Talk:Sex

Before complaining about article content, please read: Wikipedia is not censored.

Topics from 2007

Men have breasts too

They may not be of the same size as women, but men have breasts and small nipples too, even though they cannot fulfill the same purpose. srx is delicious.

Brett Deyton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.157.234 (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, they can - see here --Ben 15:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, there is something I want to say here. Men do, anatomically, have milk glands, but do not produce enough of the horomone needed to actually produce milk. kaa??? God. It was in the book "When Do Fish Sleep?" by some author I can't remember. uh...yeah. eww!!! Snick's Friend (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)hi

Alternate uses redundancy

Sex (activity) and Sexual intercourse are the same article, both do not need to be wikilinked. Gender does not contain the word "sex". Human sexual behavior is a discussion of sexual behaviours that is essentially an expansion of the Sex (activity) article. The version I wrote avoids this redundancy and adds "sexing chickens", which expands the current narrow scope of the "alternate uses" line. Neitherday 13:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

We remove Human sexual behaviour as this is quoted again in section "in humans". But 99.99% people who come here come for Sex (activity), this article is in top 100 see special:statistics. Only 0.01% people come for biological sexes, rest all need to be guided to their desired place. as for chicken sexing, dont worry its less than 0.0001% and let people find it in disambiguation page. There is confusion over sex and gender, even i had so i think its necessary. (making these changes now) Lara bran 15:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've dewikilinked the words "sexual intercourse" as it links to the same article as the "Sex (activity)" link. But, I've otherwise not touched the text from your last edit. While I still question whether "gender" should be there as it doesn't include the word "sex", I don't feel it important enough to further belabour the point. Neitherday 15:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's a source

Here's an article about gender stereotypes and sex: http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=0010000RF3PW. Hope it hasn't already been used in the article. BlueAg09 (Talk) 00:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC) My name is Katie. I am a slut. I love having sex.I love touching peanuses. I love when men feel my boobs. If you want to have sex just call me at (678)-456-2345 today I can be gay! or not! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.233.146 (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Differences section

I made a couple grammatical fixes in the Differences section, but, more importantly, I changed the female face entry from "none" to mirror differences noted in the male face entry. This should probably be expanded upon, but it seemed imprecise to state that the female face has no differences from the male face, then name differences of the male face from the female face. Alternatively, it seems to state that the female face is the standard from which the male face has differentiated, which is either a potential NPOV problem or lacking scientific support via citation. Ashdog137 04:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not "differences" section, but its secondary sex characteristics. And females have no secondary sex characteristics in face, per sources given below. Thanks. Lara_bran 04:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Intersex

This needs to have a separate section for intersex. Right now it's listed along with social issues, but intersex is a biological condition. Right now this article almost completely splits humans into males and females, which reflects the lack of awareness of biological sexual diversity in nature and the genetic and hormonal mechanisms that cause it.Rglong 15:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I at least separated intersex from the transgender section, since they are completely different. I hope it now reads correctly, in that intersex is a biological phenomena, while transgender depends more on psycho-social factors. I also think the link for sexual differentiation should be up further, as it's the beginning of everything related to human biological sex. I think I'll move it now.Rglong 17:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Eh I can't find a really good place to put sexual differentiation so I'll just leave it back at the bottom.Rglong 17:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

section on "sexual reproduction"

A section on sexual reproduction needs to be written. Its advantages over asexual reproduction, which is the point in having "sexes", needs a mention in the article. Boats are alive (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added a short section on sexual reproduction. Please feel free to modify it, especially expansions if you can source them. Is what I've added the sort of thing you were suggesting? Alastair Haines (talk) 08:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Topics from 2008

Vandalism found.......

"Sex refers to the male and male duality of sucking nuts and reproduction. Unlike NIGGERs that only have the ability to reproduce asexually, many species have the ability to produce offspring through jacking off because they all have AIDS and can't get ANY!"

