Talk:Human sexuality/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Bisexuality

Bisexality, as well as other distinct sexual identities such as queer and transexual, seem to be completely missing from both these articles, why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flufybumblebee (talk • contribs) 01:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The 'Unconventional Practices' sections is misleadingly short as well, it mentions BDSM and fetishism as if those are only options. There is a tremendous range of unusual stuff which people get up to. Much unusual sex is lumped in with fetishism - inaccurately since a fetish is a fairly precisely defined thing. 196.209.232.222 (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Boccadoro Quote

“Human sexuality is not simply imposed by instinct or stereotypical conducts, as it happens in animals, but it is influenced both by superior mental activity and by..."

Superior mental activity? Sounds too vague, what is it superior to exactly? Is the quote necessary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.29.246.254 (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Instinct

I am sorry, but the idea that human sexuality is governed by instinct is hopelessly outdated. Get your information straight. For instance, it does not need to take one man and one woman. A woman or a man can have sex by themselves. Not everybody in this world defines themselves as man or woman. Two women or two men (or three or four or more) can have sex. But the main thing is that we learn sex, we do not just instinctively do it. If you don't agree, think back to your first time. You will have to admit that you had to learn a great deal and perhaps you have since that time. Can you walk on two feet (a distinctly human trait) without anybody teaching you? Can you speak complex sentences (equally as human, no animal comes close to humans in the use of language) when you do not grow up in a social environment? If you want to compare your sexuality to that of chimps, I suggest you watch chimps copulate (I can't even call it sex). If that compares to your sexuality, you have my sympathy, but I happen to last a bit longer than a few seconds. User:nielsft12 April 2004.

I have two objections to your edit. First one is that in this version it posits an either-or situation with does not necessarily exist. It is a fallacy.

The other is that even if you hold that human sexuality is entirely learned behaviour, NPOV requires that you state the other opinions (which hold different degrees of intinct involvement) and give give reasons (citings etc.) why your point should be more prominents etc. etc.

--Calm 16:46, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree with 200.191.188.xxx, who added the abortion link back into the article. In fact, I'd put it right under pregnancy. But it's extremely disingenuous to ignore the link between abortion and sexuality. <>< tbc

LOL. That was my opinion. :-) Western society must be the first in history to de-couple sexuality from a link with pregnancy. (I'd put abortion with Birth control/Contraception on the page, myself, but I think we should leave it as a "see also" for now.)

Our high intelligence and complex societies have produced in us the most complicated sexual behaviors of any animal.

That's very subjective opinion. Compared to other animals, human sexuality is quite simple. You know - you need just a male and a female and ... done :) Many important aspects of normal animal sexuality like estrus, sexual demonstrations, fighting between males before any copulation, eating partner or partner's previous children don't exist or exist only in very reduced form in humans. --Taw

Tush. I revised it and put it back on the page - hopefully the new version is less mantis-bashing  :-). And I think most of the behaviors you list are present in humans in an attenuated or sublimated form.

I think the initial wording above is actually better than the current one. Our intelligence has little if anything to do with the complexity of our sexuality as a species. And it is more complex than the act of coitus which is pretty basic when you get down to it. Courting rituals and cultural taboos ad such are highly elaborate, and it can even be argued that most of our culture is directly or indirectly derivative of that, from art, to music, etc. I think the original wording is much more NPOV and accurate. With all due respect to Taw, I suggest we revert back to that wording. Lestatdelc 20:14, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

And -- many aspects of (well, maybe not important and maybe not normal) human sexuality such as high-heel shoes, alimony, Queer theory, contraception, de Sade (yeesh), red sports cars, panty raids, hentai (need I go on? :-) ) don't exist in animals.

Well, of course Queer theory doesn't exist in animals; they typically refrain from theorizing, to my knowledge. - Montréalais

Well, as far as we know such complex self-study of animal societies of their own species does not occur, yet homosexual anbd bisexual behavior, iuncluding complex social behaviors sorrounding such does occur in the naimal kingdom. I suggest reading Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity by Dr. Bruce Bagemihl . Lestatdelc 23:37, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

what's the link between this article and human sexual behaviour ? Martin

The term "instinct" is not very helpful in this discussion. It appears that there are some behaviors that are absolutely "hard-wired", but they are very simple, e.g., all babies react to the feeling of "the bottom dropping out". But many other behaviors may have a hard-wired basis that needs to meet the appropriate imprinting to be activated in a way useful to the individual.

Patrick0Moran 05:41, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Wisdom and Human Sexuality

There have been several changes to the line that currently reads "Historically, wisdom has not been a dominant factor in human sexuality." I don't think the current phrasing is very good. But I think that it should be resolved on the talk page instead of through back-and-forth changes in the article itself. Any suggestions for a good wording?

Acegikmo1 03:06, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't think the paragraph is necessary at all. I wanted to remove it, but thought I would try re-wording it first. I don't see any reason why the wisdom or intelligence of human sexual behaviors would be relevant to a page which is nothing more than a List Of page. If these comments are even appropriate for an encyclopidic article, they should probably go in their own "debate on human sexuality" page or something. -- Crag 15:07, 2004 May 17 (UTC)

H'm, agreed. I tried re-wording it myself when I first saw it, but you're right that it really has no place in the article. I'll remove it. Thanks

Acegikmo1 00:28, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Why is this not merged with Human sexual behaviour? -SV 21:54, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)

Probably because it would take a lot of work, as the articles are organized quite differently.

Acegikmo1 18:05, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

human category

is it okay for this page to be under category:human ?

--LegCircus 04:22, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Its fine, I would think, except that Category:Sexuality is a subcategory of Category:Human behavior, which is a subcategory of Category:Human, which means that because it is in Category:Sexuality it is already in Category:Human. Phew! -Seth Mahoney 19:13, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

clarify sex vs. gender issue

I have made a minor change in the first paragraph because the article did not properly reflect the difference between sex and gender. Sexual identity is not a matter of socialization. Determining the sexual identity of a person breaks down into several objective questions: What is the chromosomal sex of this person (XX, XY, XXY...)? What is the status of the genitalia (typical female, typical male, XY individual with unmasculinized genitalia, etc.,etc.)? Societies generally insist on a 2-category system, the basic criterion for inclusion in one category or the other is whether the individual has, will have, or once had the capacity to produce ova or to produce spermatazoa. The ways that individuals are taught to represent what they are and what they want to do in a social/sexual/life-task context is called gender. P0M 05:53, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article biased towards Western world views about sexuality?

I have never placed an NPOV tag on a page yet, and I'm certainly not going to do so without taking part in a discussion first (unlike others I've encountered). But I think that this whole article both in its structure and content is very biased towards the "Western World" view of human sexuality. Where is the spirituality and the deeper understanding that many (probably the majority) of cultures in this world attempt to attach to this intriguing and fundamental concept?

I am a Westerner myself so I am not saying this out of self-interest, but I think this whole article is a bit one-sided in this respect.

TH 00:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The bias is not deliberate. Since this is the English WikiPedia , most editors are from the US or Commonwealth of Nations. We simply do not know about other countries. If you know about other cultures, than by all means, add what you know to the article. I remember a few months ago, a newspaper hired experts to assess Wikipedia for an article. All said it was accurate except an Entomologist . After a few hours, he withdrew his objections because he himself improved the article the article about coccoons. ¡Be the Entomologist  !

—

— Ŭalabio‽ 03:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I put Pedophilia and pederasty into paraphilia, those are not sexual orientations. I would also move Celibacy somewhere else, this is no-way related to sexual orientation but it is a way to live his sexuality.

I would like to thank the wikipedian who wrote "For information about sexual activities and practices (i.e., "doing it"), see the article human sexual behavior." LOL...--Stupidwhiteman 12:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Enjoy it while you can. Anything the least bit humorous is a prime candidate for reversion.—GraemeMcRae^talk 05:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Facts of Life Redirect NOT Appropriate

I typed in "Facts of Life" to go to the entry on the T.V. and it took me here. This redirect needs to be eliminated in favor of a disam page. Pacian 01:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Additionally - "The Birds and the Bees" redirects here. Good for 6-year-olds, bad for people looking for the Jewel Akens song? Though, Jewel Akens doesn't have an article and I certainly don't know enough to write one, so maybe this is a more justifiable redirect. Just pointing it out. --EasyAsPi314 13:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Possible link to add

The site of the Society for Human Sexuality probably deserves a link from somewhere (I'm not sure if this article is the place, hence bringing it up on the talk page); the group might even deserve an article. Seattle-based site, an outgrowth of one of the first broadly inclusive sex-positive student organizations. One of very few sites on the web trying to write from a positive but non-sensationalistic point of view about sexuality resources (ranging from pornography—which they prefer to call "erotica"—to web-based matchmaking services). Interesting site, not quite NPOV because systematically sex-positive, but something that seems to me to be a useful resource. Probably also a useful resource for topics worth writing about: my guess is that their relatively short list of erotic films would contain a bunch that deserve articles and don't yet have them. - Jmabel | Talk 06:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Close Relationships template

I added a new close relationships template to the article. If the consensus is to remove it, due to the other templates already taking up space on the page, I'm okay with that. (Kelly 05:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC))

I think both the close relationships template and the love template are aggressively POV and neither is appropriate. -Smahoney 06:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Please explain why you believe the close relationship template is POV, by which I assume you mean a violation of NPOV policy. Close relationships--also referred to as intimate relationships, attached relationships, or romantic relationships--have received a lot of research attention in psychology, sociology, and anthropology. The multiple articles on Monogamy and the articles on Attachment in adults and Attachment measures illustrate the kind of research attention close relationships have received. These articles contain numerous references to scientific studies. Kelly 07:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the existence of close relationships, or the close relationships template as such. I'm disputing the necessary connection between human sexuality and close relationships implied by the template's presence on this page. -Smahoney 15:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay. That's not really a violation of the NPOV policy, which your intial reference to POV suggested. However, I see your point. Sexuality does not always occur in close relationships. But many times it does, and readers interested in the topic of close relationships may be specifically interested in the sexual aspect of close relationships. I have decided to place the template on the Human sexual behavior page. That article introduces relationships in the second paragraph and contains a section listing types of partnerships--some of which are included in the Close Relationships template. Are you okay with the template being in the Human sexual behavior article? Kelly 16:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly surprised that both articles exist - one seems at first glance to be redundant. But yeah, it seems more appropriate there, since that article seems focused on sexual relationships. -Smahoney 17:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Later. Kelly 18:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Topics in human sexuality

This section is just an huge ugly list.It should be reformed in to a template,for all the relevant articles.I would also propose a merge with Human sexual behavior.--Pixel ;-) 18:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Leading sentence is horrible!

"Human sexuality refers to the expression of sexual sensation and related intimacy between human beings, as well as the expression of identity through sex and as influenced by or based on sex."

What the hell are you trying to say?

I would rather see "Human sexuality is about fucking" than this piece of meaningless rubbish.

Please sign your posts. I agree. I'm reducing the opening paragraph considerably. Brallan 11:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sexual Development needs its own article

Sexual development redirects here, but it needs its own article, as it extremely varied amongst animals and an interesting topic which does not seem to be covered either by this article or Animal_sexuality. what do people think? Brallan 11:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, another person on the sexual development talkpage seemed to agree, so I removed the redirect and started a sexual development stub.Brallan 11:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Huge list of articles

I've split the list of articles into List of human sexuality topics, which was eating up way too much of the page. It took a while, but it got done.-Wafulz 02:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The Rationality of Sexuality

There is a theory about the rationality of sexuality in the self-published book Work Efficiency and Likings by K. H. Tervola, which is avalilable in the internet for free at stores.lulu.com/khtervola.InsectIntelligence 19:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The theory says that sexuality is a way to learn about the art of living. When we admire someone, are friends, love and/or feel physical attraction, we get lots of social influence from the other person's way to live and via that, i.e. via learning the dominant mood (consisting of the following: eyes, hearing, memory, thinking, language, social, feelings, atmospheres, the sense of beauty, the body,…), we learn the natural base of the skills of the other one, getting so new strenghts in addition to our old ones. Also the possible offspring would have the strenghts of both… InsectIntelligence 03:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Self-published sources are not generally not allowed, unless they are the subject describing itself (such as a musician's blog or a website's creation log). See Wikipedia:Reliable sources.-Wafulz 03:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. Anyway, just in case that you are interested in the theory, the text of the book is at www.paradisewins.net/WEL.html .InsectIntelligence (talk) 13:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Or just the theory about sexuality at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PbQs-MWnkw InsectIntelligence (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

merge

Merge it. 63.228.107.65 01:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that all the material is directly relevant to such a broad topic.-Wafulz 01:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Apart from reproductivity there are two other aspects needed to be thought of. Out of these two one is "health" aspect. Sex is needed for the routine relaxation. For woman also to keep her body functioning-like monthly cycles- in order. The second one is nearness to "trance feelings" after the sex act is over. This feeling means expressing the gratitude to the almighty for allowing the pleasure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.187.218.81 (talk) 11:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hoax mini-paragraph

There was a mini-paragraph near the top that I took out that merely looked like a garbled sentence at first, but proved to have been a deliberate attempt to insert false information. It's been there for some months, and used a fabricated citation (neither book nor author appear to exist). Do watch out in case anybody tries to put it back in. No more bongos 05:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it was added here, probably to mock Foucault.-Wafulz 14:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Instincts have rationality

Compare a passing meeting to 30 years of marriage: 30 years of being the closest adult in your life. That is 1 day compared to 30 years which is about 1 : 10 000. No wonder that we react strongly to the possibility of getting a partner that would suit us!InsectIntelligence (talk) 13:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Repression

It seems very bizarre to me that this page does not mention sexual repression. This subject has been studied extensively in the scholarly literature and there is a great variety of good sources on the topic presenting a number of different viewpoints. It's also a subject that relates very directly to a number of other topics, including, among others, culture, childbirth, birth control, general reproductive health, religion, women's health and other issues of the empowerment of women. In short, I see no reason that wikipedia should not contain an article on this topic. I am posting here because I am planning on recreating the page (I don't see any discussion of why it was deleted) and I would like to recruit thoughtful contributors to it. I also think the topic should be discussed and linked on this page. Cazort (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI, it was deleted because it was a redirect to religion and sexuality.-Wafulz (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Reproductive Fitness

Sexual reproduction, including human sexuality, evolved because of its effect on reproductive fitness. No discussion of human (or any other species) sexuality is complete without including reproductive fitness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.0.59.188 (talk) 02:48, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Photo removal

I recognize what you said in your edit summary, but there's no way we're going to find a photo that encompasses the history, culture, politics, and ethics of human sexuality. A bar scene does represent an aspect of culture, though, so I believe it's apt for the article. Thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a symbolic image (male/female/trans symbols, LGBT flag, etc)? Other than that, we could use a collage or something similar. This is what some umbrella articles use: see biology, evolution, World War I. We could also use an historical image like mathematics does.-Wafulz (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Foucault?

