Template talk:Sex-stub

Stub template image discussion

I have removed the "Mars and Venus" symbol, as it implicitly privileges heterosexuality. Currently looking for a replacement ... any suggestions? rocketfairy

How about , doesn't link to gender, doesn't depict nudity but is yet a clear hint to sex. /Lokal Profil 20:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The Mars and Venus symbols aren't about heterosexuality. The basic idea of (human, at least) sexuality is that the species is divided into two sexes; and this symbolizes those two. It doesn't imply which of those sexes does what with which of the other. I really think you're reading too much into this... it seems harmless to me. ~ Booyabazooka 21:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, whether or not it’s implied, I wonder what most readers infer… I came over here to whine, too; the template doesn’t say it’s about sexuality, but sex. Wiki Wikardo 09:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Now I’m seeing I’m kind of on the wrong side of that semantic divide, in that (see redirects) sex, dictionary-wise, does mean boobies and wee-wees (really, though, it never means anything but intercourse in everyday English). Still, it’s clear I’m not the only one who extrapolates the Mars/Venus juxtaposition as meaning heterosexual, being as I googled the first description that came to mind of a tattoo I saw the other day, and `lesbian symbol' returned the emblem I sought. Wiki Wikardo

And, you know, if I wanna get really whiny, binary gender still kind of precludes genderqueers (who, last I tjecked, also had sex. As in sex.) —Wiki Wikardo Bedtime, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Wiki Wikardo... even if this template is about sex as in gender as opposed to sexual intercourse, that excludes genderqueers. Besides, to me it's unmistakably recognizeable as a reference to sexual intercourse, seeing as the male and female symbols are interconnected (the male symbol appears to be "penetrating" the female symbol), and the articles that use this stub are almost exclusively about sexual intercourse, not gender. As for , it just looked like an inkblot to me, until I clicked on it for a larger view, which most people won't be doing. In conclusion, neither picture is ideal, but I can't think of anything better. I'm so helpful. -kotra 22:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Omg, the Mars is totally penetrating the Venus!… The “Happy Feet” look like chromosomes. —Wiki Wikardo 07:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you're all being much too sensitive. I'm bi, and i see no problem with representing human sexuality with this image -- it contains the two typical sexes and suggests the most typical act, if it suggests any act at all. To be fair, i have less reason to be bothered than some other groups, but i think most people would agree that it's most logical to assume someone is heterosexual -- that's the overwhelming majority, even with Kinsey scales. If there is a better image with which Wikipedia can represent human sexuality, i'd love to see it. (Seriously, that would be awesome.) --BranER 21:00, 18 June 2007

I disagree with BranER, the bisexual, in that the binary gender system is a social construct, and people who are genderqueer absolutely do have a sexuality. We definitely should have a symbol that leaves out gender and sex completely, because there aren't just two (as the current symbol may suggest). I think the footprints are recognizable as such, and are pretty good. Doesn't necessarily hit me as meaning 'sexuality', but with the text next to it it's good enough. Coming up with a universal symbol for sexuality is nearly impossible, because it's so incredibly broad. --Billyjoekini 05:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The footprints just remind me of feet, and I can't figure how that relates to sexuality. The male and female icons don't "exclude" genderqueers any more than the icon of human feet excludes animal sexuality. Stub icons don't have to be comprehensive; they just need to be easily recognizable. Look at every other stub template: Shark-stub depicts only one type of shark, Sega-stub only depicts the Sega Genesis controller, etc. These are chosen because they're common icons that work well for this purpose. Please don't obscure this Wikipedia stub icon because some people feel that it is somehow a microcosm of a larger politicized social issue. It isn't. It's a stub icon. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 16:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure the current image wouldn't fit better as the symbol for the anal sex template? Seriously, though, what's wrong with having the two symbols separate, so that we don't implicitly exclude all the other ways of doing it? I'd urge a compromise where we add in a second man , but I doubt it'd fly. -- 01:01, 19 September 2007 User:Mqduck

