This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
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))
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)
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)
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)
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)
there is a sexual intercourse link at the top of this page - it's clearly there ObamaGirlMachine ( talk) 18:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
you guyz, common every edit needs not to be perfect.
The article's opening sentence is as follows:
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:
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:
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:
To elaborate:
And to state it further, via material from the article itself:
Because I am not satisfied with my recommendation’s treatment of hermaphrodites (insofar as I understand those entities), I revise it again:
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:
The article’s opening sentence is presently this:
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:
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:
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:
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)
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)
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)
Well 'intersexual's' denaturalise the binary classification of sex. All we do by not mentioning them where we're mentioning males and females in this context is helping pre-port the idea that the classifications of sex in their current form are binary. Whilst the term inter-sexual is iffy, because these humans surely have a sex, and are not 'between sexes', all we go to show is that they are being overlooked by not mentioning them. The article the five sexes (
http://frank.mtsu.edu/~phollowa/5sexes.html )sheds some light on this. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
178.78.77.239 (
talk) 22:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
"Sometimes an organism's development is intermediate between male and female, a condition called intersex. Sometimes intersex individuals are called "hermaphrodite"; but, unlike biological hermaphrodites, intersex individuals are unusual cases and are not typically fertile in both male and female aspects."
Is it really correct to claim that they are 'betwee male and female". Surely they're a sex in themselves, and shouldn't be looked at as between two sexes?
This should talk more about humans, not animals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.131.43.185 ( talk) 15:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The spelling should be corrected (it's deoxyribonucleic acid, not dioxy-). Sflyte120 ( talk) 21:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
Why is there no section on homosexuality here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.14.172 ( talk) 00:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
someone put some porn on this page! enough of the diagrams! 67.161.29.50 ( talk) 01:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Plus,kids could be on this site as for education purposes, and walla!! a picture quite frightening to youngsters, porn is definately not needed on this site- Force101
Usually 'sex' refers to sexual intercourse so sex should redirect there. I doubt anybody would refer to sexual reproduction of plants, for example, as 'sex'. This article should be renamed 'sexual reproduction'-- MathFacts ( talk) 13:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
Siddarth7679 (
talk) 19:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
If think we should have a picture of a couple getting it on. I'm willing to post a picture from my own private collection —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.252.236 ( talk) 03:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
'how do you have sex. like, what has to happen for someone to have "sexual intecource"?' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.59.228.35 ( talk) 17:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I was reading "Witty's blog", specifically the article about the Indianapolis Children's Museum, and was amused at the statement that if you google "sex", the first hit is Wikipedia's article. Just out of curiosity, I googled "sex", and sure enough, there was Wikipedia right at the top of the list. Being the insatiable reader I am, I was just looking over the article when I noticed something that made me say, "Huh?" It was the following statement:
"Chromosomes are passed on from one parent to another in this process."
This statement is found near the beginning of the article, and although I'm not a geneticist, I'm pretty sure this is inaccurate. Parents pass their chromosomes along to their children, not to each other.
Although I have been a fan of Wikipedia for many years, I have never even attempted to get into editing or anything of the sort. I have merely been an end-user. So as not to screw anything up, but at the same time maintain the integrity of your information, I thought I would just pass my comment along, and perhaps someone with more experience can fix this.
I just read some of the "Talk Page Guidelines", and I'm not sure I complied exactly, and I hope this doesn't get lost, but I am out of time to spend on this. My apologies if there is a problem with the way I did this.
Now let me see if I can get the signature correct. I THINK I understood the instructions.
Cinnamon taffy ( talk) 17:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I added material under Evolution to reflect the other main view on the evolution of sex, as indicated in the articles Evolution of sexual reproduction and in Meiosis in the subsection "Origin and function of meiosis." Bernstein0275 ( talk) 22:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
'While the evolution of sex itself dates to the eukaryote stage, the origin of chromosmoal sex determination is younger. ' Should be chromosomal 99.22.65.218 ( talk) 23:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I think there's needed a lock in Wikipedia to keep children away from sexuality (The most inporant is the pictures,that show sex or sexual organs uncensored).I recomend 3 different safety types: 1.Lock for children:Wikipedia users MUST add their birth dates and users under 18 can't read pages about sexuality and can't read or watch sexual content on non-sex pages too [The sexuality pages for children can't be watchable (These links will be a red link and the search engine will can't find these articles for children)].And when the young user want to make an another user (That has an age over 18) to view just pages about sexuality,all of his/her users will be blocked for never ending time and unable for registration.
2.Child versions:These versions are limited versions for people under 18 when viewing pages about sexuality [These pages will only show information that safe for children and pictures that safe for children too (Pictures about animal sexuality and pictures pictures about child sex organs,that maked from childrens 14 or under.The pictures about real human sex,erotica and products from the sex indrusty will not showed)]IMPORANT:The age can't be changed after the first registration on an IP anddress.
