Talk:History of human sexuality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of March 27, 2005.

Native Americans[edit]

Just wondering why half the globe has been over-looked. The indigenous American people must have had some concepts of sexuality which could be considered historical, am I wrong? While I can't think of anything to write on the subject myself, (Nor do I at this point in time understand the wikipedia template thoroughly enough) I do believe there should be at least some effort to make section on the view on sexuality of the various cultures of pre-columbian American peoples.

To do list[edit]

(edit this list)


  • Expand the sections covering the late 20th Century, included non-same-sex aspects, like divorce ; a lot happened then.
  • Integrate historical content about inter-racial marriage, including a summary of Miscegenation
  • Integrate historical aspects of the major issues in Marriage and "See also" articles referenced there.
  • Integrate into the discussion historical content about what is known or theorized about the evolutionary roots of sexuality
  • Integrate historical aspects of Different-sex marriage
  • Integrate historical aspects of Same-sex marriage
  • Integrate discussion of transgendered and intersex people in various historical periods, especially the late 20th Century (since there are major developments in that period).
  • Summarize the historical aspects of Homosexuality in China
  • Summarize the historical aspects of Homosexuality in India
  • Summarize the historical aspects of Homosexuality in Japan
  • Write the section about the Middle Ages, and not just same-sex aspects.
  • Write the section about the Renaissance, and not just same-sex aspects.
  • Write the section about the 19th Century, and not just same-sex aspects.
  • Integrate more content about the early 20th Century, and not just same-sex aspects.
  • Investigate historical aspects of sexuality in indigninous peoples
  • Investigate historical aspects of sexuality in non-indiginous societies in Africa, India, South America, and the rest of Asia.
  • Investigate ritualized homosexuality through history
  • Summarize historical aspects of Circumcision
  • Summarize historical aspects of Female circumcision
  • When there's enough material, spawn a separate article, "History of sexual orientation" and fix inbound links as appropriate
  • Summarize historical aspects of Erotica and Pornography
  • Point out religious opportunism in making arbitrary rules about sex in order to ensure that priests come to mind in connection with sex, and thereby entrench their power
  • Historical aspects of disabled sexuality
  • I would argue this article needs significant reduction, links to other topics would suffice for most of the poorly written sections, in order that we could have a simple page on historical and not talk about abortion, STDs and all that malarky.
  • Question on alternate sexualities - are D/s, Sm, fetishes and the like appropriate for the History of sexuality article, or would it be better to start a "History of alternative sex" article? --Outlander 19:00, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Tabularise the classification of laws regarding sex, under section 'Politics of sex'.


The history of sexuality in mesopotamia is complete and utter crap. The whole 'matriarchy v patriarchy' thing is feminist rubbish which no Assyriologist subscribes to, and which there is no evidence for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.120.145 (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

French history of sexuality[edit]

If this is relevant, then great. I found that Wikipedia is entering slowly into my school life. When choosing an essay title from a bunch of about 15, I saw one about the "Sexual Revolution", and picked that one cos History of sex was a cotw candidate. So I can offer u a timeline, my source being l'histoire, no. 277 June 2003, an apparently reputed magazine used in my école supérieur as refernce material. So here's a timeline of "sexuality of women", which applies only for France I'm afraid:

  • 1912: publishing of a book L'emancipation sexuelle de la femme, in favour of sex for other means than for procreation
  • 1920 and 1923: laws (in France), against contraception and abortion
  • 1922: Publishing of La Garçonne
  • 1943: Marie-Louise Giraud sentenced to death and guillotined for either having or carrying out an abortion.
  • 1949 Simone de Beauvoir desacrilising motherhood in La Deuxième Sexe
  • 1956: public displays of nudity (lap dancing I imagine) in Et Dieu créa la femme (And God created woman) (referencing the Bible I'm sure)
  • 1967: The Neuwirth Law legalising the contraceptive pill
  • 1968: the MLF (Mouvement de la libération des femmes), sparking huge feminist rights protests
  • 1972: not sure how to translated this, so I'll leave it as rapport Simon sur le comportement sexuel des Français. Maybe a surevy on the Frenchies' sex habits
  • 1973: Sex education started being taught in schools
  • 1975: Veil law allows terminations of pregnancy. Adultery no londer a crime
  • 1982: Homosexuality no longer a crime
  • 1992: First law on sexual harassment (So late, its scary!!!)
  • 2001: Publishing of La vie sexuelle de Catherine M by Catherine Millet, where she describes explicitally her sexual antics
  • 2002: New law on sexual harassment, which élimine la notion d'autorité dans la definition du délit

Remember, this is only about France

Merger[edit]

Let's just have a Giant See: History of Sexuality Banner on this one. how are the topics discussed on it any different from what is on History of Sexuality?

