Talk:List of sexology topics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Old talk

The intended purpose of this page is to be a comprehensive collection of sexual and sex-related terms, including terms related to sexual anatomy and biology to encourage the development of articles on sex, sexual medicine, and sexology.

Note that any given term will tend to have more than one name, often including one or more of:

  • a Latin name
  • an English translation of the Latin name
  • a fanciful term created for use in erotica
  • a fanciful term made up by the author of a sex manual
  • a term created by a sexologist
  • a common slang name
  • a vulgarism
  • abbreviations for any of the above!

-- Karada

I hope I've got the case-stropping right on the binomial names for the various organisms listed here. Please tell me if I haven't. Karada 18:27 30 May 2003 (UTC)

All right, I'll bite. What the hell is an agony aunt? Or do I not want to know? jaknouse 03:08 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

An "agony aunt" is an advice columnist on a magazine. They typically concentrate on personal issues such as advice about sexual problems. Try Googling "agony aunt" for many examples. Karada 08:11 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I've just removed intercourse on the grounds that it's a disambiguation page and shouldn't have inbound links. I now wonder whether that was the right thing to do, as it does include the information that "intercourse" usually (but not alwasy) means sexual intercourse, which is a sexology topic of sorts. Maybe it should go back. --rbrwrˆ 20:29, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As of 18 January 2005, this list contains 1937 terms, making it one of the largest vocabularies of sex-related terms on the Web. -- The Anome 14:40, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

A note for anyone who thinks that Wikipedia is too sex-obsessed: given that this list has < 2000 topics (many of which do not yet exist as articles) and Wikipedia currently has over 500,000 articles, this means that the fraction of sex-related articles in Wikipedia is less than 0.4%. -- The Anome 13:03, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

I would like to raise an objection to the presence of the terms 'anthropomorphic cartoons' and 'anthropomorphism' in the list.

I thought it best not to remove the terms without flagging this, but would like to point out that they are only related to sexology due to the common misconception that furry fandom is a fetish. While the furry fandom does have a sexual element to it, this is merely because of the fact that many furs/furries are on the 'fringe' of mainstream society, so it is more likely for such 'deviations' to be present or become so.

I would, however, be willing to list 'furry fandom' in the list instead, but the two terms mentioned above seemed out of place in that both are only related to sexology because of a misconception (at most an exaggeration).

-- Sasuke Sarutobi 17:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Re-reading what I posted, I can see that some confusion may crop up from my wording. What I mean is that while the two topics flagged are related to the furry fandom, which may itself be related to sexology due to sexual elements within it, neither 'anthropomorphism' nor 'anthropomorphic cartoons' are really directly related to sexology.

One could possibly list 'anthropomorphophilia', but that would probably make some brains hurt (as well as the fact that the above word may simply describe a love of 'human-shaped objects', as opposed to anthropomorphic animals).

--Sasuke Sarutobi 18:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Albert Moll

Who is this? There is an article for Albert Mol (a Dutch actor). Would this be the same person for some reason not mentioned in the Albert Mol article? Lachatdelarue (talk) 15:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, this Albert Moll was a physician and sexologist. -- Karada 18:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category

This appears to be a poorly maintained version of a category page. Why not just put the appopriate categories on related pages so that they can be re-categorized or sub-categorized as needed, they way everything else is.

In fact, we already have that. Most or all of these articles are in Category:Sexology and its sub-categories. So ... should this just be deleted as redundant? -Harmil 17:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Lists are better for some things, while categories for others... you can't cat a page that doesn't yet exist, and it would be dumb to create a page just to put [[Category:Whatever]] on it. Beta_M talk, |contrib (Ë-Mail)

If the goal is to catalog those terms which need articles, then take a look at the list of requested articles for sexology. If the goal is to make the category list complete, then go to the aforementioned page and start creating articles. Reference texts are easy to come by (and if you're willing to use one that's 10-20 years old, you can probably find them fairly cheap), plus there is quite a bit of information available from PD sources on-line (e.g. the U.S. Government). No matter how you slice it, though, this page is of no use to anyone, as it is too bulky to maintain or use as a source of refernece. -Harmil 05:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
So when are you starting on the creation of those red pages? As soon as you are done, please come back here, and i'm sure that most people would agree with you that category should stay, and this page go. Beta_M talk, |contrib (Ë-Mail)

A complete list of articles can be very helpful in a topic where things often have many names. When writing an article on roman showers for example, it's helpful to be able to scan the page and see that there is already an article on Emetophilia. Searching for every possible version of some terms could be taxing at the very least. It's much easier to have one page that says "here are the articles we have, here are the ones we want" --Outlander 14:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

That is indeed the motivation behind this page: from which, incidentally, the Requested Articles page is generated. A category would only replace this list when we have an article for every concievable sexology topic, and were sure that there were no more to be discovered. Which, if you look at the number of red links, and the growth rate of this list, is unlikely to happen any time soon. -- Karada 18:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, I hope this list is useful for somebody, because it's certainly no good from a conventional encyclopedic looking-for-information standpoint wimbledon andy 11:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Internet pornography