3.No images about sex:Pictures about sex can't uploaded to Commons and Wikipedia (except animal sex).That users that uploades sex images,will be blocked for never ending time. I extremely recommend one of these options. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.44.18.224 ( talk) 17:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
GAY! 97.102.133.8 ( talk) 21:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
we have forgotten to mention that it's a very enjoyable endeavor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.64.106.232 ( talk) 22:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
One more time, please Wikipedia is NOT the place to advertising a website, even if that website is under the Creative Common banner. So your arguing that Creative Commons wants get traffic in order to get donations is NOT a valid reason.
Moreover, as I already explained in the talk page of User:John_Torn, the mentioned link has the following issues: Wikipedia do not allow:
The link you posted has all this issues. Therefore should not be in the article. So I'll remove the link one more time. -- Dia^ ( talk) 14:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
One more time, Wikipedia is NOT the place to put forward any agenda and your argument that
"The CC - is not one of others, but is more important. It is the Greatest Emperor, " has absolute no value at all. Your request for a protection has been refused and I asked for a third opinion. Threatening me with absurd notice on my talk page will not help you in the least. I'd like to point out, that you only two edits (a part from you user page) has been the insertion of 2 external links to Creative Commons and threatening me. --
Dia^ (
talk) 09:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian ( talk) 07:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Sex → Sexual intercourse – "Sex" is only a noun when it relates to the form of a species (ie male or female), it isn't a verb~(see http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sex ). Move it to sexual intercourse, redirect "sex" to gender 91.182.110.199 ( talk) 08:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please say that sex is fun but you should not experience sex with your mother father brother sisters or cousins. aunts and uncles are finr Beachbum4 ( talk) 01:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, please read the article - your suggestion is a bit off-topic. Fun, yes, but wrong place. Vsmith ( talk) 02:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
??? 76.180.168.166 ( talk) 14:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
To say that 'Sex is a biological property of organisms having male and female varieties' is not the same as saying that 'In biology, sexual reproduction is a process of combining and mixing genetic traits, often resulting in the specialization of organisms into a male or female variety, each known as a sex. In one case, sex is a property of having varieties, and in the other each variety is known as a sex. There are no grounds for saying the first when the other is obviously true. If the only reason is some obscure Wikipedia guideline about making the article title the subject of the first sentence, then I say that we need to stick to the actual definition of what a sex is, rather then making stuff up to meet style guidelines. I have therefore reverted these edits. (Sorry, but I clicked the wrong link, and didn't give myself a chance to add an edit summary pointing here) -- Nigelj ( talk) 21:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
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))
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)
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)
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)
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)
there is a sexual intercourse link at the top of this page - it's clearly there ObamaGirlMachine ( talk) 18:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
you guyz, common every edit needs not to be perfect.
The article's opening sentence is as follows:
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:
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:
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:
To elaborate:
And to state it further, via material from the article itself:
Because I am not satisfied with my recommendation’s treatment of hermaphrodites (insofar as I understand those entities), I revise it again:
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:
The article’s opening sentence is presently this:
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:
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:
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:
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)
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)
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)
Well 'intersexual's' denaturalise the binary classification of sex. All we do by not mentioning them where we're mentioning males and females in this context is helping pre-port the idea that the classifications of sex in their current form are binary. Whilst the term inter-sexual is iffy, because these humans surely have a sex, and are not 'between sexes', all we go to show is that they are being overlooked by not mentioning them. The article the five sexes (
http://frank.mtsu.edu/~phollowa/5sexes.html )sheds some light on this. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
178.78.77.239 (
talk) 22:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
"Sometimes an organism's development is intermediate between male and female, a condition called intersex. Sometimes intersex individuals are called "hermaphrodite"; but, unlike biological hermaphrodites, intersex individuals are unusual cases and are not typically fertile in both male and female aspects."
Is it really correct to claim that they are 'betwee male and female". Surely they're a sex in themselves, and shouldn't be looked at as between two sexes?
This should talk more about humans, not animals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.131.43.185 ( talk) 15:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The spelling should be corrected (it's deoxyribonucleic acid, not dioxy-). Sflyte120 ( talk) 21:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
Why is there no section on homosexuality here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.14.172 ( talk) 00:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
someone put some porn on this page! enough of the diagrams! 67.161.29.50 ( talk) 01:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Plus,kids could be on this site as for education purposes, and walla!! a picture quite frightening to youngsters, porn is definately not needed on this site- Force101
Usually 'sex' refers to sexual intercourse so sex should redirect there. I doubt anybody would refer to sexual reproduction of plants, for example, as 'sex'. This article should be renamed 'sexual reproduction'-- MathFacts ( talk) 13:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
Siddarth7679 (
talk) 19:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
If think we should have a picture of a couple getting it on. I'm willing to post a picture from my own private collection —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.252.236 ( talk) 03:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
'how do you have sex. like, what has to happen for someone to have "sexual intecource"?' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.59.228.35 ( talk) 17:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I was reading "Witty's blog", specifically the article about the Indianapolis Children's Museum, and was amused at the statement that if you google "sex", the first hit is Wikipedia's article. Just out of curiosity, I googled "sex", and sure enough, there was Wikipedia right at the top of the list. Being the insatiable reader I am, I was just looking over the article when I noticed something that made me say, "Huh?" It was the following statement:
"Chromosomes are passed on from one parent to another in this process."