  • It think this COTW was a big mistake, since no-one has come up with any useful distinction between History of sex and History of Sexuality. We'll end up with two articles that will need hours of merging work. Sigh... Junes 11:03, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I merged the two articles. It only took about half an hour. 8) -- Beland 14:33, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Beland :) You rock. -CunningLinguist 04:53, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Horribly POV against Christians[edit]

I don't know why people assume that Christianity is anti-sexuality but that couldn't be further from the truth. The fact is that the only restriction is against pre-marital or extra-marital sexuality as well as some restrictions of WHAT you can have sex with. Perhaps the author should QUALIFY which denomination of Christianity they are speaking about because not all have the same position on sexuality. Most are remarkably fair about sexuality and no denomination that I know of says "sex is evil, enjoying it is evil". The Abstinence-only education program is primarily the act of the US Government and misguided people, to blame a Faith for the actions of some people is shallow and unsubstantiable. This whole section is quite disturbingly rude and inconsiderate of Christians not to mention that this is an overarching generalization against a group. That's like calling the ACLU child molesters because they supported them in a legal case. -- EmperorBMA|話す 10:35, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • This is so horribly POV no sane person could object to removing these comments or at the very least making them more neutral, so go ahead I'd say. I'd remove them myself, but I feel it would be best to at least put something in place of them, and I don't think I'll put work in this page (see my comments above). Junes 11:03, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • This is not POV as much as it is wrong. Here are some better sources for Catholic doctrine at least [1][2][3] The latter two being from the Vatican should at least show their legitimacy in the Catholic realm. I think you should just delete everything that was written about Christian sexuality and start again. gren 08:29, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • While Judaism and Christianity are currently placed under the same heading in terms of sexuality, their practical positions are somewhat different. Judaism does not preach abstinence for clergy, for instance, and most would agree that it promotes sex for pleasure (and not just procreation) within a marital relationship. Maybe it would be relevant to look at Sex [and prohibition] in the Bible, but to use this as the direct basis of judgements on modern religions is not only incorrect and POV but offensive. --jnothman 02:54, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

birth control vs. abortion[edit]

Incuding abortion into the birth control technique may be NOT neutral point of view and may lead to disputes AnyFile 15:01, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • What about the abortion section of the artical. It was giving a nutrality warning. It doesn't present any issues about it, and has a main link back to the abortion page. I say that the nutrality be removed from that section --ZeWrestler 18:42 March 22, 2005
    • Removed it --MatthewJ 23:02, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Disputed section on Christianity[edit]

Christianity is believed by many to have caused sexual constriction in US culture. The sexual drive of humans and the repression thereoff causes many conflicts. Sex is seen as "dirty" by many Christian denominations, a "necessary evil" even, and severely restricted. Even sexual thoughts can make some Christians uneasy. There is a conspicuous lack of sexual artistry streaming from the creative Christian peoples. Many couples have terrible sexual relations due to the prudent nature of the religion. Couples don't give themselves time to explore their sexuality.
This denial of sexuality on the part of some Christian denominiations has caused a knowledge gap for our children. Instead of teaching safe sexual practices so teens are prepared for the consequences of their actions, Christians believe that denying human nature through abstinence-only educate students is a better alternative. (Note: It is scientifically proven [4][5] that comprehensive sex ed. is the better option.) Christian parents want to believe that abstinence-only programs work due to their own sexual inhibitions. These parents carry a stigma that "if they were teens knowing what they know now..." they would not have sex if presented with an abstinence-only program.