I fully appreciate (and in fact support) the fact that Wikipedia is not censored. However, this hardly seems like an encyclopedic entry of any kind. I cannot revert this because the page is protected. Could the appropriate admin/user(s)/whoever please rectify this blatant vandalism? Thanks. Lewis512 (talk) 23:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have summarily removed the text from the article. (Trip Johnson (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

Rewrite of article

This article is a mess, and I'd like to completely rewrite it. I suspect nobody is giving this page much attention, but if you'd like to help I've started working on a draft here. So far it's just a lead and an outline... Madeleine ✉ ✍ 04:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The draft is mostly complete now, I'll probably replace the article with it soon. It removes a lot of the anthropocentrism of the current article. The gender issues material has been reduced to a single sentence disambiguating gender from sex within the lead, as I thought most of this material was inappropriate to an article on biological sex. I understand that "sex" can mean many things, but this article starts by stating "This article is about biological sex. For alternate uses, such as sexual intercourse, see Sex (disambiguation)." and so I've taken it from there. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 00:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced the article now. A lot of stuff information has been discarded from the old article, although much of it arguable off topic, anthropocentric, or unreasonably detailed. Please bring up anything you think this new article is currently lacking. Thanks! Madeleine ✉ ✍ 23:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sex organs

Plants, animals, and fungi all have specialized structures developed for sex. Should this be another top level section, or should the information get integrated into the sexual reproduction section? Madeleine ✉ ✍ 15:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well... I added it as expansions to sexual reproduction. I guess I had answered my own question there. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 23:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Great work Madeleine!

Thanks for all this work, Madeleine. I think you've done the hard yards to take the article in the right direction -- human sexuality has its own article, biological sex redirects here. This wise decision was made long ago by others, but sexuality content keeps getting added here.

You've provided so much solid content covering a spectrum of species, that it should now be evident what this article is about.

Other contributors, please note. If you have contributions to make regarding human sexuality, they are welcome under the right topic heading -- sexuality. If it's about people, put it there. This entry is about our wild and wonderful fellow sexually reproducing species, not really about us.

I would add, though, human reproduction is a huge topic in itself, falling between the two entries mentioned. I believe some tidy-up of links and categorization in that topic area may be in order. In fact, I used one of your sources, Madeleine, to make this table, but I'm not sure where to put it. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about adding it to the reproductive system article? It would go under "Development of the reproductive system" I guess?

Does you think this article should have a top level section "Human sex determination and reproduction"? I think readers are probably expecting to find more information on this topic. It could go at the bottom, after providing the context that covers the entirety of life.

I've observed in learning more about the topic that there is a lot of convergent evolution in sex, it would be nice to cover it somehow. Asymmetric gametes have appeared at least twice (animals, plants), sex chromosomes have developed independently many times. I wonder about moving evolution to a top level section after sexual dimorphism and adding some material about this. I need to read more about the topic before I can do this myself though. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 14:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Perfect! I want to know more about the evolution of sex too. Actually, I'd love to read up on it myself, but I've got to control myself a bit atm (20,000 word deadline in three weeks, yikes!) Help me! Learn for me! Share with me!

I think the evolution of sex is the logical question behind this article. What is sex? It's something that kind of comes and goes over the top of this family tree of lifeforms. The specific cases of individual species is important data, and valuable in itself, but putting it all together is the real deal. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Anti-human article?

Article has very less or no info about humans. Is it an effort to clean up dirty things? Spot research wiki (talk) 07:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't ... it's a result of this article being the redirect for biological sex, and so this current version tries to cover all domains of life that have sex. As you can see above, I'me wondering if we should add a top level section for "Human sex determination and reproduction" because that is almost certainly an interest of visitors to this page, if you'd like to contribute please do! Note, however, that this article is about biological sex, you can go elsewhere for things like human sexuality and gender. -- Madeleine ✉ ✍ 11:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

there is a sexual intercourse link at the top of this page - it's clearly there ObamaGirlMachine (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It is WP:POV and speciesist to only focus on humans when so many organisms undertake this phenomenon. We are just one of the millions of species. We are biased towards ourselves enough as it is. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 00:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

you are absolutely right i´ll add this text written in dog language: wolf wolf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antispeciest (talk • contribs) 13:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Animals - just plain wrong.

