RationalWiki's 2019 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2019.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $3900Goal: $6000

Talk:Sex

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon sex.svg

This Sexuality related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Steelbrain.png

Need some science[edit]

Since that site is science-related: may you add some hypotheses about sex? Matt Ridley's Red Queen for example. 213.80.209.169 (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

What no ..[edit]

Is this cp I've slipped into by mistake? No talk about s e x! oops! forgot to sign - sorry I'm new here RojerB 14:30, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Too busy having sex and writing more articles about it, probably. We keep our sex talk everywhere else on the site, too. humanbe in 15:11, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Conservapedia[edit]

Isn't this article a tad Conservapediacentric?--Bobbing up 04:13, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Yeah, a bit. Which is ironic, since CPians don't have sex. Or gender. It was probably created in our early mad rush to cover topics that CP censors heavily. Like most of the "sex" articles... humanUser talk:Human 16:03, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Let's Talk: Sex![edit]

Shouldn't we be inviting Dr. Ruth?  ;-) --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 04:39, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Do you mean Celibate as simply unmarried or the no-sex meaning. Admitadly a christian who is inmarried would never have sex , would they ? Oh, ya missed the cabbage method. Parents , no sex, find baby under cabbage leaf. Its how I was born. Hamster (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Couldn't you have waited one more day????? SO CLOSE -- =w= 22:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Definition of sex[edit]

Under meanings of sex, masturbation and consensual sex between members of the same species are mentioned. Should rape and sex between different species be included? This may not be bestiality- hybrids of many plants, and some animals, are produced by mating two members of different species. Would have just edited, but both rape and interspecies sex are touchy subjects.— Unsigned, by: Dark daemon / talk / contribs

Probably worth mentioning under a sub-heading "touchy subjects", or similar. Scarlet A.pngmoral 06:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Non-reproductive sex[edit]

Being a non-expert in the subject, I know of organisms that engage in non-reproductive sex (which is to say, they swap genes with their fellow single-celled critters before going off to reproduce asexually). Where do they fit in the fossil record? Should this be mentioned? 238U. 11:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Funny Thing[edit]

If you play 'Fear of the Dark' while watching the gif, it syncs.HKJGN (talk) 13:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposal[edit]

I propose new introduction to the article, it's visible in Fossil Records. -- DasRationalpersone Socks cat 1.JPG (Annoy me!) 15:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


For the other meaning of word "sex," see Gender.

Sex is biological act of procreation at animals, while at human species it may be more properly defined as satisfying one's sexual needs.


On account of digging through previous revisions being a pain, I've copied that version and placed it above. Scarlet A.png...I'll reiterate your tadpole! 15:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. -- DasRationalpersone Socks cat 1.JPG (Annoy me!) 16:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
What's your problem with the current article? Pink mowse.pngGodotGet over it!. 16:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I just don't see sense in bombarding the introduction with three definitions of title word when the article obviously talks about one of them. Remember disambiguation? That's what they're for. -- DasRationalpersone Socks cat 1.JPG (Annoy me!) 16:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Good point. It's an amusing enough idea to present the different definitions next to each other, but in a lead paragraph, in an article rather than dictionary? Not so much. Scarlet A.png...I'll shove your disaster! 16:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
So, if noone has any objections, I'll just put in my definition. -- DasRationalpersone Socks cat 1.JPG (Annoy me!) 13:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Undoubtedly there'll be thousands of objections, and a vote, but only after you've changed it. I would go ahead and add the simplest explanation that's relevant to the context of the article - if anyone is really feeling pedantic we can add a section below that explaining others. I do want to remind people that this is an article, not a dictionary, though. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 13:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
My bad. Sam Tally-ho! 18:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
No biggie. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 23:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Bringing it back to what it was before DasRationale messed it up.[edit]

Sex or sexual intercourse is biological act of procreation at animals, while at human species it may be more properly defined as satisfying one's sexual needs. Humans tend to restrict acceptable types of sexual intercourses only to types that are morally acceptable..." If you think that is an improvement over what's there now, you're on crack. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 15:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Please present arguments before calling me a drug addict. Until then, you have no right to reverse me. -- DasRationalpersone Socks cat 1.JPG (Annoy me!) 16:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Your writing is shit. It's full of basic grammatical mistakes, and it's incredibly selfish of you to reinsert them without trying to fix them. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 16:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I know my writing is shit, I'm not a native speaker. We might as well leave primary definition in the article, but only one of them. -- DasRationalpersone Socks cat 1.JPG (Annoy me!) 16:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you're not a native speaker. That said, your version is stilted, stiff, and has none of the stylistic fun of a Ratwik article. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 16:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
??? Isn't the stylistic fun for more suitable for Fun: section? -- DasRationalpersone Socks cat 1.JPG (Annoy me!) 16:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

You must be new here. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 16:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm.png Scarlet A.pngtheist 17:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Circular Definition[edit]

This page refers to the page on gender ("commonly...synonymous with gender"), without ever actually defining "sex" in terms of biological male and female. And the page on "gender" defines gender as "the set of sociological, behavioural and cultural characteristics associated with each biological sex," and links to the page on sex.

In other words, as written, these definitions either form a vicious circle, or are demonstrably false; sex is ("commonly") synonymous with gender, but gender is non-biological, which means that sex (male and female) is not biological. If sex is different from gender this should be stated explicitly, and "sex" should be defined independently of gender. — Unsigned, by: Flabb / talk / contribs

Then fix it. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 18:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I have fixed this. “Biological sex” is determined by the motility of the organism's gametes. Not their genitals, not their hormones, not anything else. As far as sexual reproduction goes for biologists—and thus assigning sex to an organism—it involves one and only one important and necessary element: the male has a gamete that self-propels itself, and the female has a gamete that doesn't.
All the rest are just highly correlated characteristics, that cannot be used to 100% guarantee assignment of a biological sex, let alone our perception of the sex of another individual. Thus trying to use any “biological sex” to assert against another's identity cannot be sustained, unless you're getting stupid technical.
N.B. the biological sex of an individual would put many assigned-at-birth women as male, and as such, rarely gets asserted by actual biologists, because they don't want to stir that pot of dealing with all the social issues involved with forcing a social class and presentation upon anyone. Especially, when none of that has anything to do with actual biological sex. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 00:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Differences between men and women, in a nutshell[edit]

New video from ASAPscience! While a video like this obviously races through things, it's interesting to see the nuance resulting from an integration of scientific findings on biological and cultural factors alike. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)