Talk:Human sexuality

Template:WAP assignment This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ceelise (article contribs).

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.140.85.143 (talk) 03:21, 10 February 2007‎

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Human sexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/women-s-rights/women-s-health-sexual-and-reproductive-rights/my-body-my-rights

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I have checked the link is now working as intended. ♫CheChe♫ talk 16:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

John Locke vs. Freud

Freud made his career on sexuality. John Locke never wrote a single thing on human sexuality. Linking him to the subject is original research, (WP:OR). The history of Nature versus nurture arguments is another topic. Mrdthree (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning it up User:Flyer22 although as written it implies John Locke said something about human sexuality or instincts, that would need a reference. He is just 'representing' the idea of tabula rasa in education (he was a 1600s guy). Mrdthree (talk) 22:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Heres a referenced quote from him on sexuality to include: "God, in this text, gives not, that I see, any authority to Adam over Eve, or to men over their wives, but only foretells what should be woman's lot, how by his providence he would order it so, that she should be subject to her husband, as we see that generally the law of mankind and customs of nations have ordered it so; and there is, I grant, a foundation in nature for it." (Divine Authority and the Law of Nature, http://praxeology.net/LockeNatLaw.htm) Mrdthree (talk) 22:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I would be surprised if early behaviorists (Watson) addressed the topic though Skinner does. It would be a challenge to find the first behaviorist response to Freud.Mrdthree (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

That said it still needs major rewriting to be accurate--I dont think the behaviorist school would talk about developing sex drives. they would talk about training sexual behavior with pleasure. What makes Freud a nature guy is also a little confusing in the summary, he sees all these instincts in people waiting to be impressed with the specific details of the mother and father. --Mrdthree (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Human sexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060220110820/http://www2.hu-berlin.de:80/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/GUS/INDEXATLAS.HTM to http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/GUS/INDEXATLAS.HTM
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080521085828/http://www.kinseyinstitute.org:80/ccies/ to http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/ccies/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I've checked these links are working correctly --♫CheChe♫ talk 16:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Wording that implies that all heterosexual, and gay and lesbian people are bisexual or sexually fluid

Miesianiacal changed the wording of "Heterosexual people are attracted to the members of the opposite sex. Homosexual people are attracted to people of the same sex. Those who are bisexual are attracted to both men and women." to "Heterosexual people are predominantly attracted to members of the opposite sex; homosexual people are primarily attracted to people of the same sex; and those who are more widely attracted to both men and women are considered bisexual."

I objected by reverting because Miesianiacal's wording implies that everyone is bisexual or sexually fluid. While there are researchers who believe this, wording the text that way is non-neutral because there are many more researchers who don't believe that everyone is bisexual or sexually fluid. And it's not the case that every researcher who studies sexuality subscribes to the Kinsey scale. The literature on sexual orientation does not usually indicate that heterosexual and gay and lesbian people have somewhat of a desire for the sex/gender they do not favor, unless talking about a sexual identity that does not match sexual attraction and/or sexual behavior. Yes, regarding sexual orientation, there are people who identify one way but feel and act another. That's not what the wording is about, though. The wording I reverted to is the most neutral wording. It does not state "exclusively" or "primarily." After reverting Miesianiacal, per WP:Due weight and the fact that Miesianiacal's wording can make people think it's stating that everyone is bisexual or sexually fluid, I added a source from the American Psychological Association and further tweaked some wording.

Miesianiacal came back, this time using the word "tendency" and a dictionary source, and stating, "absolutism of wording leads to conflict; definitions provided put bisexuals as both 'heterosexual' and 'gay' / much literature explains sexuality spectrum, not polarity / terminology inconsistently uses casual and technical language." I reverted again. The dictionary source doesn't even begin with "tendency." It is used after the primary wording, which is like the wording I reverted to for the article. Furthermore, a dictionary source does not trump the American Psychological Association source. For sexual orientation topics, we should be relying on authoritative organizations and scholarly sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: I queried WP:LGBT about this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Borrowing from the second sentence of the APA source, it may be more clear to say something along the lines of Heterosexual people identify as being attracted to members of the opposite sex... etc. In this sense, if I identify as hetero, I identify as attracted to opposite. If I identify as gay; I identify as attracted to same. This is all regardless of whether some fancy lab test, by their particular standards, would say I'm only actually 92% straight, or only actually 87% gay. TimothyJosephWood 17:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