Hi all, I'm a little worried about the "Animals" section that begins: "Sexually reproducing animals spend their lives as diploid organisms, with the haploid stage reduced to single cell gametes." Someone has obviously forgotten about such organisms as some of the hymenopteran social insects, in which many individuals are haploid! I didn't want to delete the sentence outright, but couldn't think of an appropriate replacement. Suggestions? Esseh (talk) 19:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Man, you're like the person that got upset (was it you? :) ) when I wrote "DNA is the genetic material of living organisms." I didn't forget -- later I listed haplodiploid sex determination. Biology is a science fraught with exceptions, but to write an article for an outsider one must sometimes neglect mentioning exceptions when they are very small and only serve to confuse. IMO the appropriate thing to do in these situations is to simply insert a hedge word like "most" -- I didn't choose to use "most" here because really it is "almost all except for a very small exception", but I'll go ahead and add it. Try to avoid adding details that will distract from explaining the basic principles. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 13:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, Mad. Yup, I'm the guy ;-) I don't (believe it or not) try to add details that distract, but I still do get annoyed when, in trying to be "simple", things are just plain incorrect. The social insects are just one example - there are others. Also, the tone of the article seems to suggest that the only animals are vertebrate (esp. mammal), and the only plants are angiosperms. Nature's wonderful, and she knows that there's more to it than plain old missionary style! Good talking to ya again. Esseh (talk) 06:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's true that there's a bias towards familiar organisms (which I hope is reasonable), but there is a picture of flies having sex and there's pictures of pine cones. Bird sex and sex determination is covered. There's a lot about bugs. The plant section also includes gymnosperms (I love telling people pine cones are female sex organs) and it was hard to find much info on plant sex determination (not much research on it?), although I tried and mentioned it where I could. To some extent I'm limited by how much I can learn about various kingdoms of life and how able I am to make broad statements about them. If you have more information you think would be good to include, please go ahead and add it or put it here and I can figure out how to integrate it. I love learning more about these things, I can't pretend I know everything. :-) Madeleine ✉ ✍ 19:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Mad, don't get me wrong - overall, the article looks pretty good. A bit more on alternation of generations in plants with the gradual decline in size of the gametophyte might go a long way toward helping with the plants, for example. "Pollen" is, in fact, not just the germ cell, but a two-cell gametophyte, if memory serves. (And none of us knows everything... sigh..) Esseh (talk) 23:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Opening sentence

The article's opening sentence is as follows: Sex is meant for all humans to have... It is GR GR GR GR GR....GREAT!!

In biology, sex is a process of combining and mixing genetic traits, often resulting in the specialization of organisms into male and female reproductive roles.

The sentence makes no sense. A "process" of "combining and mixing genetic traits" yields "specialization of organisms into... reproductive roles"? When does this "process" take place? Who or what is involved in it? Is it connected to these "reproductive roles" in any way other than as their cause? Does it happen to be, by any chance, the very reproduction with which, we might guess, reproductive roles have something to do?

I am not informed about the types of sexual reproduction, but I suggest the following:

Sex is an organism’s biological status as one or the other of its species’ two types necessary for reproduction. In sexually-reproducing species, most individual organisms are identifiable as one of the said types, termed male and female.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 04:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Postscript: As I have said, I am not informed about the types of sexual reproduction. One thing I was naturally concerned about as I crafted the above recommendation was the phrase "two types necessary for reproduction." A quick Google search has just led me to a webpage that contains the following:

Eulimnadia texana is an extremely unusual species in having three sexes (at least genetically).... Females reproduce by one of two means: self-fertilization and/or sex with males. Males cannot self and females cannot fertilize one another.

