Talk:Sexual intercourse
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sexual intercourse article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
Template:WikiProject banner by man and woma shell
 | Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
 | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
 | This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
 | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Sexual intercourse.
|
 | This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 71 million views since December 2007. |
Homophobic article
This article should be edited as it was made a homophobic author. Sexual intercourse is not limited to heterosexual sex. Melonmelon1 (talk) 07:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- I suggest that you read well past the first sentence, all the way through the article. As for "a homophobic author", you should know that 2229 editors have contributed to this article through the years, and the most active editor (now deceased) worked hard to be sure that LGTBQ perspectives were included. Cullen328 (talk) 07:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- If that's the case, then the title should be changed to "penetrative intercourse" not "sexual." Melonmelon1 (talk) 07:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- While reading the article, it appears that penetrative intercourse is the main subject. Melonmelon1 (talk) 07:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- As should be obvious, many LGBTQ people engage in penetrative sexual behavior. We have an article Non-penetrative sex describing other types of sexual activities anong people. Article titles are based on common usage and "sexual intercourse" is far more common in formal contexts than "penetrative intercourse". How many people would search for that term? Cullen328 (talk) 07:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Sexual intercourse is not limited to penetration. Many people engage in non-penetrative intercourse as well. This is misinforming anyone that searches for "sexual intercourse." Melonmelon1 (talk) 08:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Well-written Wikipedia articles summarize what reliable sources say about the topic. The majority of reliable sources that discuss "sexual intercourse" are referring to penetrative sexual behaviour. The article repeatedly includes other views from other sources as well. I believe that it is fair to say that most English speakers are not thinking about non-penetrative sexual behavior when they talk about sexual intercourse. Cullen328 (talk) 08:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Melonmelon1 and Cullen328: An editor changed the wording of this article to be more trans-inclusive, but this edit was quickly reverted. Jarble (talk) 17:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- No rationale was stated for that, but in any case "male" and "female" clearly refer to sex and are correct. Crossroads -talk- 17:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Melonmelon1 and Cullen328: An editor changed the wording of this article to be more trans-inclusive, but this edit was quickly reverted. Jarble (talk) 17:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Well-written Wikipedia articles summarize what reliable sources say about the topic. The majority of reliable sources that discuss "sexual intercourse" are referring to penetrative sexual behaviour. The article repeatedly includes other views from other sources as well. I believe that it is fair to say that most English speakers are not thinking about non-penetrative sexual behavior when they talk about sexual intercourse. Cullen328 (talk) 08:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Sexual intercourse is not limited to penetration. Many people engage in non-penetrative intercourse as well. This is misinforming anyone that searches for "sexual intercourse." Melonmelon1 (talk) 08:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- As should be obvious, many LGBTQ people engage in penetrative sexual behavior. We have an article Non-penetrative sex describing other types of sexual activities anong people. Article titles are based on common usage and "sexual intercourse" is far more common in formal contexts than "penetrative intercourse". How many people would search for that term? Cullen328 (talk) 07:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Let's be sincerely grateful for the contributions of those editors. But can we pause for a moment and note the results – and how they are sometimes, well, rather queer?
- I mean, take the first sentence of the article. It tells us what sexual intercourse is by articulating something looks just like a genus-differentia definition of the term. But then the third sentence tells us there are "other forms" of sexual intercourse as well, and lists them.
- It's almost as if we had an article on "sexuinters" in geometry that ran: "A sexuinter is a plane figure with three straight sides. There are also sexuinters with two or four curvy sides."
- A genus-differentia definition, Wikipedia tells us, is a type of intensional definition. An intentional definition, according to the same article, "gives meaning to a term by specifying necessary and sufficient conditions for when the term should be used." If sentence number one in an article on sexuinters gave having "three straight sides" as a necessary condition of being a sexuinter, then could a sexuinter be a sexuinter if it had just two sides and the sides were curvy? It would seem not.
- Appearance, reality – what ultimately is the true nature of sentence number one in an article like that? Does it have a nature? It looks just like an intensional definition – but if it is one, then the following sentence contradicts it. If it isn't one, then what is it doing? Is it trying to pass as one? To arouse our expectations of logical normativity? Hmm... ~ Aingotno (talk) 10:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2023
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
spelling and grammar mistakes Biswasgee150 (talk) 14:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. You're very welcome to fix them. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add a notice that "Doing it" redirects here, and a link K
to the disambig page for Doin' It 62.165.249.182 (talk) 07:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Not done for now: I've just listed the redirect at WP:RFD as I'm not sure if this is the most appropriate target. The discussion is here. Liu1126 (talk) 11:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
