I'm a bit dubious of this but I'll watch this space Alf ^melmac 20:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to give a bit of portal space to transgender topics. Does that have a place in this portal, or would it be best for me to start a new Transgender portal? Andrea Parton 04:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that it is best to start a new Transgender portal as the subject matter is vast. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 19:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have an image to represent this portal? I've put an interim solution to allow a link from Portal:Biology but am not really happy with it. It should be replaced with something more inviting. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an associated WikiProject with the Sexuality portal? If not, there really should be one, as I'm sure that there are people interested in Sex/Sexuality but not necessarily in Pornography or LGBT issues. 24.126.199.129 05:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sexology_and_Sexuality has a broader focus on sexuality. It had been inactive for some time, but I think there are four members active currently. Atom 10:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that your current news is about Same-sex marriage in Spain. You might like to include a link to the article about that - it is a featured article.  :) Aleta 16:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there is currently a spirited debate occurring on Template_talk:Sexual orientation concerning what should and should not be included on the template (which is a sidebar that is included on a number of articles about sexual orientation-related topics). The debate centers around whether pomosexuality, autosexuality, zoosexuality and paraphilias are considered orientations. There are several draft proposals on the table, but we could use more voices in the discussion. Thanks! Steve Carlson^Talk 01:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is lust currently part of this portal? I ask because a) the lust article needs a lot of work (unfortunately I don't currently have time, but others may), and b) I think it is relevant. PollyWaffler (talk) 00:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite agree. Zazaban (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current symbol File:Sexes-planetary-sym-dimcolors.svg is a bit confused. Ostensibly the arrow is supposed to represent the male projection, while the circle supposedly represents the being - or other, non-sexual aspects thereof. Thus the female might be thought of as similar - the circle representing the being, and the crossed bar representing her own sexual aspects of depth and mystery (what does the cross mean, anyway?)

Anyway, it should be obvious thus that if the concept of using the arrow as a projection into the female being, what is her own sexuality doing in the picture? I admit I can't quite figure out another composition that keeps the diagonal and vertical positioning, and yet satisfies my conjecture that the current configuration does not represent sexuality as much as it does a concept of male perpetration. And does the continued widespread use of this symbol on this site potentially perpetuate this perpetration?

Is it even a canonical, historical symbolism of sexuality, or is it a kind of conjectured configuration, such that an artist might create as an original, but inexact attempt at coining symbolism? There are several similar attempts on commons - the best of which shows the rings interlocking - such as to represent a union of being and not simply a fixated perpetration. -Stevertigo 06:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]