Jump to content

Talk:Public sex

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sex more common for gays?

[edit]

Why would it be more common for gays? It must be impossible to have any reliable statistics for that statement.

One theory is that males think more about sex (not going to quote here but I believe the statistic was every seven seconds compared to a much longer time frame for females) and the resulting logic that gay and bisexual males potential partner pool is also thinking about sex just as much making sex more common. This explains why few groups have more sex than gay men. Benjiboi 10:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR -- a statement like this would need some evidence it's a significant view, and some indication how strongly/widely held, for example. As the question says, some facts are needed, not just impressions. Currently the article only contains two "facts" -- one implies this is primarily a gay phenomenon or should be seen in gay culture terms (extremely dubious), the other references one uncited "study" to assert a statement that people have one motive for this (also extremely dubious). FT2 (Talk | email) 12:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was only addressing that reliable statistics and sources do exist, they just aren't in the article. I haven't vetted or re-written the article so I can't speak to how to best fix the concerns except to state that per NPOV it should be expanded to ensure neutrality. Also, IMHO, it's not OR to know that gay men don't hold the copyright on public sex. Weren't the Romans famous for orgies and many cultures for rituals and festivals involving public sex? -- Banjeboi 12:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point about OR is this: You need to research authoritative views by sexologists or other specialists in the field, who might show what the credible research knowledge and views are on the topic. But none of that is really given. What you state above is "males think more about sex" (non-expert popular belief)... hence gay/bi men think about sex more, making public sex by gay/bi men more common (ditto). You conclude by stating as fact that "few groups have more sex than gay men" (completely speculative and unsourced at this point).
Re-read Wikipedia:No original research to understand why this is OR and likely unbalanced.
If it can be shown that this is a significant view within credible sources, then that would be different. But that would need research to check, balancing with other significant noteworthy views, and accurate representing, not just "humble opinion". FT2 (Talk | email) 18:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to again point out the same policy. As I stated "I was only addressing that reliable statistics and sources do exist, they just aren't in the article." -- Banjeboi 21:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image

[edit]

Two concerns over the image:

  1. Person identifiable with no evidence they endorse this. Being naked in public in this location is one thing. being photographed as such is another. The picture being used for an encyclopedia illustration may be okay, but needs clear agreement by the subject that he is agreeable to being identified by a photo and narrative of this kind. We don't have that. Image commented out until rectified
  2. Too specialized for lead picture - "public sex" should probably have a lead image that is more generally relevant to the topic. One like this (a man tying himself up naked for sexual activity) is probably interesting for discussion sub-sections, but questionable as a lead image.

FT2 (Talk | email) 11:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the image editor can confirm consent was given. I think it's fine as a lede for a stubby article. I know we have some other that actually show more than one person which would be better, IMHO, but the article needs expanding and once we have a better lede image this one can be moved down. -- Banjeboi 12:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not whether they "can", but whether they "have". Until OTRS confirm we have communication from the subject indicating clear consent, we don't. A photographers claim that they were verbally told so, is not really enough, when the person is the main subject and the image is of this nature. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image is ok for this article. Concerning 1, the subject is not identifiable (the face has been partially censored, and the lighting and resolution would make identification difficult even without the censorship). Therefore, it does not violate the subject's personality rights. Concerning 2, if you look closely you find the subject is not actually tied up. He's merely leaning against the trees, presumably awaiting public sex. It is informative and relevant to the article in that it shows a setting where public sex takes place, and the basic nature of it, if not the explicit act itself (a photo of which would be highly contested and probably rejected by the community). -kotra (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Partial answer from the photographer concerning this image:
  1. Legally, I can both take this photograph and publish it. People have no expectation of privacy in public settings, which is why Public nudity is so heavily illustrated. No releases are required.
  2. Second, a person, spread out naked right off a walking path, with ties to trees, in an area known for public sex, is a reasonable assumption.
  3. Third, the person is not identifiable.
I hope these alleviate your concerns. -- Banjeboi 04:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since there has been no objection or further discussion, I have reinstated the image. Feel free to remove it again if there are objections to the image that have not been adequately addressed here. -kotra (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History and other cultures

[edit]

Why is there no mention of socially acceptable public sex in other cultures throughout history, for example Tahiti? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatcud (talk • contribs) 18:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know of any books or sources for where public sex is now legal, or was legal throughout history? Sex and nudity were certainly both much more accepted in some places and during some periods than they seem to be most places now days, even to the extent that they are treated worse than murder and violence by many. Depressing! Swiftpaw (talk) 16:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

None of the three images on the page at the time of writing depict public sex; two are outdoors but involve only two participants, while in the third, the couple seem to be at pains to hide from others. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Er, what? "Only involve two participants"? It's public sex not group sex. And just because you have sex in public, it doesn't mean you want to be seen. It's either the thrill of the possibility of being seen (not something you necessarily want to happen), or you just don't have anywhere in private to have sex. Richard001 (talk) 10:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Dogging (sexual slang) into this article?

[edit]

Dogging (sexual slang) is essentially covering the same topic. Unless there is some justification for having a separate article, I suggest that it is merged into this one. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I have already merged what I thought was relevant material into the public sex article. Enthusiast (talk) 07:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
wp:BE BOLD and do it! Vanjagenije (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Whilst the content matter is the same, it's the term that's important and what most people will be searching when linked to the page in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.216.120.56 (talk) 11:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. They are separate though related concepts. Dogging has a different history than public sex and etymological origin. Dogging refers to the group involved in the public act and may include voyeurs. While all dogging involves public sex, not all dogging participants are engaged in public sex. Ohnohedinnit (talk) 10:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge. The two are inextricably linked, dogging is nothing but a slang term for pubic sex better covered in the Wiktionary, and public sex and voyeurism go hand in hand. It's why a lot of people have public sex: so others can watch. Mention dogging as a regional slang in the public sex article...Cesium 133 (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)\[reply]
  • Merge Two meanings are linked. Dogging is just a slang term used to indicate public sex. Create a separate section for in-popular culture and merge dogging into a sub-section.--Chamith (talk) 09:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No merge, the article is defining a culture term associated with Britain. This article is about the British slang term, not the general concept of public sex. The slang has been documented by historians and has an associated history which makes it a notable term. Valoem talk contrib 01:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No merge Having public sex is not confined to a) the U.K. or the last 20-odd years. Moreover, the statement in this article claiming "There is some evidence on the Internet...", replicated from or in Dogging (sexual slang), is largely (most countries mentioned) unsourced. Kleuske (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No merge Agree that the topic is sufficient distinct to allow separate discussion. Klbrain (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

jogging

[edit]

What does running have to do with this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.81.55 (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

nothing unless you fumble badly and type j instead of d. it is now removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:2422:8839:5441:B508:FEB5:E57B (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Public sex. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Public sex. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

why it's a poor article

[edit]

There are repeated claims throughout of current phenomena, yet the citations offered are a decade or more old. For instance, for "dogging" has begun to spread to other countries, the newest ref is from 2008, so "begun" is a very poor word choice.

There is repeated confusion of "public nudity" and "public displays of affection" with "public sex" — this is at best reactionary nonsense. Nude or semi-clad demonstrators are not "engaging in sex" except as some body-shaming Puritan would claim.

There seem to be attempts to confuse "sex in a natural setting" with "sex in public." Then there's the intrusion upon (or by) others: does sex in a closed tent on a deserted campground count as "public sex?" how about a crowded campground?

Once these irrelevancies are cleared up, what remains might as well be rolled into Dogging (sexual slang) because it leaves only puerile prurience.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Public_sex&oldid=1198740839"