Talk:Sex

Is this Page really necessary?

Is this page really neccesary? And if so, would it not be better to dim it down to 'realtionships', doctor who is aimed at 7 year olds as well and i think its highly inapropriate to have something like this where they are likely to access it. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pharap (talk • contribs) 19:29, 22 May, 2010 (UTC).

Yes, it is appropriate. Sex is a fact of life, and if they know enough about it the search the word "Sex" on a Dr Who wiki then they probably know about it already. Fan555 19:33, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah...I'm very concerned too...shouldn't we remove all the Torchwood articles because of the 7 year olds? Let's all pretend on this wiki that Jack Harkness never existed and the Virgin Queen references were directed to some olive oil that the Queen uses..Amy never seduced the Doctor neither, she was grabbing him because there was a earthquake caused by the explosion that affected all of time and space...and all those humans in Doctor Who...they came out of human looms...It's the Whoniverse...things work differently, there's no sex...and by Omnisexual, Jack means he could only fall in love with G-d, and he was just being friendly with the people he met....You know the Satan reference...it was meant to be about a red dragon that Jesus kept as a pet...--203.168.176.42 12:18, July 18, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this page is nessecary. Sure, fact of life and all that, but not when you're younger than 13/14 it shouldn't be. Kids who watch it can just ignore the references, we don't need a whole page all about it just because Ace clearly wasn't satisfied with just seeing aliens, and no one searches it, it's one of the hot spots on the wiki. So I reckon it's a bad idea. Plus, can't we focus on the better side of doctor who? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zaffie (talk • contribs) 02:54, 18 August, 2010 (UTC).

No. Sex is natural. It is necessary. It is referenced many times on Doctor Who and it is just as important to document these references and happenings as anything else. Doctor Who is not a kids show, it is a family show. That includes adults too. This is an encyclopaedia which documents everything, including sex. --The Thirteenth Doctor 14:03, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with The Thirteenth Doctor in that this Wikia documents everything in and related to the Doctor Who Universe and many stories have referenced or included sex within its content. therefore this page should be here. Revanvolatrelundar 14:50, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Please...The better side of Doctor Who? (I say in a disbelieving tone).

I agree with both The Thirteenth Doctor and Revanvolatrelundar. This is an encyclopaedia that details everything, that includes; Genocide, Murder, Assassination (and that's just the Crime category), there's also Guns and Alcohol articles. --Tangerineduel 15:31, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Image

Would it be okay to post an image of Rex and Vera having sex for this article? --MrThermomanPreacher 19:07, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. It does illustrate the article perfectly, but is very adult-orientated. Keep it for now, let's just see what other users think. BroadcastCorp. 10:29, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

Vera and Rex having sex is an event in the DWU, so that's an end to any question of licentiousness. Any image drawn from a DWU show is fair game here, so long as it actually illustrates the article in question. The only fear I'd have is one of discrimination. I don't mind putting an example of the heterosexual act as the primary pic in the infobox. But I do think that a pic of homosexual sex, since it,too, exists within the DWU, should be pictured later on in the parts of the article that examine homosexuality. Thanks to Captain Jack, the pictorial representation of sex is an "all or nothing" deal.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 16:26:52 Mon 22 Aug 2011 

I wonder at the appropriateness of the current image because there's nudity involved. I don't personally have any problem with nudity, but do we really want to go the NSFW image route on this wiki? There are plenty of other screenshots from this scene and others which would be equally as applicable to the article, without risking getting this site categorized as something it isn't. — Rob T Firefly - Δ∇ - 02:01, September 7, 2011 (UTC)

Please note this discussion was continued, and resolved in favor of use of this image and others like it, at Forum:Image appropriateness issue. — Rob T Firefly - Δ∇ - 19:32, September 15, 2011 (UTC)

Homosexual? Only Humans are that. All the others are, you know, just... straight? Straight is the word, yeah. BroadcastCorp (talk | contribs) 19:54, September 3, 2011 (UTC)

Page move?

