Last modified on March 4, 2011, at 19:04


Return to "Sex" page.

What about parents that want to have access to credible information on sex to educate their children? --Truth is bipartisan 01:01, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm confused as to why this page has been blocked. I am aware that its probably subject to much vandalism, but there is a valid reasoning behind allowing it.--Elamdri 22:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Even though the page could be an informative article, it is forbidden (currently) under commandment 3 of The Conservapedia Commandments. It's not "family-friendly". --Hojimachongtalk 22:48, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Funny, isn't that how families are made?  :D --Gulik 22:50, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Quite XD. --Hojimachongtalk 22:51, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Leave it missing - that way the intended target audience will be wiped out by either underpopulation, overpopulation and/or rampant STDs, including HIV/AIDs.
"Target Population" meaning gays, as you imply? Sorry buddy, but most people have sex. Not just gays. --Hojimachongtalk 19:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Personally, I feel its possible to make a family-friendly page about sex, but I respect the decision.--Elamdri 22:52, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I concur. --Hojimachongtalk 22:53, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

This page is linked to from The Ninteenth Amendment of the US constitution, and from Choice, but not from abortion. Which of these are "family friendly"? --Scott 23:38, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I too find it interesting that abortion is considered family friendly but sex itself isn't. Sulgran 23:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I think this needs to be taken up with Aschlafly. It is clean, can be family-friendly, and is biblically described (we can use the song of Solomon, perhaps?) --Hojimachongtalk 23:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
I think the general reason is that the page has been targeted by vandals ten times. MountainDew 23:48, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, if the page was created it could always be protected, and users could post ideas on this talk page. I really think it needs inclusion; It's awfully important, and doesn't have to be amoral or obscene or anything like that. --Hojimachongtalk 23:50, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Check with Aschlafly first. Geo. 00:08, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
I was planning on it. --Hojimachongtalk 00:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I just want to ask... does anyone else think the place holder there is sort of funny? Anyways, I hope a page about this gets made, because quite frankly it's silly to pretend it doesn't exist, and I'm sure a family-friendly article can be made, as said before. --Ronnyreg 22:13, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

"Male and female created He them." Genesis 1:27 "And Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived... 4:1 DDG 23:23, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

The irony here is fantastic!!! Menkatron 11:07, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Eh, that's a bit bland. How about some of the hotter quotes from the Song of Solomon? :D --Scrap 01:55, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

A joke

Dont take this offensivly, when I found that this article had been deleted and protected against re-creation, I thought it was a joke. I understand that conservapedia is supposed to be family friendly. By not having an article on it here, it will encourage younger family members to search elsewhere for the information. It would not be hard to create an article, explaining the purpose of sex, perhaps some historical references to it without going into the details of how it is done etc etc. Chrislk02 10:50, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

What does sex have to do with families? Oh, wait... :o)
Seriously, this won't last, I think. You can't have a project with these stated aims and not discuss sex at some level. Experience on Wikipedia indicates that "ZOMG! No article on foo! The entire project should be deleted!" are spectacularly unpersuasive, the way forward is probably to write a scratch version in your user space that is within policy and then propose that be moved in. If that doesn't work, or if admins won't even discuss it, then you know the project is doomed. --JzG 12:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
I figured I would try and discuss it here. I really do think that not having an article here is much more detrimental than having it here. Sure, it is easy to be conservative on some issues. The challenge is writing an controversial article in a tone that is family friendly. Sure it possible, there is alot that does not need to be discussed it and alot of images that should not be included. However, If i were a kid looking for information on it (and lets face it, as some age we all become curious), and it wasent here, that wouldent stop me from searching further. If there was an article, with few details explaining the basics of it, i might accept that and not search further. Chrislk02 12:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
It's not that hard, my kids have books which manage it. JzG 12:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Every schoolkid knows how to use Google. Googling for "sex" yields Wikipedia's "sexual intercourse" article in the second position, and experience tells me it will soon be in the first. That article, BTW, tells those aforementioned kids interesting things about anal sex among other things, and has a long list of links to articles about every possible form of human sexual behavior, including many that your clientele may not consider overly familiy friendly. And you don't want a sex article in your family friendly encyclopedia? Bwahaha. Bwahahahahaaaaaa!
So, looks like it's official policy then? Sex doesn't exist. I'm sure that will stop kids looking elsewhere. --British_cons (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
I came here to learn what "conservatives" think, as they claimed it can't be put in Wikipedia. So far, I'm still confused - sex is taboo, but marriage includes a wide range of styles with multiple partners, and homosexuality can be discussed too. I cannot understand a "conservative" position that allows discussion of multiple partners of both sexes, but can't stomach an article about monogamous sex with a spouse. I haven't contributed much, because I just can't get my head around what might be acceptable. The divorce article is unlikely to help anyone who is going through it, or who's parents or friend's parents are, either! --Scott 18:00, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
  • I'm sure that Wikipedia does not allow an article on religion and sexuality, since it would offend our liberal sensitivities :o) JzG 19:09, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

This article should redirect to Abstinence

Redirecting to Gender doesn't make that much sense, now that I think about it. Any discussion of s-e-x should begin first and foremost with abstinence.--Conservateur 13:11, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Just stick the 'deleted and protected due to vandalism' on the page. We are never going to agree about what would be appropriate. This is conservapedia remember, so there are a number of users here who think a description of the stork making a delivery would be too graphic. - Suricou
Redirecting sex to abstinence makes exactly as much sense as redirecting alcohol to abstinence. In context, abstinence is abstaining from something. It is not possible to describe or advocate abstinence without defining the thing to be abstained from. In both of these cases, it is something discussed in the Bible, and which is good when used properly (how God intended), and bad when abused. --Scott 10:31, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

Suggest fornication be directed here

Due to vandals it seems, there is no page on fornication, or sexual relations and the latter term page redirects here, but this issue is now basically covered from the Biblical definition here, and could serve to replace that missing page. By God's grace.Daniel1212 17:56, 1 August 2009 (EDT)


"Sexual intercourse" redirects here. Clearly this is not a page about sexual intercourse and none exists on Conservapedia. Even the news bar links here today in a blurb about sex (the act). What about creating a separate page for "Sexual intercourse" or "coitus" that explains in family- and Bible-friendly terms what it is? No use at all in pretending it doesn't exist, and this article is pretty clearly someone's bad idea to block the topic from Conservapedia. -IkeL 14:04, 4 March 2011 (EST)