Lore talk:Sex

Sex vs RomanceEdit

This page should be about actual sex and reproduction, not all romantic relationships. I removed the Ghost/human and human/dremora bits because while they are interesting romantic relationships, there's no clear sexual component. The only references to a purely physical relationship in the dremora instance is where one guy makes an offhand comment that flame atronachs would be better because they are nice to look at, while also pointing out that sex wouldn't work there because they'd burn the person. So the only sexual part explicitly rules out sex... These quests just don't fit on a page about sex. If the page was named "romance", they'd 100% fit, but it's not. Jeancey (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Whilst I agree that it is not explicit, it's still interesting lore which doesn't really fit in most places but deserves to be listed somewhere. Whilst you're correct that this pages' intention is not Sex & Romance, I do think it's in the same ballpark so to speak. Perhaps a compromise could be moving it down to the Misc section, or perhaps the notes? CoolBlast3 (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposed ReorganizationEdit

I'd like to propose the adjustment of the Imperial section as follows (refs and newline removed, header adjusted):

EntertainmentEdit

Crassius Curio is commonly believed to have written an erotic play during the Third Era. The bawdy work, known as "The Lusty Argonian Maid", features an Argonian maid and is well-known throughout Tamriel. Despite this belief, it instead came from a long line of stories told by traveling bards, each with its own unique spin on the tale. Among these adaptations are "The Lusty Bosmeri" and "Two Moons for Sugar" in Tamriel's southern regions, and "Shornhelm's Lucky Orifice", "The Sandy Spear of Alik'r", and "The Maiden's Tight Hold" across the continent's north and northwest. A choral adaptation of the play exists, as do art folios. Mindtrait0r (talk) 01:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

This isn't a bad idea. The only shame with it would be Imperials having nothing else of note, but it would be more accurate. Another issue however would be that a lot of items on other races are also technically entertainment, and would therefore concentrate a lot on a single section. Personally, I prefer having things by race for "easy access". But again, your suggestion is also entirely valid so I'll wait for others to pitch in too. CoolBlast3 (talk) 08:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Page ProtectionEdit

Given the nature of the subject matter this article covers, perhaps we should consider proactively protecting this page (semi-protection) to prevent it becoming a target for inappropriate material/vandalism. — Wolfborn^(Howl) 02:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Desele's (Morrowind) and Haelga's (Skyrim)Edit

Desele's, from Morrowind, is briefly mentioned in the "Dunmer" section, but the owner, and the three dancers, aren't Dark Elves. Marelle, one of the dancers, has dialogue that at least implies that she'll do a little more than dancing, for a price. As far as I can tell, there doesn't seem to be any "official" objection (guards, Temple, etc) to this activity.

Similarly, Haelga's Bunkhouse, from Skyrim, is more or less stated to offer similar services. Again, there doesn't seem to be any "official" objection to this, although the Caught Red Handed quest implies that Haelga's customers don't always want everyone to know about it.

If these specific locations don't merit more detailed mentions on their own, maybe they'd be a part of a section on, uh, "people of negotiable virtue". There's a reference to this currently in the "Bretons" section, but that's about it.

73.185.239.90 07:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

When it comes to Haelga's, it's pretty much a brothel as an open-secret.. People don't want to be outed as attending it, but that's because they personally don't want their social status ruined. When it comes to Desele, even if it isn't exactly prostitution, it's still a fantasy equivalent of a strip club. Promiscuous dancers entertaining people. Whilst not literal sex, it is still recreation of a sexual nature. In ESO, it's Dunmer owned, and its sexual nature is rather explicit "Looking for someone to warm your bed? I can recommend someone for that, too."" Having said that, an "entertainment" section is a good idea, and would be a better fit for the Lusty Argonian Maid, as another talk section discussed. I'll see about doing such soon/eventually! CoolBlast3 (talk) 11:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Miscellaneous SectionEdit

The miscellaneous section is far too unfocused and filled with trivia, I would suggest it be removed and any useful information incorporated into other section. The goal of the article shouldn't be to list every sexual encounter in Elder Scrolls lore, we don't need to have things documented here like Orgnum and Potema having sex if we can't think of anything else to say about it beyond that fact. Lore:Breton doesn't document every single Breton in existence, because that would be absurd. The same logic applies here. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 17:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Whilst I agree that stuff like Orgnum and King Hrol might be a tad too broad, everything else there I believe deserves to be listed in the article as they're unique situations or scenarios. The only one I'd possibly move out is Divayth Fyr's clones to Reproduction. The rest I cannot see fitting in many other sections if any, but still deserve their spots on the page CoolBlast3 (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with CoolBlast3, some of the specific sexual encounters should be removed but some of the facts about the sexual nature of things like nymphs an nereids, and the strange umbriel people, doesnt have a better place. Also stuff like the only example of a golem engaging in sexual behavior. Tarponpet (talk) 1:15 PM, 2 June 2023 (EST)

I included the encounter between Orgnum and Potema not on the basis of the encounter itself, but because of the fact that Orgnum gave her some herbs beforehand that supposedly greatly enhanced the experience which feels directly pertinent to an article of this nature, although the sentence could stand to be reworded if anyone should wish. Dcking20 (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Sexually transmitted infectionsEdit

I think we should add information on sti's or sexually transmitted infections as this is something that's part of the world of tes. TheSeldomConsitentEditor (talk) 12:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Summary of Changes May 26, 2024Edit

I changed quite a bit, and there might be a few questions as to why some things were removed/altered. This post serves to summarize the removals and potentially controversial changes.

