Talk:Sex in space

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sex=/=Reproduction[edit]

This article is about sex in space not reproduction in space. Some taliban vandalised the article. Having sex in space does not arise the same obstacles as reproduction does, which would need a whole total different article. Additionally not any human will be allowed to reproduce in space as long as they do not rationalize and self limit this act in earth because the result would seriously burden life in earth and resources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.142.145.8 (talk) 07:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I almost agree with the overall sentiment, this post is hard to parse and unnecessarily abrasive. If anything, reproduction is a subset of sex, as until in vitro fertilization, sex was the only method used to reproduce. Also, how is the second clause of this rant even relevant to the article?Jeffman12 (talk) 05:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification[edit]

What the heck is a "meta-approach" to sex? And are any details avalable about the NASA pool (among other subjects), not to mention a source other than speculation about it in one book? This article reads like a high school writing assignment, just enough Google research to throw in some factoids, but no solid information. -- Noclevername 18:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed those bits of unsubstantiated rumour/nonsense. The article still needs some work, though. --Bwiki 22:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Mir?[edit]

I do remember reading that an American astronaut was rumoured to have tried intercourse with a Russian cosmonaut during a stay on the spacestation Mir. I'll try to find a (reliable) source. Astronaut 05:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if these would count as reliable sources, but here is the story about two cosmonauts in 1995: [1] and [2]. Though apparently the official line is that it hasn't happened yet. Astronaut 06:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't give a flying fuck! ;-) — Rickyrab | Talk 19:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grauniad[edit]

There's an article in the Graniaud which claims there's been some space porking http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2000/feb/24/spaceexploration.internationalnews1 D'oh that's the bloody hoax, tcha

Arthur C. Clarke and zero-g mammaries[edit]

In his 1973 book Rendezvous with Rama, Sir Clarke apparently wrote:

Some women, Commander Norton had decided long ago, should not be allowed aboard ship; weightlessness did things to their breasts that were too damn distracting.

Being Clarke, he could not shut up in time:

It was bad enough when they were motionless; but when they started to move, and sympathetic vibrations set in, it was more than any warm-blooded male should be asked to take. He was quite sure that at least one serious space accident had been caused by acute crew distraction, after the transit of a well-upholstered lady officer through the control cabin.

There are some mentions of Clarke and astronaut Mike Collins expressing the same sentiment in Time Magazine in forums and blogs, such as here, here and here. A book that refers to this also comes up, and Time's archives seem to date this to September 23rd, 1974.

Someone who's already familiar with these things might get more out of these, but I cannot ask those who aren't to investigate. --Kizor 21:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. --Kizor 21:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sir Arthur. Midgley (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. A great and noble soul. --Kizor 16:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This section of the article isn't about sex in space, and is rather bizarre. Do we really need Collins' quotation and its responses? 94.172.114.173 (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some more stuff that may come in handy[edit]

I didn't do more than give the matter a good googling, but at least some of this stuff should come in handy to an article-writer, be it in the form of sources, further information, morale or leads.

A word of warning: Actually, forget it, it's like you haven't already realized what kind of stuff is behind these links.

Varyingly reliable things about the mental aspect of planet-hopping:

News reports:

Non-human sex:

Essays, publications, etc:

Other stuff:

Hope that helps. --Kizor 23:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, then, he said, fully aware that he had no dignity whatsoever left to lose. I looked into the possibility of sex in terrestrial weightlessness that does not require an areoplane: that is, skydiving. There are some mentions of such a scene in the movie "Airgazmic: The Capture," and of actress Vanessa Lynn injuring her leg during its filming, but references for the movie appear to be scarce, blunt and fairly monotonous. Discussions on skydiving forums mention several instances of this happening to someone else, and dwell on whether precipitating the act in a plane and rolling out would qualify. The easily-guessed acronym "IFIF jump" gets a bare minimum of use. The conversers also advise against it, citing such reasons as "body slams" and a genuinely shocking rewording of "Yesterday" by the Beatles. Ultimately, however, an answer is provided by the extremely non-work-safe images here.

