Template talk:Sex

He's Right, You Know
Sex isn't all about gayness.

...that's fanfiction! --Kels 22:49, 23 December 2007 (EST)


 * If I am right, then how come you reverted my edit? 209.17.190.78 22:53, 23 December 2007 (EST)
 * Because the flag includes everyone '''

human ''' 23:16, 23 December 2007 (EST)
 * (Yes and no. The flag represents the LGBT community. The flag  symbolizes the diversity of human sexuality and gender.  A heterosexual is part of the spectrum of human sexuality and thus included in the rainbow, but they're not what comes to someone's mind when they see the flag. And sexuality is only a small part of the lived experience of our global community. Many aspects of people's lives, beyond sex, are different for LGBT people. The internet's answer is: The rainbow flag, also known as the pride flag, is a symbol of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) pride and LGBT social movements. The colors reflect the diversity of the LGBT community and the spectrum of human sexuality and gender. Using a rainbow flag as a symbol of gay pride began in San Francisco, California, but eventually became common at LGBT rights events worldwide. Source: Wikipedia.)

Rayzoo (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * How does it inudle everyone? &mdash;
 * The point of the rainbow is to show the incredible range of human sexuality. Even so-called "straight" or heterosexual people engage in a wide variety of, um, "practices".  Hence the rainbow flag. It even includes you. ''' &mdash;

human  23:22, 23 December 2007 (EST)

