Disputatio:Actus sexuales

Active discussions

monstrareRecensere

Aiiiii, it's spreading!!!--Ioshus (disp) 23:31, 2 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

Having checked the interwiki link should we really call this page "activitates eroticae" or erotic activities? Erotic is different from sexual isn't it? Alexanderr 23:35, 2 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
No, it isn't, except that something erotic needn't be explicitly sexual (in form); the present illustration, however, is so exceedingly tame that (in my opinion) it's hardly worth viewing, and certainly not worth hiding. IacobusAmor 00:38, 3 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
It is hardly tame, even if illustrated. And should be hidden. Alexanderr 18:37, 3 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
Read my opinion at Vicipaedia:Imagines_in_disputatione#Activitates_eroticae. --Rolandus 18:52, 3 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
Read it, and responded. Alexanderr 18:54, 3 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

Vide etiam Vicipaedia:Imagines in disputatione. --Rolandus 09:56, 3 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

templateRecensere

This template was created so that someone who views the page can decide for himself whether or not he wants to view the image as well (especially in cases where it could be offensive to western mentalities), but really all it has done has shifted to the argument from "to include or not to include" to "to hide or not to hide". It seems, at leasts in this case, that it just makes the encyclopedia more prone to displaying images unconditionally. I feel it is enough of a compromise to use the template in the first place, but others feel that nothing short of full exposure is proper for this encyclopedia. Alexanderr 06:21, 4 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

Also Ioshus, you said yourself that I had a point with the random search bit, and at least commented about Iustinus' not being able to view certain pages because of the images he'd find. It seems that every time we take this to a new page you think that it needs to be rehased with total disregard for the previous conversation. Alexanderr 06:25, 4 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
Keep in mind that my point about not being able to view certain pages cuts both ways here: e.g. I tend to avoid pages about arthropods because I don't want to see the illustrations. That doesn't mean that the wikipedian community would tolerate me removing them, or hiding them. Obviously the line has to be drawn somewhere, the problem is that we all disagree on where. I'm increasingly thinking that the only thing to do is base it on "community standards," i.e. case-by-case voting. --Iustinus 08:34, 4 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
The pot calls the kettle a kitchen instrument... I'll repeat, dude, I am not the only one who disagrees with you, just the person who gets upset most by censorship by my government, school, media, or peers to press the issue ad nauseum.--Ioshus (disp) 06:33, 4 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
Ioshus, how am I calling the kettle black? Alexanderr 06:50, 4 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
Ioshus, what are you loosing by allowing the template to stay up? Really. Was the template not created so that an offensive image could be hidden? And this image is offensive. It offends me. What are you loosing by allowing the template? You only have to click to view the stupid thing! Alexanderr 07:17, 4 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
Great discussion. Alexanderr 07:21, 4 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
Alex, when you reverted yourself, I thought you have understood. You are the only one so far who wants to hide the image, some others do _not_ want to hide it. Your reasons are just that you feel offended. Please stop. Thanks. --Rolandus 07:42, 4 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
Roland, my reasons are that the image is offensive, and that you loose nothing by hiding it. That you employ the template as it was created to be employed. The opposite side's reason is...? Oh yeah, it doesn't like censorship, and thinks that the image is too tame, so we should put up something more graphic. I didn't understand when I reverted myself. I just didn't want to get banned. Now I don't particularly care because I can't add any other content to this wikipedia. Instead I'm waiting for some good response, instead of the "this is tiring" and those nice remarks made on my talk page. Or maybe I'm wrong, because I'm still waiting for Ioshus to reply to my reply to his comments on my talk page! Alexanderr 07:48, 4 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion (and it is that, though you seem to think because you have faith in your beliefs that they are not opinion (although they constitute the strongest, most radical opiniong (POV) of any of our consistent contributors)), we have grave and serious things to lose by hiding this image: self respect, respect of art, respect of wimedia policies en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored, respect of the first amendment (whether you be american or not, it's a beautiful amendment). What do you have to lose by continuing this childish censorship?: the forfeiture of a democratic ideal. You have been outvoted, sir. We do not prescribe to your dogmatic dismissal/disapproval of that which is human. Your insistence in acting in accordance with your own beliefs despite fully understanding that others consider you to be horribly in the wrong is tantamount to vandalism.--Ioshus (disp) 08:05, 4 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
Pay close attention to this line: some articles may include objectionable text, images, links if they are relevant to the content (such as the article about pornography) and provided they do not violate any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view), nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where Wikipedia's servers are hosted.--Ioshus (disp) 08:07, 4 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
The news about Florida is alarming, because the executive & legistative branches of the state's government are controlled by a party that in recent decades (as opposed to the days of its founding) has often proved hostile to liberty. That's a POV, and this isn't the place to discuss it; but what's relevant here is that if Florida-based wikipedias push contemporary Floridian "community standards" too far, they run the risk of getting shut down, or at least being forced to move to a freer state or country. ¶ As for this image: I'm a native of Florida, and in churches there I've seen stained-glass windows that show more flesh than the image disputed here—and in living color. As anyone who has looked at Western art knows, the obscenity of the death of Saint Sebastian, a man ordinarily depicted naked or nearly so, undergoing torture by being shot full of arrows in not-immediately-fatal places (so he'll suffer more) is a commonplace in Christian religious—and therefore uncensored—imagery. Images of a crucifixion, a horrifically painful execution in progress, usually of a naked or near-naked man, adorn many churches, and during religious services are even brandished by functionaries. So much for depictions of pain. How much less equitable then must be the censorship of pleasure ! IacobusAmor 13:46, 4 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
Alex, I will not argue about this image. It is too far away from what I take in account being "porn". For this image you'll just get my vote. For me it is ridiculous to talk about this image. However, do not believe that I do not care about this issue. You have turned it into a "Glaubensfrage", which is more than a debate on principles. --Rolandus 09:00, 4 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
For the record:
  • I detest the edit war that has been going on on this article page tonight.
  • I do not see any reason why this image should be hidden. --UV 11:08, 4 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
Nor do I, though I'm not instinctively opposed to the idea of hiding some images; I'd want to think more about that issue. IacobusAmor 14:14, 4 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

