Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality

WikiProject Sexology and sexuality
(Click here for project talk page)

Resources & templates

Sex work task force
(Click here for task force talk page)

Project talk page

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Sexology and sexuality and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcut

WT:SEX

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6: 3 months

Choice of the lead image

In Talk:Orgasm#Lead image there was no consensus in the choice of the lead image of the Orgasm article and this discussion ran aground with no decision. It was asked to open a RFC, but before doing that I'll ask here some additional feedback. -- Zand Dev 09:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see Frenzy restored. It was such a tasteful and interesting choice to illustrate the concept. It made Wikipedia a bit more delightful for me. 98.207.23.74 (talk) 09:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for responses

Hi, I'm looking for responses to this discussion. Please give your responses on the linked page. Helper201 (talk) 07:36, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adverse effects of circumcision on sexual pleasure and function

Hi everyone,

I believe the current version of the article circumcision (in the section "Sexual effects") does a very poor job of discussing the possibility of adverse effects of circumcision on sexual pleasure and function. I thought maybe some of you might be interested in this discussion.

In the section "Sexual effects", the article categorically states that there circumcision has no adverse effect at all on sexual outcomes and doesn't elaborate any further on this issue. In my view:

This misrepresents the medical reviews, which are much more nuanced (e.g., stating a negative effect "has not been proven")
It doesn't even mention that there is a lively scientific debate on this topic
It completely ignores numerous studies that report negative effects
It fails to even mention the uncontroversial possibility of long-lasting adverse effects in the case of severe complications

All my requests for a revision of the article on the talk page have been rejected by two editors who oppose even mentioning in the article that there is a scientific debate.

Quite frankly, I can't believe that a majority of WP editors think this way and believe the current version of the article is acceptable. I would appreciate if more users would take part in the discussion, so we get a more balanced picture of what editors - apart fromt he two who want to keep the article as it is - really think about this.

A detailed version of my arguments including all sources can be found on the Discussion page of the Wikiproject Medicine. (Difflink). Prior discussions with the two unrelenting editors can be found here.

Kind regards & Thanks 09:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC) Chaptagai (talk) 09:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Intersex topics part of LGBTQ?

See this discussion. (There is also a side discussion about whether CfD is the proper place to discuss this.) Marcocapelle (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Genderism#Requested move 30 July 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Genderism#Requested move 30 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 05:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Julio and Marisol PR

Julio and Marisol has been rated High-importance to this project, so noting here that I've listed it at peer review. Your comments would be appreciated. RoySmith (talk) 13:08, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]