Talk:Human female sexuality

POV comment re lesbians

"(real or avowed) lesbians"  ??? is this not a glaring POV?

• I have just attempted to create a stub - it is going to be an interesting exercise for all editors who may get involved. --Bhadani 15:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

And, I would love to see a lot of by different editors - that shall make the page truly encyclopedic. --Bhadani 15:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Female sexuality vs. human sexuality in general

This article should be specifically about female sexuality; references to human sexuality in general should point back to the main article on human sexuality; similarly, references to specifically male sexuality should point to the male sexuality article. -- The Anome 14:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

All topics listed below are merely expressions of angst and intellectual tail-chasing. I suggest we attempt to keep the loonies out as best we can by discussing this topic rationally and not pandering to a thinly disguised political stance. This includes omitting or at least sidelining Arts/Humanities Faculty style nonsense which only confuses any issue it approaches as a means of side-stepping the responsibilities inherent in maintaining ones existence in reality. Female Sexuality should be about precisely that. Not about rape or poor lifestyle choices, or why women aren't responsible for their actions and are always fighting the power. Give me a break. Anne Coulter is a woman too. If we are going to discuss irrational nonsense from the left then it's only fair that we throw in some equally disturbing nonsense from the right. Most of the "concerns" below can be addressed over drinks with a few half-intelligent friends, we don't need to drag the good name of Wikipedia through the mud to address people's "concerns" and insecurities. Please, let's attempt to be impartial. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.101.64.153 (talk • contribs) .

The spirit of bluff pipe-smoking ultra-masculinity lives on, I see. Unless, of course, the comment above was meant as parody? -- The Anome 14:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggested topics

Suggested topics to address (only loosely structured, not an article outline):

• how is human female sexuality different from human male sexuality?

• why is human female sexuality different from human male sexuality?
  • biological / evolutionary origins of differences; eg. pregnancy is highly biologically costly and risky for females; ejaculation is not significantly biologically costly or particularly risky for males
  • implications for mate selection
    • stable marriage problem as it relates to mate selection; who proposes, who chooses? Engagement as a historical solution to the stable marriage problem -- men propose, women accept, in the Western model. Compare to arranged marriages.
    • versus serial monogamy now?
  • virilization during fetal development
  • the sexually dimorphic nucleus in the brain: is it real, what are its effects if any?
  • the effects of the menopause on women's sexuality
  • women as drivers for male evolution and vice-versa ("peacock's tail" effect and mate selection)
  • evolution of male and female phenotypes driven by common genotype; male nipple, female orgasm?
  • why are almost all rapists male? Would women do the same, if they had the advantage in physical strength? If not, why not? (and yes, the idea does sound absurd; but why?)
    • is it that women don't need to do so, since many (most?) men would have sex with any woman who was willing?
    • women as "sperm bandits"; a non-violent but devious female equivalent to rape?
  • male economic success and power seems to be an aphrodisiac for many women, vs female physical appearance as an aphrodisiac for many men
  • economic valuation of female sexuality: prostitution;
    • very few prostitutes' clients are female; why?
  • why do women seem to exhibit lower levels of sexual fetishism than men?
  • female sexuality and human sexual dimorphism
• why is human female sexuality so similiar to human male sexuality?
  • eg. human females show many traits that would be considered to be male-like in other mammals; they are not sexually passive, are sexually active/receptive all year round...
    • ditto estrus vs. menstruation
• human female sexuality vs. general mammalian/primate female sexuality
• cultural origins of differences
  • control of reproduction is a common goal of most societies; controlling female sexuality has been the most common way of achieving that goal...
  • why have virginity/modesty etc traditionally been seen as female virtues?
  • why has philandering been seen as OK for males, but not OK for females?
  • female genital cutting as an attempt to control female sexuality
  • ditto enforced modesty such as the chador
  • question: is/was female sexuality different in matriarchal vs. patriarchial societies? if so, how?
• economic origins of differences
  • is female sexuality becoming more similar to male sexuality as women gain more freedom / economic power?
  • by the same token, is male sexuality becoming more "feminine" as men's economic advantages over women reduce?
  • or is the above not a real change at all, and we are just more able to talk about things that were always there? (eg consider the "henpecked husband" stereotype, or cuckoldry)
• stereotyping vs. reality:
  • for example, women as a group tend to be more likely to be turned on by romantic fiction than by hard-core pornography; however, this is not an absolute, but a tendency -- experiments show that many women are more turned on by pornography than they want to admit
  • dating, courtship and marriage; traditionally, women were expected to be passive, men active
  • convention holds that women are less promiscuous/sexually unfaithful than men; however, recent studies show that this may not be as strong a tendency as believed
  • gender issues: butch vs. femme
  • are women "more naturally bisexual" than males?
• Discredited medical ideas about female sexuality:
  • Hysteria
  • the idea that the clitoris is tiny, rather than the visible tip being part of a large organ similar in size to the penis?
• Discredited psychological ideas about female sexuality:
  • Most Freudian ideas, including
  • Female masochism (sidenote: studies of BDSM communities seem to show the proportion of male masochists vs. sadists is roughly the same as, or greater than, that found in women); also see dominatrix
    • but a small minority of women do appear to repeatedly seek out phyically and sexally abusive men; why?
  • Clitoral orgasm as "immature"
• Electra complex: real or discredited?
• Medical technology:
  • what has the effect of the Pill been on female sexuality?
  • hormone replacement therapy and female sexuality
• And whilst we're at it:
  • Venus figurines
  • Fertility goddesses

-- The Anome 14:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I do agree with you. And, the points you have indicated above shall be really helpful. --Bhadani 14:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this

I know it's a stub, I don't want to dump on what's been done, but there are problems with two lines in particular (in the 'Historical conceptions' section):

Even in the twentieth century, many people did not believe that
respectable women should enjoy sex; rather, it was said that
they should "lie back and think of England".