Does anyone else think it's a bit excessive to have two paragraphs devoted to Foucault's views in the introduction? Although I realize he holds a lot of influence in the social sciences and academia, many authorities disagree with him and it seems inappropriate to mention him to the exclusion of everyone else. Additionally, I don't see why whoever wrote this couldn't just use plain language and had to resort to postmodernist babble and putting every other word in quotes, when the actual point they are trying to get across is relatively simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.147.224 (talk) 06:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it could be moved down, but it seems to flow and introduce the issues rather well. I would not mind keeping it in. forestPIG 09:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah Foucault is influential and all, but I think it should be toned down a bit.-Wafulz (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Foucault doesn't deserve this much coverage, at least not for the lead section. Take this quote for example: "Being the main force conditioning human relationship, sex is essentially political." Now, I'm sure there are a lot of people who believe that, but what about those who disagree? Why do we present this statement as though it were established fact? Can't we at least portray some opposing viewpoints?Sonicsuns (talk) 20:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I moved it down to the bottom area on the study of sexuality.-Wafulz (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's been moved down but it still looks too prominent to me. Perhaps there should simply be a history section which draws on some of the other important developments cited in History of human sexuality. - Ipigott (talk) 16:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Sexual

Shouldn't redirect here. It could refer to any number of things, e.g. sexual reproduction etc. If it is to be kept at all I would suggest it be a disambiguation page, though I wouldn't know exactly what to put in there. Richard001 (talk) 08:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Love

Love is found in someone you trust, that cares for you, someone that is involed in well, your life. If you want love don't go to a online dating place, they don't know your type! Go to a happy place like a walk, maybe... To get a mans attention...

1. Wear fancy make-up NOT TO MUCH!

2. Be you, be yourself

3. Have fun on the first date, say every thing you want to say

4. Don't bring up a person, this is your date

5. Giggle at his jokes

6. If you want to make it a nice fun date go to a park or a fancy restaurant

7. If he likes haunting take him for a walk

To have a fun date with girls...

1. Make sure you have cool, chillin' out clothes 2. Make her laugh 3. Don't make out on the first date only when you drop her off at her house [after your first date kiss as much as you want] 4. Make moves at the movies 5. Pop a mint before the date or on the way home to her house to give her the kiss 6. Make it the best night of her life 7. Take her to a fancy restaurant, amussment park, a walk, or something fun [movies] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.2.40.115 (talk) 14:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC) lame —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.209 (talk) 07:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Request

All those of you watching this page, please come and have a look at linguistics. There is a gross misrepresentation and censorship taking place there. Post-structural linguistics has been deleted and censored by the community there, and I urge you to participate in the discussion to restore a balanced view for the article. Supriya 07:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

How far should this go?

Over the past few days I have done a fair amount of editing on this article. The problem now is to decide when to stop. It would, for example, be possible to include sections on the role of sexuality in art, literature and music, its influence on fashion (e.g. clothing), its place in the theater, TV and cinema, and in advertising. Last but not least, we could include a section on sexuality and the internet. Any opinions on this? The article is important as it is a Level 2 core topic.- Ipigott (talk) 15:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Unconventional Practices

How "unconventional" are the "Unconventional Practices"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.159.123.0 (talk) 01:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep the last ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Definition of "Intercourse"

As given in the article, the definition is this: Intercourse: the act, sometimes referred to as penetration, in which the male reproductive organ enters the female reproductive tract with a view to achieving orgasm.

This seems to me to be absurdly restrictive. Anal intercourse, then, is not intercourse? Penetrative sex between two people of the same sex is not intercourse? Penetration with a prosthesis is not intercourse? Oral sex is ... what, exactly? No, no, I cannot agree that intercourse is limited to vaginal sex between man and woman, necessarily focussed on orgasm as a goal.

I'm tempted to just edit this absurdity out of hand, but frankly I'd like to hear some consensus on what the essential core of intercourse is. I'm inclined to centre it in penetration; that is, intercourse occurs when one person's bodily member -- tongue, fingers, penis, or a substitute such as a dildo -- enters another's bodily orifice, for the purpose of sexual gratification (which may or may not entail or result in orgasm for either partner). Others may disagree. But I cannot accept that such a limited definition as the article carries now can or should stand. --Getheren (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I would concur, even the wikipedia article on sexual intercourse appears to coincide with your statements. Maybe that section of the article should be edited more. Seeing that the "Creating a partnership" section does not appear to be taken from an single source and appears more to be a amalgam of several other wikipedia articles. At the very least it should be more representative of the wikipedia article it links to. That section also appears to be linked to the "Human Sexual Behavior" article, but that article has nothing on courting, nor flirting, nor seduction. We might want to source this section a lot better, or possibly take it down as a whole.ZgokE (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Homosexuality undergoing revision

The article Homosexuality is undergoing revision. The revised version is available in the Sandbox and the project documentation and coordination is taking place in the Sandbox's talk page.

I would appreciate if people joined in. I'm currently looking towards forming a team for the revision and future maintenance of this article.

Thank you,

Pdorion (talk) 08:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

So, aside from legitimate (if rare) examples of the third case, let's just go on talking as if there are only two sexes? And the adjective "true" in front of hermaphroditism also clearly hides perhaps further categories. In point of fact, what precisely should be taken as the biological determination for "man" or "woman". The chromosomes? And the fact that there are a range of variations (not merely idiosyncratic expressions, but classes of variation found in more than one person) within those chromosomes shall be ignored for the sake of shoe-horning everyone into "male" or "female"? The article could simply acknowledge what the standard definitions are for these things, so long as the wider range of expression is also acknowledged. Lastly, since human sexual expression is prior to language (and thus categories like "man" or "woman"), then one can see it's not too irrational to suggest that people who today we would call homosexual could not have been seen as another sex (and I do mean "sex" not "gender"). In any case, the fact of hermaphroditism necessitates not insisting on the binary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talastra (talk • contribs) 22:42, 5 August 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)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilde27 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I believe that I've fixed the minor grammar issue, and the eighth of a second problem. I also added a "verification needed" tag, since I'm too tired to look for a source right now. The figure may be off, but it's still much better than it was. My face is red on this one... the text was originally "every eight seconds" which was also clearly wrong. I changed it to every eighth of a second without giving it much thought - doh! kyledueck (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Images

While it is perfectly acceptable to include an image of female genitals close up in a factual article, together with a diagram, it is noticeable that there is no comparable image of male genitals, though there is a diagram for this. There are two alternative ways to solve this problem: one is to remove the photo of female genitals. The other is to add a photo of male genitals. Failing to do that, one cannot take this page seriously as a factual site - it is clearly affected by some kind of prejudice which does not do justice to the apparently documentary style of the page and site. I have read the whole page but this flaw undermines its credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elijahswatch (talk • contribs) 11:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Christian/Catholic views of sexuality

The two paragraphs dealing with Christian and Catholic views of sexuality are puerile and unsubstantiated.

Stating that "St. Paul regarded the body as evil" is a hopeless generalization of a very complex view that includes statements such as "your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God?" (I Cor 6:19) I have deleted the reference to the missionary position as a runoff of St. Paul's teaching because it has no source and is not relevant. The statement that "Saint Augustine believed that sex was sinful" is patently false and has no source, so I have revised those as well. I find it humorous that the writer of this section gratuitously includes a statement that Augustine's "assumptions are contradicted" by the Bible, when in fact Augustine's knowledge of Scripture was unparalleled.

The most egregious misinformation, which I have revised, states that "traditional Catholic views on sexuality place sexuality to be sinful": a statement which, besides improper grammar, has no foundation in any Catholic thinkers, past or present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.37.7 (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Pansexuality as "fringe"?

An editor, Edgth has now twice removed a cited passage about pansexuality, asserting that it is "fringe". I do not believe this to be the case; the cited passage is from a reference text. If there is a dispute about weight, that is something that can be discussed, but that is a different matter. Further, this editor cites the number of page watchers and the length of time since the edit was made as evidence that it is uncontroversial, and I believe this to be inappropriate.

Will cross-post to WP:FRINGE/N, as this talk page does not seem to be very active. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 08:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

It's WP:FRINGE to call pansexuality a sexual orientation, as agreed upon by various editors time and time again at relevant talk pages; it is not WP:FRINGE to call it a sexual identity or to state that some people view it as a sexual orientation. See this statement made by me during Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology for a summary of why it is indeed WP:FRINGE to call pansexuality a sexual orientation. I will leave a note about this at the WP:Fringe noticeboard as well, in the section you started about this. Flyer22 (talk) 09:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Libertarianism

Wayne R. Dynes, who wrote a short article in Cato Institute's The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism is a long respected scholar on the subject, and has useful things to say. The article itself covers a wide variety of aspects concerning sexuality, including philosophical, legal, historical, religion, philosophical. etc. The particular article is in the further reading section and complies with WP:FURTHER. So why shouldn't it be included? – S. Rich (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

It does not comply with WP:FURTHER which states that added readings should provide additional information. In this case our article has more informaiton than the encyclopedia article. The further reading is not supposed to be a list of all encyclopedias or books that have an entry or a chapter about the topic. If Dr. Dynes has written other stuff on Human sexuality then that can of course be used as a source or if relevant a further reading. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Definition-of.com

I removed a source in the lead that is not RS or an acceptable tertiary source as it is strictly user generated content.--Maleko Mela (talk) 12:09, 6 May 2014 (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)

changed definition slightly: Human sexuality identifies the ways in which human beings relate to one another as males and females, especially in regards to their capacity to have erotic experiences and responses. Mentioning the male and Female sexes is critical to defining the sexual identity of humans. Less than 0.5% of humans have any form of intersex issue (from incomplete urethral closure, etc.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex#Prevalence Mrdthree (talk) 10:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Reverted as not an improvement. No need to mention males, females or intersex people (who are usually biologically classified as male or female or identify in such a way anyway) in the first line. Flyer22 (talk) 10:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing. Please do not revert a third time WP:3RR. The definition for the site is as follows in its entirety: 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. As there are many different species, some have asexual reproduction, others having shifting sexes it is critical to point out that humans have two sexes: Male and female. This is the basis of their sexual identity. If you wish to discuss eroticism then you can go to that page but human sexuality depends on sex. Mrdthree (talk) 10:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Still a no; try again if need need be, but try differently. Flyer22 (talk) 10:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok please explain your rationale for excluding mention of male and female, man and woman from the lead paragraph and the lead sentence of the article on Human Sexuality? Mrdthree (talk) 10:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

If you wont discuss then dont edit war . Mrdthree (talk) 10:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: This discussion is continued below in the #Male/Female/Man/Woman/sex/sexes and equivalent are absent from opening paragraphs section below. Flyer22 (talk) 02:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Male/Female/Man/Woman/sex/sexes and equivalent are absent from opening paragraphs

There is no mention of these words until outline. They should be mentioned prior to that as they play a defining role in human sexuality. According to the intersex article they cover 99.5% of sex. If we were talking about otters, wouldnt the first thing we want to know is that there are male and female otters? Mrdthree (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

In order to get some footing here I will list definitions from Other sources (1) Human sexuality-The ways in which we experience and express ourselves as sexual beings.. http://www.pearsonhighered.com/assets/hip/us/hip_us_pearsonhighered/samplechapter/0205786065.pdf Mrdthree (talk) 01:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a lot of citing this definition.Here: http://www.csun.edu/~vcpsy00h/students/sexual.htm and here:http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Introduction_to_Sociology. Mrdthree (talk) 01:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Free Dictionary(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Human+sexuality, which sources random house and American Heritage)1. The condition of being characterized and distinguished by sex. 2. Concern with or interest in sexual activity. 3. Sexual character or potency. 1. sexual character; possession of the structural and functional traits of sex. 2. recognition of or emphasis upon sexual matters. 3. involvement in sexual activity. 4. an organism's preparedness for engaging in sexual activity. Mrdthree (talk) 01:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

MCGraw Hill : Our sexuality is both broad and complex and it consists of all of the aspects mentioned sex, reproductive roles, gender roles, sensuala n sexual pleasure romantic and intimate relationships sexual expression throughout the life span, sexual dysfunctions, problematic sexual expression, and concerns regarding sexually transmitted infections http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/dl/free/007241278x/26408/bye1278x_ch01.pdf Mrdthree (talk) 01:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

So neither of those definitions of sexuality mention gender/sex? Neither does Merrian-Webster, Reference.com, The Free Dictionary, nor Oxford Dictionaries.com. Moreover, paraphilias demonstrate humans' capacity to be sexual with non-humans (ideas, objects, animals, etc.) Gender/sex is not necessary nor sufficient for either the feeler of sexuality or the object of the sexual feelings. I see no reason to mention it in the intro sentence of the lead. (BTW, 1% to 2% of people are intersex, not 0.5%). EvergreenFir (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Miriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexuality)-the sexual habits and desires of a person--the quality or state of being sexual a. the condition of having sex b. sexual activity c. expression of sexual receptivity or interest especially when excessive. Mrdthree (talk) 02:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sexuality)- sexual character; possession of the structural and functional traits of sex.2.recognition of or emphasis upon sexual matters.3.involvement in sexual activity.4.an organism's preparedness for engaging in sexual activity.

