Talk:Human sexuality

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.

New World Encylcopedia

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Human_sexuality

That link has a much better article on human sexuality than this wikipedia. You may want to take some notes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 20:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Nurture vs nature debate

That is some stupid crap that is currently quoted in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 20:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

And unless I'm mistaken, the whole "second born more likely to be homosexual or bisexual due to in-utero chemicals" pretty clearly seems to be an argument for nature. Not only that, it's an unsupported claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.140.157.69 (talk) 05:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

To claim the fact that some twins share similar sexual orientations because of genetics, as an argument for "nature," discounts how having similar upbringings can affect sexual orientation. Like most things, evidence usually indicates a combination of environment and genetics. For example, in Greek and Roman culture it was considered normal to have homosexual relationships with other males. In modern American culture, this is largely considered taboo. People cannot simply be defined as gay or straight based on a genetic makeup. They may be more or less inclined to have homosexual attractions due to genetics, but especially since sexuality develops over time, I'd say there is plenty of room to argue either side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeraldojuice (talk • contribs) 21:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

In Response to the Above

Firstly, making statements like "this is some stupid crap", arent really relevant or appropriate. The idea of Human Sexuality is a subjective concept and product of the psyche just as is the concept that Nature Versus Nurture. I would suggest that ALL who take interest in the subject of Human Sexuality and it's correlation with the concept, not fact (as it may be considered that nothing is absolute fact, only considered accurate based on testing, perception, experience and other subjective and variable factors) that Nature versus Nurture, bear in mind, that;

1. We "assume" that Nature versus Nurture 2. Nurture, or the conditioning, influences, environmental factors and external stimuli that affect human behaviour do so for a reason and can be considered to do this because it is a "natural" developmental and innate characteristic of mankind in ensuring,fundamentally, survival, and continued growth, psychologically and/or physically. 3. What is defined as Nature often entails characteristics that have been direclty affected or modified by some form of Nurture, no matter how small. 4. We "assume" that Nature can only relate to Physically or Biologically defined characteristics of Human Behaviour forgetting sometimes Nurture can override this. i.e. suicide, which can be a result of Nurture and Nature depending on circumstance. 5. We "assume" that Nurture can only relate to Psychologically or cognitive defined characteristics of Human Behaviour forgetting sometimes Nature can override this, i.e. cannibalism which can be a result of Nurture and Nature depending on circumstance. 6. We ignor the possibility that infact both are a product of one another and indeed share a co-dependancy and direct correlation with one another and human development.

Naturally the above is based on my own experience and interpretation of the concept and of course I am open to criticism. I aim simply to stress the importance of a broad and perhaps mildly philosophical perspective when considering such subjective ideas for the benefit of an encyclopedia and in turn, others seeking understanding and development of their own perception of such subjects and concepts.

AndrewAird (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Andrew Aird, UK, 23:23GMT 30/01/2012AndrewAird (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

This article is rated "Start-class"

To me that says that there needs to be an outpouring of information onto this page. Once the basic facts are down, more focus need be given to editorializing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 20:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Polysexual

Why is there no mention of there being people who are polysexual, this article presupposes the idea that sex is binary and doesn't allow for intersexuals to be a part of sexuality (that is, if we accept that narrow concepts in it). For more information on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polysexual http://frank.mtsu.edu/~phollowa/5sexes.html

Even if you don't agree that there are more than two sexes (according to the current classifications of what is is to be a man or a woman) it ought to be included in the article as this is about a belief system. The belief that there are 2 sexes vs the belief that there are more than 2 sexes within the human species. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.111.140 (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I can agree it has a place in the article, but I think you're confusing sex and gender. Aside from rare cases of true hermaphroditism, the sexual binary stands, a given individual is going to genetically be a man or a woman. Gender is what one views themselves as and expects society to, and many cultures have over 2 genders. This being an article about human sexuality, your point still stands and I think it is a valid addition. Just as homosexuality is a valid topic. Atombomb93 (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Asexual

I think that the possibility of asexuality should be included in this article, perhaps in the sexual attraction section. The way the article is written, it doesn't seem to allow for the possibility of no sexual attraction to naturally occur in humans. One possible link on the subject is AVEN, the Asexual Visibility and Education Network (http://www.asexuality.org/home/). Alternately, a link to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality) could be included. 128.211.192.105 (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The definition

"The ways in which people experience and express themselves as sexual beings; the awareness of themselves as males or females; the capacity they have for erotic experiences and responses." I think the second part of the definition is confusing. Sexual identity or sexual self-identification is our awareness as males, females or third sex etc... Այնշախոր (talk) 06:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Relevant Resources

Here are relevant resources that I will be using when revamping this article.

1) “Sex Matters: The Sexuality and Society Reader” by Mindy Stombler, Dawn M. Baunach, Elisabeth O. Burgess, Denise Donnelly, and Wendy Simonds. 2) “Human Sexuality Today” by Bruce M. King 3) “Effecting Science, Affecting Medicine: Homosexuality, The Kinsey Reports, and The Contested Boundaries of Psychopathology in the United States, 1948-1965” by Howard Hsueh-Hao Chiang. 4) “Sexes: Masters and Johnson on Homosexuality” by Time Magazine 5) The Kinsey Institute Online Website 6) "Major Patterns of Change and Continuity: World History in Brief" by Peter N. Stearns 7) PBS Documentary "Kinsey" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aprilmehta (talk • contribs) 06:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Aprilmehta (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

total rennovation of the Human Sexuality article

We revised the introduction to better explain the new format and topics discussed in the article. The sections edited include the introduction, Nature vs. Nurture debate, biology and physiology. In the bio section anatomy, sexual response and sexual dysfunction were added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briannaorozco (talk • contribs) 16:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

RE: History section

I decided that this section fits perfect in sociocultural aspects because human history has major influences on how society views sexuality. Aprilmehta (talk) 08:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Our total renovations first draft is complete...Please allow us at least 24 hours to complete this renovation. Aprilmehta (talk) 09:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It won't be complete until you address the major problems for which I reverted it yesterday. Things like "Upon reading this article, someone will walk away with a piece of mind as to how society explains sexuality in humans" are not appropriate in an encyclopedia article. And please fixing the over-capitalization of headings; and the large number of redlinks that result from putting punctuation inside the wikilink markup. Then it will at least start to look like a wikipedia article, after which you can work on fixing the content errors. Dicklyon (talk) 15:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Evolutionary aspects

This section needs major work. All of this information is ridiculous.

Aprilmehta (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

TIMING ISSUE

Sexual Response Cycle, paragraph 2 states, "The third stage, orgasm, during which rhythmic contractions occur every eighth of a second, consist ..."

First off, minor grammar issue, that should be consistS.

More importantly, "every eighth of a second," means it happens eight times a second, which is clearly wrong. I believe the figure is once every 0.8 seconds, but have not the time today to locate a proper authority for that.