Maybe there are yet other deviations from what I suppose is the usual condition of sexually-reproducing species; but on the basis of that information alone, I revise my recommendation as follows:

Sex is an organism’s biological status as one or the other of its species’ two types necessary for, or at least associated with, reproduction. In species that reproduce sexually, either exclusively or in part, most individual organisms are identifiable as forms of the said types, termed male and female.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 05:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

To elaborate:

You are walking through a park. You see a man playing with a dog that appears to belong to him. You ask the man, "What is your dog’s sex?" The man replies, "Male."

If we credit the article’s opening sentence, your question meant this:

"What is your dog’s process of combining and mixing genetic traits, often resulting in the specialization of organisms into male and female reproductive roles?"

Even if we regard that as intelligible — as we may not — "male" makes no sense as a response to it.

By my recommendation, on the other hand, the question meant the following:

"What is your dog’s biological status as one or the other of its species' two types necessary for reproduction?"

Either "male" or "female" is an appropriate response to that question.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 06:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

And to state it further, via material from the article itself:

The article’s second paragraph begins as follows:

"An organism's sex is defined by the gametes it produces...."

If the article’s opening sentence is credited, that means this:

"An organism’s process of combining and mixing genetic traits, often resulting in the specialization of organisms into male and female reproductive roles, is defined by the gametes it produces."

That makes no sense. By my recommendation, the sentence means:

"An organism’s biological status as one or the other of its species’ two types necessary for, or at least associated with, reproduction is defined by the gametes it produces."

That makes sense.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 14:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Because I am not satisfied with my recommendation’s treatment of hermaphrodites (insofar as I understand those entities), I revise it again:

Sex is an organism’s biological status as one of its species’ two types necessary for, or at least associated with, reproduction. In most species that reproduce sexually, either exclusively or in part, nearly all individuals are forms of one or the other of the types, termed male and female. Some individuals, called hermaphrodites, may be said to be of both types or to be a combination of the types.

The statement about "most species" and "nearly all individuals" is a guess. Maybe hermaphrodites or similar things are not as unusual as I suppose.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Because my use of "reproduce sexually" feels circular, I modify my recommendation:

Sex is an organism’s biological status as one of its species’ two types necessary for, or at least associated with, reproduction. In most species that reproduce, either exclusively or in part, through interaction of such types — that is, sexually — nearly all individuals are forms of one type or the other, male or female. Some individuals, called hermaphrodites, may be said to be of both types or to be a combination of the types.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sexual reproduction does not require different types, and there are some species which have no evidence for mating types. Your proposals imply that different types are necessary, and this is not the case.

When I wrote this, I was thinking that there are two different definitions for the word "sex" that I had to address. The first sentence was intended to connect, but avoid conflating, these: sex as "the act of sexual reproduction" and sex as "male and female". It looks like you're approaching this article assuming that the definition should only be the latter?

As a quick fix, what do you thinking about simply changing the wording into this? "...often resulting in the specialization of organisms into male and female types." Madeleine ✉ ✍ 08:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

PS - or maybe "...male and female sexes."? Madeleine ✉ ✍ 08:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The article’s opening sentence is presently this:

In biology, sex is a process of combining and mixing genetic traits, often resulting in the specialization of organisms into male and female types.

I personally can make no sense of that. I take it that the "process" is the thing that supposedly "results" in the specialization; so, to start, the word "resulting" seems as if it should come after "process," not "traits." More importantly: What is any of it supposed to mean? Sex is a "process of combining and mixing genetic traits"? So, if, for instance, one person’s eye color is green and another’s eye color is brown, they combine those "genetic traits" – how? Do they squash their eyeballs together -- or are we talking about a form of reproduction? If the latter, then how does "sex" differ from "sexual reproduction," which is a separate Wikipedia entry, linked in the article's very next sentence:

Sexual reproduction involves combining specialized cells (gametes) to form offspring that inherit traits from both parents.

