Category talk:Sex in advertising

Rename

Most of these files have nothing to do with sex. There shouldn't be any confusion between sex and nudity. "Eroticism in advertising" could aslo be interesting but there are some few files with non-erotic nudity. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not agree: "Sex" is a very wide concept, and explicit sex is quite rare in advertising. More: "Nudity" includes advertising with children, and I think that this kind of extensive category is not a good idea. Cyberuly (talk) 10:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC).

Sorry but that's where you're wrong : this example, where a nude underage boy is depicted, shows that this category deals with nudity, not with sexuality. That's actually the reason why it's risky (and not honest nor serious) to have that confusion between sex and nudity ! I think we should have one "Nudity in advertising" category and subcategories such as "Eroticism in advertising" and "Sexuality in advertising". --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're right: actually that poster is in the wrong category...

"Eroticism in advertising" could be a good alternative name for this category, but I think that the relation "Category:Nudity in advertising /subCategory:Eroticism in advertising" is not correct because not necessarily Eroticism is Nudity (also a simply claim could be erotic!).

If you want, you can find a very good classification of "sex in advertising" in this research of Tom Reichert (2002).

Cyberuly (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC).

• Some of the files have a sexual theme, some don't. They say, "Sex sells", not "Nudity sells". There could be a subset of images with nudity but without sexual content, for example, the sort of images which illustrate a naturist newsletter, see File:At the nudist beach.jpg. I think any image which could in good faith be placed in Category:Sexual theme probably belongs in Category:Sex in advertising, but might also belong in Category:Nudity in advertising or some other subcategory of Nudity. Fred Bauder (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• Object. 1)The en:Wikipedia article is at "Sex in advertising" and has been since early 2003. The de:W and es:W articles are at similar titles (I don't know Russian so I can't comment on the ru:W). 2) Some files in the category are indeed about sexuality and have nothing to do with nudity; eg File:AreYouAfraidToLove1926.jpg. 3)The majority of the images do not contain nude people. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I confirm ru:W is also an equivalent of "sex in advertising" (sex v reclame). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Rename again

Orrling has suggested a new name : "Sexuality in advertising". After the previous discussion about the present name, I think "Sexuality" is really not a good idea for at least two reasons :

1. "Sex in advertising" is the title of the article on English Wikipedia (same for the German and Russian equivalents)
2. "Sex" is a larger concept than sexuality. As the English WP article says it : "Sex in advertising or sex sells is the use of sexual or erotic imagery". If we rename this category in "Sexuality in advertising" we would have to remove most of the files since the majority of them deals with eroticism but not sexuality.

Therefore I'm totally against Orrling's idea. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

 Oppose Sex and sexuality are separate concepts. I'm not against creating sexuality in advertising as a category if it is useful, it just is not a replacement for this one. For example an advert where a drag queen saying something witty is a key component could be classed as sexuality, but that does not cover an advert making a joke out of dogging in a car park, which I would say was sex but not sexuality (I vaguely recall examples of both of these as story elements in adverts). --Fæ (talk) 13:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Sex in advertising → Sexuality in advertising

To everyone here, I'm just here to remind everyone here on Wikipedia that Sexuality is broader than Sex in all meanings and terms. It is an observation well-adopted and accepted on this project. and the two aren't some kind of separate-standalone or parallelling existences. but rather one (sex) within the other (sexuality) and so our aim should be to materialize this sense, in Commons tools, and give a chance to our category infrastructure to altogether be more coherent and good. I don't think there's many others that have created and reworked so many of our Sex/uality navigation facilies and categories, the idea is that the manifestations of sexuality currently being the great majority of the content in this category are not manifestations of sex but are utilizations of humans' primordial sexuality drive. and as such they merit to be assembled under a correct title. Sex in advertizing would be right as a sub-category of this with these representations, for example. The current category indicates that the content is more inclusive than its title. and this should be settled. That's all from me. Orrlingtalk 09:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

A minor clarification, "sex" is not a clear subset of "sexuality". A medical photograph of a genital skin rash would not demonstrate sexuality of itself, but may be part of the topic of sex or sex education. --Fæ (talk) 09:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Sex education speaks to Sexuality. It is a circle within a circle. It cannot be avoided. It shouldn't either. It is very simple. there are 47 items hosted at this moment. by simply glancing them one can see that they are overwhelmingly about implied sexual temptation, AKA "Sex sells", but no SEX there only SEXUALITY. Orrlingtalk 03:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

As Fæ explained it well, sex is not always a question of sexuality. If this category is renamed "Sexuality in advertising", most of the files have to be removed from it ! How stupid would it be ?! You can speak of sex when it deals with sexuality, but you can't always speak of sexuality when it deals with sex.

Instead, we could create a "Sexuality in advertising" sucategory of "Sex in advertising". The online example you give would concern "Sexuality" (and therefore "Sex" as a result of the category tree logic) but the files here concern "Sex" and not "Sexuality". Actually, I see almost no files here that could deal with sexuality ! (that would concern that one or that one but most of the other files don't deal with sexuality but only with nudity - therefore sex as an anatomic topic - and/or eroticism - therefore sex without sexuality). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

By the way, see Wikipedia, where Category:Sexuality is a subcat of Category:Sex. We need to follow that same logic on Commons.--TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, for various reasons, many stated above. the main one for me is that all discussions ive ever heard of the subject of human sexuality being used in advertising have used the phrase "sex in advertising", or "sex sells", never sexuality. so, while these words may often be synonyms, in this case, one usage is definitely common, the other is rare. to try to create a broader category, to me, is splitting hairs, or counting angels dancing on the head of a pin. this name just works, so it doesnt need to be fixed.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 10:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)