This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Someone vandalized the beginning of the article. Seeing as I can't remove it, it has to be a hack. Please have someone come fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.140.85.143 ( talk) 03:21, 10 February 2007
I reverted Ideafarmcity's edit that focused on reproduction for the lead sentence. I reverted because human sexuality is not solely or even mainly about reproducing, as should be clear from simply looking at the article. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 00:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Furthermore, the drive to reproduce is generally believed by researchers today to no longer be an innate quality in humans, but rather a learned quality among humans. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 00:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Ideafarmcity, you can WP:Edit war on this matter as much as you like...until you are WP:Blocked, but your text will not be staying, especially since there are no WP:Reliable sources to support it. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 01:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Ideafarmcity, this is my last time responding to you about this, especially since you are not engaging on the talk page. Your text is not supported by WP:Reliable sources. WP:Verifiability is policy. This is why I added sourced definitional material. There are no sources, absolutely zero, that define human sexuality as "behaviors and experiences that result directly from the human reproduction system. The term embraces copulation, marriage, and gender roles, as well as behaviors and experiences that do not involve pregnancy, childbirth, or the raising of children. The term is also used more narrowly to refer to erotic experiences."
So if you re-add that piece or anything similar to it, this matter will be going to a noticeboard. I do not have the time nor patience to play around on this topic. And by "play around," I mean entertain your edits. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 02:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
To whom it may concern, I also added "or the way people experience and express themselves as sexual beings" with two reliable sources supporting it. I would have preferred to retain "is the capacity of humans to have erotic experiences and responses" for the lead sentence, since it is clearer and is not redundant by stating "sexuality is being sexual," but significantly fewer sources use that wording. The sources more often state "the way people experience and express themselves as sexual beings," or they define human sexuality in some other broad way. If no one beats me to it, I will likely remove "the quality of being sexual" and simply stick with "or the way people experience and express themselves as sexual beings." Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 03:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
None of the sources on human sexuality focus on sexual reproduction, except for naming it as an aspect; in fact, they go out of their way to make it clear that human sexuality is significantly broader than sexual reproduction. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 03:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Sangdeboeuf, regarding this, see what I stated above. I stated, "I also added 'or the way people experience and express themselves as sexual beings' with two reliable sources supporting it. I would have preferred to retain 'is the capacity of humans to have erotic experiences and responses' for the lead sentence, since it is clearer and is not redundant by stating 'sexuality is being sexual,' but significantly fewer sources use that wording. The sources more often state 'the way people experience and express themselves as sexual beings,' or they define human sexuality in some other broad way. If no one beats me to it, I will likely remove 'the quality of being sexual' and simply stick with 'or the way people experience and express themselves as sexual beings'."
So I obviously agree with you removing the "the quality of being sexual" part. You asked "what is a sexual being?" The line after the initial sentence states, "This involves biological, erotic, physical, emotional, social, or spiritual feelings and behaviors." It's supported by two reliable sources, and the sources are not limiting human sexuality simply to sexual acts. So I removed your "explain" tag. If you have a better idea for the first and/or second sentence with reliable sources, then I'm open to hearing it, but like this 2009 "Human Sexuality: Biological, Psychological, and Cultural Perspectives" source, from Taylor & Francis, pages 32–42, states, human sexuality is a broad term that lacks a precise definition. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 18:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Changed "as sexual beings" to "sexually." Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 18:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Of course, right now we have the Human sexuality article stating "is the way people experience and express themselves sexually" and the Human sexual activity article stating "is the manner in which humans experience and express their sexuality." And there is some article overlap. There has been recent discussion about limiting the scope of the Human sexual activity article. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 18:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://sciencestage.com/d/15250715/towards-a-broader-concept-of-reproductive-rights..htmlWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I reverted an addition by Adams1peace, not only because there was WP:Editorializing (such as "there is now good scientific evidence") and WP:OR involved, but also because the argument that women have not lost estrus is a minority viewpoint. I made this clear at Talk:Estrous cycle#Human female sexual receptive behaviour in estrous (permalink here). This level of "human estrus" detail in this article was also WP:Undue weight. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 06:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't look like any of the sources that Adams1peace included use the term estrus or are making a "women have not lost estrus" argument. The sources are talking about the menstrual cycle and ovulation. This is indeed similar to the discussion I had with others at Talk:Estrous cycle#Human female sexual receptive behaviour in estrous. Do read that discussion. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 07:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Update: The discussion on this is now seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Estrus in humans, and estrous cycle vs. menstrual cycle. A permalink for it is here. As that discussion shows, the topic is now covered at the Menstrual cycle article. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 19:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
[My original first comment in this section is below this intro]
Hi, Seppi333, I wanted to ping you again because some input on the situation here would be very valuable. There are 3 issues involved. 1. Are Wunsch's ideas fringe, and by how much? 2. Does the RS policy suggest he should be removed? (Remember, according to Google Scholar, almost nobody cites him except himself.) 3. What do you think about the possible connection between the accounts Yohan Castel and JaKomensky, along with the IP editor I mention below, and between these editor(s) and Wunsch himself?