And what are "parents," which have just been introduced without explanation? And how does any of this "result" in "specialization of organisms into male and female types"? I could go on, but why don't we start with those questions.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 08:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Momentarily putting aside the question of the other Wikipedia article ("sexual reproduction"), and momentarily accepting your statement that sexual reproduction need not involve male and female entities, I offer the following:

Sex is a form of biological reproduction in which genetic material from two separate organisms of the same species, or closely-related species, is combined in the creation of a new organism. In many cases, the two organisms will be of different types known as "sexes" and termed male and female. If the organisms succeed in reproducing, they are "parents" of the new being.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 09:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggested change

After taking a quick look at the Wikipedia articles about isogamy, mating-type regions, and one or two other things, I’ve thought you might want to change the name of this article to "Sex (Biological status)." The article could begin with a brief treatment of sexual reproduction (with a "Main article" link thereto) and a brief treatment of isogamy and mating types (with "Main article" links) and then treat "male and female" – i.e., male and female organisms, male and female components of flowering plants, etc. The opening could be something like what I suggested above:

Sex is the biological status of an organism, or some component thereof, as one of two distinct forms whose interaction is necessary for, or at least associated with, the organism’s reproduction. Some species whose reproduction is termed "sexual" do not involve such forms at all; but among many that do, every individual is ordinarily of one form or the other, male or female. In other cases, individuals are combinations of the two or include components of both types.

Right now, the problems of which I’ve been speaking are reflected at the Sex (disambiguation) page, where this article is linked in the introductory sentence rather than being listed with other articles. (If you’ll go to the page, you’ll see what I mean.) I think the disambiguation page’s opening sentence should be without a link and should say, in usual Wikipedia style: "Sex, from Latin sexus, perhaps akin to secare, to divide, may refer to." This article should simply be listed there as "Sex (Biological status)." Again – I’m not really informed on the subject; but right now, this article’s focus, as well as its relationship to the sexual reproduction article, does not seem to me to be at all clear.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 06:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Opting for article to be merged with Sexual Intercourse (Implement the section on sexual intercourse as sexual reproduction in human beings INSIDE Biological Sex)

I don't really see the difference between biological sex and sexual intercourse? I mean its disputed that reproduction in other organisms is completely different from human beings, Not disputed, sorry, A fact. Still I think the articles should be merged, just to show that SEX itself is a form of reproduction that is carried out by most living organisms, just to be clear, they carry them out differently. My dispute lies in 'Biological Sex'. We are biologically human aren't we? Someone please consider this seriously —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexRoxUrSox (talk • contribs) 02:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If you read the preceding section, you'll see that someone else thinks sex is "male and female" and not "sexual intercourse". This article attempts to combine the two subjects.

Setting that aside, can you please tell me how human sex significantly differs from other biological organisms covered here? In what aspects is it insufficiently covered? Human sex sits within a wide variety of biological methods for sexual reproduction and sex determination, it is not a unique outlier. (Unless you're talking about social aspects, and I'm not too concerned about covering social aspects in an article about "biological sex".) But if you bring up what aspects you think are so different, maybe we can address them in the article.

The sexual intercourse page has a lot of problems and I don't want to take it on as a project (although I'd be happy to give constructive criticism). The definition it uses is restricted to mammals (most birds do not have penises), and it doesn't even try to talk about plants and fungi. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 01:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Intersex

You should take intersex people into account. There are not only male and female children resulting of sex! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.227.240.129 (talk) 06:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Intersex condition is mentioned in the sex determination section. Do you think it needs to be mentioned in the lead? It is a rare condition; I'm concerned introduced trivia distracting the reader from the general mechanisms. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 01:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Humans

This should talk more about humans, not animals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.131.43.185 (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Human sex is (incorectly) dealt with under gender. We can point out that "gender" as a eupemism for "sex" is nothing other than Victorian genteelism, but it's a losing battle. This is the democracy of language: the correct and distinct meanings of "sex" and "gender" have gone the way of the correct meaning of the phrase "begging the question" not because the literate have become a minority (we always were), but because the subliterate many have been given voice. I, for one, welcome our new illiterate overlords. its thr wrld nw.78.86.128.70 (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Spelling of DNA

