar and/or navbar that focuses on the sociological aspects of sex, or sexology as a field — one that would have for example polyamory yet still comfortably fit things like celibacy, involuntary celibacy and asexuality within it. I'm not even so much talking about "lifestyle choices" so much as the scientific sexual analysis of them - could we not have a "science of sex" type sidebar/navbar that could comfortably fit these things and others that might be little-known if not included in a navbar? Right now there seem to be two chief navbar types: either the one dedicated to sex acts and associated phenomena, or very specific subgenres of the human sexual experience (sexual orientation, BDSM etc). Why can't there be a "science of sex" type navbar supplying us with an easily-navigable overview of known, lesser-known, and unknown sexual topics? Please note, when I say "science of sex" I am not talking about medical analysis, but rather, a social science type thing, or psychosocial, in the sense of a scientific look at sexual psychology. It'd certainly be a good alternative choice to the too-general on the one hand (the Sex navbar) and too specific (the Sexual Orientation sidebar et al).Kikodawgzzz (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC) Sexuality articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm. We would like to ask you to review the Sexuality articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th. We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback! For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC) Talk:Pedophilia#Proposals for new lead and whether the article should be moved Input needed on whether the authoritative use should come before the general use of term, and on whether the article should be moved. Flyer22 (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)