These statements are very POV and do not accurately characterize the diversity of views across the various sects of Christianity. This is also not an article about the modern controversy; it's a history article. So, the question we'll want to answer is, which sects are allegedly sexually contrictive, and how and when did they get that way? Who criticizes them for that, and how do they respond?-- Beland 14:06, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Page Protection[edit]

I made a small change after the page was protected, because I had started loading the section to change before the protection (my net access is very slow at the moment), and hit the save button before registering that it was protected. I doubt my change will be controversial - removal of Austin, Texas from the See also section.-gadfium 23:16, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article is the current colaboration of the week. It's not very clever to protect it. --Alexandre Van de Sande 21:22, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Bisexual Literature[edit]

page: 1  2  3  4  5   


Although experiences that can be termed "bisexual" appear in works throughout literary history, they are rarely discussed from that perspective. Instead, explicit scenes or implicit evidence of erotic activity in which a single character is involved with members of both the same and other sex is usually considered as evidence indicating a primary sexual orientation that is either hetero- or homosexual. The continued reliance in modern Anglo-American and European culture upon binary systems of classification and identification has meant the practical erasure of bisexuality, as such, from most works of literary and cultural analysis.

But life in all its nonbinary complexity and as it is reflected in literary works continues to subvert such reductiveness. An overview of relevant theories of bisexuality and its pervasiveness in literature challenges us to recognize the continuing importance of a specifically bisexual literary heritage, one that both converges with and diverges from the lesbian and gay literary heritage.

Sponsor Message.

The preceding paragraphs ("Although experiences...." and "But life...") come from glbtq >> gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender & queer encyclopedia. FreplySpang 15:28, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bisexuality[edit]

'Freud, among others, argued that neither predominately different- nor same-sex sexuality were the norm, instead that what is called "bisexuality" is the normal human condition thwarted by society. " This appears to be a massive distortion. Infact, I think this article may be distorting facts in order to try to show that homesexuality has been more prevalent throughout history than it really has.

The following summary of Freud's stance on bisexuality is from [6].

Theories of Bisexuality

Beginning with Freud, bisexuality has been acknowledged but heavily stigmatized by many psychological and social theorists. In Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality (1905), Freud asserts that bisexuality is, in fact, a natural state for infants and discusses at length young children's "polymorphous perversity" as they invite and enjoy all pleasurable tactile sensations. But the use of the word perversity is key here, for Freud argues that bisexuality is an inherently infantile, regressive state, one that is invariably abandoned as psychological maturation proceeds.

As David T. Evans explores in Sexual Citizenship (1993), Freud never really accepts the possibility of bisexuality existing among adults, implying instead that sexual orientation is primarily heterosexual (which is preferable) or homosexual (which is itself regressive), with other anomalous experiences placed for the most part under the heading "contingent" and dismissed as such.--Golden Eternity 03:10, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why is the term bisexual shown as first being used in the 20th Century on the main page of the "History of human sexuality" yet Sigmund Freud used the term in the late 1800s and in 1892 – The words "bisexual" and "heterosexual" are first used in their current senses in Charles Gilbert Chaddock's translation of Kraft-Ebing's Psychopathia Sexualis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.238.93 (talk) 03:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Category[edit]

Please move from Category:Sexuality to Category:History_of_human_sexuality. Thanks! -- Beland 03:32, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Solution[edit]

Solution: Ban all bigoted radical christians and other fanatics from Wikipedia. -- Darwinek 11:47, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC) Solution: Ban all bigoted radical non-christians and other fanatics from Wikipedia.

Or does that somehow sound more biased than your bias? Wasn't the original problem a really wrong section about Christianity? ~_~ gren 12:11, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Move[edit]

Shouldn't we move this page to something like: History of sex in humanity, or history of sex taboos in mankind? That should be this or add a section about the evolution of sexual reproduction, from amoebas to mammals --Alexandre Van de Sande 21:28, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Remove as COTW[edit]

As this page is now locked for almost 24hrs and even if we open it up it will probably be heavily vandalised, i am suggesting that we remove it as COTW 2 days before end of the week. We can choose the next one of the COTW list so that people who go to the community portal will not be directed to a edit locked article. kaal 22:18, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I do agree - I was never able to figure out how such a horrible POV-mess made it as COTW in the first place. -- AlexR 10:20, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Relationship with Sex article[edit]

There is already an article, Sex, so we must make sure that whatever goes into this article actually pertains to the HISTORY of sex and not just sex in general. Also, perhaps it would be good to add a link in Sex to History of sex at some appropriate spot. Mona-Lynn 21:07, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Split[edit]

This is an abnormally long article. Perhaps splitting it into smaller pieces would be in order? Nick Catalano 04:35, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Incest, mutations, and biodiversity[edit]

If some mysterious plague wiped out all but one man on Earth, humankind could probably recover, depending on the man's health and fertility. The incest could promote pre-existing harmful mutations, particularly on the man's Y chromosome which would be inherited by all subsequent males. The gene pool of the species would be somewhat impoverished, so the species would be less able to adapt to changes in its environment.