The spelling should be corrected (it's deoxyribonucleic acid, not dioxy-).Sflyte120 (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Should be stated in general/mostly

The part that says "Sex differences in humans include a larger size and more body hair in men; women have breasts, wider hips, and a higher body fat percentage." should start with either "generally" or "usually" since there are cases of men with breasts "Gynecomastia" and females with facial hair. Not all humans conform to these specifications. 71.112.208.13 (talk) 05:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Bwrs (talk) 05:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Topics from 2009

Link word Sex to sex-disambiguation

14-Jan-2008: The article for biological sex, titled as "Sex", seems to be a distraction from what most people are hunting. In 2008, although 19,000 readers, per day, viewed article "Sex", nearly 16,600 viewed article "Sexual intercourse" (the top hat-note link). It appears that people are dragged by the word "sex" to the biology article, then proceed to the wikilink "~intercourse". The German Wikipedia, has linked title "Sex" bluntly to the intercourse topic, without so much biological introduction. I think that the English Wikipedia should, more neutrally, link title "Sex" to the short article "Sex (disambiguation)", rather than make any attempt to drag a person to any other long article about some interpretation about sex. The word "sex" implies too many aspects to just presume which article most people should be reading.

Including the data-size (in bytes) of the images, the article about biological sex is nearly 74x times larger than the short article "Sex (disambiguation)" (which has had no images or bottom-navboxes). At this point, I'm thinking the biological article should be moved to "Sex (biology)", then create a redirect title as "Sex" linking to "Sex (disambiguation)". Afterward, compare readership data (during a few months) to see how many people really wanted to read "Biological sex", among the 19,000 readers sent, each day, to that article as the default.

If the move causes unforseen problems, then simply redirect "Sex" to the new name "Sex (biology)" and compare reader interest. Help to make Wikipedia what people really want to read. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Penis and Vagina picture

This needs to be added to give the article credability Without it its like have an article on the space shuittle without a pic of the spave shuttle --Meiamme (talk) 03:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

First Image - Sex = Sperm + Egg?

The first image, of a sperm and egg cell fusion, states that sex involves this fusion. However, a lot of the time, it doesn't. I mean, it does involve it some times, so it's not a wrong statement, it just seems to mean like advertising a vacuum cleaner, and promoting it's wheels as the main feature, if you follow the metaphor? That sentence just doesn't define sex, I suppose, is what I'm saying. Thoughts? 69.17.156.15 (talk) 07:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right. The statement is categorically, undeniably false. The sperm and egg cell fusion are a result of sex (and nature's intention for sex), but they are not the encyclopedic definition of sex. I'll adjust the wording of the caption to correct the inaccuracy without altering it's intended meaning.-K10wnsta (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I really like that pic (wish we could get a hi-res), but it just doesn't seem fitting as the opening image for the article. It certainly belongs in the article, just not there. A proper image would somehow summarize the more general aspect of sex, not just one potential result of it (even if it's nature's intended one).

That being said, after mulling it over for a few minutes, I can't seem to determine what might be a proper image to headline the article...maybe I could keyword search 'sex' at Google Images?
Hmmm...somehow, I have a feeling that would be a fruitless endeavor. Well, maybe if we brainstorm it for a while, we can come up with some ideas for what kinds of images would be fitting for an encyclopedic entry on the subject. Whatever it might be, having a high-quality, high-resolution, headlining image for the core articles is a standard we really need to start adhering to as editors of an encyclopedia. :-) -K10wnsta (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Parasite?