True enough. On the other hand, that introduces the matter of sexual identity, which is closely related but not identical to sexual orientation, so that could potentially be confusing. It also seems unnecessarily wordy. I also don't see the "absolutism of wording" that the editor who made the change mentioned, and I agree that a dictionary is not the best sort of source in this context, so I support the reverted version. Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The absolutism is in the claims "Heterosexual people are romantically/sexually attracted to the members [clunky wording] of the opposite sex, gay and lesbian people are romantically/sexually attracted to people of the same sex" in relation to the definition for 'bisexual'. There is in that an absence of nuance expressed in words like 'tendency' and 'primarily'. As well, the definition of a heterosexual person is equally applicable to a bisexual person, as they are also romantically/sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex, and the definition of a homosexual person applies equally to a bisexual person, as they are also romantically/sexually attracted to members of the same sex. Yet, bisexuals are presented as being different to homosexual and heterosexual people, the only evident difference to heterosexuals being bisexuals find people of the same sex attractive and the only evident difference to homosexuals being bisexuals find people of the opposite sex attractive. Since that is the sole difference, logically, anyone who shows any romantic/sexual attraction to the opposite sex ceases to be homosexual and anyone who shows any romantic/sexual attraction to the same sex ceases to be heterosexual, meaning someone who's heterosexual can only find people of the opposite sex attractive and anyone identifying as homosexual can only find people of the same sex attractive.

That is not neutral wording. It goes against the view that human sexuality is a spectrum and sexual orientations aren't absolute: "Lesbian refers a female person whose primary sexual attraction is toward females... Gay refers to a male person whose primary [all emphasis mine] sexual attraction is toward males... Bisexual refers to a male or female person who is sexually attracted to both males and females";[1] "significant relationships (and sexual behaviour) are distinct from sexual orientation... For example, someone may indicate being in relationshipswith only men, but may identify as bisexual, or someone is married to a person of the opposite gender but identifies as gay."p. 10 Even another part of this article recognizes an absence of absolutes in this topic: "a gay or lesbian person would typically [emphasis mine] find a person of the same sex to be more attractive than one of the other sex." Raising concerns about everyone being portrayed as bisexual or sexually fluid is thus a straw man argument; acknowledging the fuzzy edges of sexual labels does not equate with asserting everyone is bi.

Still another problem is the mixing of technical terms ("heterosexual") and slang ("gay", "lesbian"); there's no internal consistency.

If you're resistant to words like 'tendency' and 'predominantly', how, then, is the sentence to be recomposed so as to not promote an absolutist point of view on sexual orientation? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

The words "gay" and "lesbian" are most certainly not slang; they are standard English. Source for their being slang, please? ("Gay" is slang when used in the pejorative sense—e.g., "That screensaver is so gay"—but that's neither here nor there.) While I'd have no particular objection to substituting the word "homosexual" for the words "gay and lesbian" in that context, it's neither necessary (they're essentially synonymous) nor even really desirable. The flip side of the coin is that there isn't really a good alternative for the word "heterosexual"; "straight" is either slang or informal, depending on what source you prefer.

As for the rest of what you say, all I can really say is that I disagree. The statement "Heterosexual people are romantically/sexually attracted to the members of the opposite sex" doesn't strike me as "absolutist" in the slightest. If it said "exclusively attracted to" or "only attracted to", then you'd have a point, but it doesn't say that. What it says is quite literally true: that a certain subset of the population relates in a certain way to another (overlapping) subset of the population. That doesn't preclude the first subset also relating in that way to a different (overlapping) subset of the population; it doesn't even imply that this isn't often the case. I mean, come on...do you know any heterosexual people who aren't attracted to the opposite sex? I don't. Sexual orientation is indeed a continuum, and you can divide it up however you like (or not at all), but heterosexual people have one thing in common that makes them heterosexual people, gay people have one thing in common that makes them gay people, and so on.

On a more procedural note, I'm not clear why you restored your changes when they were under discussion. Isn't it usually best to seek consensus? Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 04:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I would add my agreement that the West is fairly easily at the point where gay and lesbian are no longer a form of slang. As for the rest, I've already commented. TimothyJosephWood 12:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, "I disagree" isn't an argument. As such, it still stands that the wording implies absolute divisions by way of setting differences and what makes them: If only bi people can be attracted to both genders—as the article suggests by mentioning attraction to both genders only next to mention of bisexual people—then the difference between they and gay people is that gay people can be attracted to only one gender; ditto for straight people; being attracted to only one gender is, as you say, their "one thing in common". But, of course, that's false; people who identify as gay aren't all always attracted to someone of their own gender and people who identify as straight aren't all always attracted to someone of the opposite gender. Once again, this article already alludes to the absence of hard lines where it says "a gay or lesbian person would typically [emphasis mine] find a person of the same sex to be more attractive than one of the other sex." Not only is the wording of the sentence in question misleading, the page thus also has an internal conflict. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 14:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

You see "hard lines" where I see soft ones. I don't have any suggestions on how to resolve this (we could do an RfA, I guess, or post something to another noticeboard or two), but I remain curious why you chose to ignore the usual BRD cycle. Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Miesianiacal, I think the following sums up the matter at hand: "The literature on sexual orientation does not usually indicate that heterosexual and gay and lesbian people have somewhat of a desire for the sex/gender they do not favor, unless talking about a sexual identity that does not match sexual attraction and/or sexual behavior. Yes, regarding sexual orientation, there are people who identify one way but feel and act another. That's not what the wording is about, though."