I changed this paragraph to the version above to reflect the fact that incest does not cause mutations, it promotes existing ones. Further, if all but one man died, the only biodiversity loss would be in the Y chromosome. The 3 billion remaining females would more than make up for everything else. Neurophyre 21:21, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Page structure problems=[edit]

Whoa! I think something is wrong with this article, but I don't know how to correct it. Some of these headings appear to be duplicated. The sex in various cultures is in there at least twice. Some other ones too... Jaberwocky6669 04:14, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I think I was able to fix the problem... Jaberwocky6669 04:34, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Proved beyond doubt[edit]

Where was it "proved beyond doubt that it is within every human being’s ability to transmute some of his sex emotion into dynamic drive which brings to fore creative powers"? Personally, I do not doubt this and I would prefer it to be the simple assertion: "it is within every human being’s ability to transmute some of his sex emotion into dynamic drive which brings to fore creative powers". But I want to see such an assertion sourced. --Theo (Talk) 18:06, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok, actually, I had lifted the idea from a book (Grow Rich With Peace of Mind) by Napoleon Hill - precisely the opening sentence of chapter 8 (How to Transmute Sex Emotion into Achievement Power), which states: It is within every man's ability to transmute some of his sex emotion into a dynamic drive which brings success. So, agreed, assertion is being realigned. --220.226.19.220 05:20, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)--Bhadani 05:32, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Introduction[edit]

I have removed the following introduction because I believe the content is too dubious and unproven. Also the style is quite poor. For instance "Moreover, it may sound highly unusual, nevertheless, the fact remains that..." (poor style) and "Sex and sexuality are the foundations of a healthy culture" (completely unproven) are part of it.

Even if one is not familiar with the works and hypotheses of Sigmund Freud, everyone, at some time or other, in her / his life, may have realized that inside the subconscious, deep within, there lies a desire to have sex and propagate one’s species. Study of sexual practices not only is a learning tool, but helps in understanding our approach to life. Sex and sexuality are the foundations of a healthy culture and a meter by which we can evaluate a society’s ways and mores. Moreover, it may sound highly unusual, nevertheless, the fact remains that if it were not for the human sexual nature and pursuit of sex, and the ability of homo sapiens to control and divert sexual impulses and energies to more creative directions, many things would not have been accomplished in the history of human civilization. It is within every human being’s ability to transmute some of his sex emotion into dynamic drive which brings to fore creative powers. As such, any study of History of sex assumes importance.

S Sepp 09:14, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Religion and sex[edit]

The section "Hebrew Patriarchs and Bible" needs to acknowledge the current controversy about what kinds of homosexuality, if any, the Old Testament bans. (This includes various disputes over translation and references to cultural practices at the time.) It also needs to cover the tremendous variety of sexual strictures and references beyond homosexuality. The section on Christianity also need to talk about teachings about the wide variety of non-homosexual aspects of sex, both in the New Testament and in modern Christian doctrine. -- Beland 00:22, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Introduction[edit]

Yes S Sepp, it is fine that you have removed recently added section in the Introduction, which was added by me. I do find that your views are correct. However, I have a request to all readers - a few introductory lines capturing the theme of the article shall be in order. Somebody should step in to give few remarks. --Bhadani 03:17, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Size of Article[edit]