Flyer22 Reborn has not suggested bringing back this material, but did recently suggest pinging you.
Taking the time to read over this thread and comment at the bottom is much appreciated. Thank you. -Crossroads- ( talk) 06:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
[Original opening comment:]
I removed the section on the evolution of neurobiology because examination makes clear that it promotes a POV - namely, that human sexual desires are largely learned rather than innate - that contradicts the scientific consensus found in Bailey et al 2016, LeVay 2017, Balthazart 2012, and others.
It was added all at once by a single IP editor: [1]
Its sources make this clear as they are cherry picked. Agmo 2007 argues that human sexual orienation is learned; this makes it out of step with scientific consensus. Nei et al 2008 and Zhang and Webb 2003 are about animals - original synthesis perhaps going on here. Wunsch 2014 and Wunsch 2017 argue similarly to Agmo, but are by a fringe researcher, as his relative lack of cites on Google Scholar makes clear. [2] Gagnon 2005 is a nearly unchanged reissuing of a book from the 1970s, arguing for a "social constructionist" perspective which posits, again, that sexuality is learned.
Incidentally, I have found that French Wikipedia pushes this POV heavily. Its articles on sexual orientation consistently argue that because pheromones and reflexes don't play much of a part among humans, sexual orientation is learned instead. I can't do much about this since I use Google Translate to view other language Wikipedias, but if anyone reading this knows French and wants to correct this, that would be a great help.
Information on evolution and/or neurobiology may be useful for this article, but this isn't the material we're looking for. Crossroads1 ( talk) 03:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
More findings in this case. The account JaKomensky tried to add similar material to sexual intercourse.
/info/en/?search=Talk:Sexual_intercourse/Archive_9#Neurobiological_material
JaKomensky and Yohan Castel must be the same person. Their pattern of edits, the info they add, are the same.
/info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Yohan_Castel
/info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/JaKomensky
They are obsessed with adding content about neurobiology of animals and how this evolved in humans, etc. They promote the fringe papers of Serge Wunsch, along with cherry picked sources and super old ethnographies to push their all nurture agenda. Like I said before, Castel/Komensky almost certainly has *ahem* a very close association with Wunsch, because their arguments are again the same and Castel claims Wunsch's pictures as his own on Commons.
I found that at French Wikipedia, this guy (as Yohan Castel) has run wild. (Use Google Translate to read.) Their article on sexual orientation says that it is learned:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientation_sexuelle
He created several superfluous articles that are obvious OR:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comportement_érotique
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comportement_de_reproduction
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Préférence_sexuelle
And he spammed the same fringe material on neurobiology across many other articles; here is just one example:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Position_sexuelle#Origine_neurobiologique_des_positions_sexuelles
I cannot stand blatant self-promotion, fringe theory pushing, and sockpuppetry. -Crossroads- ( talk) 06:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in responding. I'd forgotten to follow-up after receiving the first notice due to things going on off-wiki. Based upon https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Human_sexuality&type=revision&diff=766706802&oldid=765648895 and what I've seen in this image, I wouldn't restore that content. In any event, I'll look into Wunsch's papers within the next day or two to see what he says as well as look into those editors when I get around to looking into this more. I will make a few quick points now though.
Rewarding stimuli induce both associative learning (i.e., operant/classical conditioning) and motor learning (think: learning how to ride a bike) and erogenous zone stimulation is an intrinsic reward (i.e., it's rewarding due to being inherently pleasurable as opposed to a conditioned/learned association). Most people use the term "learning" in the sense of declarative learning (think: learning a fact). I don't see declarative learning/memory as having much at all to do with sexual intercourse; it would be involved to some extent in sexuality. Motor learning (which facilitates reward acquisition) and associative learning (which modifies behavior) are definitely involved in sexual intercourse.
