Talk:Human sexuality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some Wikipedians are assessing interest in a new project dealing with close relationships. Editors of this article may be interested in participating in the project. Please check out the project proposal page and sign up if you are interested in participating.

LGBT Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.

Sexuality Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.

Start

This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.

Top

This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.

Assessment comments

This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.

Additional information:
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. Feel free to make short comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

[edit] Bisexuality

Bisexality, as well as other distinct sexual identities such as queer and transexual, seem to be completely missing from both these articles, why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flufybumblebee (talk • contribs) 01:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Instinct

I am sorry, but the idea that human sexuality is governed by instinct is hopelessly outdated. Get your information straight. For instance, it does not need to take one man and one woman. A woman or a man can have sex by themselves. Not everybody in this world defines themselves as man or woman. Two women or two men (or three or four or more) can have sex. But the main thing is that we learn sex, we do not just instinctively do it. If you don't agree, think back to your first time. You will have to admit that you had to learn a great deal and perhaps you have since that time. Can you walk on two feet (a distinctly human trait) without anybody teaching you? Can you speak complex sentences (equally as human, no animal comes close to humans in the use of language) when you do not grow up in a social environment? If you want to compare your sexuality to that of chimps, I suggest you watch chimps copulate (I can't even call it sex). If that compares to your sexuality, you have my sympathy, but I happen to last a bit longer than a few seconds. User:nielsft12 April 2004.

I have two objections to your edit. First one is that in this version it posits an either-or situation with does not necessarily exist. It is a fallacy.

The other is that even if you hold that human sexuality is entirely learned behaviour, NPOV requires that you state the other opinions (which hold different degrees of intinct involvement) and give give reasons (citings etc.) why your point should be more prominents etc. etc.

--Calm 16:46, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree with 200.191.188.xxx, who added the abortion link back into the article. In fact, I'd put it right under pregnancy. But it's extremely disingenuous to ignore the link between abortion and sexuality. <>< tbc

LOL. That was my opinion. :-) Western society must be the first in history to de-couple sexuality from a link with pregnancy. (I'd put abortion with Birth control/Contraception on the page, myself, but I think we should leave it as a "see also" for now.)

Our high intelligence and complex societies have produced in us the most complicated sexual behaviors of any animal.

That's very subjective opinion. Compared to other animals, human sexuality is quite simple. You know - you need just a male and a female and ... done :) Many important aspects of normal animal sexuality like estrus, sexual demonstrations, fighting between males before any copulation, eating partner or partner's previous children don't exist or exist only in very reduced form in humans. --Taw

Tush. I revised it and put it back on the page - hopefully the new version is less mantis-bashing :-). And I think most of the behaviors you list are present in humans in an attenuated or sublimated form.

I think the initial wording above is actually better than the current one. Our intelligence has little if anything to do with the complexity of our sexuality as a species. And it is more complex than the act of coitus which is pretty basic when you get down to it. Courting rituals and cultural taboos ad such are highly elaborate, and it can even be argued that most of our culture is directly or indirectly derivative of that, from art, to music, etc. I think the original wording is much more NPOV and accurate. With all due respect to Taw, I suggest we revert back to that wording. Lestatdelc 20:14, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

And -- many aspects of (well, maybe not important and maybe not normal) human sexuality such as high-heel shoes, alimony, Queer theory, contraception, de Sade (yeesh), red sports cars, panty raids, hentai (need I go on? :-) ) don't exist in animals.

Well, of course Queer theory doesn't exist in animals; they typically refrain from theorizing, to my knowledge. - Montréalais

Well, as far as we know such complex self-study of animal societies of their own species does not occur, yet homosexual anbd bisexual behavior, iuncluding complex social behaviors sorrounding such does occur in the naimal kingdom. I suggest reading Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity by Dr. Bruce Bagemihl . Lestatdelc 23:37, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

what's the link between this article and human sexual behaviour ? Martin

The term "instinct" is not very helpful in this discussion. It appears that there are some behaviors that are absolutely "hard-wired", but they are very simple, e.g., all babies react to the feeling of "the bottom dropping out". But many other behaviors may have a hard-wired basis that needs to meet the appropriate imprinting to be activated in a way useful to the individual.