Dear Readers, while adding certain additional matters, prompts appear that the article is exceeding the size limit ... Is some editing is required to reduce the size by reducing existing matter? I am not sure. Still, several points require to be elaborated upon. --Bhadani 12:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would recommend spawning off the section on "Same-sex relations" into its own article. It should probably be named something like "History of sexual orientation" because there has been controversy in the past that "History of homosexuality" shouldn't exist without a "History of heterosexuality", etc. -- Beland 14:09, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. To do so would imply that "same-sex relations" are not a legitimate part of the "history of sex". Besides, there are already articles devoted to the specific issues involved with same-sex eroticism. 金 (Kim) 03:42, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I find that interpretation odd, especially since we would need to leave behind a summary. To me, getting your own article (as opposed to being a part of someone else's article) means that you are Important. I'm not sure what other articles you are referring to. If they are historical and topical, they should be linked in. -- Beland 02:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Beland I would think you of all persons would regard that controversy ignorant. There is a good reason with the history of homosexuality sparks more interest. You usually do not hear of a man having a nail driven through his genitals for loving a woman, or being blamed for the destruction of entire cities. Apollomelos 00:30, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While you certainly have a point, I can see why people make such arguments. I don't think it's out of ignorance - they are just trying to ensure equal treatment. Since using "sexual orientation" in the title is just as good, if not more accurate than, "homosexuality" or "same-sex relations", why bother picking a pointless fight? -- Beland 02:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Problematic parts[edit]

Julius Ceasar was rumored to have an affair with King Nicomedes of Bithynia.

We're not in the business of publishing rumors; can any sources be cited? -- Beland 14:35, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was not "rumoured". It is a fact. I can give you several citations of his contemporaries, I will post them tomorrow. First I have to look him up. Apollomelos 22:56, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The section "Psychology and sex" seems to imply that all encouragement to avoid pre-marital sex is psychologically traumatic. It should be corrected to be more accurate and neutral. -- Beland 14:35, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Can you give information on non-traumatic encouragement to avoid premarital sex?金 (Kim) 03:37, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The section on birth control is starting to drift away from the history of these issues. The material should be moved elsewhere unless it's made more historical. -- Beland 14:35, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Major Problems

  • sex in various cultures should be combined with same-sex relations - they are both sex
  • add masterbation history
  • add fetish history
  • add types of sex, i.e. oral, vaginal, and anal with historical views
  • remove abortion - it is un-related, however birth control is
  • add enlightenment - many religious based sex laws were removed during this period
  • improve stds - and how they affect human sexual behavior in history
  • add media, arts, and literature - how the reflect sexuality
  • add bestiality history
  • add polygamy history
  • add orgy history
  • add rape history
  • enhance religious coverage to include both negative and positive
  • add legal section
  • add incest

This would make a good start. Apollomelos 22:56, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Or better yet since the sex article deals with animals perhaps we should re-name this the "Human History of Sexuality" or the like. And I noticed the to-do list and disagree - how does the act of circumcision involve sex? Apollomelos 00:06, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In several ways. The most often cited rationales for performing circumcisions are (1) religious and (2) hygiene. But removal of the foreskin removes tissue that is involved in pleasurable sensation, and removal of the clitoris removes, even more completely, the analogous female tissue. (Embryologically, the penis and the clitoris are the same thing.) So circumcision can function as a way of diminishing sexual interest. (Some of the other genital mutilations euphemistically called "circumcision" are even more life-negating.) 金 (Kim) 02:19, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reproduction and cultural gender roles[edit]

This section has generally a poor treatment of the relevant biology and evolutionary psychology, overemphasizing cultural determination and underemphasizing innate human nature... needs revision.

The idea that only after the development of a "concept" of fatherhood did men have an interest in controlling the fidelity of their mates is false. Humans, being animals, have a pre-programmed interest in controlling their mates' fidelity due to evolutionary shaping of their behavior.

The species selection argument about males "bringing in the bacon" is probably wrong: according to Richard Dawkins' selfish gene ideas, species selection and group selection do not occur and individual-level (in fact gene-level) natural selection must have shaped this. Males travel a larger average distance than females in ALL cultures according to Steven Pinker's book The Blank Slate.

Most of this paragraph belongs with the "Sex in Various Cultures: The West".

It offers very little about gender roles other than information pertaining to societies/cultures considered part of the "Western tradition", and much of it is ambiguous/misleading/untrue or contested.

It is not for instance true that the fact of female preganancy and childbirth can universally explain the formation of particular gender systems.

The paragraph about 'classical anthropology' and hunter-gatherer subsistence practices, is either ambiguously phrased, or just plain wrong.