Cultural Views and Practices: Argonians

Removal: "On an yearly basis they travel to Hissmir to participate in several tests, and only the winners are allowed to mate."

The Argonian Mating Ritual (which was cited for this statement) is not a very reliable source. The author is a High Elf who regurgitates rumors and colors his description with myths and derogatory opinions. He's also never actually observed the rites that he claims exist. He seems to be mistaking the trials in Hissmir, which allow lukiul to commune with the Hist, for some sort of mating ritual. We have extensive documentation of Argonian physiology and a few of the tribes' matrimonial rites on Lore:Argonian: the removed statement can be reliably debunked.

Cultural Views and Practices: Dunmer/Khajiit

Removal: "Dunmer women have a reputation for being promiscuous." / "A Third Era joke book poked fun at Khajiit for being rather promiscuous."

See Lore:Dunmer's talk page. Jokes references Dark Elves of either gender as having a taste for sexual activity. Rather than leaning into stereotypes (which are contradicted: see the aforementioned talk page), we should make an effort to be specific about noteworthy sex-related facets of cultures. TRB states that Elven women in general have a tendency to gravitate towards sexual activity in their youth, that Barenziah will grow out of it, etc. Jokes about sex are not necessarily indicative of that culture's view on sex.

If we're going to use The Real Barenziah as a source, it would be more accurate to say "It's generally accepted that Elves tend to have a proclivity for sexual activity in their youth, but grow out of it" or something to that effect rather than applying it solely to Dunmer. The Real Barenziah, v 2 doesn't just single out Dark Elves: Katisha says "Elves are promiscuous when they're young. But you'll outgrow it." She doesn't specify Dark Elves.

On the Khajiiti front: Jokes has one joke about a Khajiit having sex under a tree while someone watches. One joke about sex does not mean the author is making sweeping statements about the supposed promiscuity of an entire race. Sex jokes can be made about any culture, and upholding a joke as a defining piece of evidence for supposed societal perception is poor practice.

Fauna

Removal: "Voles allegedly partake in inbreeding. Apes are said to have incestuous relations with their own mothers."

Crendal's dialogue from Redguard was cited for apes. Given the rest of the song, it seems like Crendal is singing about sailors rather than actual apes. It's his own Rude Song, but for the alphabet. This shouldn't be here: he's not talking about actual apes, he's talking about sailors.

Squire Caw's houseguest dialogue was cited for inbreeding in voles. The dialogue is as follows:

"The Duke of Crows once told me, "Squire Caw, you don't have the brains of an inbred vole."
I don't mean to speak ill of the Duke, but that's unfair! I brought him the brains of at least twenty voles. How am I supposed to know if they're inbred?"

The Duke is merely calling Squire Caw stupid. A vole is a small, non-sapient animal. A rodent, no less. By calling Squire Caw dumber than an inbred vole, he's saying an inbred rodent is smarter than the squire, ergo the squire is exceptionally stupid.

From this, we can't glean anything about how often voles are inbred: the Duke is merely insulting the squire. We can, however, infer that inbreeding has a negative connotation in the world of the Elder Scrolls: inbreeding is associated with lesser intelligence. I have added a note to describe this to replace the sweeping assumption.

That's all I got through today. —MolagBallet (talk) 19:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I heavily disagree with most if not all of these removals. Your main reason is "this source unreliable". That is not a reason to remove ANYTHING from the wiki. Unreliable sources are still sources, else half of UESP needs to be deleted. Instead, you should point out the unreliability in the source. Secondly, stereotypes regarding sexuality are still lore. Again, point out that these are stereotypes and not hard-truth, do not remove them from the page. This comment mainly applies to the Argonian and Khajiit/Dunmer stuff. Mostly agree on the inbred crow thing. CoolBlast3 (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment that some of these should have been rephrased instead of removed outright. If you think something should be rephrased but don't know how, I don't think removing it is the best course of action. I think some of the tweaks are fine though besides removals. Tarponpet (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

What I'll say is that some were better off removed while most were better off being rephrased:

• The Argonian Mating Ritual bit I agree with being removed due to blatant unreliable narrator + being disproven in-game. We should note this on Lore:Hissmir instead so that in the future people don't mistake this as fact.
• The "promiscious" stuff, while I don't like, is better off being rephrased as being overt stereotypes rather than "most people agree this is common knowledge". I can't condone removing it as the information is in the series, we just have a duty to reword it as being from a specific viewpoint.
• The vole thing I'm not totally sure what to do. Its obviously meant to be an insult rather than somebody stating it from a factual standpoint. I don't like bringing up real-world stuff but in a scientific paper around 36.4% of vole offspring were inbred, a value "much higher than other figures reported for birds and mammals", so it has some merit as a fact. I'm unsure if the info we have on the page is better off as the current note or the original fauna sentence.
• The ape thing was already unreliable due to its joke nature, if its actually about sailors, then even moreso. Its better off being put with the note about voles in some way.

The Rim of the Sky (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Never remove a statement from a lore article on this website merely because it comes from an "unreliable source" which is a subjective standard that could apply to the vast majority of all sources used on our articles. Instead, point out the reliability or lack there of for the source if absolutely necessary. As for things that aren’t meant to be sweeping statements, could possibly go in the note section or remain in the section they are currently in with a footnote that explains they aren’t necessarily a sweeping statement. Dcking20 (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)