Oxford American English (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/sexuality)- Capacity for sexual feelings.2.A person’s sexual orientation or preference.3.Sexual activity.

I think every dictionary agrees the definition of sexual is of or relating to the sexes or some such. Mrdthree (talk) 02:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The 1-2% number is from an uncited source and only goes so high because the source estimates the frequency of adult-onset CAH to be 1 in 66 although the congenital rate is closer to 1:1000; perhaps there is a nongenetic variant or I think a zero missing.Mrdthree (talk) 02:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's your source: Anne Fausto-Sterling in most any of her works. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh wait, that's exactly who is cited in the intersex article for that statistic. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

For the U.S. (and the Anglophone world) estimates would put it closer to 1:1000, but it varies among ethnicities p.226 with highest rates among Ashkenazi, Mediterranean peoples, and hispanics [1] Mrdthree (talk) 03:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

That's the rate that would be suggested for surgery, not the overall prevalence rate. Also depends on how you define intersex. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Instead of pretending you know something in a subject area you should read the research please see discussion on intersex page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intersex#Out_of_Date_Prevalence_of_late_onset_CAH Mrdthree (talk) 06:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The article does not contain a hyper link to sex Mrdthree (talk) 01:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Pardon, but it's unclear what the problem is. By the section title and your previous edits, you seem to want to add a mention of gender/sex (by which I do not mean sexual intercourse) in the lead. But you've failed to provide any references that say it should be added and most of what's been provided explicitly exclude any mention of gender/sex in the definition of sexuality. Why, then, do you see a need to add it? EvergreenFir (talk) 02:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@Mrdthree: Are you proposing that this edit be restored? That would change the first sentence to be:

Human sexuality identifies the ways in which human beings relate to one another as males and females, especially in regards to their capacity to have erotic experiences and responses.

The Wikipedian response would be to ask for the source, but the commonsense response is to point out that when deprived of desired partners, many humans will have sex with whatever is at hand. That wording completely misses the point. What is the proposal? Johnuniq (talk) 02:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I think its good. I think if I were an alien I would want to know that humans are a species with two sexes, male and female. But If thats too radical for this page you can make it Human sexuality identifies the ways in which human beings relate to one another sexually. Mrdthree (talk) 02:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you might be thinking of the article Human reproduction --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 02:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you hit the nail on the head. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I dont care about gender. I want a mention of sex in a human sexuality article. In fact I want a mention of sex in any article about sexuality. I think its remiss not mention sex in an sexuality article.Mrdthree (talk) 02:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: This discussion is a continuation of #The definition discussion above. Mrdthree, consider being more patient; I'm not always going to reply right away. The same goes for many Wikipedia editors. I sometimes take time to assess not only the content at hand, but the editor or editors in question. This does not mean that you should then revert.

As for your wording: I disagreed with your wording and placement. I don't object to the words male, female and/or intersex being in this article (male and female clearly are already in the article). I object to them being in the first sentence. Furthermore, like I noted above, intersex people are usually biologically classified as male or female (based on physical appearance and/or chromosomal makeup, such as XY female or XX male), and usually identify as male or female; it's not the usual case that an intersex person wants to be thought of as neither male nor female. Being thought of as neither male nor female is usually a third gender or genderqueer matter, though the sex and gender distinction exists and third gender/genderqueer matters are usually formulated in gender terms (boy/man; girl/woman). I also don't see male, female and/or intersex as being needed in the lead, since male and female is a pretty common sense matter. But I'm not opposed to you noting these aspects somewhere in the lead, preferably with regard to a part specifically about human anatomy. I'm not sure why you are going on about eroticism; that is not my concern in this case. As for stating that "human sexuality depends on sex," I take it that you mean sexual anatomy. However, like I've stated elsewhere on Wikipedia, a sexual fantasy can exist without sexual anatomy being involved and there are some people paralyzed from the neck, chest or waist down who can experience physical sexual stimulation (including orgasm) via the power of the brain or other nerves in relation to the spinal cord and which bypass the paralyzed state. Flyer22 (talk) 02:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Mrdthree, if that is truly what you think your addition means, then it shows a misunderstanding of the edit itself, as well as a the topic of sexuality as a whole. To view Eros solely through the prism of sexual intercourse between two specific genders and nothing else is easily rebutted. In fact, you have already been given two examples above. The lede should begin with the most encompassing definition of the subject and I believe the second sentence is where sex itself is introduced --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not talking about genders or intercourse. I am saying there are two sexes not one as in yeast or a single hermaphroditic sex. Any and all sexual behavior is a consequence of this. Mrdthree (talk) 02:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

What sexuality theory have you been reading? Again, I have to ask, do you mean Human reproduction? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 02:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the entire issue. Most of the bold words you made refer to sex in the "sexual intercourse" sense, not the biological sex sense. You do not need male/female (as in biological sex) to have sexuality or sexual intercourse. Trans people, eunuchs, intersex, and all other sorts of people that do not fit the male/female dichotomy are able to be sexual. Moreover, they are able to be sexual in relation to non-male/female things. People can orgasm without sex organs. Having a penis/vulva or certain chromosomes is not necessary for sexuality in humans. Moreover, your understanding of biological sex itself is incorrect as there are not just two sexes and not all sexual behavior is a consequence of it. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You have no evidence that people can orgasm without sex organs or sex chromosomes. You need to restrain your rhetoric. Mrdthree (talk) 06:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

heres my context, I want to discuss human sexual behavior with someone in the context of animal kingdom. So the person asks me what do you mean by sexual behavior? So I usually say whatever wikipedia says. But what wikipedia says human sexuality is, is completely unrecognizable from an animal behavior point of view. SO I want to add a feature that is in common to humans and animals: sex. Because Im not going to talk about the erotic experiences of rabbits or cows. Mrdthree (talk) 02:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Then go edit human reproduction. Human sexual behavior is not the same as animal sexual behavior (which itself is not even what you describe... otters will screw seals to death). EvergreenFir (talk) 02:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

OK took a look. No thats not what I want to talk about. As an aside there is no hyperlink from this page to human reproduction either. My point is that otters, whatever they screw, are male or female.Mrdthree (talk) 02:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, intersex and transsexual. That's why the article is called "human sexuality" not "male and female sexuality". EvergreenFir (talk) 02:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

So reading this article was your first foray into the subject? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 02:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Id like to think I know a thing or two. But I would also like to think other people accept that human sexuality is not divorced from animal sexual behavior. Mrdthree (talk) 02:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

It largely is. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Mrdthree, I know that you are talking about the sexes, and that is partly what I addressed above. I am fine with the sexes being mentioned in the lead, but not your wording and not in the first sentence. Your wording of "in which human beings relate to one another as males and females" made it sound as though human sexuality is all about how a male relates to a female and vice versa, which is an incorrect way to word human sexuality and, like I noted when first reverting you, can be viewed as heteronormative (similar to what Mark Miller/Maleko Mela told you). If the vast majority of WP:Reliable sources on human sexuality defined human sexuality that way, I would not object; this is because, per WP:Due weight (an aspect of the WP:Neutral policy), we usually give more weight to the majority view, even for the initial sentence of the WP:Lead. But the vast majority of WP:Reliable sources on human sexuality do not define it the way that you did. I know that you added "or" in place of "and" as a compromise, but the wording was still problematic. I suggest you propose a line about the sexes that is not for the first sentence and which ties into the "reproductive functions and the human sexual response cycle" aspects mentioned in the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 03:00, 7 May 2014‎ (UTC)

I give it thought.Mrdthree (talk) 03:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

As for whether or not there are only two sexes, I'll grant you that I'm not aware of science having actually identified a third sex, though intersex people and hermaphroditic non-human animals are sometimes classified as a third sex (by being a combination of both). So when mentioning the sexes, WP:Due weight is to state "male or female" or "male, female or intersex," but gender is a broader field and researchers have identified three or more genders (again, see the Third gender article). And, yes, I know that you stated that you are not concerned with gender on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 03:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Like other mammals, humans are dioecious, primarily composed of male or female sexes, with small proportions of intersex individuals for whom sexual classification is not as clear.Mrdthree (talk) 11:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, out of billions of people, even a smaller percentage would cover a significant amount of people, but that's beside the point. You are again presenting a gross oversimplification of a hugely complicated topic. After the debate here, do you still stand by your addition to the lede? What sources were you basing it on in its initial addition? Even if you were correct, I get the impression that it would be your own independent research that led you to this conclusion, rather than studying theoretical work on human sexuality? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Any number of basic biology textbooks can be the source. But I will pick some. Mrdthree (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Leonard, Janet (18 Jun, 2010). The Evolution of Primary Sexual Characters in Animals. Oxford University Press. p. 552. ISBN 978-0-19-532555-3. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Particularly Chapter 3. Mrdthree (talk) 12:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you not think a book on the sexual characters in animals would be a simplification on how human sexuality operates? The application of this to human sexuality is synthesis of sources anyway. Could you not get a book of psychoanalysis or sexuality theory? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

This reference is a little too deep for what I wanted to have included but I think it has a pretty interesting biological approach to analyzing human sexuality in the last chapter. http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=SY-PyKNQglIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=primate++sexuality&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jTVqU_62LomIuAT5yIHQBw&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=snippet&q=610&f=false Mrdthree (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

This one looks interesting too. http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=Z-Vl0LcqAGgC&pg=PA69&dq=primate++sexuality&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jTVqU_62LomIuAT5yIHQBw&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=primate%20%20sexuality&f=false Mrdthree (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not looking to accomplish much. That sentence is it. Dioecy is cladistics and male and female is basic biology. Intersex is there to acknowledge the research in that area. It links to animals but is essential and ignored.Mrdthree (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe we have an article on Animal sexual behaviour if you are interested --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. You are attempting to force your own understanding of human sexuality without citing sources specifically on the topic. This article is much broader than human reproduction and is not limited to issues biological sex. This article is about erotic feeling and expression in humans. It includes sections on reproduction and biological basis of sexual drives. However it would be WP:UNDUE to force that issue in the lead as you are trying to. Someone call the glue factory. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. There is a degree of synthesis but the sentence is not going anywhere new-- there is no original research here. My 'understanding' of human sexuality is not as profound as yours but I think I know enough to say that the sexes should be mentioned in the opening paragraph of an article about human sexuality. An example with citations: Like other mammals, humans are dioecious (Leonard, 2010), primarily composed of male or female sexes (biology book), with small proportions of intersex individuals for whom sexual classification is not as clear (Fausto-Sterling,2000). Mrdthree (talk) 23:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus to add that. It's also WP:COATRACK. You are trying to make the article conform to your view of the issue and giving WP:UNDUE weight to the issue. WP:DROPTHESTICK. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Is your view different from my view? If so what exactly is it that you disagree with? Mrdthree (talk) 23:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

In general, I am at this point open to suggestions. How can we incorporate a discussion/summary of the sexes (male female, intersex) into the lead paragraph? How can we make a reasonable sentence somewhere in the lead paragraph that mentions the sexes? Some of you think I am in the wrong place, but this is the disambiguation note to this page: This article is about human sexual anatomy, sexuality and perceptions. For information specifically about sexual activities, see Human sexual activity. "Sexuality" redirects here. For sexual behavior among other animals, see Animal sexuality. For other uses, see Sexuality (disambiguation). Mrdthree (talk) 01:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe "A person's sexual orientation may influence their sexual interest and attraction for another person. Sexuality can have biological, physical, emotional, or spiritual aspects" covers this --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

How about, as a compromise with Mrdthree, we add "sexes" to the "The biological and physical aspects of sexuality include" line, so that it reads as "The biological and physical aspects of sexuality largely concern the reproductive functions of the sexes (including the human sexual response cycle) and the basic biological drive that exists in all species."? I can see this discussion seemingly going on forever if a compromise is not made, and I have no desire to see it at venues that WP:Dispute resolution lists. Flyer22 (talk) 02:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

That line needs to be tweaked anyway, because the human sexual response cycle is an aspect of reproductive functions, which is why I added "including" to the suggestion above. I didn't include biology of sexual orientation or sexual preferences in that line or the proposal above, and this is because those aspects are debated among scientists (though the vast majority of scientists these days seem to agree that both nature and nurture play a role in those things) and that matter is mentioned in the second lead paragraph. Flyer22 (talk) 02:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that is probably the best compromise we can hope for. What do other editors think? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 02:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and I added "largely concern" to the proposal to make up for the fact that biology of sexual orientation and sexual preferences are not addressed in that line; because "include" can sometimes be interpreted as "only these things," simply using "include" as the line currently does in the article can give the impression that "the reproductive functions of the sexes (including the human sexual response cycle) and the basic biological drive that exists in all species" is all that the biological and physical aspects are concerned with. So, yeah, I added "largely concern" to the proposal in its place. Flyer22 (talk) 02:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