Note that the terminal velocity of a curled-up human is apparently closer to 300 KPH than 200 KPH, and the minimum altitude to deploy one's parachute is some 600 meters for advanced skydivers. --Kizor 22:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst fixing up that last message, I discovered that ones Michael Behar and Ashley Kissinger might have done an experiment in the Vomit Comet. All in the name of science, of course. [3] [4] It also turned out that the still inaccurate term "Zero G spot" has just the right kind of sad humor to make it popular. [5] [6] treatment in media [7]

Straight Dope

Looks like I'll have to push this thing to GA now... eventually. Bugging some Americans about the bibliography may prove necessary. --Kizor 08:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Dyson's "Project Orion – The Atomic Spaceship 1957-1965" has a short section about the Project Orion team conjecturing on sex in space. They proposed a spiral shaped room so people could choose a distance between walls which best fit them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.194.231.36 (talk) 08:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2suit merger[edit]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2suit (2nd nomination)

{{afd-mergefrom|2suit|2suit (2nd nomination)|01 October 2008 (UTC)}}

{{Afd-merged-from|2suit|2suit (2nd nomination)|1 October 2008 (UTC)|30 December 2008‎ (UTC)}}

Clarification please[edit]

2suit article - A request for deletion appeared on this article back in July 2008 and after discussion, the AFD request was closed and the article was Kept. This was a concensus. The second AFD that was posted a couple of days ago was a repost of the first AFD request, which was closed by an Administrator -- who did not delete the article, i.e., consensus was Keep.

The 2Suit article could be merged with Sex in Space but seems like a lot to merge, and flightsuits aren't merged. Could someone help me out to understand the process on this since. Can article be requested for deletion more than once? looks like there were a couple of Keeps and only one Merge inputs on the first one. The first AFD appeared to contain personal bias and comments (judging the TalkPage). What's the reason and who determined this recent afd and merging? There was no new discussion and no voting at all. Thanks. IMC.esq (talk) 00:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2Suit article should remain separate[edit]

This is Regarding The Request to Delete/Merge the 2Suit article with this article (Sex in space)

A documentary aired on The History Channel today that featured the 2Suit. The Universe series interviewed the inventor, who tested the flight garment for the documentary, and the 2Suit was tested. The 2Suit was clearly presented as a garment for general purposes of stabilizing intimacy -- any intimacy, not just sex. It was also shown as as suit worn by a woman reading a book -- outside the context of engaging in intimacy as a flight garment/space habitat attire. She was reading a book.

The program made it very clear that the 2Suit is a flight garment, not necessarily limited to sex in space. Given that, the 2Suit more appropriate as a separate Wiki article under Environmental Suits category -- where it now is.

The 2Suit article is related to Sex in Space but the article is substantially separate. That's a lot to merge with the general topic of 'sex in space.' Internal links would cross-reference them.

This debate should be evaluated and investigated. Can someone help out with this?

--IMC.esq (talk) 11:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I support the decision to merge 2suit into Sex in space. The stated purpose of the 2suit is directly relevant to this article, and the 2suit is not notable otherwise. --Scray (talk) 05:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that a vote is necessary, though I'll throw in an oppose or split just in case. The merge decision was made at the end of September and implemented at the end of December. The problem is that the 2suit featured in a History Channel documentary in the interim. Not just peripherally: the bloody things were demonstrated in zero gravity. With that and the increasing amount of news articles (which are more transitory, but often valid and include NBC), I can't in good conscience support merging an article based on a decision about a different article. Nor are we supposed to, making AfD decisions binding even when the facts change would blow up the system.