Patrick0Moran 05:41, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Wisdom and Human Sexuality

There have been several changes to the line that currently reads "Historically, wisdom has not been a dominant factor in human sexuality." I don't think the current phrasing is very good. But I think that it should be resolved on the talk page instead of through back-and-forth changes in the article itself. Any suggestions for a good wording?

Acegikmo1 03:06, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't think the paragraph is necessary at all. I wanted to remove it, but thought I would try re-wording it first. I don't see any reason why the wisdom or intelligence of human sexual behaviors would be relevant to a page which is nothing more than a List Of page. If these comments are even appropriate for an encyclopidic article, they should probably go in their own "debate on human sexuality" page or something. -- Crag 15:07, 2004 May 17 (UTC)

H'm, agreed. I tried re-wording it myself when I first saw it, but you're right that it really has no place in the article. I'll remove it. Thanks

Acegikmo1 00:28, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Why is this not merged with Human sexual behaviour? -SV 21:54, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)

Probably because it would take a lot of work, as the articles are organized quite differently.

Acegikmo1 18:05, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] human category

is it okay for this page to be under category:human ?

--LegCircus 04:22, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Its fine, I would think, except that Category:Sexuality is a subcategory of Category:Human behavior, which is a subcategory of Category:Human, which means that because it is in Category:Sexuality it is already in Category:Human. Phew! -Seth Mahoney 19:13, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] clarify sex vs. gender issue

I have made a minor change in the first paragraph because the article did not properly reflect the difference between sex and gender. Sexual identity is not a matter of socialization. Determining the sexual identity of a person breaks down into several objective questions: What is the chromosomal sex of this person (XX, XY, XXY...)? What is the status of the genitalia (typical female, typical male, XY individual with unmasculinized genitalia, etc.,etc.)? Societies generally insist on a 2-category system, the basic criterion for inclusion in one category or the other is whether the individual has, will have, or once had the capacity to produce ova or to produce spermatazoa. The ways that individuals are taught to represent what they are and what they want to do in a social/sexual/life-task context is called gender. P0M 05:53, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article biased towards Western world views about sexuality?

I have never placed an NPOV tag on a page yet, and I'm certainly not going to do so without taking part in a discussion first (unlike others I've encountered). But I think that this whole article both in its structure and content is very biased towards the "Western World" view of human sexuality. Where is the spirituality and the deeper understanding that many (probably the majority) of cultures in this world attempt to attach to this intriguing and fundamental concept?

I am a Westerner myself so I am not saying this out of self-interest, but I think this whole article is a bit one-sided in this respect.

TH 00:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The bias is not deliberate. Since this is the English WikiPedia , most editors are from the US or Commonwealth of Nations. We simply do not know about other countries. If you know about other cultures, than by all means, add what you know to the article. I remember a few months ago, a newspaper hired experts to assess Wikipedia for an article. All said it was accurate except an Entomologist . After a few hours, he withdrew his objections because he himself improved the article the article about coccoons. ¡Be the Entomologist !

—

— Ŭalabio‽ 03:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I put Pedophilia and pederasty into paraphilia, those are not sexual orientations. I would also move Celibacy somewhere else, this is no-way related to sexual orientation but it is a way to live his sexuality.