Shouldn't this page really be moved to "Sexual Intercourse"? I mean, I know I'm being pernickety, but it isn't really called "Sex", is it? Sex is just a contraction of sexual intercourse. Asplich 11:56, August 21, 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point. I think it should be moved as well. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by BROADCASTCORP (talk • contribs) .

Um, no, it actually is called sex. Intercourse is a more precise clinical term, and, as far as I know, one that has never been used in the DWU.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 20:07:07 Mon 22 Aug 2011 

Madame de Pompadour?

What evidence is there that she and the Doctor ever had sex? I rewatched the episode yesterday and found nothing indicating this. 190.101.66.154^{talk to me} 21:23, December 22, 2012 (UTC)

It's not explicitly stated, but rather implied. First of all, in order for the Doctor to get so heavily attached to someone so quickly, it can be inferred that something more than a couple kisses happened. Secondly, and this is just a theory of mine, but you recall how 'dancing' has been repeatedly used as a metaphor for sex? Reinette says that there comes a time when each little boy must learn to 'dance', and then it cuts back to Rose and Mickey; the only thing that is known to have happened between this time and the time Ten returns to them is that he is very happy and also drunk.

Proposed Deletion

Alright, let's start this off, shall we. Hello, I am here as directed by one of your admins on Twitter with the intent of asking for this page to be removed from the wiki entirely. Now I know you have all your policies about "if it's in the franchise, we will document it" and I get it, it's somewhat commendable and you wanna have that big page count. I'm admin for another wiki myself and I know that having big page numbers is impressive and fun, so I get it, I really do. But as I will highlight, this page ultimately has no reason to exist and I guarantee you that no one will miss it once it is gone and no one will think any less of you for removing it.

At first, we have to ask ourselves; "Why indeed does this page exist? Why is it not enough to just attach a link to the Wikipedia page of the same topic?" Because I'll tell you, no one is going on TARDIS Wiki to read about sex or about the penis or vagina or whatnot - that's what Wikipedia and biology books are for - they're here to read about Doctor Who.

And it is also important to note the actual damage that pages such as this does to the reputation of the Wiki. I'm sorry to tell you and really, it must be really hard to miss but pages like this only serve more ammo for people to mock this Wiki; the more these pages remain, the more the Wiki's reputation falls, further and further. TARDIS Wiki holds some degree of power when it comes to Doctor Who documentation and it is quite awe-inspiring - but we cannot lie to ourselves and pretend like it's not because it's one of the oldest services to exist and people stick around out of loyalty. That doesn't mean, however, that this will always stick and you must ask yourself, do you want to risk it? Do you want all this work to become a footnote? You may find this laughable, after all, where else would people go? Well that may be true for now, but with the continued existence of these pages, and the continued damaged reputation, you can't say it'll remain forever.

I also have a significant number of other points which I shall now bullet-point out for you, a collection of data and reasonings you may find helpful in your decision to remove this page or not.

• Pages such as this simply do not belong on a Doctor Who Fan Wiki, it only serves as something to mock and if this were another fandom wiki, such as Wookieepedia - which do indeed have pages like this - I would be making the same point, however I find TARDIS Wiki admins easier to communicate to and quickly to respond.
• The sheer offensive nature of it all; many people find these pages to be plain offensive - no one wants to go on TARDIS Wiki and see slurs targeted towards their sexuality or gender identity. I'm sure you don't believe in these slurs but documenting them in a place they don't need to be is harmful.
• People find the pages based around specific body parts to be creepy, uncomfortable and objectifying. Is this something you want the wiki to be known for?
• No fandom wiki needs a page devoted to sexual characteristics unless the wiki is about an adult orientated work. If you feel the need to include this info, it should be on the relevant story’s page.
• It can make the Wiki just seem immature for immaculately documenting these whilst leaving other parts much more sparse.

Hopefully you can see where I am coming from here and you will join me in my journey to getting these unnecessary pages deleted. Thank you NatalieRobyn812 ☎

{{first pic}}

While I assume good faith, isn't there only supposed to be one {{first pic}} template on a page, with other images being placed as regular images? Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 23:06, 6 November 2022 (UTC)