Portal talk:Sexuality/Archive 1

dubious
I'm a bit dubious of this but I'll watch this space Alf melmac 20:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I would like to give a bit of portal space to transgender topics. Does that have a place in this portal, or would it be best for me to start a new Transgender portal? Andrea Parton 04:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I feel that it is best to start a new Transgender portal as the subject matter is vast. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  19:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Logo
Can we have an image to represent this portal? I've put an interim solution to allow a link from Portal:Biology but am not really happy with it. It should be replaced with something more inviting. - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject?
Is there an associated WikiProject with the Sexuality portal? If not, there really should be one, as I'm sure that there are people interested in Sex/Sexuality but not necessarily in Pornography or LGBT issues. 24.126.199.129 05:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, WikiProject_Sexology_and_Sexuality has a broader focus on sexuality. It had been inactive for some time, but I think there are four members active currently. Atom 10:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

News about SSM in Spain
I notice that your current news is about Same-sex marriage in Spain. You might like to include a link to the article about that - it is a featured article. :) Aleta 16:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Sexual orientation
Hi, there is currently a spirited debate occurring on Template_talk:Sexual orientation concerning what should and should not be included on the template (which is a sidebar that is included on a number of articles about sexual orientation-related topics). The debate centers around whether pomosexuality, autosexuality, zoosexuality and paraphilias are considered orientations. There are several draft proposals on the table, but we could use more voices in the discussion. Thanks! Steve CarlsonTalk 01:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Lust
Is lust currently part of this portal? I ask because a) the lust article needs a lot of work (unfortunately I don't currently have time, but others may), and b) I think it is relevant. PollyWaffler (talk) 00:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite agree. Zazaban (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Symbolism
The current symbol is a bit confused. Ostensibly the arrow is supposed to represent the male projection, while the circle supposedly represents the being - or all other (non-sexual) aspects thereof. Thus the female symbol might be thought of as similar - the circle representing the being, and the crossed bar representing her own sexual aspects of depth and mystery (what does the cross mean, anyway?)

Anyway, it should be obvious thus that if the concept is about using the arrow as a projection into the female being, what is her own sexuality doing in the picture? I admit I can't quite figure out another composition that keeps the diagonal and vertical positioning, and yet satisfies my conjecture that the female sexuality has something to do with sex. The current configuration does not suffice. It does not represent dualistic mutual sexuality as much as it does a concept of male perpetration. And would not the continued widespread use of this symbol on this site potentially put this perpetration into perpetuity?

Is it even a canonical, historical symbolism of sexuality, or is it a kind of conjectured configuration, such that an artist might create as an original, but inexact attempt at coining symbolism? There are several similar attempts on commons - the best of which shows the rings interlocking - such as to represent not a fixated perpetration of parts, but a union of human beings. Granted, basic sexuality is not as much about loving someone else as it is about expressing (and sharing) one's own love for being alive. Lust and pleasure are themselves simply expressions of vitality - provided these are not themselves bogged down in destructive and deviated ideas. But these points only substantiate the above view that the symbolism is insufficient. -Stevertigo 06:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think these are 2 old alchemical symbols that have just become a worldwide convention for male and female. I don't think an encyclopedia is a good place to start an analysis of this. But personally, I'd be perfectly happy with the alternate symbol for the page. And I'd probably be happy with any other alternative too. Have a look at what's been done at other sexuality portals (the foreign links at the left of the page). --Simon Speed (talk) 09:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, one of these might work instead.

-Stevertigo 20:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I quite like the 2nd one:it doesn't seem to specify too much in the precise nature of any relationship. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I think it could be cleaned up a bit to make it more graphically integrated, but I like it too. -Stevertigo 18:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Something broadly similar to File:Sexes-planetary-sym-dimcolors.svg is pretty much the only solution if you want to show the male and female symbols interpenetrating in their standard orientations (i.e. with the cross below the circle in the case of the female symbol, and the arrow to the northeast of the circle in the case of the male symbol). However, when I made this image, I really didn't have the esoteric philosophical abstruse metaphysical implications in mind which Stevertigo deduced in his message of August 28 above (though if you look carefully, you'll see that part of the green cross overlaps onto the red circle, so that the male symbol isn't simply "on top" of the female symbol).

Anyway, File:Sex.symbol.alt.svg looks like a femdom symbol more than a sex symbol, while File:HeteroSym-pinkblue2.svg kind of expresses the interdependence of male and female, but isn't necessarily directly a symbol of sexuality (and in any case, the male symbol is visually "higher" than the female symbol in that image, which isn't true for the others)... AnonMoos (talk) 12:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

change to Anal sex page
I recently have noticed some changes to the Anal Sex article. I have studied human sexuality at the graduate level and I believe this article to contain a strong degree of bias against both the practice and gay groups. The article focuses unnecessarily on "frot" groups... any LBGT activist would find this offensive I believe. The article goes on to combat what it sees as "myths" about anal sex. I have read articles similar to this one in Divinity school, and the overwhelming belief amongst both professors and students is that such arguments border on homophobia. I don't know exactly who has the right to change the article, but its original form was fine. I find the current form of the article blatantly offensive and I am trying to get as many LBGT professors and thinkers to look at the article. Others have raised issues in the discussion group, but those discussions also seem to be removed at this point.

I will be contacting as many experts on the medical and humanities side of this article as I can. I would request that others with greater editing privileges do the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.164.194.201 (talk) 07:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Judderwocky (talk) 07:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Homosexuality undergoing revision
The article Homosexuality is undergoing revision. The revised version is available in the sandbox and the project documentation and coordination is taking place in the Sandbox's talk page.

I would appreciate if people joined in. I'm currently looking towards forming a team for the revision and future maintenance of this article.

Thank you, Pdorion (talk) 07:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)