    While I'm personally unconvinced that the 2suit is not inherently sexual, giving it a separate article is still the best way to organize information. The suit's esotericity needs a lot of space to describe properly, far too much for this article, and separate articles can be easily cross-referenced. As for notability, just stating that it has none needs more detail now that the situation has changed. I contacted the editor who started the AfD and did the merge, and he has no objections. I'll bug Scray to give him a chance to elaborate, but unless something comes of that I'll split in a bit. --Kizor 17:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree but will wait for more consensus before acting. The 2suit is just one solution for the challenge that is the subject of this page. Yes, there has been a recent "flash in the pan" for 2suit, but that will pass. There will be other solutions, and the notability of 2suit will diminish. I don't think an encyclopedia like WP should be such a bandwagon, and this page can contain the notable aspects of 2suit. Just my $0.02. --Scray (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(puts hand behind head and whistles tunelessly) --Kizor 23:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(quizzical look) --Scray (talk) 08:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've split it. Please give me 24 hours to write a proper reply in place of this temporary message I could do it now, but I would be sacrificing 5 ECTS credits to do so and would also feel kind of stupid. Luckily there's no rush. Some amount of baby was lost with the bathwater: I'll have to go through the changes made after the 2suit took over this article when I begin the next major update. --Kizor 21:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur C. Clarke[edit]

We must include this famous quote from Arthur C. Clarke:

"The absence of gravity – a sensation which no human being has ever experienced since the beginning of time, yet which is mysteriously familiar in dreams – will have a profound impact upon every type of human activity. It will make possible a whole constellation of new sports and games and transform manyexisting ones. This final prediction we can make with confidence, if some impatience: Weightlessness will open up novel and hitherto unsuspected realms of erotica. And about time too."

Online at http://www.lenr-canr.###/acrobat/RothwellJreviewofpr.pdf (Wikipedia spam filter is blocking this link. Substitute "org" for ### in URL), review of Clarke's Profiles of the Future: An Inquiry into the Limits of the Possible. Check text of the print edition of Profiles and cite that. My bold in quote. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 03:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links outdated[edit]

Specifically citation #4, regarding Stephen Hawking, which I was interested in reading. I looked up the article on archive.org and it was written by AP; an extended version of that is available here: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=6D0fAAAAIBAJ&sjid=zNAEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6545%2C3772849. I couldn't find it from a more reputable source, but I wasn't sure if that type of reference was acceptable. Hopefully whoever maintains this article can use this information to find a newer source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.145.160 (talk) 09:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misogyny in Space[edit]

I don't see what the misogynist comments about breasts have anything to do with sex. I think they should be deleted from here. Basically some guy's fantasy of having a harem in space. What does it have to do with any aspect of sexual intercourse except for the breast fetish the western world is obsessed with? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.110.9.220 (talk) 09:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While the comment is off topic, I'm rather surprised by how thoroughly you've missed the point of that section. Are you not native to English or do you not understand satire at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.134.86 (talk) 09:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult to read[edit]

Although I am not a native speaker, I consider myself to be able to communicate on an advanced level of English. Yet, in this article I constantly bump into text passages which for me are quite difficult to comprehend. Examples:

  • ... the ability to right themselves.
  • If pairing off occurs within the crew ...
  • The magazine followed this up by running a letter ...

A Wikipedia article doesn't need to be in Simple English, but is it really necessary to make the text that intricate? --White rotten rabbit (talk) 12:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I don't understand what the first few lines are talking about (and they are largely unsubstantiated). CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to improve, WP:BOLD. Brandmeistertalk 08:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actual movie depicting zero gravity intercourse[edit]

Thank you, Electron9, for restoring the information on The Uranus Experiment: Part Two; it certainly deserves more mention than the movies which only simulate zero-g sex. Unfortunately, I believe that some figures in the cited source are incorrect. "The scene was filmed by flying an airplane to an altitude of 11,000 feet. The plane, containing performers Sylvia Saint and Nick Lang, then went into a steep dive, creating the momentary illusion of weightlessness. The filming process was particularly messy from a technical and logistical standpoint. Budget constraints allowed only for one 20 second shot." 11,000 feet is awfully low for a maneuver like that and still allow room for recovery. Note that the Vomit comet's parabola peaks at over 30,000 feet for its 25 seconds of zero-g. Google the phrase "The historic sex scenes were shot in a special aircraft" and you will find dozens of pages which include this blurb:

The classic Private titled re-issued with all new features! What was once science fiction becomes fact in Private's astonishingly ambitious production The Uranus Experiment. With an estimated budget of $750,000, Private captures on camera the very first orgasm in zero gravity! Lifting the XXX genre (and viewers) to historic new heights! Two spacecraft- one American, the other Russian are launched simultaneously. Both believe they are on a common mission: to dock and travel together through space. Their ultimate desination is the seventh planet from the sun, Uranus. With an entire galaxy as their laboratory, the largely female Russian team's secret mission is to learn how the absence of gravity affects human sexuality: male sperm production and female reaction. Before reaching Uranus, an explosive zero-gravity orgy launches bodies and love juices to float gracefully around the space capsule. The historic sex scenes were shot in a special aircraft, flying into an altitude of 35,000 feet, then diving quickly and turning upward again. Precisely the technique used in APOLLO 13. Zero gravity is achieved for about 25-30 seconds and is repeated a couple of times in order to capture all the adventurous action.

35,000 feet is consistent with the vomit comet's path and could have been presented to space.com as 11,000 meters which they failed to convert but instead reported as 11,000 feet. The blurb also contradicts Berth Milton's single take statement. Would this Pure Play Media site be considered a RS, given that they are the distributor?

Also, would it make sense to include the "Virgin Galactic rejects $1 million space porn" information in this same section? -- 110.49.224.96 (talk) 13:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it again. This is refuted in "Packing for Mars", in which the author obtained a copy of the film and determined that this was a false claim. (I assume made for publicity reasons.) "Nothing was shot in zero gravity. The camera man simply filled the ejaculating commander on his back and then flipped the image upside down so he appears to be floating"[1]--66.65.122.221 (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Roach, Mary (2010). Packing for Mars. Norton. p. 242.

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.nowpublic.com/world/universe-sex-space-marks-new-era-mankind
    Triggered by \bnowpublic\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 18:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Racist and Homophobic Agenda[edit]

Only straight white people are allowed to have sex in space? Is the Westboro Baptist Church reverting the edits made to this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.194.250.208 (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification, the IP is talking about this edit. Flyer22 (talk) 03:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soc314: Wikipedia Critique an Article Assignment[edit]

1. The misogyny of the In Popular Culture section relays back to discussions we have had in class. In this case, it relates back to the rape culture conversation, it makes it seem as though men are incapable of self-regulating/restraining themselves from acting sexual - making men and over sexualization synonymous. It seems rather difficult to grasp the fact that a topic regarding reproduction and sexual activity in space takes a negative turn toward misogyny ultimately ruling them "unfit" or unsuitable for space exploration because the "presence of breasts 'bobbing weightlessly" would be too distracting for male crew members. 2. It does not seem as if the popular culture section and much of the article provides a cohesive discussion about the ramifications of human sexual activity in space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R.best (talk • contribs) 06:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I've removed speculative WP:UNDUE points of view as it makes generalizations in the spirit of "all men are the same", promoted by feminists. Brandmeistertalk 13:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Sex in space. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sex in space. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of 2suit[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on 2suit, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. 65.94.42.219 (talk) 04:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Science experiments in space[edit]

