Talk:Human sexuality

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconVital articles: Level 2 / Life B‑class
WikiProject iconHuman sexuality has been listed as a level-2 vital article in Life. If you can improve it, please do.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment[edit]

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Lewis University supported by WikiProject Psychology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}} on 14:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Abstience versus abstinence-only[edit]

@Tjpolega:The text currently reads In the United States, some sex education programs encourage abstinence, the choice to restrain oneself from sexual activity.. However, it is a matter of WP:BLUESKY that abstinence-only is the teaching Sexual abstinence and no other form of birth control. I would not question the text were the link to abstinence or to sexual abstinence, or if the pipe and descriptive phrase were removed, e.g., In the United States, some sex education programs encourage abstinence-only sex education. See this edit and this edit for context. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 10:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

your last edit was too biased. And yes I agree that it should say only. Honestly that's what I thought it said and I consider it a type on my part. Thank you for bringing this up. It is obviously a big distinction Tjpolega (talk) 11:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dichotomous thinking[edit]

Early on in this article, this is present re nature vs nurture and extent of homosexuality. Njsm11 (talk) 02:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noting the GLM and scales. Njsm11 (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also MANCOVA and the Sell. Njsm11 (talk) 00:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Cisgender sexuality" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Cisgender sexuality and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 8#Cisgender sexuality until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TraderCharlotte (talk) 03:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oxytocin release during orgasm[edit]

The following passage is overly specific: "Oxytocin, sometimes referred to as the 'love hormone,' is released in both sexes during sexual intercourse when an orgasm is achieved." In particular, the phrase "during sexual intercourse" is not a necessary part of every situation "when an orgasm is achieved" i.e. during orgasm. Orgasm doesn't require sexual intercourse. No matter whether the quoted source includes that phrase, the facts need to be stated as simply as possible. yoyo (talk) 06:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recent edits by CactiStaccingCrane and SchreiberBike[edit]

@CactiStaccingCrane and SchreiberBike: A recent edit ( removed the word proximity from "Flirting, the use of indirect behavior to convey romantic or sexual interest. It can involve verbal or non-verbal cues, such as sexual comments, body language, gazing, or close proximity to another," via WP;JWB, I reverted that edit and SchreiberBike reinstated the change with the comment "close proximity" is redundant in that context. "Close" inherently deals with proximity.. However, close is an adjective, not a noun, so the sentence is now grammatically incorrect. Either or close proximity to another or or proximity to another would be grammatically correct. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with you. I'm just trying around with my new JWB power and accidentally make a crater on the ground. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are right. I didn't read the full context. Please consider me whacked with a wet trout.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  16:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Social causes for sexuality[edit]

" Hypothesized social causes are supported by only weak evidence, distorted by numerous confounding factors."

This sentence is not clear enough. The data shows that the specificity of which social causes are involved is murky, but "the evidence for environmental influence is unequivocal, given that MZ twin concordances tend to be far less than 100%" - source

Change the sentence to clarify that the prevalence of these social causes is unequivocal, but the exact nature of what these causes are is undeveloped and only established by weak evidence.

Even if the sentence is true, readers may read it in a different way. Lainlain987 (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The text is supported by the source (which you linked): However, there is considerably more evidence supporting nonsocial causes of sexual orientation than social causes. This evidence includes the cross-culturally robust finding that adult homosexuality is strongly related to childhood gender nonconformity; moderate genetic influences demonstrated in well-sampled twin studies; the cross-culturally robust fraternal-birth-order effect on male sexual orientation; and the finding that when infant boys are surgically and socially “changed” into girls, their eventual sexual orientation is unchanged (i.e., they remain sexually attracted to females). In contrast, evidence for the most commonly hypothesized social causes of homosexuality—sexual recruitment by homosexual adults, patterns of disordered parenting, or the influence of homosexual parents—is generally weak in magnitude and distorted by numerous confounding factors.
"Environmental" (i.e. non-genetic) and "social" are not the same thing. For example, the fraternal birth order effect (mentioned in the source) is a non-social environmental effect. Crossroads -talk- 23:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hii where (talk) 11:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not even so much as a mention of fetishism/kinks/paraphilias?[edit]

It feels like a disappointing oversight that there is not even so much as a mention of atypical sexual interests, fetishism, kinks, paraphilia, etc., despite the fact that they are a unique and interesting part of human sexuality. Sexual fetishes are not so uncommon as to be an invalid or non-noteworthy part of human sexuality, and so I hope that we can figure out a reasonable way to work them into this article. FuwaFuwaDL (talk) 08:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What sexual fetishes are you referring to? Justanotherguy54 (talk) 06:27, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm talking about in a general sense, there is no mention of paraphilic (fetish) interests or behavior in this page on human sexuality. FuwaFuwaDL (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the idea. I’ll incorporate some things in future. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Undefined ref[edit]

@Autisticeditor 20: please fill in a source for the ref you named "rodriguez". -- Fyrael (talk) 19:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I deleted the empty citation as the other citation appeared to support the claim. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:26, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]