So difficult. I will agree to that if we eliminate the pictures of the vagina and penis. Id rather there were no mentions of male or female. Mrdthree (talk) 02:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 02:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Or maybe there is a better compromise that mentions the words male and female (and possibly intersex) somewhere in the introduction?Mrdthree (talk) 02:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Your argument is so confused I'm starting to think even you don't understand what it is you are talking about --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 03:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Mrdthree, if you are suggesting that I'm being difficult, I already stated above in this section that I don't mind "male and female" or "male, female and intersex" being added to the lead; I simply disagreed with the way you added it and don't feel that it needs to be in the lead. Two other editors, as you can see, are not keen on "male and female" or "male, female and intersex" being in the lead; therefore, I proposed a compromise that still gets your point across. Mentioning and linking "sexes" in the lead will take people to the main article that thoroughly addresses the male, female, intersex and hermaphrodite topics. That's the point of Wikilinks -- so that readers can go to the article that elaborates on what is mentioned or discussed. On Wikipedia, as you surely know, editors cannot always have their way; sometimes we have to compromise. Flyer22 (talk) 03:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

ok well maybe the compromise you suggested is ok but then I d want to add the (cited) sentence Mentioned above to the opening e section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sexuality#Biological_and_physiological_aspects.Mrdthree (talk)

copied here-- Like other mammals, humans are dioecious (Leonard, 2010), primarily composed of male or female sexes (biology book), with small proportions of intersex individuals for whom sexual classification is not as clear (Fausto-Sterling,2000). Mrdthree (talk) 03:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

or 'small proportions could be about one percent or less than two percent. Mrdthree (talk) 03:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Confusing, Unscientific based Biases

WP:NOTFORUM User is complaining and not answering questions on how to improve article by users who are WP:AGF.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I read this montrosity of an article and it does not address human sexuality from a science based prospective but from individual beliefs (opinions). Is this the goal of wikipedia to have articles written from a I believe this or someone else believes that standpoint. This article is substantially worthless, confusing, poorly wriiten, off topic (opinion piece), and hardly to the point. Rewrite with different unbiased editors is my opinion as it is largely agenda propaganda. No one cares what you or some agenda oriented site thinks. What does scientific research say? 208.54.40.228 (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC) These are the sources for the article [2] --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC) Do you have other sources we can use? --NeilN talk to me 20:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC) I've also called this article poor. Then I fixed or tweaked some of the poor issues. Just some. But plenty in the article is based on science, including anatomy material. Opinions are in the article because, like this WP:Hatnote currently states, "This article is about human sexual anatomy, sexuality and perceptions." In other words, the opinions of researchers and of people in general will be addressed in this article because there are a range of views on human sexuality, ranging from scientific, theoretical, to personal (including whether or not one has religious beliefs on the matter). This should be done with WP:Due weight. It is WP:Due weight, for example, to include the opinion of Sigmund Freud and to significantly address the nature versus nurture debate. Flyer22 (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC) Yep. Human sexuality is a social as well as scientific topic. --NeilN talk to me 20:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC) A good place to get reliable sources could include a regional library, used medical textbooks from the web, and college textbooks. Previous editions are surprisingly inexpensive and nearly identical to current editions with most changes made to the layout to keep textbooks expensive. Agenda driven websites are Unreliable! "Yep. Human sexuality is a social as well as scientific topic." Yes and your point? You are not advocating inclusion of random opinions that are not based on neutral scientific research? 208.54.40.228 (talk) 22:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC) Nice bit of conflation. As there are sociocultural aspects to sexuality, not everything in the article will be based on "neutral scientific research". This does not mean opinions are included from random people. Your suggestion for additional sources is simplistic and unhelpful. --NeilN talk to me 22:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC) I would also argue that social research is often as neutral as scientific research, at least in good sociology sources --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC) Yes good neutral research is valid. To Neil: No need to be upset and start calling people simplistic and unhelpful for answering your question: "Do you have other sources we can use?" No, you cannot have my library. I pointed out how to aquire some reliable sources and I am sure some have found that helpful even if you have determined it was unhelpful. I am not going spoon feed titles, authors and page numbers. Why ask a question and then attack the answer? That is a rather simplistic social response, ironic isn't it? 208.54.40.228 (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC) I believe the point they were making is that it's not really very helpful to ask for new sources when it is you who wants to change them. Nobody here are, at least in this instance, saying that they have an issue with the references of this article. It is you who does, so it is necessary that you provide them, at least, if you want said changes to happen to the article, otherwise it will most likely remain unchanged --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC) I could not infer that paragraph out of the one sentence, you must know Neil very well. 208.54.40.228 (talk) 23:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC) IP, what sources in the article do you consider "[a]genda driven websites"? Flyer22 (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC) Google the name of the sites in the references and you will find many are promoting an agenda. That is agenda driven and non-neutral and likely unreliable as agenda driven sites often misrepresent the facts. They cannot be counted on as being unbiased or as accurate. 208.54.40.228 (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC) I'm not certain I've ever edited with them, at least, we haven't interacted significantly if we have --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 23:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I would ask that this Talk section be uncondensed, and reopened. I believe this IP editor's comments to be of value to the article, see citation analysis below. I will elevate this for administrative review if the original individuals shutting down the discussion do not reopen it. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Citation analysis consistent with the critique of the IP editor

I have no longstanding or longterm interest in contributing to the quality of the article, but have a strong interest in seeing broad, general improvements in the sourcing of scientific articles—including those in the common space between social and biological sciences. And I have an interest in seeing IP editors treated well, by the majority of us, not the few.

The recent visiting IP editor was so set upon by more experienced editors that I thought I would perform a first-pass (rough draft) evaluation of this article, strictly from the perspective of evaluating its sources.

The goals in doing this are three:

• (1) To allow us to come to consensus as to the quality of the article, at least in terms of verifiable information (though for this scientist, and for purists such as myself and NeilN, it is likely that if sources should come out, content must also);
• (2) To identify patterns of problems, so particular individuals with time and desire might address them (e.g., incomplete therefore unverifiable entries, poor specific sources for particular blocks of information, varyingly formatted similar sources and repeat sources making source followup difficult, etc.), and
• (3) To create a list of first issues to address, so that there might be a common set of priorities (i.e., where the list below might, in months to come, be sprinkled with  Done markers).

In doing this, I am applying the same academic standards as I might have in reviewing a paper submission from a sixth form or older student, on into university. This is the sort of thing that, while scholarly (so we might each might differ on the details of the analysis), all might agree to the trends represented (and all might have arrived at the same perception within minutes reviewing the article references, and have accomplished a full first-pass evaluation in an hour or so.) That is, we can see for ourselves, instead of taking the a priori position that all is fine enough to remain, or insisting a new editor argue her or his case, thoroughly and decisively, to more seasoned Wikipedia hands.

After having done this evaluation, I have come to the conclusion that the article weaknesses referred to by the IP editor appear to be substantiated. From the persecutive of reliability of information, based on expectation of high quality and verifiable secondary sources suited to the content, I conclude that the article is in very poor condition.

After reviewing this summary of the state of this article's sources, see if you might not agree.

Here, in bullet form, are cogent observations from the evaluation of the article's sourcing:

• >70 references to 12 or more undergraduate textbooks as sources, rather than the scholarly secondary or tertiary sources drawn upon by those texts (see more below);

• >70 references to books that appear without page numbers—King 2008 and King 2009 (47 refs), Buss, Crain (5), Boccadoro (2), Fausto-Sterling, Rathus (3), Russon, Farrell, Coon (2), Escoffier, Al-islam.org, Stearns Major Patterns, Stearns Sexuality (6), Greene;

• 47 (36 plus 11) references to the same undergraduate textbook (King, 2008 and 2009), in two entries, all appearing without page numbers;

• More than a half dozen books lacking full citations, particularly, date of publication (e.g., King, Buss, Stearns Major Patterns, Stearns Sexuality), but also, other obscured details (e.g., David Weeks, Secrets of the Superyoung. Berkley., is actually D, Weeks & J. James, 1999, Secrets of the superyoung: The scientific reasons some people look ten years younger than they really are and how you can, too", New York:Villard Books, etc.)

• Long articles (> 20 pp) without narrowing part of article sourced via Section name or page number (e.g., Ross, Freud, Nagel, Lee et al, CDC);

• Nonsense page references (e.g., Kim & Ward);

• Many bare URLs or URL-only citations without links (find articles.com, enotes.com, TheAge.com.au, etc.);

• Multiple (>8) references to dead links (facts.org, psychnews.psychiatryonline.org, eehow.com, etc.);

• Many egregiously inappropriate web-based sources, including innerbody.com, about.com, essortment.com, howstuffworks.com (!), proplusmedical.com (male enhancement sales page!), eehow.com, TheAge.com.au, etc.;

• Many further web-based sources for which there are clearly better scholarly sources available — see appearances of Csongradi, oxytocin, innerbody.com, about.com, essortment.com (e.g., on Skinner), CNN.com and HuffPost (on G-spot validity), howstuffworks.com, proplusmedical.com, cwluherstory.org (as source of Anne Koedt article), jrank.org, eehow.com, TheAge.com.au, pop religious web pages for serious theological content, BBC.com (on Hindu religious views), webmd (on sex and longevity, and health benefits), Contracept.org, Epigee.org, Betterhealth.vic.gov.au on calendar methods of birth control, americanpregnancy.org for definitions and information on spermicides; Kidshealth.org for information on IUDs, medicinenet.com for information on birth control methods; familydoctor.org for information on Deo-Provera — and extending to all on the dubious list below;

• Non-english citations without apparent readily available translations (Boccadoro);

• Professorial/uncurated academic web content, including course pages (csun.edu, psychology.ucdavis.edu, unm.edu, etc.); and

• Format-wise, in addition to the above (incomplete citations, bare URLS, etc.), no consistency of book and journal article referencing, and several repeat appearances of the same source (Summa Theologica, Hyde, etc.).

The following list provides some particularly questionable examples of sources (omitting entirely the many incomplete book and journal references that are unverifiable for their incompleteness) —

• Particularly dubious web sources:

• Think Sex from TheAge.com.au. Retrieved 11 October 2009.

• http://www.enotes.com/homework-help/what-human-sexuality-455483

• "nature versus vs. nurture debate or controversy - human psychology blank slate". Age-of-the-sage.org. Retrieved 2013-06-30.

• "I'm a woman who cannot feel pleasurable sensations during intercourse". Go Ask Alice!. 8 October 2004 (Last Updated/Reviewed on 17 October 2008). Archived from the original on January 7, 2011. Retrieved September 13, 2012.

• Intimacy, Sinclair (25 April 2005). "Discovery Health "Sexual Response"". Health.howstuffworks.com. Retrieved 2013-02-18.

• http://www.proplusmedical.com/pages.html?pages_id=8 (!)

• What is Psychosexual Development? Psychology from About.com. Retrieved 12 October 2009.

• B. F. Skinner and behaviorism. From essortment. Retrieved 12 October 2009.

• "Sexuality in Adulthood - Aging - Women, Age, Changes, and Intimacy - JRank Articles". Family.jrank.org. Retrieved 2013-06-30. (6 references)

• eehow.com[dead link (4 references)

• "Judaism 101: Kosher Sex". Jewfaq.org. Retrieved 2013-06-30.

• Deem, Rich. "The Biblical Design for Human Sexuality". Godandscience.org. Retrieved 2013-06-30.

• Doheny, K. (2008) "10 Surprising Health Benefits of Sex," WebMD (reviewed by Chang, L., M.D.)

• Blum, Jeffrey. "Can Good Sex Keep You Young?". WebMD. Retrieved 8 October 2010.

• Cornforth, Tracee (17 July 2009). "The Clitoral Truth. Interview with author and sex educator Rebecca Chalker.". About.com. Retrieved 21 April 2010.

• "'I Want a Better Orgasm!'". WebMD. Archived from the original on 2009-01-13. Retrieved August 18, 2011.

• "Finding the G-spot: Is it real?". CNN.com. 5 January 2010. Retrieved 7 November 2011.

• G-Spot Does Not Exist, 'Without A Doubt,' Say Researchers - Lay summary – The Huffington Post (19 January 2012).

A further alternative plan to maintaining most text and working over time to improve the article, and perhaps a desirable course to make rapid improvements, would be to redact weak sections / parts in toto, esp. where the material is unverifiable, e.g.,

• when a whole scientific section is devoid of any references, and as a result seems sophomorically stream of consciousness in terms of scope (see Evolutionary aspects, [3]);
• when a whole or substantial part of a section is based on one or more egregiously poor sources (see Sexuality in late adulthood, with only poor Jrank and dead link sources, [4]); and
• when the citations are to the books that are referenced without pages being given, making the forensic work (to dig up page numbers from a poorer source more time consuming and less quality generating than to find and abstract a better scientific secondary source, see e.g., Sexuality in history, with only the incomplete King and Stearns book references for the entire block , save one sentence citing the pages 326-226 of Kim and Ward, [5]).

How to proceed on these fronts is up to the regular committed editors here (much, much less up to me, or any that are just vulturing/fly-bys).

Regardless of the course pursued, please, take visiting IP editors seriously. They may not have the time or the markup experience to assist us in the ways we wish. But they may nevertheless be correct in their intuitions or assessments, and may be potential valued contributors in future. And bias against them is simply against WP policy. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Leprof 7272, you seem to have come to this discussion via Liz's talk page, where the IP left a complaint. I did take the IP's complaints seriously (well, the valid ones), and before this edit was made closing the discussion the IP started on this talk page, I was going to state the following: "Yes, IP, that source, which is used for this content is poor by Wikipedia's WP:Reliable sources standards. As for whether or not it is WP:Fringe, well, it is used to support John Locke's "blank slate" view; that view should be included in the article, since it is addressing the nature versus nature debate. Concerning this specific matter, is it that you only have a problem with that source or do you also have problem with including John Locke's view? His view is supported by a better source at the beginning of the Nature-versus-nurture debate section."