It is not clear what is meant by 'historic times, the paragraph seems to imply that the information is a universal fact of gender systems. This information should be included in the culture specific sections since the information is culture specific.

Simplification of article[edit]

It is a tall order to do this topic in one article, so perhaps the less said, the better, with links out to relevant aticles as necessary. A couple of thoughts: the article lacks a overall structure, a backbone, or a sense of direction, if you will. Another thing - I would fold the same-sex and opposite-sex relations into the same section, rather than splitting them apart, which is a modern conceit. Sex is sex. And pederasty need not have its own section either, it too should be folded in as appropriate.

I suggest a chronological scheme, breaking down the article into time periods, and treating all cultures together within each section. Haiduc 05:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Syphilis[edit]

Was there something more to the syphilis section? It looks incomplete. Kerowyn 10:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 06:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

History of sexHistory of human sexualityRationale: The article only discusses human sexuality. An article on the history of sex or sexuality in general would have to refer to other animals as well. -Sean Curtin 06:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Support. -Sean Curtin 06:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. -Seth Mahoney 06:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, makes sense. Olessi 06:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. -ntennis 07:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support.金 (Kim) 17:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is overly pedantic, as "history" by default pertains to humans, and many books and articles are titled "history of sex" (or other topics) without making the obvious specification about humans. -Djcastel 13:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Add any additional comments
  • I am inclined to oppose the move, as the name of the page (History of sex) implies the history of sex of human beings. To give this any other meaning and connotation is not justified. For example, history of family shall always refer to history of family of human beings. I may not be able to explain the issue in detail, but I know the truth does not depend on the consensus of opinion, and the page name reflects the truth that it is about the history of sex (of human beings). In any case, the most prominent subject gets the most prominent name, as such a redirection from History of human sexuality to this page shall be in order. History of sex of sex of beings other than human beings may have independent pages, like History of sex of birds, and so on. We should not strive to make such simple issues complicated. Thanks. --Bhadani 17:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Under Ancient Greece: "Hetaera, groomed prostitutes were for pleasure, ..." grammar? not sure what this is supposed to say. someone? Jameshfisher 16:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

"Within the context of the Indian religions, or dharmas, such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism, sex is generally either seen as a moral duty of each partner in a long term marriage relationship to the other, or is seen as a desire which hinders spiritual detachment, and so must be renounced." To me this seems like saying "either one thing ... or its antithesis." What alternative views on sex are there in the above context? Expand, explain, or delete, I feel. Jameshfisher 16:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

"The Kamasutra is now perhaps the most prolific secular text in the world, now infamously famous everywhere ..."

"Perhaps". I couldn't find evidence for this. citation anyone?

Also, "infamously famous" is a ridiculous construction.

Jameshfisher 16:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Division of page into hetero- and homosexuality[edit]

Currently the page seems to be divided into these two sections, and each of these subdivided into historical periods. This seems to me to be an ugly and confusing construction. Firstly, as this page is the History of human sexuality, my instinct is that the timeline should take the top level of the hierarchy. Secondly, it seems to have led to a lot of repetition.

I propose restructuring the page into historical/geographical divisions first, and in each subsection discussing heterosexuality and homosexuality where appropriate.

Jameshfisher 15:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. -Smahoney 22:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
An interesting experiment which may work very well. I'll pitch in and help if you start and rough it out. Haiduc 00:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed text[edit]

Some anon removed the following text, which I put back in: --Thewayforward 17:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

- In the years since people first became aware of the AIDS epidemic, Japan has not suffered the high rates of disease and death that characterize, e.g., some nations in Africa, some nations in S.E. Asia, etc. Part of the reason may be the generally very high level of education and social awareness in Japan. Another reason may be some of the deep-level values of people socialized to that culture regarding cleanliness and contamination.

I actually support removing it. As is, it is just original research speculation, which has no place here. -Smahoney 20:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The oral contraceptive article discusses Japan's lower rate of AIDS in light of the delay in alloweing, and then the very tight restrictions they put on hormonal contraceptive access. Because hormone use in Japan is so low (due to lack of access), most Japanese use condoms. Condoms protect from AIDS. Or so the argument goes.