How did the flag image get broken? It's still in the source, but vanishes before it loads.  ħ uman  17:35, 4 February 2009 (EST)
 * Ah, I see, it was too wide to fit in the table I guess. Fixed.  ħ uman  17:38, 4 February 2009 (EST)
 * I widened it so that the title fits into one line. It worked for me though. Try changing the width in the first line -- Nx  talk 17:41, 4 February 2009 (EST)
 * Well, I just made the image narrower until it worked. Weird that it worked for some and not others. Thanks!  ħ uman  19:37, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Style
I'm beginning to wonder if we shouldn't make this into a wide, at-the-bottom-of-the-article style template, since it's buggering up our ability to appropriately thumbnail illustrations on quite a few shorter pages. Thoughts, anyone?  ħ uman  17:30, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Reformat
As most of this doesn't revolve around pseudoscience, I just wanted to flag this up on talk first. I've recently gone and made a few sub-category templates all based around pseudosciencenav. IMHO, they're pretty, they're consistent and they're neat. Would anyone object to altering this one to match? 16:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Go for it. These sidebars are really nice - David Gerard (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that the red does clash with the flag, at least in my last edit I changed the colours slightly and it seems to match with the red in the flag. As for the things matching, I like the concept of a house style for RW articles, it's something worth working on in order to distinguish the look of the site from Wikipedia, which I think we often run the risk of being confused with. 19:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * At least change the red to pink? (I will).  I don't see a need for these all to look alike, but, whatever.  By the way, there is a sizing error in all these - the box around the "header" title thing at 30 px high leaves a chunk of empty space below the text.  I've changed a few to 20 so far.  Why do they all have to say "part of the series on", by the way?  20:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Better than "20" is to ditch the height tag entirely. 20:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The "series on" comes from the pseudoscience template, I like it as a generic template header but if there are better wordings, please change it. The hot pink is... well, nice, sort of, very blithe and gay. But I see what you mean about the height parameter. I'll kill it on all of them. 21:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. My only "quibble" with it is that most of these are random selections from the category that is auto-added, which isn't quite a "series".  Not much of a big deal of course.  Thanks for fixing the height thing, you remember where these things are better than I since you were just working on them.  I come across them randomly... I wonder if they should go in a subcat of "navigation templates" to make them easier to find?  Ditto the other "styles" of nav boxes we have?  02:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it probably needs a bit ol' sorting out. I'll take a look. 10:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoops 11:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Heternormative Bullshit.
Is there a way to have the intertwined male/female symbols at the bottom of the template randomly appear as various combinations of genders? P-Foster Talk " a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement. " 02:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with the title, and yes, if we have the images to select randomly from. 02:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, they are intertwined so it could be interpreted as intersex. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * we stole it from here, and there are several others : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Sexual_identity_symbols [[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot    Dear god, fucking grow up 02:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Can we just use any/all of those in a random fashion (except those that would render too small, like maybe the last one?) P-Foster Talk " a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement. " 02:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, using the #choose function. I happen to be away from my computer at the moment. 02:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I have no idea to do that. Can somebody else? P-Foster Talk " a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement. " 02:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have done it. 03:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice. Thanks. P-Foster Talk " a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement. " 04:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yey! I got the symbol for spit-roasting! Scarlet A.pnggnostic 11:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it'd look better if we had little stick figures instead of gender symbols. Balaam (talk) 11:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Saving a seat for E.Wig
User:E.Wig has some concerns regarding the current snark on the sex template, snark which has stood uncontested since the 14th of December 2015. Since attempting to bait me into an edit war, failing to heed the community standards on talkpaging before changing the status quo (and yes — it is the status quo by now), I've decided to help him as best I can by setting the table for him here. For a man appealing so powerfully to 9 year outdated old template text, he's certainly not that interested in the time-tested rules on talkpaging. E.Wig, if you please? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * (EC)Saying that ten-month-old text should stand because it's ten months old is not good grounds for a keep. It's a wiki - where text is "edited mercilessly" according to the notice you get every tie you want to edit. If E.Wig finds it objectionable, but you don't, then discuss and find consensus by all means, but make it about the content, not the age of the relevant save point. Bicycle  wheel Toxic mowse.gif 16:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely true. However, don't fail to notice that E.Wig insisted that the responsibility to explain anything lie not with him — the person crashing in and making a guerilla edit to something that has stood for a year — but on those who would say "Actually, you're not improving it. It was better the way it was." You will agree that a refusal to talkpage (combined with an apparent willingness to edit war) is inherently detrimental, I'm sure. But besides that — the fact remains that me and CheeseburgerFace think my text was funnier. Two to one, so far. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I like the "Glad you came" text better, it has more character than E.Wig's text.  16:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I prefer the snarky version as well. We have an SPOV here, and if E.Wig doesn't like that, he should probably go somewhere else. As regards BW's comment on pages being "edited mercilessly": this also applies to the original template, and RBP had every right to edit it.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, that makes three to one. Yee-haw! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, E. Wig did provide a justification in his edit comment ('Reinstating non-peurile version that doesn't change nearly 9 year old text bc childish editor thinks a strained ref to reacharounds belongs on dozens of pages bc he says so'), and Mr. Percy really didn't. There is no requirement for a "more snarky" version to be better, and the comment, "Get with the times, grandpa" is sexist and ageist. It's evident that RationalWiki has reached a paradigm of double standards for some editors--some have to give justifications, while others do not or are so poor as to be laughable, and cheered on by the argumentless (no reasoning) "good post" template for groupthink purposes. RationalWiki continues to lower the bar on how it treats its community an ad hoc standards. Taba (talk) 17:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This template appears to be sarcastic and pointless. Bicycle  wheel Toxic mowse.gif 17:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Like life itself, my beloved... Like life itself.   Also nurturing a developed sense of irony really pays for itself    Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Reverend Black Percy has already acknowledged the argument about age discrimination and has taken it back, therefore making your reiteration of Bicycles Wheel's argument moot. If it is necessary, we can open a debate but as of now E.Wig has not even touched the talk page on the matter.  17:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, if he or she made the point in the edit comment, why the need to make it again especially if the opposing side has done a shitty job of making its case? The double standard continues. Taba (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ITT: We discuss with one of Conscience's socks, who is only resurrected to stir shit (appearing with us tonight with his first edits since the June coop — great job!). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * [EC] Hmm, lemme see... First edit since July, both Taba and E.Wig made their first edits after a few years' leave during the coop case in early June, both of them have a general tendency to be a dick, not to mention continuous whining about how RW has fallen from greatness since the days of old...--JorisEnter (talk) 17:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That is, I have no argument based on content, so I'll attack character. You are a child. I am not conscience. Your evidence is weak and anecdotal. Taba (talk) 17:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The best part was when he said "I have no argument based on content, so I'll attack character" immediately followed by "You are a child". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * --JorisEnter (talk) 17:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What else is there to do since the lot of you bully everyone else around? You have no interest in listening to anyone but each other. Taba (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And when you double-posted this without wondering if there might have been an edit conflict, you called me an "arrogant prick who deletes posts", approximately six minutes after claiming that "I have no argument based on content, so I'll attack character." I think my irony meter just overloaded.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * [EC] Learn how to indent your posts, please. Also, I doubt that you understand what anecdotal evidence means.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Taba (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That's gold, Jerry! Gold! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, no interest in content. Taba (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll leave Joris Enter to the pounding in his head this echo chamber must produce. Instead, let's just talk about what you want people to think about your site. Do you think a pleasant and inviting introduction to the template is more appropriate, or do you prefer a very strained and crass reference to anal sex and masturbation? I say strained because "Reach around the subject" makes no sense. I have never heard a single person ever use that locution, and I say crass because it's clearly inserted for its shock value. This is inappropriate on an allegedly serious site. Claiming this reference to anal sex and masturbation is "snarky" (a) misses the point of whether it's nonetheless wise or appropriate, and (b) is based on a misunderstanding of what snarky actually means. Snarky is not funny or cute. It's got a definition, which supporters of Reverend's reference to anal sex and masturbation in a template that shows up on dozens of pages should read. Also, not that it should matter to people who are interested in rational discussion and debate rather than character attack by insinuation, I'm not Conscience. Before Gerard unilaterally banned Conscience, the account was edited by at least several editors, not including me. I'm also not Taba. Nonetheless, I'm sure we'll see Joris Enter dishonestly continue insisting he's correct and that it matters. In short, I justified my edits; Reverend made no attempt to substantively address my comment, instead insisting I'm subject to a different standard than he was when he instituted his improper edit, which I'm fairly confident will get little support from the older respectable editors; his version is childish, gross, and embarrassing. Ë. (talk) 18:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * E.Wig claims not to be the same person(s) as Conscience yet apparently has inside information on the operators of the Conscience account, while also using a particular spelling of my name Conscience was particularly fond of.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for being in touch with like 4 people who disagree with you. And sorry for assuming that your camel caps spelling of JorisEnter meant Joris Enter. This is all very compelling evidence of something that doesn't matter. Why don't you have anything relevant or substantive to say? Ë. (talk) 18:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * @Ear Wig You sure do seem to love constantly writing out the phrase "anal sex". The good news are, we're not homophobes, nor religious prudes, so we're not particularly shocked by that. Speaking of sexism — you will take note of the fact that the sexual act known as a "reacharound" is gender neutral, not male-exclusive, like you keep insisting. The fact that you decided to throw a foul punch at your favorite arch-nemesis Joris comes as no surprise, either. And speaking of "our site" (as you rather revealingly phrase it); it actually has a sense of humor. It's interesting to note that you have a conception about what happened to Conscience and that "Gerard was behind it" (like is so often the accusation from people like you) — though I suppose that makes sense, as you only resurrect your sockpuppets to stir things up. The fact of the matter remains — more editors found the current version funny than did the 9 year old one. The better version stays. Problem solved. I leave the rest of the theorizing up to you, Conscience. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Solving this
Take a vote. No discussion allowed in this section; the above proves that it would be puerile. 19:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * All deliberative systems have discussion, such as Robert's Rules. You're not going to allow it? Really? One side could be persuaded by the other. Taba (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No persuasion will occur at the level of discourse you're showing. 19:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You are using your power to dismiss ewigs points. And not allowing anyone else to discuss it. This isn't a way to have a fair website. It's a groupthink incubator. Taba (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There were 40 edits of "discussion". Everyone got mad; nothing got resolved. Enough talk; now vote. 19:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

