Talk:Human sexual activity

Merge to Human sexuality

"Human sexual behaviour" is an uncommon phrase. Human sexuality includes both physical and mental "behaviours" and "feelings". Separating as physical and mental would be original research. Nowhere else on net we find such title, except wikipedia. Also lead section of the article is empty. We better merge it to human sexuality, you can refer to other dictionaries or encyclopedias. Article can be developed better if merged, it helps both in contents and editors attention. Please post your view. Thanks. Lara_bran 04:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is an old veiw #Merge. Back in 2002 :) Lara_bran 04:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This article should be deleted. It is clearly included merely to espouse positive views regarding deviant (in the statistical sense) sexual behavior. The simple fact "child sexuality" is a dominant section should indicate this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.254.2 (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Should be kept, as sexual behavior seems to be an encylopedic subject on its own, while sexuality can include data on feelings, on issues of drives vs. actions, and on other topics very separate from this article. A link to sexuality should be enough to satisfy. Aleister Wilson (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

An embarassment as it now stands and no name space distinction from the merge target. Current §§ 1.5,6 are especially questionable. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so the would-be merge target indicates this is supposed to be about sexual love/relationship which is what lead me here. Adjusting tags appropriately. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there seems to be a lot of confusion here, probably to do with the highly charged (repressed) nature of the subject matter. Sexual activity is an abstract concept and therefroe should first be introduced as such. It is a cultural concept although it has primary psychological drives and reproductive origins. What is and what is not "sexual activity" is therefore a matter of opinion and perspective. The biological and physical aspects of intercourse, as well as solely erotic behaviours (those that do not entail reproductive sexual intercourse) should be detailed in separate articles from the area in general, which in my opinion should provide an overview of the field. For instance, Freud's concepts of sexual gratification and development span the human lifecycle. Tantric concepts include aesthetic components as well as physiological (physical biology) and emotional aspects. Both of these are here sublimated to the mechanistic theory. I have added the word "psychological" into the heading in this light. LookingGlass (talk) 12:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Good source?

I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere, but this looks like a decent source.-Wafulz 00:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone for gay sex

The decision to redirect gay sex to this page was made some time ago. I did not have the opportunity to vote on that decision, but I would have voted against it. After all, oral sex does not redirect here. Both are a part of human sexual behaviour. Gay sex is nothing to be ashamed of and should be treated like any other sex act. Punctuallylate (talk) 10:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Punctuallylate

You seem to be treating "gay sex" as one act. There are a number of pages relating to various sexual activities. They are not, in general, segregated by homo/hetero sexuality (though there must be exceptions such as tribadism and frot). I think treating people as people is healthier, after all safe sex is an issue for everyone. --Simon Speed (talk) 11:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

"a partner who is physically at risk"

In the section on Safety and ancillary issues, the first risk item is "choosing to trust a partner who is physically at risk." I don't understand this.

1. What is really being described here? What are the possible causes of this physical risk?
2. If one partner is physically at risk, what is the safety concern for the other partner; how does that create a trust issue for the other partner?

Jojalozzo (talk) 04:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It's most likely a typo - "trusting a partner who is physically a risk" covers a wide range of sexual assault issues (assault, rape, through to injury and infection) which is a risk a person may sadly run if they seek sexual activity with a partner that they unwisely trust or don't know.

That said these days it could be better worded and in any event a list like this should be sourced and cited to an authoritative reliable source. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Section on Sex and the Law

Currently the sex and the law section only covers homosexual sex, but not forced prostitution, prostitution, extreme BDSM etc. which are also illegal in many countries. That doesn't seem to be NPOV to me. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Section on female sexual pleasure

I deleted information about the g-spot and clitoris that was not sourced and poorly written. I added facts that I referenced about the nerve fibers of the clitoris.TheSexResearcher (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC) I deleted information about the g-spot that was not sourced. I researched more accurate information on the g-spot going back to the original paper by Grafenberg and looking at the research up to the present day. I also researched anatomical studies of the clitoris. This article now reflects the current scientific data and viewpoints about female orgasm, the clitoris, and sensitivity within the vagina.TheSexResearcher (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Aspects of human sexual behavior

Where is the 'Male Sexual Pleasure' section? Are only women such a sexual riddle that they require a section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatcud (talk • contribs) 17:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

NPOV problems

This article takes a cissexist POV. The page for transgender sexuality complements this one but is specifically marked as transgender. This page makes it seem like cisgender sexuality is the norm and doesn't need to be marked. Can we fix this?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Minomask (talk • contribs) 21:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I have a lot of respect for transgender people and I know several myself. But I'm sorry, 'cisgender' sexuality is fairly clearly the norm and its completely unnecessary for it to be referred to with additional terminology. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Cisgender sexuality is absolutely not the norm. Saying so is cissexist. Minomask (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)minomask

It is not at all clear that the descriptions of sexuality do exclude the transgendered. It is the postion of most TG people that theirs is completely normal hetero- or homo- sexuality. When the article says "human" why should we assume the transgendered are not being referred to? In any case this "cisgender" terminology is not helpful. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Good point. To clarify my above point, by "normal" I don't mean there is anything wrong with being transgender, but that a significant majority of the population are not transgender. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"objective..."

"The objective of sexual activity in humans is typically to achieve orgasm" If the objective of sex was simply orgasm,given that orgasm can be achieved through masturbation,( even more reliably so for many women) why would anyone seek partnered sex? why would anyone take on the risks and costs? this seems logically false and needs to be modified —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.239.158 (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)