"There are certainly more poor sources used in the article. If I had good time to do so, I would have removed and/or replaced all of the poor sources in the article. I'm usually busy off-Wikipedia, often simultaneously working on improving Wikipedia, especially with regard to reverting vandalism or other unconstructive edits. Because I'm usually busy with other topics on Wikipedia, including sexual topics, but am also often lazy these days when it comes to significantly improving Wikipedia articles, I obviously have never gotten around to all of the sourcing issues pertaining to the Human sexuality article. I've pretty much viewed the article as too complicated and too problematic, including with regard to drive-by edits (whether made by long-term Wikipedia editors, WP:Student editors or other WP:Newbies), to devote much of my time to. There are Wikipedia sexual topics that I have significantly improved, or still significantly improve. But I'm one person. There are a lot of editors here, but not many who devote significant time to improving sexual topics. So these topics are often slow in the 'Will be improved.' department."

As for your analysis of the sources, Leprof 7272: Undergraduate textbooks as sources may be validly acceptable, per this recent discussion going on about such sources at the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources talk page. WebMD counts as a WP:Reliable source for this article, per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS) allowing use of WebMD. That's why I added the "I Want a Better Orgasm!" WebMD source and better sources to go along with it for the material it is supporting. The WebMD source is a lay source and easily accessible source, whereas the scholarly source beside it is not easily accessible; nor are the journal sources, which are not lay sources. It is often best to provide an easily accessible lay source to go along with the scholarly source(s). This type of sourcing is permitted by WP:MEDRS, as long as the lay source is WP:Reliable. In fact, I and others recently discussed that type of sourcing style at WP:MEDRS, as indicated by this diff-link. I won't claim that WebMD is always reliable, however. Similarly, Go Ask Alice! often counts as a WP:Reliable for sexual information; so I added that to the article. The Tracee Cornforth/Rebecca Chalker source? It's an interview with an expert in the field of female sexual anatomy, especially with regard to the clitoris -- Rebecca Chalker (though what is an "expert" can be debatable, and experts disagree on certain matters regarding male or female sexual anatomy, but especially female sexual anatomy; for example, as shown in that interview, Chalker supports the idea of female ejaculation, a topic debated among anatomists, sexologists, sex educators and other researchers). It (the Chalker source) passes as a WP:Reliable source for the information it's used for in the article, and is used adjunct to scholarly sources. That's why I added it (and those other sources beside it). I'm not against removing it, however. The "Finding the G-spot: Is it real?. CNN.com" source? It's a lay source used adjunct to scholarly sources about an entity that has never been proven to exist -- the G-spot. That's why I used that source. The "G-Spot Does Not Exist, 'Without A Doubt,' Say Researchers - Lay summary – The Huffington Post (19 January 2012)." source? As is clear by "lay summary," it is a lay source; it is included in the citation format for the scholarly review source about the G-spot. Notice that "lay summary" is an optional field for scholarly sources; see Template:Citation Style documentation/lay. That's why I used that source. That stated, since it is used in the aforementioned scholarly source format, the CNN source is not needed; neither is the MSNBC source. As for the rest of the sources in the article, the vast majority of them I did not add. Flyer22 (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Flyer22, for the thoughtful reply. There is much we clearly agree on. Anything that you would wish to do, to improve references you placed, is all the better, for it avoids conflicts if others choose to act. Agreed, undergraduate textbooks may be acceptable. Do we also agree that:

• (i) to cite UG texts repeatedly without pages is unacceptable, and
• (ii) that they are otherwise misused and overused here?

There are on the order of 183 inline citations appearing; 47 of these are to the same textbook (King, see current ref. 2). This is more than 25% of all material from the same source, and none of it can easily be verified (for lack of page numbers). I also agree that WebMD can be a reliable source, but would argue that the quality of its articles vary, in keeping with it being a commercial site needing to write articles that create buzz (rather than being of the highest scholarly content); this "I Want a Better…" article is less about quality of content than we would want at Wikipedia. I have no strong opinion about "Go Ask Alice!", but would suggest that there might be better, more authoritative sources, and suggest you make clearer what leads you to the conclusion that it is a reliable source at WIkipedia. In re: the The Tracee Cornforth/Rebecca Chalker article, two points: (i) Interviews are reliable sources about the perspectives of individuals on subjects, and not on factual information about those subjects. If the point in the text is the person's perspective, cite the interview, wherever it reliably is sourced/appears. If the point is to source the factual information being discussed, another better source is necessary, yes? (ii) As a rule, about.com will never be a reliable source for encyclopedic information at WIkipedia. The HuffPost article you mention is worth a further clarification, too: Newspapers and magazines (tradition print or web-based), when discussing biological, social or other sciences, are reliable sources for the matter of the public discussion of the science, but not for the science itself. That is to say, one can (in my view) cite HuffPost when saying "The matter of the existence of… has been the matter of wide public interest and discussion.", but when one says "...various researchers dispute its structure, existence…" what is needed, is a good secondary source stating the existence of the scientific depute (rather than citing Huff Post on the existence of a controversy, or even doing OR and listing the primary literature refs perceived as contributing to the controversy).

Bottom line, whatever you can improve of your originally placed citations, all the better, but the point of the foregoing analysis and discussion was to say:

• a desirable course to may be to make rapid improvements, via redaction of weak sections/parts in toto, esp. where the material is unverifiable (see three closing bullet points in original post, above), a course that requires discussion and some consensus to avoid edit wars,
• whether to proceed in this way or a via a softer, more gradual approach is up to the regular committed editors here, and

that regardless of the course pursued, please, the critiques of visiting IP editors should be take seriously. They may on occasion be opinionated individuals with no content expertise, but they are as likely to be professors or other scholars interested in better web information on the subject, and frustrated—reasonably, I am arguing here—over the very poor state of the article. The latter have no recourse other than to comment; real world commitments and demands cannot possibly allow a content matter expert to fix the article in its current state. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Leprof 7272, yes, we agree that "to cite UG texts repeatedly without pages is unacceptable" and "that they are otherwise misused and overused here." As for the rest... Considering that the WebMD source is a decent lay source, a source that makes the matter easy for readers to access and understand, I don't think that it needs to be removed. Again, refer to what I stated above about citing lay sources in addition to scholarly, often-difficult-to-access sources. When one or more scholarly sources are provided in addition to a lay source, there should be no problem, as long as the lay source is WP:Reliable on the matter. WP:MED accepts this. I also have no strong opinion on keeping the Go Ask Alice! source. As for what makes it reliable, it is a health information source that has fact-checkers. Fact-checking, having a review process involving knowledgeable people on the subject, is key to any WP:Reliable source. Like I stated, I don't mind the Tracee Cornforth/Rebecca Chalker source being removed; it certainly is not the best source, or even a great source, to use there, but I repeat that I cited it along with scholarly sources. As for the use of The Huffington Post source, that is completely acceptable usage; to reiterate, it is cited as an adjunct to a scholarly review source...as a lay summary source (it is in the citation template along with the scholarly review source)...something that is a valid and accepted practice on Wikipedia. I mentioned above that it being acceptable to cite such a source with a scholarly secondary source is why Template:Citation Style documentation/lay exists. That source is a news report of the scholarly review source it is cited with. That stated, above I clearly agreed that the other news sources in the article about the G-spot aren't needed and could, for example, be replaced with this scholarly secondary source.

And if by "or even doing OR and listing the primary literature refs perceived as contributing to the controversy," you are referring to the two scholarly sources used there, I've mentioned already that one is a scholarly review source. It reviews all of the literature on the G-spot, including the fact that claiming that it exists is in dispute among researchers; it very much supports the "This area may vary in size and location from woman to woman, or be non-existent in some women, and various researchers dispute its structure, existence or hypothesize that it is an extension of the clitoris." line. As for that second scholarly source (Hines T, August 2001. "The G-Spot: A modern gynecologic myth"), which is a significantly older source and helps show that evidence for the G-spot's existence has not improved much since 2001, its abstract states: "This article reviews the behavioral, biochemical, and anatomic evidence for the reality of the G-spot, which includes claims about the nature of female ejaculation. The evidence is far too weak to support the reality of the G-spot. Specifically, anecdotal observations and case studies made on the basis of a tiny number of subjects are not supported by subsequent anatomic and biochemical studies."

I appreciate your review of the sources used for the Human sexuality article. I am all for using better sources when possible, except for cases where a lay summary source is clearly beneficial to lay readers. Like Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable, Wikipedia is written for the general audience, and so I provide one or more lay sources when I think they are needed or are otherwise beneficial. Flyer22 (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Isn't this what WP:SOFIXIT was invented for? There is no reason to have extended forum-like discussions about meta issues when the purpose of an article talk page is pretty simple—someone should make an actionable proposal for improving the article. Aimless chatting is not going to encourage useful contributions. Johnuniq (talk) 03:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Giving your response a modicum of greater consideration than was given the careful analysis and proposals prompting you to alight here. I would say: No, this is not what WP:SOFIXIT was invented for, and your use of a single WP as a bludgeon is unbefitting the discussion (where WP:XXX's on consensus and other principles just as much apply); and No, this is not a forum-like discussion (which appears a possible sensitivity and further narrow WP:XXX perspective of yours), but rather it was an analysis of the important matter of the verifiability of the article's information, in response to an IP editor's query, an analysis which revealed more than a quarter of the information as unverifiable, and a larger fraction as poorly sourced; and Yes, actionable proposals are called for, where the Talk section analysis you passed over, seemingly superficially, above, has several actionable proposals to consider; and Yes, aimless fly-by commentary that does not immerse itself in real issues, but rather seeks to impose a perspective without due diligence regarding the matters at hand—yes, such aimless Talk is not helpful. (Based on AGF, I have to assume the "[a]imless chatting" comment was self-referential, and that you were not talking about others.)

The point of the analysis was to arrive at a judicious evaluation of the claim of the earlier IP editor, that the material was poorly sourced, and therefore substantially unscientific. Based on the analysis, I support that claim. I then propose ways to proceed. Please, read, and suggest a constructive way forward. One does not fix 47 appearances of a textbook citation that includes two editions and not a single page number, as your GOFIXIT suggests; and one does not delete large blocks of essentially unreferenced text without discussion, and some consensus. This is for the committed editors of this page. Not for parties with fly-by interest (such as I, and perhaps you). Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Human Sexuality and Eroticism are circularly defined

There is a strange circularity for these pages. On the eroticism page, erotic is defined pointing to the human sexuality article-- Eroticism (from the Greek ἔρως, eros—"desire") is a quality that causes "sexual" feelings. Meanwhile the human sexuality article points to the Eroticism page. Human sexuality is the capacity to have erotic experiences and responses. Put them together and you get Human sexuality is the capacity to have "sexual" feelings. Mrdthree (talk) 06:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

That sounds suspiciously like the dictionary definitions I listed before and not like whatever agenda User:Flyer22, User:EvergreenFir, User: Drowninginlimbo are pushing on this page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human_sexuality#Male.2FFemale.2FMan.2FWoman.2Fsex.2Fsexes_and_equivalent_are_absent_from_opening_paragraphs Mrdthree (talk) 06:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

That's quite a bold claim to make. What agenda exactly are myself and the mentioned users pushing? Also I would really recommend you used independent sources rather than other Wikipedia articles to prove your point. You seem to have significant issues with this one in particular - so if you are relying solely on another article for evidence, then you are acknowledging that your argument is based on sources that are, in your own eyes, flawed. Back to your main argument, to put them together would be "to have erotic and sexual feelings", no? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't going to reply to the initial post in this section, considering I have no patience for silly accusations made against me. Editing sexual topics, I'm used to such silly or unfounded accusations, but my familiarity with them does not make them any less silly or unfounded. So here goes: Mrdthree, I already explained above what problem I had with your initial change to the first sentence of this article. In case you forgot what I stated, what I stated at 03:00, 7 May 2014‎ (UTC) is..."Mrdthree, I know that you are talking about the sexes, and that is partly what I addressed above. I am fine with the sexes being mentioned in the lead, but not your wording and not in the first sentence. Your wording of 'in which human beings relate to one another as males and females' made it sound as though human sexuality is all about how a male relates to a female and vice versa, which is an incorrect way to word human sexuality and, like I noted when first reverting you, can be viewed as heteronormative (similar to what Mark Miller/Maleko Mela told you). If the vast majority of WP:Reliable sources on human sexuality defined human sexuality that way, I would not object; this is because, per WP:Due weight (an aspect of the WP:Neutral policy), we usually give more weight to the majority view, even for the initial sentence of the WP:Lead. But the vast majority of WP:Reliable sources on human sexuality do not define it the way that you did. I know that you added 'or' in place of 'and' as a compromise, but the wording was still problematic. I suggest you propose a line about the sexes that is not for the first sentence and which ties into the 'reproductive functions and the human sexual response cycle' aspects mentioned in the lead."

