Disputatio:Coitus

actibus sexualibus (non) contribuenda

I don't really think this needs to be contribuenda with Actus sexuales. Does anyone have a good reason why it should be? It's a distinct act and such. Like a "main article" template use on en...--Ioscius ^(disp) 21:22, 4 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

Umm, 3 years later I do actually see a problem. That's that this links to en:Sexual intercourse which in turn links back to Actus sexuales. Maybe actus sexuales should link to en:Human sexual behavior...? --Ioscius^∞ 23:10, 22 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course. It's a problem on their end that 'Sexual intercourse' should link to Coitus. Also, I note in Actus sexuales that we have yet another page where title and lemma differ.

By the way, is it the case in Latin that coitus means 'sexual intercourse', while the spelling coetus is used for all other meanings? Pantocrator 23:20, 22 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

According to Cassell's, coitus is English (or a variant of the Latin) and coetus is Latin; all the above-cited senses are given under coetus. It's from coeo, -ire. IacobusAmor 00:07, 23 Februarii 2010 (UTC)