Well, your proposal seems to depict a three-way, and it leaves out lesbianism. The image is somewhat complex, and the leftmost male symbol is not in its customary orientation, which means that it's not as easy to decipher when displayed at the tiny resolution used for stub template thumbnails. Seriously, an image which is to be used as a stub template benefits from being as simple and obvious as possible in general meaning when seen at a very small size, but without having particular specific associations which would make it suitable for only a small part of the subject area covered by the template. The current image suggests them "doing it", because that's an obvious way of suggesting sexuality, while if you had isolated Mars and Venus signs side-by-side, that could be a symbol for gender psychology etc. And I'm not sure where you get an anal sex interpretation of the current image -- if you literalistically and pedantically map an astrological Venus sign onto the female body, then there would appear to be penetration of a non-existent orifice in the middle of her stomach! The image is actually intended to be quite vague in this respect (which is probably a good thing for satisfying the highly-specific requirements placed on images which are to be used as stub template thumbnails). AnonMoos 03:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

---

What about one of these? or . -- 01:53, 18 May 2010 User:Sawibel07

Well, it would be nice if they were in SVG, or at least had decent resolution (instead of being small and blurry), and they seem to strongly de-emphasize heterosexuality (which is numerically the most common). P.S. You might have received a quicker reply if you had signed your comment. AnonMoos (talk) 07:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

the image sucks

no offense, but something like this $\mathrm {L\!\!^{{}_{\scriptstyle \mathrm {A} }}\!\!\!\!\!\;\;\mathrm {T} \!_{\displaystyle \mathrm {E} }\!\mathrm {X} }$ would be much better. Of course it would have to say SeX not LaTeX, but I don't know latex. Lysis rationale (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I somehow managed to make it say LaSeX and make it red: ${\color {Red}\mathrm {L\!\!^{{}_{\scriptstyle \mathrm {A} }}\!\!\!\!\!\;\;\mathbf {S} \!_{\displaystyle \mathrm {E} }\!\mathrm {X} } }$ but I can't get rid of the L and A. Lysis rationale (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You're actually using (some might say misusing) math markup which is intended for the purpose of rendering mathematical equations as raster images. There seems little point, since much the same effects could be accomplished purely textually using HTML tags, if desired. An image which is to be used as a stub template icon is subject to a number of specific technical and visual requirements, which may mean that it can't do all the things that people would like it to do. The main thing is to be simple enough to be relatively clear at a tiny pixel resolution, and to symbolize some main aspect or typical manifestation of the subject matter covered by the stub template, without having irrelevant strong associations to subject matters not covered by the stub template... AnonMoos (talk) 00:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

File:StubSexByMithgol.png is unquestionably the best sex-stub image in existence. I believe it's used on the Russian Wikipedia. - auburnpilot talk 04:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If we're going for the most common form of sex, missionary position would probably better. But that's not bad. -kotra (talk) 06:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Here's an even more abstractly symbolic image... AnonMoos (talk) 12:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty obscure (I had to click on it and read the description to even figure it out), and if I'm interpreting it correctly, it only shows male-female intercourse. I think the above (current) option is still the best we have, since at its small size they could be any gender. -kotra (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I said it was "abstractly symbolic" (for those who complained that was too obviously specific...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think > , but File:StubSexByMithgol.png > . -kotra (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Outsider80 change

An improvement! -- AnonMoos (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The symbol... again...

I too have to say that I found the symbol quite ironic when, while reading about Sandra Leiblum, I came across the article about the Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services. The article mentions day-to-day experiences of people affected by heterosexism, while just a few centimeters below that sentence one can see File:HeteroSym-pinkblue2.svg as the sole symbol of sexuality. Surtsicna (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm the image author of File:HeteroSym-pinkblue2.svg and I don't think it's the best image for this use (just among the images I've made File:Sexes-planetary-sym-dimcolors.svg would be superior, as I first proposed in 2007). However, File:Sexual orientation - 4 symbols.svg is also not too useful for this purpose -- it suggests a range of sexual orientations, but does little to suggest sex itself, and when reduced to small icon size, it's somewhat complex, and hard to understand at a glance... AnonMoos (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Should this link to Sexology, or Human sexuality?

I find it a bit strange that this template links to sexology, which is the "study of human sexuality". It seems far more appropriate that it link to human sexuality itself. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 06:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Absent any other comment, I've changed the template to link to sexuality. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)