titleRecensere

actually I like aleandrr's name chnge here: activitates has bothered me for a long time. But sexualis isn't great either. I wonder if maybe the most idiomatic translation might not be just res venerea. we'l have to see. --iustinus

A correcter title for the text as it stands is Actus heterosexuales, but Res Venereae would be more all-encompassing. IacobusAmor 19:33, 3 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
Who says it has to stand this way? In any case, the title is indeed currently in the plural, but of course res venerea is, I think, more idiomatic (but that would have to be researched), and furthermore it aligns better with the usual practice of keeping article names in the singular. Another issue is that we really shoudl be using names of positions attested in classical texts, and ... well there's that canonical list of Latin names for sex positions that I have seen quoted around, btu I'm not entirely sure where it originates. From memory I can think of e lege natura, equitatio, pendula venus, aversa venus, more pecudum. Yes, these assume a heterosexual couple, although some of them can be adapted: I hear there's a reference to homosexual equitatio in the Satyricon. --Iustinus 22:21, 3 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
Oh I see: if it's really "the names of the positions" that this article is a setup for, versions of the Kama Sutra will give you dozens of them to include! IacobusAmor 13:12, 4 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
All I know is "doggie-style" is coitus more feriarum, I think none other than the biggest censor of them all, MPBigDogCato.--Ioshus (disp) 15:42, 4 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
Wait, Iacobus, are you saying that you know of Latin versions of the Kama Sutra? Cause I sure don't! But even if you do, surely we should start with the ones that are actually in the Latin tradition?
Oh, the the actual word for "position" is not, of course, positio. J. N. Adams (poor J. N. Adams, he's written a whole bunch of excellent books on Latin, but if you say his name, no one thinks of any book but The Latin Sexual Vocabulary) repeatedly uses schema, which is what I would have used had I written this article. On the other hand I'm pretty sure I've seen something less graecanic (and hense pedantic) in use somewhere. Can't remember what though. --Iustinus 18:44, 4 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
And I don't know whether or not this is the "names of the positions" article, but this is already a major chunk of the text, and, as they say, "If you're gonna do it, do it right." --Iustinus 18:50, 4 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
I should invite Dr. Hallett...she's the regina of sex in the ancient world.--Ioshus (disp) 23:12, 4 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

linkRecensere

The Vicipaedia link should not be on the main page. I don't think it is standard policy to put those sort of links (policy/guidline links) on article pages, at least not on the English wikipedia. Alexanderr 19:34, 3 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

This is not the English Wikipedia, but I moved it to the external links section. --Rolandus 19:46, 3 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

FlatusRecensere

I don't have Adams (he's on my Christmas present list), but in the Latin known to me flatus is not a possible synonym for fellatio. It means something quite different ... Am I ill-informed? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:17, 15 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this means "to blow" in quite a different manner...--Ioshus (disp) 17:24, 15 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
There appear to be a lot of turns of phrase directly calqued off of English in this article, e.g. positio ligularum. --Iustinus 18:14, 15 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
And LXIX doesn't quite work, does it? At least, it doesn't do anything for me. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:43, 16 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you need to work on your technique ;-) Leigh (disp) 09:17, 17 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
Positio LXIX hodie LXIX vocatur, quod numerus 69 (scriptum in numeris arabicis) positionem describit. Sed quo nomine positio LXIV in antiquis temporibus vocatur? --Kroppe 10:30, 23 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

ContribuendaRecensere

De "Suadetur ut haec commentatio cum coitus contribuatur." Wait! So you're saying that all sexual acivities involve coitus? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:56, 26 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

Revertere ad "Actus sexuales".