There should be coverage of experiments with animal models for sexual relations and reproduction in space. It would show what effects there is in attempts at interfacing and reproduction. -- 65.94.42.219 (talk) 04:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit, I came to this article because I was interested to know if anyone had actually tested the premise in space, on a station or something. The only "science" of this article deals with rats and it is interesting. The rest of the article, I mean, people worried about the sociological aspects of a small crew pairing off...WTF? and yes, the literary comments about boobs in space...I don't think any of it has a place here. The 2suit is somewhat relevant because it shows the reader that 1) people out there are thinking about this and 2) the description of the suit illustrates some of the complications of intimacy in zero-g. But I think that readers coming to this page want to know if sex in space is possible, and if so, what are the physiological aspects and outcomes. I'm glad to see people are at least thinking about it, I was rerally worried that social taboos would lead agencies like NASA to not conduct any experiments at all. StarHOG (talk) 14:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

horrible space.com article[edit]

So I was reading this article and I came to the psychological section, where people speculate how people would feel in small groups about couples pairing off, and it seems a little out of place in this article, I mean that applies to any small group of people forced together for a prolonged period, at say a research station in Antarctica, or a vessel at sea, or a submarine. So i think the first paragraph should go. Then I read the 2nd paragraph, and it seemed OK until I got the last sentence, which prompted me to go read the actual article quoted. Now, I know we aren't supposed to interject our own opinions - original research - but that article has got to be the biggest piece of propaganda? crud? horse-pooey I've seen. Professionals concentrating on their jobs will have no reason to think about sex? There is no reason to experiment as two people who love each other will find a way? Who cares about how people feel or what feelings they have, the purpose of sex is only for procreation? StarHOG (Talk) 13:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the second paragraph doesn't add anything to the article, but I think the first paragraph is useful to give the rest of the article context. I think it should be restored. Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 17:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you are welcome to do that, I'm not in charge, but I really disagree. It is the same as pointing out the hardships of creating a colony in Jamestown, or living at a research station at the North Pole, or working on a submarine. You need to have a big enough gene pool, and people will always feel jealousy when a couple pairs off. i don't think there is anything special about space, or noteworthy, that it has to be mentioned here. They aren't even "real" hindrances to having sex in space, are they? StarHOG (Talk) 19:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sex is human sex?[edit]

If Wikipedia is going to start committing obvious definitional mistakes and category errors, I'm going to completely loose my faith in this project. This does not advance clear thinking. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 08:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editors should refer to a previous, more detailed discussion at User talk:Flyer22 Frozen#Sex in space. Sundayclose (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is symantics. The title and the article are referring to human sex in space, not animals. Yes, sex is sex, but "Sex in space" is specifically speaking about human sex. I'm making a simple change to the lead to clear this up. StarHOG (Talk) 15:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, everything about meaning is semantical. I think titles should be taken to denote what they denote, not inferred to be about something more specific. But good news, I'm happy with the current text. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 23:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Brandmeister's wording is good. Per WP:ISAWORDFOR and WP:Refers to, I would not have supported the "refers to" wording. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All happy, then! :0) --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 08:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I undid Brandmeister's edit before reading this. I do feel strongly that it is the phrase itself that carries an implication that it is about humans. I mean, Big-game hunting doesn't say it is referring to humans, and let's be real, there are plenty of animals that hunt big game. Either we should leave it as originally written, because people should know, or at least infer once they start reading the article, that just like Big-game hunting, we are talking about humans, or we should clarify that this phrase refers to humans doing the sex. A reader is not going to find an alternate article on sex in space about animals, right? StarHOG (Talk) 15:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sex in space is not a phrase, it's a topic name per MOS:LEADSENTENCE and should ideally open the first sentence. The primary meaning is evident to an average reader, because animal sex in space is much less expected (although our sex article refers to biological gender rather than sexual activity). I wouldn't mind renaming this to Sexual activity in space, though, if this is still a problem. Brandmeistertalk 21:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Restored to your wording. Has three supporters thus far. And I see no problem with it. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great! (Also, Sexual activity in space would suffer from exactly the same problem if it was defined as human sexual activity in space, so we would gain nothing by moving it). --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 08:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sex_in_space&oldid=1216507093"