So despite my having repeatedly stated that I don't object to "male and female" or "male, female and intersex" being in the lead (though I don't see a need for either mention there), my having worked with you to get you something close to what you wanted (meaning a compromise by adding "the sexes" wording) since two editors (EvergreenFir and Drowninginlimbo) objected to "male and female" or "male, female and intersex" being in the lead, you accuse me of pushing an agenda and lump me with the view of definitively objecting to that material being in the lead? The only "agenda" I push on topics like these, or any Wikipedia topic, is to follow WP:Verifiability and WP:Neutral, including the WP:Due weight aspect of WP:Neutral. But go on then, keep painting me with that broad brush. And while you're at it, you might want to consider whatever bias you may have or agenda-pushing you may be trying to engage in (not only at this Wikipedia article, but at others). Despite the compromise that was made, you are back at this article trying to get your way again, even though I told you that you cannot always get your way on Wikipedia. But go ahead: Do what you feel that you must. I'm all but done discussing this matter with you. Flyer22 (talk) 19:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

What should appear, in the lead and elsewhere, are descriptions and information that represent the preponderance of social and biological scientific and scholarly opinion, arrived at based on secondary (not primary, not popular) sources. Have all editors chiming in presented the sources that are the basis of their wanting the wording one way or another? "Source X refers to this as…", and "Source Y refers to it rather as…" ? As long as this is a matter of personal editor opinion, there can be no solution, and whatever solution exists is unbefitting the encyclopedia. Sourced opinions of those doing the original thinking and research need to be cited, and their patterns of expression used. My opinion, for what it is worth. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I read too much now. Its fair to say people write alot of stuff about human sexuality in a social sciences perspective, usually trying to be gender neutral which I suppose is a form of objectivity. So in that sense the lead paragraph resembles the research. I think I will restrict my editing to the biology section. Mrdthree (talk) 04:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Tags placed, since no community response to citation issues

Time waited was about the standard required 30 days. (If you planned a response tomorrow or Friday, apologies.) The broader WIkipedia community perhaps can now have a look. Please do not remove the tags until the issues are dealt with, systematically. (Here is the list, from above, again. See Citation analysis section from second week of May, above). Note, the "single source" tag refers to the 47 inline references to the King text editions (refs. 2 and 53 as of this date), all without page numbers.

Here, in bullet form, is a cogent summary of the earlier evaluation of the article's sourcing. There were observed:

• >70 references to 12 or more undergraduate textbooks as sources, rather than the scholarly secondary or tertiary sources drawn upon by those texts (see more below);
• >70 references to books that appear without page numbers—King 2008 and King 2009 (47 refs), Buss, Crain (5), Boccadoro (2), Fausto-Sterling, Rathus (3), Russon, Farrell, Coon (2), Escoffier, Al-islam.org, Stearns Major Patterns, Stearns Sexuality (6), Greene;
• 47 (36 plus 11) references to the same undergraduate textbook (King, 2008 and 2009), in two entries, all appearing without page numbers;
• More than a half dozen books lacking full citations, particularly, date of publication (e.g., King, Buss, Stearns Major Patterns, Stearns Sexuality), but also, other obscured details (e.g., David Weeks, Secrets of the Superyoung. Berkley., is actually D, Weeks & J. James, 1999, Secrets of the superyoung: The scientific reasons some people look ten years younger than they really are and how you can, too", New York:Villard Books, etc.)
• Long book sections/articles/web content (> 20 pp) without narrowing part of article sourced via Section name or page number (e.g., Ross, Freud, Nagel, Lee et al, CDC);
• Nonsense page references (e.g., Kim & Ward);
• Many bare URLs or URL-only citations without links (find articles.com, enotes.com, TheAge.com.au, etc.);
• Multiple (>8) references to dead links (facts.org, psychnews.psychiatryonline.org, eehow.com, etc.);
• Many egregiously inappropriate web-based sources, including innerbody.com, about.com, essortment.com, howstuffworks.com (!), proplusmedical.com (male enhancement sales page!), eehow.com, TheAge.com.au, etc.;
• Many further web-based sources for which there are clearly better scholarly sources available — see appearances of Csongradi, oxytocin, innerbody.com, about.com, essortment.com (e.g., on Skinner), CNN.com and HuffPost (on G-spot validity), howstuffworks.com, proplusmedical.com, cwluherstory.org (as source of Anne Koedt article), jrank.org, eehow.com, TheAge.com.au, pop religious web pages for serious theological content, BBC.com (on Hindu religious views), webmd (on sex and longevity, and health benefits), Contracept.org, Epigee.org, Betterhealth.vic.gov.au on calendar methods of birth control, americanpregnancy.org for definitions and information on spermicides; Kidshealth.org for information on IUDs, medicinenet.com for information on birth control methods; familydoctor.org for information on Deo-Provera — and extending to all on the dubious list below;
• Non-english citations without apparent readily available translations (Boccadoro);
• Professorial/uncurated academic web content, including course pages (csun.edu, psychology.ucdavis.edu, unm.edu, etc.); and
• Format-wise, in addition to the above (incomplete citations, bare URLS, etc.), no consistency of book and journal article referencing, and several repeat appearances of the same source (Summa Theologica, Hyde, etc.).

The following list provides some particularly questionable examples of sources (omitting entirely the many incomplete book and journal references that are unverifiable for their incompleteness) — *Particularly dubious web sources:

• Think Sex from TheAge.com.au. Retrieved 11 October 2009.
• http://www.enotes.com/homework-help/what-human-sexuality-455483
• "nature versus vs. nurture debate or controversy - human psychology blank slate". Age-of-the-sage.org. Retrieved 2013-06-30.
• Intimacy, Sinclair (25 April 2005). "Discovery Health "Sexual Response"". Health.howstuffworks.com. Retrieved 2013-02-18.
• http://www.proplusmedical.com/pages.html?pages_id=8 (!)
• What is Psychosexual Development? Psychology from About.com. Retrieved 12 October 2009.
• B. F. Skinner and behaviorism. From essortment. Retrieved 12 October 2009.
• "Sexuality in Adulthood - Aging - Women, Age, Changes, and Intimacy - JRank Articles". Family.jrank.org. Retrieved 2013-06-30. (6 references)
• eehow.com[dead link (4 references)
• "Judaism 101: Kosher Sex". Jewfaq.org. Retrieved 2013-06-30.
• Deem, Rich. "The Biblical Design for Human Sexuality". Godandscience.org. Retrieved 2013-06-30.
• Cornforth, Tracee (17 July 2009). "The Clitoral Truth. Interview with author and sex educator Rebecca Chalker.". About.com. Retrieved 21 April 2010.

Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The suggested 70 references to 12 or more undergraduate textbooks still leaves 40 more reputable sources.

“Single source” I only found about 12 refs to “the King text”, not “47”. Even so that would still leave around 60 references that don't come from your single source.

King appears in Ref. 2 and Ref. 53, which make 36 and 11 inline appearances, respectively, for a total of 47, i.e., no change from the original analysis, and all remaining without a page number, as of this date. See further below. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 08:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

You have mentioned cited content that you have considered to have particularly questionable examples of sources , and your inclusion of them has flagged them up in a bunched list. People can work with that or one thing you could do would be to give any particular issue a section on this talk page. This would mean that editors could work together on an issue and come to consensus on positive ways forward. (not that its relevant but I am a non gay with no "pro" agenda. ) I think that edits would best be done by contributors to the page. Gregkaye (talk) 10:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

You misread the foregoing lengthy arguments, mixing the notion of the number of appearances of inline superscripts with the number of sources to which they refer. (In the foregoing bullets, the word "references" is used about an inline reference to an indicated source.) Bottom line, there is no miscounting: the numbers given are all sound, and likely underestimate the issues at time the analysis was done. Please check again carefully, and ask a specific question if you have one.

After that, I think our remainders will then match, and of those, begin subtracting sources that are other books without page numbers, long citations (tens of pages) with no narrowing of page numbers, dead URLs, URL-only references (and therefore susceptible to link rot), etc., etc. Then look to the list of unacceptable web references. If you still think "no problem", status quo is OK, then state this, and I will reply.

If not hearing back, I have to assume you realize a flaw in your comment and will let the issue ride. Note, from my perspective, I see no attention whatsoever having been paid to the referencing issues, and so I see no basis to remove any article tag. Will be glad when work is done and tags can be removed, but for today, the article remains a quagmire of unreferenced, and so suspect content, and readers deserve to know this. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

What is the scope of this article?

According to the lede "Human sexuality is the capacity to have erotic experiences and responses." Some of what is in this article seems to belong more in the sexual behavior article. Also, why are the opinions of Thomas Aquinas, Sigmund Freud and John Locke given such a disproportionate importance? 188.27.68.165 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how the scope of the article is not clear from the lead (introduction). Human sexuality concerns all things that have to do with human sexuality, including sexual behavior. And Thomas Aquinas, Sigmund Freud and John Locke are included in the Nature-versus-nurture section, which is not that big; the section explains how Sigmund Freud and John Locke, especially Locke, influenced the nature versus nurture debate. They are given appropriate WP:Weight, even though the section could use trimming. As for Thomas Aquinas, he was not originally in that section, and seems misplaced there; an editor simply jammed him into that section. Flyer22 (talk) 23:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Update: I removed the Thomas Aquinas section. Flyer22 (talk) 02:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Tag-bombing accusation and rebuttal

@Leprof 7272, Gregkaye, and Flyer22: This article was tag-bombed thoroughly tagged, see below, in July 2014, and these tags still remain on this article. It might be necessary to trim some of the tags that were placed here. Jarble (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, Jarble. Leprof 7272 added all those tags, and some editors disagree with his tagging style because he sometimes overtags. Also, cleanup tags are not supposed to be permanent. And there is no need to ping me to this talk page via WP:Echo since it's already on my WP:Watchlist. Flyer22 (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Recall, I came here at the request of a fellow editor, to perform a review of the citation practices at the article, and added tags as a result of a thorough review of the sourcing of statements in the article. There was nothing drive-by or superficial about this work; I was here working and in dialog over several weeks (not a single day in July), and the analysis consumed a great deal of time. I would ask, in rebuttal of the claim of "bombing", whether there is any basis—what is the evidence of callous disregard, of tossing destructive elements from a distance? (This is more characteristic of Jarble's one visit, than of my earlier work.) And has even the simplest issue, e.g., removing broken links, or adding missing page numbers, yet begun?

If not, what is the basis for removing accurate tags? In a perfect encyclopedic world, this article would just have been taken down; it remains an embarrassment to the encyclopedia, as long as the faux scholarly sourcing remains as it is: e.g., see above, re: ">70 references to books that appear without page numbers—King 2008 and King 2009 (47 refs), Buss, Crain (5), Boccadoro (2)… Stearns Sexuality (6)...". This is "just trust us" writing, not even the quality of good student work at university.

Please feel free, remove any tag whose issue has been resolved. If the tags are accurate, still, they should remain. It is not on my shoulders that they have had no effect of improving quality. Or is what is wanted is an article that is not truly any better, but appears to be so, absent its tags, and so deceives its readers, especially from mobile platforms? What is the basis, besides in superficial, cosmetic improvement, for wanting tags removed for unresolved, substantive issues? It is true, that at some point or points, that this article has been "bombed" with something (peut-être, conneries), but tags, it was not. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Extended content

The tags are not needed and do not help. They can also be removed if stale. Not only am I speaking from several years of experience, I am speaking from the current state of the article. The only thing that would actually help is doing the work. WP:Burden works both ways, though more so on the person seeking to add or restore material. Flyer22 (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Then Jarble should return and join you in starting to do the work. Curiously, per his user page, he thinks WP bots should automatically tag articles with dead links. That is, he does believe in fly-by tagging, if it falls within his specialization, of applying code. And I have clocked a hundred-fold more productive time here than he, an amount approaching yours. I removed one tag this session, because formatting is such the least of current concerns, and the format tag could therefore go. But I am sorry, no, there is no basis in WP policy for removing tags because they are stale. As for doing the rest of the work, here is a start: Clear the dead links, and move the corresponding text to Talk. That should take you 5 mins., and will a remove a second tag. Then, those devoted to this text per se, buy the King text, and start sourcing the ca. 50 appearances of material from that one apparently page-numberless source. Or, simply remove all the King-sourced text, as unverifiable. Bottom line, those wed to the article status quo are stuck with those sources. Those wiling to do what is called for—radical editing, leaving only WP:VERIFY-able material—have this as a more rapid, WP-policy justified approach: Per policy, That is, unsourced material… may be removed. Bottom line from me, if the tags are taken away without substantive address of the posted issues, I will take this up the ladder until someone pays attention. These are WP policies, not "I suggest... but do as you please" opinions of an editor. While there is some gray at the edges—you and I may agree on the quality of some particular web sources—there is no question that 70 appearances of books without page numbers is a sign of an endemic quality issue. Jarble's fly-by was capricious, not my work. Tagging is based in substance (substantial issues) and policy; proposal for removal based on "staleness" is not. And presenting an article as fine when it is not is dishonest to readers, who need to know upfront, the reliability of the text they are opening to read. Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC) I know what I am talking about on this matter; you overtag, your tags do not help a thing, and stale tags can indeed be removed. The tags are not policy, and I suggest that you read their templates. As for doing the work, if you want the work done, do it yourself. Stop expecting others to do it for you. Tagging is lazy; I rarely tag. Instead, I do the work when I feel like doing it. Flyer22 (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC) That you believe you are correct has been clear since you came back to this issue. That you think your efforts are superior is also clear. (Your view, akin to "professors marking papers are lazy, as they do not re-write" them for their students, is apparent.) But you do not want me to start with this. I can gather three like-minded science editors that think that material unsourced greater than 6 mos. can and should be removed. Is this your wish? And no, I will not do forensic referencing, post hoc research to add references, in sloppy original work not placed by early editors; see my User page for a statement of the full reasons. FInally, "tags do not help" who? You keep conveniently skipping over the clear service that tags offer—you fail to think like a reader, rather than an interested editor. Even when they fail to prompt editors to cleanup earlier messes made, they warn readers about the reliability of what they are about to read. Like a good book review, they prompt "grain of salt" reading when it is clearly due. If you do not see this, then you are committed to blogging-as-encyclopedic-writing, and not to true encyclopedic writing. 71.239.87.100 (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC) I'm done discussing this matter with you. I've been clear that I know what I am talking about on it; that is all for now. Flyer22 (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC) And as for you going to like-minded editors, such as this one, I do not care, except to state that you have chosen an editor I have not gotten along with. Like you, that editor misunderstands how parts of Wikipedia should work. But I look forward to seeing what supposed improvements you or that editor make to the article. In my view, it looks like you enlisted someone to do the work for you, like you have done in the past. Oh well. Flyer22 (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC) We sparred productively and peacefully, you and I, earlier, you might recall, over the fact that some specific web articles I mentioned in my analysis might yet be acceptable. Neither you nor I took umbrage. Now a thoroughly disingenuous statement ("it looks like you enlisted someone"), leaning toward accusations of dishonesty ("like you have done in the past"). It was only your entry, this time, cock-sure, that "tags [you] are wrong, I am right", that has led to conflict. As for who I talk to, it is my own business, but see this discussion for the nature of my relationship with FO, [6]. That is, that editor and I are collegial sparring partners, at best. You are apt to respond to the superficial, and sometimes simply take the wrong end of the stick. Unless you wish to tell me how readers are served by pretending articles are better than they are, or how it is that WP or an article or other editors are well served by some editors writing fast, sloppy, and sourceless, and others walking after them to clean up messes—I have nothing left to argue. I am an editor of long standing, of high principles and integrity, with subject matter expertise deriving from real life, and will have nothing to say to further ad hominem attacks, in any form. Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Peace made, I hope, at User Talk pages. Best wishes here, and in general. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