I would like to thank the wikipedian who wrote "For information about sexual activities and practices (i.e., "doing it"), see the article human sexual behavior." LOL...--Stupidwhiteman 12:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Enjoy it while you can. Anything the least bit humorous is a prime candidate for reversion.—GraemeMcRae^talk 05:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Facts of Life Redirect NOT Appropriate

I typed in "Facts of Life" to go to the entry on the T.V. and it took me here. This redirect needs to be eliminated in favor of a disam page. Pacian 01:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Additionally - "The Birds and the Bees" redirects here. Good for 6-year-olds, bad for people looking for the Jewel Akens song? Though, Jewel Akens doesn't have an article and I certainly don't know enough to write one, so maybe this is a more justifiable redirect. Just pointing it out. --EasyAsPi314 13:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible link to add

The site of the Society for Human Sexuality probably deserves a link from somewhere (I'm not sure if this article is the place, hence bringing it up on the talk page); the group might even deserve an article. Seattle-based site, an outgrowth of one of the first broadly inclusive sex-positive student organizations. One of very few sites on the web trying to write from a positive but non-sensationalistic point of view about sexuality resources (ranging from pornography—which they prefer to call "erotica"—to web-based matchmaking services). Interesting site, not quite NPOV because systematically sex-positive, but something that seems to me to be a useful resource. Probably also a useful resource for topics worth writing about: my guess is that their relatively short list of erotic films would contain a bunch that deserve articles and don't yet have them. - Jmabel | Talk 06:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Close Relationships template

I added a new close relationships template to the article. If the consensus is to remove it, due to the other templates already taking up space on the page, I'm okay with that. (Kelly 05:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC))

I think both the close relationships template and the love template are aggressively POV and neither is appropriate. -Smahoney 06:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Please explain why you believe the close relationship template is POV, by which I assume you mean a violation of NPOV policy. Close relationships--also referred to as intimate relationships, attached relationships, or romantic relationships--have received a lot of research attention in psychology, sociology, and anthropology. The multiple articles on Monogamy and the articles on Attachment in adults and Attachment measures illustrate the kind of research attention close relationships have received. These articles contain numerous references to scientific studies. Kelly 07:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the existence of close relationships, or the close relationships template as such. I'm disputing the necessary connection between human sexuality and close relationships implied by the template's presence on this page. -Smahoney 15:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay. That's not really a violation of the NPOV policy, which your intial reference to POV suggested. However, I see your point. Sexuality does not always occur in close relationships. But many times it does, and readers interested in the topic of close relationships may be specifically interested in the sexual aspect of close relationships. I have decided to place the template on the Human sexual behavior page. That article introduces relationships in the second paragraph and contains a section listing types of partnerships--some of which are included in the Close Relationships template. Are you okay with the template being in the Human sexual behavior article? Kelly 16:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly surprised that both articles exist - one seems at first glance to be redundant. But yeah, it seems more appropriate there, since that article seems focused on sexual relationships. -Smahoney 17:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Later. Kelly 18:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Topics in human sexuality

This section is just an huge ugly list.It should be reformed in to a template,for all the relevant articles.I would also propose a merge with Human sexual behavior.--Pixel ;-) 18:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leading sentence is horrible!

"Human sexuality refers to the expression of sexual sensation and related intimacy between human beings, as well as the expression of identity through sex and as influenced by or based on sex."

What the hell are you trying to say?

I would rather see "Human sexuality is about fucking" than this piece of meaningless rubbish.

Please sign your posts. I agree. I'm reducing the opening paragraph considerably. Brallan 11:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Someone vandalized the beginning of the article. Seeing as I can't remove it, it has to be a hack. Please have someone come fix this.

[edit] Sexual Development needs its own article

Sexual development redirects here, but it needs its own article, as it extremely varied amongst animals and an interesting topic which does not seem to be covered either by this article or Animal_sexuality. what do people think? Brallan 11:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, another person on the sexual development talkpage seemed to agree, so I removed the redirect and started a sexual development stub.Brallan 11:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Huge list of articles

I've split the list of articles into List of human sexuality topics, which was eating up way too much of the page. It took a while, but it got done.-Wafulz 02:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Rationality of Sexuality