For Reverend Black Percy's version
http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Sex&diff=1747301&oldid=1747299

"We're so glad you came" Sex "Reach around the subject"


 * 1) Against the prudes, and in the name of punsters everywhere. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Duh.--JorisEnter (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 3)  19:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) I like, therefore I vote. Nerd271 (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) El percy negro tiene mi voto Worzelpete (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

For E.Wig's version
http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Sex&diff=1747299&oldid=1747298

"Part of the series on" Sex. "A baker's dozen on sex"


 * 1) Reverend literally made up the phrase "reach around the subject" and it's not funny, if that's even the best standard. Aside from the attacks and irrelevance, his entire justification is based on whether he can do something, not whether he should, and his vapid cheerleader has even less of substance to say. Embarrassing. Ë. (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) I came here via the template, not knowing what the subject under "discussion" (for what, 150 minutes?) was.  I was mildly embarrassed by the schoolboy nudge-nudge-wink-wink humor, and before clicking on "talk", wondered to myself "did we really write those lame lines?"  Puerile "joke" is puerile and unsophisticated.  Nothing wrong with change, but this one (the ten month old one) was not an improvement.   ħ uman [[Image:human sig talk.gif|link=User talk:Human|User talk:Human]] 17:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Pointless sexism
Pointless dickery presumes that it's not worth discussing anything. In fact, RBP required it. Which is it? It's also rather sexist. Taba (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * --JorisEnter (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Change color
I would appreciate if someone changed the protection or changed the color of the frame, since it's the sort of magenta that stings my eyes. 20:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Is #FF009B better? 22:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you. 02:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Use of LGBT Flag as Symbol for Sexuality Template: Feeding Flames of Hate?
The template's image is a rainbow flag. I see that this relates to "Sexuality," but to me it is flawed for these 2 reasons:

1. Template : Sex contains many articles related to sexual behaviors considered abnormal or harmful (like incest, bestiality, rape etc). Using the unrelated rainbow flag as the cover art for all of these may feed homophobia and conspiratorial thinking.

2. The rainbow flag represents the LGBT+ community, emphasis on the "T". Transgender identity is not a form of sexuality but the image implicates this group in the Template subject.

Thoughts? Suggestions for alternatives? Rayzoo (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The rainbow flag is generally thought of a diverse range of sexual orientations and gender identities. Additionally, the rape article is classified as a crime tag but yeah you can see abuse being put under there. I do see an issue of conflating LGBT with general sex abuses which are all too often attempted to be associated with but there's the challenge of trying to reclassify the tag. Also yeah pride encompasses sex and gender identity, which are often related but since the template is strictly about sex and related activities (we have a gender template) yeah you could be lumping two different (but related) subjects. Maybe we could change it to like a bird and a bee to represent that activity without being explicit. I also thought about hearts, but sex is easily confused with attraction (sexual attraction and romantic attraction are related things, but not interchangeable). 21:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Birds and bees honestly seems like a better alternative

Rayzoo (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with Rayzoo's reasoning that the current icon is problematic. Birds and bees seem like be an appropriate alternative, or perhaps a silhouette of rabbits doing what rabbits do best. Nope Rocket (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)


 * the rainbow flag does not merely represent sexuality, but the cultures and communities that have risen around the identities that are included under the umbrella of LGBT. the usage of the flag on this site is not at all problematic. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I was mincing words when I described it as "problematic." The category this template draws from includes rape and pedophilia. In the current political climate, associating rape and pedophilia with the rainbow flag, and thus the LGBT community as a whole, isn't merely "problematic." It's pouring petrol – however unintentionally – on an out-of-control conflagration of violence and hate. There are any number of alternatives that could be adopted: birds and bees, fucking rabbits, an "XXX" symbol, a lipstick imprint. All of those have the potential to be eye-catching and amusingly tongue-in-cheek, and could succinctly communicate the concept of sexuality as it pertains to sexual practices and expression. Might not be perfect, but it would be better than the current icon. Nope Rocket (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)