For more of what Leprof 7272 means, see this section from my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 02:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

What is issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:7758:5FF0:3C3F:8BCD:4EBE:467A (talk) 22:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Outline for Proposed Changes

The section titled "Sexuality in late Adulthood" has citation issues. Also, the section titled "Creating a Relationship" has citation issues as well This article could also use a reference page. It could use more secondary sources, because it relies too much on the primary source. It also needs page numbers for some of the books referenced. My plans are to add secondary sources to the article, create a reference page, and make sure are the sources are cited properly, with page numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbbyNewell (talk • contribs) 17:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Abby and welcome to Wikipedia. It would be a great contribution if you could improve the citations for this article. I'm not sure what you mean by a "reference page": the list of numbered references here is headed "Footnotes", and below that are "Further reading" and "External links" sections, as normal. If you haven't yet read WP:Citing sources you may find that helpful in your work: Noyster (talk), 19:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

AbbyNewell, yes, as noted above on the talk page, this article needs significant cleanup, and has been getting cleaned up bit by bit. I see that you are with Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/OSU Newark/Gender, Sex and power (Fall 2015). Any help you can offer with adding good references, especially WP:Secondary sources, to the article would be much appreciated. Same goes for valid content you are looking to add. It's refreshing to see a student editor know the importance of not relying too heavily on primary sources. It's common for student editors and WP:Newbies in general to go overboard with primary sources. As for a "reference page", like Noyster, I'm unsure of what you mean by "reference page"; my first thought on that is that you mean some type of WP:Subpage dedicated to reference works about this topic; if so, that is not how we do things on Wikipedia. Well, if the works about aspects of human sexuality are particularly WP:Notable, they could have a Wikipedia article. As for any big changes to the article, it is often important for student editors to discuss such plans with more experienced Wikipedia editors to ensure that the edits are in compliance with WP:Policies or guidelines. This is for reasons noted at WP:Class assignment. In my opinion, it would be best that you post your proposed additions to be evaluated, either in your sandbox (with a link on this talk page to that sandbox) and/or directly to this talk page. I don't mean any sourcing you plan to do; feel free to go ahead and source unsourced content and trade out poor sources for better sources, tweak references, and so on. And if you want to add valid content to the article, that should be fine as well; see WP:Bold. I'm more so concerned about big changes, including structural design, that may need review from experienced Wikipedians. Flyer22 (talk) 23:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Citation issues imply content issues, and still remain

@AbbyNewell:@Noyster:@Flyer22:

The citation issues—the earlier repeated calling attention to tens of citations of books not giving page numbers, web sources that are ridiculous in an encyclopedia, etc.—have not, at first glance, been addressed in any substantial, comprehensive way. The article, as a whole, remains far outside of compliance with WP:VERIFY. Unfortunately, there is an enormous amount of hard, slogging, editing yet to be done.

But first, something more critical is required. Whatever bit by bit has been done is meaningless until the cadre of devoted, experienced editors here take a stand, and allow no further addition of:

• material without any source, and of
• material based on non-expert sources, even if arguable that their appearance on a website makes the content published (given that the existing bias of the article toward poor web sources is, as it is). No more ask.com and similar nonsense should appear, period.

This article's subject is a principle, critically important topic in the social sciences, for goodness sake. There are reviews and other good secondary sources abounding. Why not scrutinize every addition, for full adherence to WP:VERIFY, given past loose sourcing? (Not whether it sounds plausible, or is a seeming addition, but is it drawn from a good secondary source, or is it WP:OR?) If a patient is bleeding, and the first course of emergency care is not to staunch the flow of blood, the patient will bleed out before other issues can be addressed. And so here; addition of new material that is not encyclopedic to a high standard only propagates the notion that it is acceptable to use of this article as a dumping ground for any statement or opinion oncoming individuals reading through might wish to make. This flow in the direction of article death must be staunched. A firm position, "No new material without good secondary sourcing." needs be taken.

Then, the same group of devoted editors must begin the arduous process, section by section, paragraph by paragraph, of checking the veracity of existing text. (For this reason, I applaud the initiative suggested by AbbyN, though would suggest working alongside an experienced editor to make sure the WP procedures and styles are learned and used.) I argue the ¶-by-¶, §-by-§ approach for three reasons.

1. Statements without any source still appear;
2. Statements based only on poor sources still appear (though some of this has been improved, as Flyer22 said);
3. Material citing tertiary sources like undergraduate textbooks still is present—and as WP policies and guidelines state, these are also poorer sources for encyclopedic writing; indeed, such sources abound. While allowed to buttress points, important concepts and points should not rest on them. Per WP:VERIFY and other WP sources, tertiary sources amass and interpret information from secondary and primary sources, and are not what the encyclopedia has set as its aim, which is rather, to be based on sets of reliable, esteemed secondary sources.

Finally, material citing books that lack the page numbers required by WP:VER—and in this case, this is the second and third strikes against the King undergraduate textbooks that are repeatedly cited, see Footnotes 3 and 53 (cited about 40 times)—are, as has been noted above, essentially unverifiable. Who can have the time to look for key words from hundreds of sentences in many tens of paragraphs, to see if a book cited sans page numbers does indeed say what the editor suggests? The fact that the original editor could not be bothered to provide page number, and that no one has in the years since, makes such material suspicious. I will go on record as being one that challenges the lot of these King-footnoted sentences; if another one or two joins me in challenging, unless there is a similar well-spring in support of any unsourced of these many statements, they can simply can be removed, per WP:VER.

Finally, in dealing with the book issue, look at the page number improve tag that WP provides (I am elevating it today)—it states 1-2 page range for books. Because such is universally absent, you may as well start over with those paragraphs and sections: Find your own good reviews or graduate school text books, and pull each paragraph, one by one, and replace it with a verifiable new paragraph of content.

All the best. [A scholar in other areas.] 50.179.252.14 (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Leprof 7272/50.179.252.14, while Wikipedia articles should mostly be based on secondary sources, use of tertiary sources usually is not a huge problem. The topic of human sexuality usually does not need the same type of sourcing one would see at medical articles (per WP:MEDRS). I do not see where WP:Verifiability (what you call WP:VERIFY) is as against undergraduate textbooks and other tertiary sources as you make it out to be; at Wikipedia:Verifiability#What counts as a reliable source, it clearly lists "University-level textbooks" as an example of acceptable sources. And WP:TERTIARY states, "Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some entries may be more reliable than others. Wikipedia articles may not be used as tertiary sources in other Wikipedia articles, but are sometimes used as primary sources in articles about Wikipedia itself (see Category:Wikipedia and Category:WikiProject Wikipedia articles)."

This edit you made regarding images is inappropriate. Those images do not need citations, as any WP:Anatomy or WP:Med editor other than myself (such as LT910001/Tom, CFCF or WhatamIdoing) would tell you. You do not see citations for images used at the Cervix article or Cancer article, for example.

And while I appreciate your concern for this article, I must reiterate what I and others have stated to you before: All the over-tagging is not needed, and you should start fixing the sourcing issues, etc. yourself instead of repeatedly advising others to do so.

On a side note: WP:Pinging me did not work; I have a new username. I do not need to be pinged to this talk page regardless since it's on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I removed the tags for the images here and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?

title=Human_sexuality&diff=706522665&oldid=706522236 here.] Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

As I addressed at further length at Flyer22's Talk page, (i) some images already had citations, and these were supported, and improved, and (ii) other citations contain content that is editor-generated or -vetted [labels attached to a self-portrait (editor-generated), or an image cribbed from a third-rate, non-affiliated, non-scholarly web-page (editor-vetted)]. In either case, they are adding content. In the first case, the source of the labels, from a published source, are required. I cannot take a photo of myself, and photoshop in labels, and call it authoritative information. The source of an image showing such labels is required. (In chemistry, or anatomy.) In the latter case, the labels appearing in the cribbed image must be checked, and for the article to be encyclopedic, the source against which it is checked needs to be provided. And as I said, (iii) I followed the links, to no authoritative sources, and (iv) per WP:VERIFY, wikilinks do not constitute acceptable sources. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Your diff link appears to be broken. LeP Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, if you can improve it—by all means do so, but if you're only going to tag it with nonsensical banners to extol the inadequacy of the page—you're not helping Wikipedia. CFCF 💌 📧 20:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Just as professors who mark papers are of no use to their students? A strange, and not really sensible/rational perspective. The only reason to remove tags for unresolved issues is to "prettify" the article. Do so if you wish, but you are not on firm scholarly or philosophical grounds. What matters is that readers know the state of the article, its real state. And it continues to be in a state where the appearing tags are fully appropriate. Otherwise, you are entitled to your opinion, of course. Let's hope for informed, wise opinions, shall we? Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, adding these tags for the images is not appropriate. They are common sense cases or cases supported by the click of a wikilink. We do not add citations for cases like these. If I were to start a WP:RfC on it, the consensus would be in my favor. Hopefully, I will not need to start such a WP:RfC. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I have made my case above, and at your Talk page. Please do not argue from commonly understood standards. I place tags daily regarding plagiarism, and plagiarized content is also a widely accepted phenomena. Please argue the merit of the argument—that images can contain content, that content must be sourced, and the worse the provenance of the image, the more likely it is it will need supportive sourcing. The fellow who took the picture of someone's penis and labeled it—is this not beyond the pale? Who says that his parts are to be called what they are labeled here? That is what we must demand to know. Because that is the authority, not the editor providing the selfie/portrature. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you commented on my talk page about this, and the commentary has not managed to convince me of your viewpoint regarding references for these images. I will argue WP:Common sense and WP:Sky is blue in cases when it makes sense to do so. This is an ideal case for such arguments. The male's genitals are labeled correctly. He labeled them that way because those labels are supported by anatomy books that discuss male and female genitals. It's similar to showing a picture of a hand in the Hand article or an apple in the Apple article. I have begun the RfC below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Should the anatomy images or other images have references?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Snow close, for reasons recommended above.

Conclusion: the images do not need references. Maproom (talk) 11:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

As seen with this and this link, there is a difference of opinion regarding whether or not the images in the article should have references. For those seeing this RfC from the RfC page or your user talk page (via an RfC alert), the matter is discussed above on the talk page at Talk:Human sexuality#Citation issues imply content issues, and still remain. I will alert WP:Anatomy and WP:Med to this RfC. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Alerted here and here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment My understanding of WP:V hinges on the words "challenged or likely to be challenged". If the tagging editor has a challenge to these images or their labelling, we need to hear it. Do they feel that the organs portrayed do not represent typical human anatomy? That the labelling is inaccurate? For my part, without a specific challenge to investigate, I can't see a problem. --Nigelj (talk) 23:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
• It appears that User:Leprof 7272 is adding these, so perhaps he will show up and explain whether he believes that the labels are wrong. Leprof may also not be aware that WP:CHALLENGE now (as of a couple of years ago) applies only when he believes that it may not be possible for an interested person to find a source: "When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable". The focus is on material that cannot be verified by anyone who is willing to spend time and money on the task. It is not about whether or not someone already did it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
• Agree with above. I do not routinely cite images because they fall under (to me) Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue ie most anatomical images are purely definitional with very broad earthly consensus, and we don't routinely cite definitions unless there's some expectation there will be disagreement or contention. The only circumstance where I would value a citation is some of our medical graphs and infoposters. If there is an error in the image I encourage said users to identify the errors so that we improve the page and the encyclopedia in general. Widespread "citation needed" plastering doesn't actually do that. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
• Refs for images are not typically needed If I take a picture of someone with strep throat and I say they are culture positive, there is no reference for that. Images unlike text are frequently primary sources. They are the one type of primary source we allow / like as there is typically no way around it due to copyright. You cannot paraphrase a picture. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect to the esteemed @Doc James: (Doc), @Nigelj:, @WhatamIdoing:, and @LT910001:

The points I have already made above, before this call for comment, remain unaddressed. If I take a selfie and add labels, the labels are either from a reputable source, or they are WP:OR. Moreover, in this case, the source of the internal anatomical images for male and female are not from reliable, published sources, and the selfie has editor-added labels (as I have already said above). The selfie image is thus one editor's original research, presented without verifiability, and the two "luckymojo" images (see below) demand checking.