Shoudn't this be a subsection of the general Pornography article? --Outlander 19:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested to-do list

Although we currently have a vast number of topics covering unusual sexual practices, we still need more depth and detail on "conventional" love and marriage, and, in particular, topics regarding love, marriage, sex across different cultures: I've just added some topics on wedding rituals; there are many, many other wedding rituals to add: for example, Hindu weddings have many ceremonies leading up to the marriage itself, all of which need coverage. -- The Anome 15:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Items removed from List as deleted articles

I'm removing a number of items from the list in the F-section (I came here following AfD on Fifi) that have been deleted as articles; my intention is not to discourage article creation, but to help in productive development of the list. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of "fifi" and "furtling" from this list per AfD, however, I'm going to re-add figging to the list: as numerous "unreliable" sources attest, this is certainly a genuinely-used term. I have also found one source for this usage in a mainstream publication: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=40040 -- if further mainstream sources can be found that refer to figging, this would, I believe, allow an article to be written on this. -- Karada 04:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Sory man, not a reliable source either. The author just may well picked it in wikipedia. While I agree it is hard to find reliable sources for these kinky things, still wikipedia has its rules. NUmeropus "unreliable" sources attest only that they copycat from each other (internet, you know, is just as good in spreading bullhit as of information), not a single one I've seen giving a minimal hint where event to start searching reliable references. So sorry, I am going to re-delete it, best of attracting trolls, hoaxers and well-meaning cut'n'pasters of garbage from the 'net. Deleted is deleted is deleted. `'mikka 05:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be conflating the deletion of an article about a term with the deletion of links to that term, which is by no means compulsory. Unlike "fifi" or "furtling", this is undeniably an encyclopedia-worthy subject, with the above cite being evidence of its use. The Stranger is a well-known print publication, and the particular columnist who wrote this article is a well-known professional BDSM practitioner. On this topic, I would consider it to be a reliable source sufficient for the inclusion of a redlink in this list.
There is also citable print coverage of the practice of "figging" horses, from which the name derives: see [1]; alas, one of the four cites given, which refers to human beings, is a scanning error for "frigging", so cannot be used to support the human usage; and [2], which finds an Italian book that mentions the English term for the human activity in passing.
Now, while the above is strongly suggestive that it may be possible to find multiple reliable sources in future, it is not yet sufficient to meet the article inclusion criteria, and I completely agree with the deletion of the article itself, I hope that as soon as multiple verifiable reliable sources are available to meet the verifiability criteria, this link will encourage the creation of a properly-sourced article that meets the article criteria: which is the entire point of its inclusion here. -- Karada 21:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

A word on my removal of the links — first, I'm glad I put a note here about the items I removed; it is exactly this discussion that I hoped would ensue rather than merely a furtive disappearing act taking place. I removed the items as I see lists like this one to be a combination navigational aid and 'requested articles' list (in addition to being vandalism-fighting aids and tools for facilitating consistency among articles in a topic area). My reasoning is that if an article has been created and subsequently deleted, the topic might not be sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion in such a list ... that being an initial judgment and with a potential for being flawed in any particular instance — what you subsequently do with the links is perfectly fine with me (either re-add or leave out). My removal of these specific items came from systematic combing of some of the AfD day-logs and doing link-walking from the deleted articles ... a kind of deep-cleaning exercise. One thing I was hoping to avoid was the reactive re-creation of articles, which are often speedy-deleted under general criterion 4. There are other list-contexts where I remove the wikilink, leave the line item and add an editorial comment (hidden except for when the page is edited) referring the editor to the deletion discussion; again, this is to help avoid people blithely re-creating content that would be deleted quickly - by referring to the AfD discussion, the creator of the new article might be able to avoid the problems that led to the initial article's deletion. Your thoughts on whether this activity was more pain for you than it was benefit would be helpful. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You know what? A weird coincidence happened today. I was reading Terry Pratchett's Night Watch and run across an episode describing some fictional slang terms. Among them was guess what? Fleague a jade :-)! So I wasted a bit more time on the topic and finaly found the following hint to a printed matter: "A History of... Figging" written by Linda McCormick and illustrated by Elita in Scarlet's August 2006 issue describes the whole thing. And it has absolutely nothing to do with fruit. Unfortunately, there is no online version of this article. So, who is from UK here? I am still pretty sure that this is a quite modern invention in BDSM and doubt its notability. `'mikka 04:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, not to waste the find, I will start "Feague". `'mikka 05:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguating link to Polymorphism

Polymorphism is a disambiguation page. The link should point to an actual article (Polymorphism (biology), perhaps?) rather than a disambiguation page listing obviously irrelevant topics, but I don't know what the term means in the context of sexology, so someone who knows better than me will have to fix this. Hairy Dude 15:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Polymorphous also links to the same disambiguation page. Hairy Dude 16:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_sexology_topics_60c9.html"