I don't think it's very well sourced in the OC article, either, but it does seem more plausible in that light than the claim that it's cultural thing. Lyrl Talk Contribs 21:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Nonetheless, it is speculation, which does not belong here, and it is not cited, which means it should be removed. I'll give you a couple days, if you want, to add citations that make the same arguments stated in the text (ie, no "Japan has not suffered high rates of disease..." by itself) before I delete the text again myself. -Smahoney 01:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism is pro-sex?[edit]

I strongly disagree with the statement, "In India, Hinduism accepted an open attitude towards sex as an art, science and spiritual practice." Whether the Kama Sutra is part of the Hindu canon is debatable at best, since it is not acknoleged as such by most hindus. More respected sacred Hindu texts advocate liberation from all desires- sexual and otherwise- as the principal goal of human life, and the means to acheiving enlightment. One accepted "path" to enlightenment is chastity. For the sake of n-pov, this more prominent Hindu view should be expressed in the article. Singlewordedpoem 04:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Violation[edit]

I removed a huge section of text (several large paragraphs) of extraneous text taken verbatim from a book on the history of gay and lesbian sexual relations. I did so due to its aforementioned extranenous nature, the poor quality, and the fact that it was verbatim quotation of exceeding length. Please paraphrase or keep removed. Thank you.24.239.162.116 02:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Reproduction and cultural gender roles[edit]

As it stands the opening paragraph to the subheading "Reproduction and cultural gender roles" reads: The biological phenomenon that women become pregnant and give birth instead of men has shaped the formation of gender roles in world cultures. A single male can impregnate any number of females at once, while a single female is usually only impregnated by one male at a time. Even if there were only one man left on Earth, humankind could probably recover, depending on the man's health and fertility. The gene pool of the species would be somewhat impoverished, however, so the species would be less able to adapt to changes in its environment. On the other hand, if all but one female were wiped out, it is doubtful humanity could recover.

I think it would make more sense for the opening sentence of this paragraph to read (as we are mentioning biology): The biological phenomenon that women become pregnant and, in the human species, give birth instead of men has shaped the formation of gender roles in world human cultures.

The reason I would like this change is that as it reads it might be presumed that throughout nature only the female may give birth -- which would be misleading. Or it might be put more like this "Because in humans, as in the vast majority of sexual species, the female gives birth ..."

A second problem I have with this paragraph is, strangely, the second sentence, which reads: "A single male can impregnate any number of females at once, while a single female is usually only impregnated by one male at a time." What is intended, of course, is to say that a given male in the human species may impregnate a far larger number of females in a lifetime than a given female can be impregnated by males -- because of the gestation period and menopause. It's the "at once" in the sentence which cries out for humour. Let us disregard the peculiarities of natural conception for a moment and regard instead the larger possibilities of IVF. Say we could have "any number" of fertility clinicians with "any number" of sterilized plastic cups all held out strategically to receive one dollop each of a "single man"'s impregnatory potential -- can we then imagine that "any number" of women might even through IVF be "at once" impregnated?

Finally, the last sentence in the paragraph, and the perception "if all but one female were wiped out, it is doubtful humanity would survive" -- one of the most surprising outcomes of historical genetic theory is that we do all in fact, all of us, come from one (surviving) female line.

I understand that the subject here is not biology but an anthropocentric understanding of sexuality. But biology can't be "pretended" into human shapes. If you're going to use biology, then at least become familiar with biological understanding. Wikipedia, I have found, except in relation to human endeavours, is a very good source.86.45.207.114 (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Same-sex relations - Rome[edit]

The Roman section of the Same-sex relations heading is completely unreadable. It looks like it's had a section cut out or is a bad cut and paste. I looked in the history but couldn't find any missing sections. Is it supposed to be a list of homosexuals from Ancient Rome? I think it would be better to just have a paragraph discussing the prevalent attitudes to same sex relationships at the time. Master z0b (talk) 05:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Split this article up into as many pieces as possible[edit]

It's impossible to deal with constructively in its current massive form.

