Talk:Sex

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To-do list for Sex:	edit · history · watch · refresh
Here are some tasks you can do: Expand: Add information about sex in non-human animals Add information about the evolutionary pressures on species with more than two sexes Add information about animal species with more than two sexes

Sex is the current 1.0 Collaboration of the Fortnight! Please help improve it to the standard for good articles.

	This article has been identified by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team as a Core Topic, one of the 150 most important articles for any encyclopedia to have. Please help improve this article as we push to 1.0. If you'd like help with this article, you may nominate it for the core topics collaboration.
B	Sex has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Natsci article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.

Note Please put new content at the end of this page.

Archive One
Archive Two

Contents 1 Archive 2 Sexual Orientation/Sexual Partner 3 Definitely defined 4 Cut-off section 5 If you want to see what the SEX is then you are welcome... 6 Left out on Article Page 7 Are these Unprovable Dates Necessary Here? 8 Sex in non-human animals?

[edit] Archive

I archived the old discussions because the page was larger than 54 kilobytes, so dont freak out and block me or something. :D --Mwhorn 03:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual Orientation/Sexual Partner

With regard to the psychological section in the table on the article sex, I noticed the terms androphilic and gynephilic for "usual sexual orientation" to explain the common differences between human males and females. I am not sure if these are accurate descriptions because there is not a verifiable way to measure sexual orientation or romantic attraction (as in the suffix -philia) between people, because such a thing I would consider subjective. Would it be more appropriate to say "usual sexual partner" rather than "usual sexual orientation", because pairing of sexual partners can be directly observed?
Thanks, Mwhorn 04:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd hope that a reasonably representative indication would be obtainable with confidentiality and a sufficiently large sample, but whether or not this is how sociologists have tried to obtain information on sexual orientation is something I don't know. I wouldn't say trying to observe the pairing of sexual partners is any more reliable!  Regards, David Kernow 09:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC) via WP:CS.

The idea that scientists cannot make any meaningful observation or description of a human psychological phenomenon with a subjective component is obsolete by 50 years. It was epitomized by B. F. Skinner and is termed behaviorism: the brain was a black box that we should not pretend to understand, and the only scientific psychology must be restricted to observations of actual behavior. This is now considered a quaint and obsolete historical perspective like Freudian psychology. As we can now non-invasively measure changes in the function of tiny sets of neurons during all sorts of subjective experiences and phenomena in people (e.g., religious feelings), your position is simply wrong. Usual orientation is readily defined in several ways and can be measured by several methods that usually give the same results for individual people. Like handedness or many other human variations there are degrees of distinctiveness, and people in between or inconsistent or capable of changing or operating both ways in certain environments. While this particular dimension of sexual differentiation has alway carried enormous amounts of social significance, and the behavioral expressions of orientation even more, you shouldn't confuse the social uses and misuses with the core concept. These days it is politically correct to assume there is at least some direct component of biological determination. The conventional wisdom about orientation is certainly susceptible to political distortion and misuse, and has changed greatly over the last century, and will undoubtedly change further over the next, but nearly all of the arguments revolve around the nature and determinants of orientation, not whether there is such a thing as a "usual orientation" that is associated with other aspects of sexual differentiation. I think that may be the source of your confusion on this topic. For better or worse, encyclopedias are repositories of educated conventional wisdom. We are happy to contribute to your education. alteripse 13:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

If you'll note farther down in the article on sexual orientation, as well as the demographics of sexual orientation, there are many scientific studies with homosexual and bisexual percentages well below 50%, almost always in the single digits. They include verifyable measures like actual sex acts, self-evident measures like self-identification, as well as reports of spontaneous attraction. While it is certainly true that methodological problems persist in pinning down exact percentages, the scientific consensus seems to support the notion that people are usually heterosexual (by a number of criteria). The other editors are right; spontaneous attraction does have involuntary physical manifestations which can be verified. There's no credible evidence to suggest that anything near 40% of people experience significant same-sex attraction on a regular basis, or are having significant amounts of gay sex, but lying about all this on surveys and to their friends, or that 40% of the population is nebulous and confused about their sexual orientation. -- Beland 00:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Sexuality, the Modern World, and the Catholic Church