The male isn't a parasite if it is providing the female with an ability to reproduce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.129.190 (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Anatomy Photo

From a scientific perspective this photo is absurd. The woman in the photo is not even standing in an anatomical position! This photo needs to be deleted when a proper successor is found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swipeghost (talk • contribs) 23:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Anatomy Picture The woman in this picture as stated, is not standing in a proper anatomical position. The woman is also quite overweight making her unpleasant to look at, and is not ideal for a model anatomy picture. Request for a change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.253.12.31 (talk) 03:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The anatomy photo is quite ridiculous. I agree that the woman is not standing in an anatomical position - this is problematic as it doesn't give a clear picture of the female anatomy. Furthermore she is indeed slightly overweight and thus does not give a representative picture of the normal female anatomy (which she is supposed to display). Moreover she has a shaven pubic area - she has no pubic hair! This is a minority lifestyle choice chosen by some women and thus does not display "the norm" or "the natural" female anatomy. The picture should be changed 82.43.162.109 (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't see a problem in the fact that she is shaved (so is the guy by the way). Thats a very common practice nowadays and I'd say that more women under 30 are shaved or waxed than bushy women. You might as well complain that they cut there fingernails. --91.9.240.159 (talk) 11:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

SEX is good for body —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.13.127.169 (talk) 12:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Removal of anatomy photo from this article

I happened to be involved in the creation of this anatomy photo, and I think it shouldn't be exhibited in this article. I think it is generally a well composed and encyclopedic picture, and that this article also is very encyclopedic and very well written, but, still, it's presence in the Sex-article somehow makes me concerned. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't see your reasons.--Lamilli (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I tend to concur, the image is merely anatomy, non-specific to the reproductive systems. I don't see the text that it is supposed to illustrate. But the picture itself is absolutely useful on the right page(s), I just don't think this one is it. --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. Some of the labels in the image initially made me think it was some kind of 'vandalism in jest' inclusion in this article (although it would certainly be useful in other articles). There's just got to be a more appropriate image. -K10wnsta (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment on the article! I didn't put that picture there; this article understandably accumulates injections from people who want this to be more related to sexual intercourse. Sorry, I haven't been active in Wikipedia for a while and so wasn't around to watch this page, but it looks like it hasn't acquired any new caretaker so I guess I'm still it. Thanks for creating the support in the talk page for removing it! Madeleine ✉ ✍ 18:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Human section removed

====Humans====

The biology of human sexuality examines the influence of biological factors, such as organic and neurological response, heredity, hormones, and sexual dysfunction; it examines the basic functions of reproduction and the physical means to carry out sexual intercourse. The biological perspective helps to analyze the factors, and ultimately aids in understanding them and using them to deal with sexual problems.

I removed the above because I couldn't figure out what it meant or was contributing to a general article about sex as a biological phenomenon. Feel free to try adding it back if you understand it -- but please add more context about what it's trying to say. Alternatively, I think this general sort of material could be included in a more general section about how sex is involved in animal social behavior (including bonobos, dolphins, etc). Madeleine ✉ ✍ 01:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Changes to the lead

I just reverted a significant rewrite of the lead paragraph to the article (that changed its focus/meaning), I'd like issues brought up and discussed here first please. Thanks. -- Madeleine ✉ ✍ 01:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

What sex is

• OK, well first of all, this article is not about the process called "sex" (which is described under "sexual reproduction"); therefore, it should not begin with "sex is a process..." The term "sex" here refers to a label or way of categorizing organisms (male or female). Wolfdog (talk) 03:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • However, I would like to mention that the new edits to "sex" (the edits after my own) now do incorporate the fact that "sex" is also a countable noun and a label. At least we agree on that much. Wolfdog (talk) 03:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

There were no edits after your own, that was simply a reversion to the version before your edits. The fact that you didn't notice that it mentioned this before replacing it with your own material doesn't speak well to the thoughtfulness of your edits.

Sex has multiple meanings, including (a) the process of genetic recombination and (b) the division of organisms into "male" and "female". I chose to begin the first sentence with the first definition and then follow with the second because this division arises in context of the first. That's why the sentence was that way. Both definitions were covered in this original lead sentence. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 15:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Well, that's not very pleasant or fair of you, though I do feel like an idiot. My apologies for not realizing that those original edits read that (with both definitions), though I still intend to devote the article to your "b" defintion of "sex" rather than the "a" definition, since there already is an article called "sexual reproduction" (there is also already even an article on "sexual intercourse") and I believe that this here article should refer to the label.