This statement is found near the beginning of the article, and although I'm not a geneticist, I'm pretty sure this is inaccurate. Parents pass their chromosomes along to their children, not to each other.
Although I have been a fan of Wikipedia for many years, I have never even attempted to get into editing or anything of the sort. I have merely been an end-user. So as not to screw anything up, but at the same time maintain the integrity of your information, I thought I would just pass my comment along, and perhaps someone with more experience can fix this.
I just read some of the "Talk Page Guidelines", and I'm not sure I complied exactly, and I hope this doesn't get lost, but I am out of time to spend on this. My apologies if there is a problem with the way I did this.
Now let me see if I can get the signature correct. I THINK I understood the instructions.
Cinnamon taffy ( talk) 17:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I added material under Evolution to reflect the other main view on the evolution of sex, as indicated in the articles Evolution of sexual reproduction and in Meiosis in the subsection "Origin and function of meiosis." Bernstein0275 ( talk) 22:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
'While the evolution of sex itself dates to the eukaryote stage, the origin of chromosmoal sex determination is younger. ' Should be chromosomal 99.22.65.218 ( talk) 23:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I think there's needed a lock in Wikipedia to keep children away from sexuality (The most inporant is the pictures,that show sex or sexual organs uncensored).I recomend 3 different safety types: 1.Lock for children:Wikipedia users MUST add their birth dates and users under 18 can't read pages about sexuality and can't read or watch sexual content on non-sex pages too [The sexuality pages for children can't be watchable (These links will be a red link and the search engine will can't find these articles for children)].And when the young user want to make an another user (That has an age over 18) to view just pages about sexuality,all of his/her users will be blocked for never ending time and unable for registration.
2.Child versions:These versions are limited versions for people under 18 when viewing pages about sexuality [These pages will only show information that safe for children and pictures that safe for children too (Pictures about animal sexuality and pictures pictures about child sex organs,that maked from childrens 14 or under.The pictures about real human sex,erotica and products from the sex indrusty will not showed)]IMPORANT:The age can't be changed after the first registration on an IP anddress.
3.No images about sex:Pictures about sex can't uploaded to Commons and Wikipedia (except animal sex).That users that uploades sex images,will be blocked for never ending time. I extremely recommend one of these options. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.44.18.224 ( talk) 17:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
GAY! 97.102.133.8 ( talk) 21:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
we have forgotten to mention that it's a very enjoyable endeavor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.64.106.232 ( talk) 22:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
One more time, please Wikipedia is NOT the place to advertising a website, even if that website is under the Creative Common banner. So your arguing that Creative Commons wants get traffic in order to get donations is NOT a valid reason.
Moreover, as I already explained in the talk page of User:John_Torn, the mentioned link has the following issues: Wikipedia do not allow:
The link you posted has all this issues. Therefore should not be in the article. So I'll remove the link one more time. -- Dia^ ( talk) 14:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
One more time, Wikipedia is NOT the place to put forward any agenda and your argument that
"The CC - is not one of others, but is more important. It is the Greatest Emperor, " has absolute no value at all. Your request for a protection has been refused and I asked for a third opinion. Threatening me with absurd notice on my talk page will not help you in the least. I'd like to point out, that you only two edits (a part from you user page) has been the insertion of 2 external links to Creative Commons and threatening me. --
Dia^ (
talk) 09:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian ( talk) 07:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Sex → Sexual intercourse – "Sex" is only a noun when it relates to the form of a species (ie male or female), it isn't a verb~(see http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sex ). Move it to sexual intercourse, redirect "sex" to gender 91.182.110.199 ( talk) 08:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please say that sex is fun but you should not experience sex with your mother father brother sisters or cousins. aunts and uncles are finr Beachbum4 ( talk) 01:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, please read the article - your suggestion is a bit off-topic. Fun, yes, but wrong place. Vsmith ( talk) 02:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
??? 76.180.168.166 ( talk) 14:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
To say that 'Sex is a biological property of organisms having male and female varieties' is not the same as saying that 'In biology, sexual reproduction is a process of combining and mixing genetic traits, often resulting in the specialization of organisms into a male or female variety, each known as a sex. In one case, sex is a property of having varieties, and in the other each variety is known as a sex. There are no grounds for saying the first when the other is obviously true. If the only reason is some obscure Wikipedia guideline about making the article title the subject of the first sentence, then I say that we need to stick to the actual definition of what a sex is, rather then making stuff up to meet style guidelines. I have therefore reverted these edits. (Sorry, but I clicked the wrong link, and didn't give myself a chance to add an edit summary pointing here) -- Nigelj ( talk) 21:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)