[edit] Definitely defined

"The female sex is definitely defined ..." is a nonsensical sentence. Please make it sensical. -Pgan002 07:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the "definitely"-Bri2k1 04:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cut-off section

The piece on biological discordance appears to cut off in mid-sentence. it's not clear how long it was supposed to go on. I was enjoying reading it until it ended, though!  :)

[edit] If you want to see what the SEX is then you are welcome...

The pure and real sex - [SNIP Spam] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.87.244.54 (talk • contribs).

Yeah, it was in my room last might, no snarky spam URLs needed, spammer! E. Sn0 =31337= 18:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Left out on Article Page

The article talks about human and non-human reproduction but leaves out inter-species erotica.

^your point? ti si lud

[edit] Are these Unprovable Dates Necessary Here?

The scientific method requires that for something to be considered proven it must be able to be duplicated in the laboratory at will. Regardless of the evidence (or lack thereof) for the age of the universe being postulated at 4.5 billion years, it cannot be duplicated in the lab. Or if it could be duplicated in the lab, if one were to start now it would require at least 4.5 billion years IF it could be proven. There are some terminally degreed scientists who postulate a much shorter time period from the beginning of man to his present state. To only use the opinion of one group (even though they may be in the majority) is to be intellectually dishonest. Why not just leave out the numbers and leave that discussion to another article? DSG2 01:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

First, can we clear up a couple of your errors? First, the scientific method most certainly does not require that something "must be able to be duplicated in the laboratory" to be considered proven. Second, scientists have proposed many estimates of the "age of the universe", "age of the earth", "duration of life on earth", "duration of human life on earth" over the last 2 centuries and educated people understand they are estimates consistent with current evidence, and not a single real scientist "considers them proven". Third, there is a big difference between age of the earth, age of life on earth, and "age of the universe", and an even greater difference between these three periods and the time "from the beginning of man to his present state"-- you just gave away your game if you think all four of those things began in the same week. Fourth, a neglibly minuscule fraction of "terminally degreed" biologists (the relevant scientists here) postulate a duration of life on earth substantially shorter than many millions of years, or a duration of human life substantially shorter than a couple of million years, and an encyclopedia need not cater to every fringe "scientist". Finally, there is nothing "intellectually dishonest" about citing a current widely accepted estimate-- in fact, a much better example of intellectual dishonesty is a religious concept pretending to be science or falsely claiming that scientists consider those time estimates "proven". And, gosh, that just about disposes of every premise in your post. alteripse 03:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Except that you did not answer my original question, that your dates are both unproven and wrong, that I have no game other than the truth, that minorities are often correct (because truth is not a voting matter) and that the classsical scienctific method did require duplication. You have the right to personally throw away what has been made known and chose ignorance for yourself, but you do not have the right to write what is wrong. (And btw, do YOU have a game and worship something called a "gosh"?) DSG2 02:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This is all irrelevant per the Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy undue weight clause. JoshuaZ 03:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

what they really aren't telling us is how to have sex???

I believe the currently accepted date for sex is about 1.2 bya. You need multicelled creatures for sex and they just weren't available until the Cambrian outburst. I hope someone changes it with a better reference when the article becomes unlocked. The date given is way off.67.8.205.130 22:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sex in non-human animals?

OK, so there's a section about sex in non-animal species and about sex in humans, but shouldn't there also be a section about sex in non-human animal species? --24.11.177.133 07:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

荒らししてすみませんでした♪♪sorry☆ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.231.188.19 (talk • contribs).

My apologies, English please? :)  E. Sn0 =31337= ^Talk 03:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I understand what you're getting at, you mean a section on organisms in kingdom Animalia other than humans to add to the sections on humans and plants? Darthgriz⁹⁸ 04:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)