The sentence overall is vague, and the statement, "lie back..." doesn't actually say anything. Citations would help, as well as a more factual definition of what was actually expected of women in conjugal relationships; also, what does 'respectable' mean in this context? I think less POV definitions of women's roles, labels and expectations would help. Also (not to be too critical, sorry), both the 'think of England' line and the vagueness of the paragraph lends an Euro-centric (or even British-centric) viewpoint. Either be specific about what culture is being described, or compare/contrast 20th century views of women's sexuality v/v different cultures.

The phrase originally came from; Alice, Lady Hillingdon (1857-1940) married to the 2nd Baron Hillingdon in 1886. She wrote in a Journal in 1912,

"I am happy now that George calls on my bedchamber less frequently than of old. As it is, I now endure but two calls a week, and when I hear his steps outside my door I lie down on my bed, close my eyes, open my legs and think of England."

Nevertheless, many studies have shown that women's actual sexual
behaviour throughout history appears, like that of men, not
to have been controlled to anywhere near the degree desired
by society.

Citations would be good. Right now it's vague and POV.--Anchoress 06:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Go for it! -- The Anome 02:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Huh?--Anchoress 01:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

By which I mean, "please feel free to improve the article" -- The Anome 14:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

sexual prime/peak

where is the mention of when a female reaches the height of interest in sex during her lifetime generally? Isn't a womans sexual prime much later than that of a man for example? 67.5.156.117 03:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I would think this kind of data if apocryphal at best. Vranak 20:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

buudi hbhgy hgub hggdtyfsjh hvhgtsd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.208.154 (talk) 03:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

POV issues?

Several comments in the Feminist Concepts section seem blatantly POV, such as:

"Feminist attitudes to female sexuality have taken two, superficially opposing, directions."

and

"A short-lived movement towards political lesbianism within the feminist movement led to temporary schisms within the feminist movement between heterosexual and (real or self-avowed) lesbian women, then rapidly floundered in the face of the acceptance that most women's sexuality was not defined by politics, but by their own sexual preferences."

Gonna mark this for a POV check. toll_booth (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like fact 2 me :) Louisa Petit-Ladoumegue (talk) 20:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the first poster is certainly on to something: this is independent research at best, and probably essentialism at worst (ie all feminists thought either x or y,and nothing else ever.) Also, the mention of French psychoanalytic feminism as "the most significant at the end of the 20th century" is oddly judgmental. I've known quite a few psych students and practitioners, and not all of them have read Cixious or Kristeva, let alone agree on their validity. The entire section begs for a major over-hall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.215.26 (talk) 08:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Current image

The current image is captioned "Representations of female sexuality are as old as human civilization." I would argue that the image is not particularly represenative of female sexuality - it's just a sculpture of a naked woman posing coyly. Seems more like a representation of male sexuality, to me. It is also interesting how the female sexuality article is not partitioned into heterosexual and homosexual sections as is the article on male sexuality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.204.137 (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Age of consent matters

"The first is that female sexuality should be accepted and women should be free to have sex when they like, with whomever they like, provided they are of legal age and are willing to participate."

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't there a few sex-positive feminists who believe that the age of consent should be done away with? If so, I would like to see that reflected in the article, but only if such a volatile claim would have the proper citation. toll_booth (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

While I am sure one could find a group who believes in anything, I see no reason why that particular point of view has encyclopedic value. Even if a reference can confirm that someone believes that way, it doesn't need to be in the article unless the belief - and the expression of this idea in public discourse - has some sort of significant political or cultural impact.70.126.45.101 (talk) 06:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Female sexual arousal and orgasm

I have written a new article that is intended to provide more factual background to understanding women's sexuality in terms of a genital focus rather than purely reproductive. The more traditional view of female sexuality depicts women's sexuality almost entirely in terms of vaginal intercourse within a committed sexual reltionship. I am hoping for some feedback on whether the article can be used as a standalone resource to support the general overview of female sexuality. I am author and founder of the female sexuality forum www.WaysWomenOrgasm.org.

Kind regards, Jane Nosper (talk) 11:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This comes too close to original research to qualify, as-is. This does not mean your article is unusable; however it must follow some sort of editorial process. To ensure that the article is encyclopedic, and not the expression of an individual's opinion, users should also avoid citing anything they have written themselves unless no other option is available (and of course it qualifies otherwise). Peer-reviewed academic journals and texts would be the preferred sources, but if neither is available then online resources may be used if they meet the guidelines.70.126.45.101 (talk) 06:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. What is the way forward? Who do I ask to review? What is the editorial process? I am happy to leave out references from my own website. I have included plenty of other references to published texts by the accredited specialists. Nosper (talk) 15:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)