There is a theory about the rationality of sexuality in the self-published book Work Efficiency and Likings by K. H. Tervola, which is avalilable in the internet for free at stores.lulu.com/khtervola.InsectIntelligence 19:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The theory says that sexuality is a way to learn about the art of living. When we admire someone, are friends, love and/or feel physical attraction, we get lots of social influence from the other person's way to live and via that, i.e. via learning the dominant mood (consisting of the following: eyes, hearing, memory, thinking, language, social, feelings, atmospheres, the sense of beauty, the body,…), we learn the natural base of the skills of the other one, getting so new strenghts in addition to our old ones. Also the possible offspring would have the strenghts of both… InsectIntelligence 03:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Self-published sources are not generally not allowed, unless they are the subject describing itself (such as a musician's blog or a website's creation log). See Wikipedia:Reliable sources.-Wafulz 03:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. Anyway, just in case that you are interested in the theory, the text of the book is at www.paradisewins.net/WEL.html .InsectIntelligence (talk) 13:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reproductive Fitness

Sexual reproduction, including human sexuality, evolved because of its effect on reproductive fitness. No discussion of human (or any other species) sexuality is complete without including reproductive fitness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.0.59.188 (talk) 02:48, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] merge

Merge it. 63.228.107.65 01:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that all the material is directly relevant to such a broad topic.-Wafulz 01:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Apart from reproductivity there are two other aspects needed to be thought of. Out of these two one is "health" aspect. Sex is needed for the routine relaxation. For woman also to keep her body functioning-like monthly cycles- in order. The second one is nearness to "trance feelings" after the sex act is over. This feeling means expressing the gratitude to the almighty for allowing the pleasure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.187.218.81 (talk) 11:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hoax mini-paragraph

There was a mini-paragraph near the top that I took out that merely looked like a garbled sentence at first, but proved to have been a deliberate attempt to insert false information. It's been there for some months, and used a fabricated citation (neither book nor author appear to exist). Do watch out in case anybody tries to put it back in. No more bongos 05:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it was added here, probably to mock Foucault.-Wafulz 14:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Instincts have rationality

Compare a passing meeting to 30 years of marriage: 30 years of being the closest adult in your life. That is 1 day compared to 30 years which is about 1 : 10 000. No wonder that we react strongly to the possibility of getting a partner that would suit us!InsectIntelligence (talk) 13:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Repression

It seems very bizarre to me that this page does not mention sexual repression. This subject has been studied extensively in the scholarly literature and there is a great variety of good sources on the topic presenting a number of different viewpoints. It's also a subject that relates very directly to a number of other topics, including, among others, culture, childbirth, birth control, general reproductive health, religion, women's health and other issues of the empowerment of women. In short, I see no reason that wikipedia should not contain an article on this topic. I am posting here because I am planning on recreating the page (I don't see any discussion of why it was deleted) and I would like to recruit thoughtful contributors to it. I also think the topic should be discussed and linked on this page. Cazort (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI, it was deleted because it was a redirect to religion and sexuality.-Wafulz (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photo removal

I recognize what you said in your edit summary, but there's no way we're going to find a photo that encompasses the history, culture, politics, and ethics of human sexuality. A bar scene does represent an aspect of culture, though, so I believe it's apt for the article. Thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a symbolic image (male/female/trans symbols, LGBT flag, etc)? Other than that, we could use a collage or something similar. This is what some umbrella articles use: see biology, evolution, World War I. We could also use an historical image like mathematics does.-Wafulz (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Foucault?

Does anyone else think it's a bit excessive to have two paragraphs devoted to Foucault's views in the introduction? Although I realize he holds a lot of influence in the social sciences and academia, many authorities disagree with him and it seems inappropriate to mention him to the exclusion of everyone else. Additionally, I don't see why whoever wrote this couldn't just use plain language and had to resort to postmodernist babble and putting every other word in quotes, when the actual point they are trying to get across is relatively simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.147.224 (talk) 06:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it could be moved down, but it seems to flow and introduce the issues rather well. I would not mind keeping it in. forestPIG 09:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah Foucault is influential and all, but I think it should be toned down a bit.-Wafulz (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)