I do not care a whit what is generally done, in this case or in general. WikiMedia commons is used broadly and repeatedly to skirt WP:VERIFY by sneaking in content that is not verifiable, all the more perniciously if a picture is indeed worth 1000 words. (And I have said, it matters not to me that plagiarism and unverifiable content is rampantly present at WP, as it is. Such will not change, except one article at a time. And this is one article.)

The question is what is correct to do here, where there is an editor-labeled selfie, and two critical images (see article) from http://www.luckymojo.com/faqs/altsex/vulva.html and http://www.luckymojo.com/faqs/altsex/penis.html [for heaven's bloody sake, please]—the question is not theoretical, or what is generally needed, but what is to be done here, with the selfie, and in relation to these two cribbed-from-nonsense images. If the content of those images (selfie labels and bad sourced internal anatomy images) is valid, it is because some expert like Doc has checked them against a reliable source as required by WP:VERIFY. All I am asking, is that these sources, those verifying the added label content, be stated. I cannot believe I have to argue this; it is utterly obvious, and a waste of precious life. Le Prof 18:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

And with particular due respect to Doc, every journal figure legend and journal results text I have ever written has been just what he argues cannot be done, a paraphrase of an image. But this is not the point. Yes, Wikipedia allows images without explanation. In this case, does it not rise to the degree of ridiculous, in the selfie-plus-OR, and the two just-trust-lucymojo cases? Le Prof 50.179.252.14 (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

You are using the WP:OR policy incorrectly; it is very clear about what is and is not original research, and even has a section about images (WP:OI). The male and female's genitals, which are labeled correctly (with perhaps the exception of the image naming the G-spot, a highly debated area), is not a WP:OR violation, any more than hands in the Hand article are a WP:OR violation, or the forehead in the Forehead article is a WP:OR violation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The standard method for verifying the contents of an image – and thus determining whether its labels or description is able to be verified – is to go look at sources and see what they say. If the Wikipedia image looks sufficiently similar to what reliable sources say, then the contents of the image and the description is capable of being verified (and thus fully complies with WP:OR and WP:V). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• No image refs needed unless there is a credible good faith challenge that a particular image is not what it claims to be, or a credible good faith challenge that a particular image is being used in some unusual and problematical manner to promote some particular novel idea.

The suggested image ref interpretation of policy would be severely disruptive to the encyclopedia as a whole. Policy IAR overrules any such interpretation. We do not robotically follow pointless or harmful rules for the sake of rules. These are uncontroversially accurate and helpful images.

Original Image policy says images are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments. I do not see these images introducing unpublished ideas or arguments.

You don't need to cite that the sky is blue.

WP:Verifiability policy says that only content challenged or likely to be challenged needs to be cited, and when making a challenge state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for the content. If someone believes File:Penis_with_Labels.jpg is indeed a penis and that the labels are reasonably accurate, it is not a good faith challenged. Alsee (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

This seems like the best balance of the considerations involved. It would be highly impractical (and would necessitate a project-wide shift in approach that cannot be mandated in this space) to adopt a policy that all images (of a given article or broadly) require references. It may seem like a logical extension of our verifiability policies, but the fact is, the community has clearly, as a matter of longstanding practice, endorsed the notion that unsourced images are not OR. That said, its equally unfeasible to view this a blanket exception scrutiny/verifiability; to do so would be to invite images as a back door to all manner of claims that could not be introduced otherwise, for lack of reference. Therefore the only reasonable approach seems to be what Alsee suggests here: allow images without references, but in the event that any reasonable, good-faith objection is made to the presence of an image or the suggestion that is representative of a given subject, then it should be removed or the nature of its presentation altered unless sourcing can support that usage (said support being decided through normal consensus processes. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I suggest that the next editor to arrive should apply a SNOW close rather than piling on more !votes. It's currently 6 to 1, and the argument of the 1 is I do not care a whit what is generally done, in this case or in general. That indicates a clear unfamiliarity-with or disregard-for our policies and practices. They had good intentions to make the encyclopedia more strictly Verifiable, but they do not appear to have any basis for a constructive challenge to the images. The images clearly contribute positively to the article, and no one would benefit by removing them as unreferenced. I was temped to apply a SNOW close myself earlier, but I was concerned closing on 4 to 1 might not have carried sufficient weight to firmly end the dispute. Alsee (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Am I missing something?

I have just received an RFC to this page. The only discussion I see was closed a week ago. If there is anything that I am required to do, please ping me. If not, please don't bother. JonRichfield (talk) 05:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Clarification needed of {{Cn}} template.

There is a {{Cn}} template on the claim that in Judaism celibacy is considered sinful. The claim and {{Cn}} can be read two ways. It should be clarified whether the {{Cn}} is for a claim that celibacy per se is sinful, or only for a claim that celibacy within marriage is sinful. In general, celibacy by a single man is considered normal, but a married man has three duties to his wife, one of which is her sexual enjoyment.

Judaism has a niche for a man who wishes be a nazir (ascetic), but that niche does not encompass marriage. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

As late-arriving to the foregoing image citation close-out

…@Flyer22 Reborn:, @Maproom:, @Nigelj:, @WhatamIdoing:, @Doc James:, @LT910001:, @JonRichfield:, @WhatamIdoing:, @Snow Rise:, @Alsee:, I would say, as I already have, that images are a form of content, and contain intellectual assertions which may or may not have authority. Moreover, they are increasingly being used, especially in scientific articles, as policy-end-arounds, to circumvent WP:VERIFY. [In reading the following, in referring to WP:VERIFY and WP:OR, and am not referring to how they are most often applied and interpreted, I am referring to what they state, in their texts, and what they indicate, on most straight-forward reading, is their aim. That is, I am aiming for what those developing the policies and guidelines were aiming for (to a degree, informed by various JW comments and interpretations), and not, a decade later, how they have evolved in application.]

The very fact that Doc can say, "if I take a picture of a strep throat"—as unregistered editors Londoner500 and Coastone did with the appearing selfless of their privates—makes the very point I wish to make. Forget that Doc is an expert, with credentials. Imagine all editors having this freedom, and you have the morass I already see, in place after place in this encyclopedia. That is, we can either restrict the placement of images to the final authority of those experts such as we have in the Doc's of this place, or we can adhere to a policy that will safeguard content edits (image additions) made by "the least of these," our fellow editors.

This is, in fact, in part, informed by a history with, e.g., particular untrained editors running a personal science museum out their garage at home in the EU, who routinely take pictures of their glassware, and place them, with authority, into chemistry articles. Think the same, from laypersons, regarding Doc's medical malady. Shall I, a chemist, take a picture of my DVT-impacted leg, and place it at that article, as an illustration of a limb impacted by a DVT? (Someone has in fact already done this, and we take on faith, and only on faith, that their presentation is an accurate portrayal of medical information. I for one say it is not.) As for me presenting mine—though PhD-trained, and pharma and uni-faculty vetted, I say "No, a thousand times no." I am just an editor. My interpretation of data has no standing. And this is true, whether the data are from primary text sources, or the data are visual/graphic, and my original research (selfie-taking) is the primary source.

I argued all of this, earlier; and despite massive and earnest review and voting, time does not appear to have been taken to address much of my foregoing substance. (Who above, addressed the fact that one of the image sources is luckymojo.com? Please search above.)

The bottom line is that good scientific and medical publishing practice should obtain. Simply put, every journal recognizes images as equally data-rich as text, and therefore as equally intellectual content-containing. An image would never be allowed in Britannica, or a major text, without it being anchored, somehow to authority (the authors credentials being the authority most frequently used). But we do not recognize editorial authority or credentials. Our authority derives from traceability to source. Hence, we should likewise honor the importance and (potential) content-richness of images, as other scientific publishers do, and demand that our image content be authoritative. As authority at WP begins and ends with our stating the authority (source) on which the information is based, I can see no conclusion that image content must be tied to a source.

Hence, if an image is redrawn from another, it should bear "Redrawn from…" and the source (original) should be stated. If an image is based on another, and/or additional sources, it should bear "Based on…" and all contributing sources should be cited. That is to say, the authority on which we conclude, "These are the correct parts of the anatomy, here" (or whatever judgment we make as editors about the image) needs to be provided, otherwise the content of the image is based on WP editor expertise and authority. And that, I think we can all agree is a fundamental no-no. [Consider this as my response to the accusation that I misinterpret WP:OR as it applies to images; you say "if they are correctly labeled". I say, what is your authority for making this call? And why is the case of this intellectual content different from the same judgement of the factual accuracy of a paragraph of text (which does require that we state the source of our confident assertion of content accuracy)?]

Otherwise, image selection and placement is, potentially, all just an end-around, a way to sneak in non-authoritative, or authoritatively suspect material that—simply put—is just a manifestation of WP:OR.

As for the contention that we need worry about sourcing in general, "only when an [editor] believes that it may not be possible for an interested person to find a source" is to relegate this encyclopedia to the rubbish heap, by applying the lowest interpretation of guidelines to all practice. I utterly reject this, and believe those reading, if they give it a moment of thought—high school readers, of whom we demand the ability to verify our content for us?—also will reject this passive, non-authoritative "may not be possible" passage as governing the need for citations in science and medical articles.

Finally, as I have said, I don't care a whit how often this is already being done, or that this is "highly impractical (and would necessitate a project-wide shift in approach that cannot be mandated in this space)"—that is, I don't care how many such WP:OR and WP:VERIFY-violating instances are already in the encyclopedia. With every decision, and every article, we can decide to staunch the bleeding. Here, above we choose to not do so.

So be it. Thus, absent an effort at Wikimedia Commons, to impose uniform sourcing standards for images, the derivative information, in image form, in the encyclopedia, moves WP to becoming more like a "just trust us" blogpost, as it fails to take the substantive intellectual content in images seriously, by taking the extra time of stating sources (if known) and not using images without clear intellectual origin.

What is most galling, is that the self portraits remain, without statement of authority as to the textbook origin of the labels. (No, as a chemist, this sky is not blue—all of these labels are not common knowledge, to the young people who read this article.) In addition, cases where sources were found, initially, as an editorial response, they were removed. (Why? Why must examples of extra care in sourcing be removed?) They've now been returned, as URL-only citations. Help us all. Then, attention was called to other images culled from non-authoritative sources (luckymojo.com). In that case, the response seems to be—whatever the source is/was, I as an editor, can, on my authority, affirm the content, and as I do, no better source than me confirming the content is needed." This, rather than just telling us, how is it that you know, with authority, that the image is what it says it is, and that the labels are correct. I find this rejection of an obvious QC standard, appearing in all other authoritative online educational venues to be simply incomprehensible, and intellectually inconsistent as an approach.

All from me. Cheers. Le Prof 50.129.227.141 (talk) 05:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Page tag reintroduced

…because it was removed, with no effort having been made to solve the problem, which remains egregious. Contrary to @Doc James: assertion, many tens of examples of books completely without page numbers remain—see refs 3, 8, 18, 20, 57, 77, 87. And the matter has gotten worse, since Doc's tag removal. (Another book was added, again with no page numbers.) There are clear policies about removing tags. Click on the link appearing in the tag, to see when it is appropriate to remove this tag. Le Prof 50.129.227.141 (talk) 06:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Unscientific wording

The start of the second paragraph reads: "Sexual activity is a vital principle of human living that connects the desires, pleasures, and energy of the body with a knowledge of human intimacy." Should this sentence really be here? It seems profoundly unscientific / waffly. Does it have a purpose? What does it even mean? CheCheDaWaff (talk) 08:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. It says nothing, in addition to a profoundly cringy use of the word "energy". Removing. If someone takes issue with it they can bring it up here. TimothyJosephWood 12:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

As I was, removing the following sentence as well as it is just a piggy back which also says little or nothing. TimothyJosephWood 12:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood:, @CheCheDaWaff:, Thank you both for this work. Out of curiosity, did the earlier sentence cite a source? If so, what did the source actually say? Acceptance or rejection of content should in large part not be ultimately tied to our "ear," but to whether it is appropriately derived from a reputable source, and whether it accurately reflects the content of that source. (Asked, because the sourcing of this article remains an issue.) Le Prof 50.129.227.141 (talk) 06:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern Le Prof. Having looked at the history (from May 2), I can confirm that the sentences in question had no citation(s). --CheCheDaWaff (talk) 09:28, 17 June 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)

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)

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";[7] "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)

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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)

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.

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)

I am extremely skeptical of this claim as well. I'm removing it for now. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The quote in full is "the speculation on which they base their research, in part, is that a good ten percent of the population has chromosomal variations that do not fit neatly into the XX-female and XY-male set of categories". Without an additional reference or some discussion of this topic in the body of the article, this cannot stand in the lede section. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The relevant material is on p. 107 of Butler's book. It says, "Although the pool that Page and his researchers used to come up with this finding was limited, the speculation on which they base their research, in part, is that a good ten percent of the population has chromosomal variations that do not fit neatly into the XX-female and XY-male set of categories. Hence, the discovery of the "master-gene" is considered to be a more certain basis for understanding sex determination and, hence, sex-difference, than previous chromosomal criteria could provide."

It seems Power-enwiki already reverted me, but I was going to self-revert as Butler is challenging this idea. Rather, it would make more sense to insert something from Fausto-Sterling about the prevalence of intersexness. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)