Jump to content

Talk:Sexual intercourse

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 176.250.178.62 (talk) at 09:51, 22 September 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Pbneutral

Risks

Considering the info and stats on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy#Complications I really think that the risks section of this article should include a note on pregnancy. pregnancy carries significant risk of harmful complication, very much changes your life for 9 months, and can be thought of as a 'risk' in and of itself - and that's before you get into the social or economic consequences of an unwanted pregnancy. These count as risks for a substantial proportion of human beings engaging in sexual intercourse. --176.250.178.62 (talk) 09:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Views

See Scientology and sex and Scientology and homosexuality for information about scientology sexual conduct doctrines. In brief, scientology condemns homosexuality illness, encourages celibacy in its religious order, and permits other sexual intercourse.

Human-animal bonding. The article's about sexual intercourse involving humans which includes human-to-goat, which will be acknowledged in an appropriate place.

Risk of loss of namus. Coverage will be expanded to reflect loss of social status and danger to physical wellbeing that can happen from incidents of sexual intercourse, particularly when there are elements of homosexuality, adultery, and heedlessness of considerations of family honour— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxycut (talkcontribs) 03:59, 8 September 2012

Don't make a section for each new thing you want to state. Because you did so, I tweaked the original formatting of your comments by placing them in one place. And you need to sign your name using four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~.
And I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to state, but AndyTheGrump's revert of you was because of "WP:OR, off-topic material, and WP:BLP violations." And I made clear my points on your talk page and at the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. And like I stated at that noticeboard, your edits (with the exception of a bit of the zoophilia information) have been original research, poorly-sourced and/or irrelevant. Take the time to read our guidelines and policies like I advised. Clearly, English is not your first language, but you need to try or ask for help in understanding how things work here. Flyer22 (talk) 04:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to your contributions being ungrammatical and irrelevant, they are original research. Please don't add them again. Rivertorch (talk) 07:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen anything that makes me think we need additions to this article about any of these things. This is a 'top-level article' per WP:SUMMARY etc, and these are very obscure points. --Nigelj (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 19 September 2012

223.232.221.142 (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC) begin request[reply]

 Not done You did not specify what change you would like to be made to the article. Electric Catfish2 22:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]