What Rivertorch said is also sound. You keep making the sexual orientation wording about sexual identity. It's not really about sexual identity, which can differ from actual sexual orientation." This tag you added should be removed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

That is yet another straw man argument. The sentence in question focuses on attraction, not orientation or identity. Implying gay people are only attracted to people of their own gender is false, since people who identify as gay because they usually find people of their own gender attractive can--as has been documented--find people of the opposite gender attractive, too. Once again (how many times now have I pointed this out?), the article also says on attraction: "a gay or lesbian person would typically find a person of the same sex to be more attractive than one of the other sex." That does not have the absoluteness of the statements you and Rivertorch are defending. How can we have one part of the article (correctly) imply a loseness to the borders between orientations and another part imply the borders are defined? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The statements in question do not have "absoluteness" nor do they "imply the borders are defined". You clearly think they do, but that doesn't make it so. Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 07:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Sexual orientation concerns sexual attraction and sexual identity, and the sentence in question is about sexual orientation with regard to sexual attraction. It is not about sexual identity. The source used to support that sentence is also mainly about sexual orientation. I see no straw man argument. As for any poor wording in the article, that can be fixed. I am not convinced that the wording you take issue with is poor wording. I maintain that the type of wording you want to add implies that everyone or most people are bisexual or sexually fluid. While some researchers make that argument, we shouldn't imply the notion when describing heterosexual and gay/lesbian people. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Human sexuality spectrum

Same topic. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 04:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Done — nothing worth salvaging. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 00:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

  It's at AfD, where a different merge target is proposed, so I've undone this for now. ansh666 05:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Questionable Source

In the the third paragraph of the introduction, there is a section which states:

" In the study of human chromosomes in human sexuality, research has shown that 'ten percent of the population has chromosomal variations that do not fit neatly into the XX-female and XY-male set of categories'.[7]"

The source comes from "Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York City: Routledge, 1990. 107". I cannot verify whether or not this claim is substantiated by available data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BD2F:9330:24E3:690E:99C8:3CF2 (talk) 23:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human sexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071010100542/http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/IES/index.html to http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/IES/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Focusing on reproduction for the lead sentence

I reverted Ideafarmcity's edit that focused on reproduction for the lead sentence. I reverted because human sexuality is not solely or even mainly about reproducing, as should be clear from simply looking at the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, the drive to reproduce is generally believed by researchers today to no longer be an innate quality in humans, but rather a learned quality among humans. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Ideafarmcity, you can WP:Edit war on this matter as much as you like...until you are WP:Blocked, but your text will not be staying, especially since there are no WP:Reliable sources to support it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Ideafarmcity, this is my last time responding to you about this, especially since you are not engaging on the talk page. Your text is not supported by WP:Reliable sources. WP:Verifiability is policy. This is why I added sourced definitional material. There are no sources, absolutely zero, that define human sexuality as "behaviors and experiences that result directly from the human reproduction system. The term embraces copulation, marriage, and gender roles, as well as behaviors and experiences that do not involve pregnancy, childbirth, or the raising of children. The term is also used more narrowly to refer to erotic experiences."

So if you re-add that piece or anything similar to it, this matter will be going to a noticeboard. I do not have the time nor patience to play around on this topic. And by "play around," I mean entertain your edits. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

To whom it may concern, I also added "or the way people experience and express themselves as sexual beings" with two reliable sources supporting it. I would have preferred to retain "is the capacity of humans to have erotic experiences and responses" for the lead sentence, since it is clearer and is not redundant by stating "sexuality is being sexual," but significantly fewer sources use that wording. The sources more often state "the way people experience and express themselves as sexual beings," or they define human sexuality in some other broad way. If no one beats me to it, I will likely remove "the quality of being sexual" and simply stick with "or the way people experience and express themselves as sexual beings." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

None of the sources on human sexuality focus on sexual reproduction, except for naming it as an aspect; in fact, they go out of their way to make it clear that human sexuality is significantly broader than sexual reproduction. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 18 July 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain ^t/c 14:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

---

Human sexuality → Sexuality – I don't think we need the human disambig in the title. The main category for this is Category:Sexuality. What non-human sexuality is there? Animal sexuality redirects to Animal sexual behaviour. Unless someone thinks sexuality should be a disambig (and even so, sexuality (disambiguation) already exists...)? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, the page is about human sexuality, not all sexuality. Birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it, so the descriptor 'human' is needed. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - What non-human sexuality is there? Simple answer: all sexuality that isn't human. TimothyJosephWood 13:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose good use here of WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, see Hurricane. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: It is the role of an encyclopaedia to be clear. 'Sexuality' is not something limited to humans (!), so the article should reflect that. –Sb2001 ^{talk page} 14:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.