The phrase "to have sex" is an expression that exactly means "to engage in sexual intercourse." Since you attack my "thoughtfulness," I will argue that both Merriam-Webster Online and Dictionary.com give one of these definitions of "sex" as synonymous with "sexual intercourse." Since there is already an article on sexual intercourse, sexual intercourse should not have to be explained in this article, as well. I know you will fight me, but I'm trying to be organizationally practical. We can have a "You may be looking for..." on this article and on the "sexual intercourse" article write "Sexual intercourse, commonly referred as sex," but we do not need two or more articles on the same concept. Wolfdog (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Just because something covered elsewhere is also within the scope of this article is not justification for removing that information from this article. Even if it were redundant, this is not cause for removal of information, an article should cover everything that falls within its scope, not "everything that isn't already covered elsewhere". Your argument would be more defensible if you argued for the need for additional information, but not if you're arguing to remove "redundant information". Where would the Genetics article be if you decided to remove everything already covered in DNA and Evolution?

That said, the sexual intercourse article is not redundant with this one. The scope of it is clearly human-oriented and, while seems to touch upon animal behavior, it does not cover plants and other eukaryotes. It also very clearly does not attempt to describe the biology and how it involves genetic recombination. To put it bluntly, that article is about f***ing, not about the biological process of sex.

I didn't mean to be rude, but I've put a lot of thought into this article. This article, among other things, is a donation of my time and expertise to Wikipedia. -- Madeleine ✉ ✍ 17:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Use of HTML5 "aside"

Many books and now an HTML5 tag use "aside". This is used when you want to mention something that is related to the text, but does not fit in with the general direction of the text. Back in 2008 (not sure if it is still an issue), there was discussion about Animals section being wrong, because one species of animals reproduce differently. Putting that info into an "aside" (box of text slightly highlighted, maybe?) would allow the info to be added to the article without distracting from the flow of the article. Maybe even a "Did you know ...". This is what a lot of children's encylopedias, Discovery Magazine (children's), etc. do to handle this "problem". Zzmonty (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Last paragraph of "Animal" section - unclear antecedent and improper use of term

Just as a start, in the sentence: "Because of their motility, animal sexual behavior can involve coercive sex." The antecendent of "their" is unclear. When I first read the sentence, I thought that the "motility" referred back to spermatozoa in the preceding paragraph. But no, it appears that the antecedent of "their" is presumably "animals." If that is the case, then the sentence should read "Because of animals' motility, animal sexual behavior can involve coercive sex." (the repetition of "animals" would be justified by the need to keep the hyperlink intact).

Having said that, one can't help wondering about the term "coercive sex." First, in an article entitled "Sex," the use of "sex" here in a much more restrictive and even contradictory sense is inappropriate (it should be replaced by "copulation"). Further, the term "coercive sex" appears to me to be entirely human-centric. From the point of view of animals taken as a group, "sex" (copulation) is neither coercive nor non-coercive. Coercion may be involved in the act of copulation, but so is consent. Both, or neither, are inherent in the act - except, possibly, in the case of humans. The inclusion of these two sentences suggests some sort of political intent - an apology for "coercive sex." Does anyone agree with me on this?

In any case, the two points made earlier regarding the unclear antecedent and the improper use of the term "sex" in "coercive sex" stand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lestrad (talk • contribs) 05:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

pictures

someone put some porn on this page! enough of the diagrams! 67.161.29.50 (talk) 01:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a more helpful concern: when I imagine an image for sex, sperm 'n egg isn't the iconic image. Perhaps this is a relatively-modern and human-centered view, but they do not seem so essential to the process. I feel like a naturalist image of some sort of human or animal having sex would not be tremendously helpful, though. I wonder without suggesting a better alternative if there's not a better image we could use?69.94.192.147 (talk) 00:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)