Something as immense as the history of sexuality definitely needs many sub articles. --ScWizard (talk) 06:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Sections need triming, to there main articles, some may need creation, but i don't think a split is needed at this time--217.112.178.2 (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

No, there definitely isn't enough main articles. We have a History of sex in India but not a History of sex in China etc. Religion and sex should be a separate article and so on. I think splitting it off would encourage people to focus on small areas and help out much more. I'll work on it sometime eventually if no one wants to volunteer to split the article up. --ScWizard (talk) 05:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Dubious statement[edit]

(Accidentally tagged as a minor edit.) I've removed this statement

Throughout the New Testament, there are many injunctions against adultery, promiscuity, homosexuality, and incest, which is consistent with and supplemental to Judaism. (under "New Testament")

Because I know that the homosexuality part at least is inaccurate and, hence, other parts may be also. Whether the other bits are true or not - I expect that the adultery and promiscuity bits are bit haven't heard mention of incest in the NT before - a statement like this needs some kind of supporting evidence. D4g0thur 11:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Language Bias (Islam's Position Vs. Judaism's)[edit]

"In Islam sexual intercourse is allowed only after marriage and only with one's spouse. Sex outside of marriage, called zina, is considered a sin and strictly prohibited and is punishable."

vs.

" In Jewish law, sex is not considered intrinsically sinful or shameful when conducted in marriage, nor is it a necessary evil for the purpose of procreation. Sex is considered a private and holy act between a husband and wife."

While both the two passages above say pretty much the same thing; the language of the Islam one is much more negative than the Judaism one.77.31.39.86 (talk) 09:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

History of homosexuality[edit]

Somebody has relocated the history section from the Homosexuality into the History of homosexuality article (which was a redirect), as the homosexuality article is getting quite large, so I have added a link at the head of the appropriate section here. Given this is quite a long article as well, with homosexuality dealt with in less detail than other sexuality, and there being some overlap with the relocated material, it would make sense to merge the text here into the History of homosexuality article, and leave a summary paragraph here relating to that article. This move makes sense to me, although I did not agree to it before it happened, because there is no point having sections which overlap the same topic featuring in two different articles. Mish (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Nikah al Mut'ah[edit]

Different Islamic groups have opposed views on Nikah al-Mut'ah. The text inside the Islamic view of sexuality poses negativity and the precedence that it is rightful to do so by Islam. Sunnis, however, ban this act -- and it was not written there. I have put up a text about this, saying that Sunni Islam does not legalize Nikah al-Mut'ah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Divinus Scientia (talkcontribs) 04:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Kamasutra5.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Icon Now Commons orange.svg An image used in this article, File:Kamasutra5.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

ritual prostitution in babylon[edit]

the following statement:

" Every woman was required, at least once in her lifetime, usually after she was married, to go to the Temple of Ishtar. She waited there till any stranger came and threw silver in her lap. Then she left the temple and had sex with the stranger, after which she could return home. She was not allowed to refuse the first stranger"

is in every single and imaginable way false. the one, sole and unhistorically sound source is the greek historian aristotle, whose word, being not infallible does not justify a statement that does not have any basis in contemporary mesopotamian sources. . this statement by aristotle is not accepted in any way by modern scholarship, and is not founded on fact. aristotle may have visited Babylon, but, as the article does not provide a timeframe to which it was relevant {herodotos lived from 484 BC – c. 425 BC}, the reader is deceived into believing, as the the article applies this statement to "ancient mesopotamia" in general, that this specific cultural practice existed without fail for at least 3000 years - but, as this statement by herodotos applies only to his period and lifetime, the failure of the article to provide a specific timeframe is irresponsible. to conclude: using a historically dubious statement by an ancient greek historian and modeling it as absolute fact, being the only source supporting the article's statement, and not providing a time for which it was relevant. truth demands that this propostourus statement by struck from the article to protect sanity.

2. this statement: "Matriarchy was practiced in the earlier period of Mesopotamian civilization" is unreferenced and unexplained and should be delated from the article until proven true.

3. "ishtar lost some of her status and glory, and several male gods surfaced" the burden of proof also lies over this statement, also alluding that ishtar predated and preceded any male gods, which is not based on the body of scholarship known to humenkind — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabunaid (talkcontribs) 00:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Why does this article make suchg emphasis on homosexuality?[edit]

Why does this article make suchg emphasis on homosexuality? Several pictures show homosexual relations etc. Can we split it in another article "history of human homosexuality" and make this one more reflecting traditional relations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.37.199.54 (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)