Will comment on sexual desire later. Need to log off for now. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 21:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Just a quick comment to point out some corroborating evidence about the connection between Wunsch and the editor(s) here. Wunsch is located at the Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes in Paris, France. The IP who added the material in this article is from Paris, France. This on top of the fact that we know that Yohan Castel is French and interested in the same things as Wunsch [11] as well as the fact that Wunsch, Yohan Castel, JaKomensky, and the IP all make the same arguments using the same sources and using the same pictures. -Crossroads- ( talk) 14:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
pretty much every form of desire is “learned”, I did not mean to suggest that people are blank slates that have 0 preconception of reward at birth; what I meant was that all desire for specific rewarding stimuli (e.g., wanting a particular food, craving a drug, desiring a particular person, wanting to engage in a specific activity, etc.) is learned after birth. In the context of sexual activity, a person can't want to have sex with someone without the value of the perceived reward being updated somehow. That typically doesn't occur by having sex with that person; it happens by observing desirable characteristics (e.g., attractive appearance, well-adjusted personality, and other traits that one finds innately desirable) in that person. As described in [12], beauty is a pleasant sensory stimulus. That's one way sexual reward (specifically, the "wanting" component) is updated/"learned" without having sex with a person. If the distinction between "general wants" and "specific wants" isn't clear, just think of the general form as a desire to satisfy a particular biological need (a "homeostatic reward" as that ref I liked calls it) as opposed to a desire to acquire/consume/experience a specific stimulus. Reading subsections 1, 2, and 3 under the heading "D. What Makes Rewards Rewarding?" in [13] might help clear things up if there's still some confusion about this.
This is one reason we know that a child who is sexual with another child in a way that is child-on-child sexual abuse (as distinguished from playing doctor) is due to that child having been sexually abused or having learned of one or more sexual acts via the media or having witnessed one or more sexual acts.Simply knowing about a sexual act wouldn't cause a child to engage in a particular behavior. Any behavior a person elicits when they're not actively exerting cognitive control over their behavior is guided by reward acquisition and the avoidance of aversives. So basically, that child would have to find sexually aggressive/assaultive acts rewarding in order to actually do it. "Reward" is more than just pleasure and want, it functions as a "go" signal for behavior in general via motivational salience.
And many people have sexual desires for things without having had some sort of positive experience from it.As I explained above, one doesn't need to physically experience a particular sex-related stimulus in order to prefer it over others (i.e., want it more than related stimuli), but some form of sensory exposure to it or a sufficiently similar stimulus is necessary for that to happen. There's a lot more to how changes in incentive salience for specific stimuli occur, but it's very abstract and I'd prefer not to go into it here (see reward cross-sensitization and Pavlovian-instrumental transfer if you're curious). Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 07:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
What causes paraphilias is still up for debate, and some paraphilias, such as pedophilia, do seem to have a biological basis. But, as seen in the Causes section of the Paraphilia article, "behavioral explanations propose that paraphilias are conditioned early in life, during an experience that pairs the paraphilic stimulus with intense sexual arousal. Susan Nolen-Hoeksema suggests that, once established, masturbatory fantasies about the stimulus reinforce and broaden the paraphilic arousal."That's not only plausible, it's almost certainly true. Conditioned rewards such as that are called extrinsic rewards and acquiring them (e.g., money) has been demonstrated experimentally in some cases to induce pleasure. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 08:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Okay, so I was hoping for more comment on the accuracy of the added content/Wunsch's ideas overall. Two papers he has in English are here: [14] and [15].
In the first one, his conclusions are: (1) the dynamics of sexual behaviour has significantly evolved from the anthropoid primates; (2) the functional dynamic of heterosexual copulation is very probably disorganized; (3) the behavioural dynamics that emerge with the hominidae — from factors that still exist in heterosexual copulation — would seem to be based on a quest for erotic reward, by stimulation of the erogenous zones; and (4) in humans, due to the extensive cognitive development, sexuality is structured by cultural representations.
And: In the Hominidae, in which all these changes and evolutionary features are brought together, the functional dynamic of sexual behaviour has been significantly altered. The only system that remains wholly functional is the system of reward associated with the erogenous zones. For these reasons,the neurobiological factors that have changed shift the orientation of sexual activity away from heterosexual copulation and towards erotic stimulation of the
most erogenous areas of the body. Functionally, it appears that heterosexual copulation has become ‘‘disorganized’’ and that the functional dynamic has evolved in favour of behaviour in which erogenous zones are stimulated.
In the second one, his conclusions are quite radical. He states: in Man, the behavior that leads to reproduction may be conceived not as an innate “reproductive behavior,” but as an acquired “erotic behavior” involving behavioral sequences of stimulation of the most erogenous body zones by a partner—no matter his sex.
And: In conclusion, in the absence of cultural values stigmatizing particular sexual behaviors (i.e., homophobia), it seems that the innate tendency to search for erogenous zones’ stimulations by partners, as seen in the Bonobos, leads to the learning of a sexuality that would in most cases be bisexual and diversified
.
Looking at all this stuff together, he basically seems to argue that while in animals sexuality is based on reflexes and pheromones, in hominids, it is mostly about seeking stimulation of the erogenous zones. Because of that, human sexual attractions largely come from individual and social learning.
Does this seem like a fair assessment? Is his division of "reproductive behavior" for lower animals and "erotic behavior" for hominids accurate or misleading? Has he really disproved the widely thought innateness (mostly) of sexual orientation in favor of learned "sexual preferences", as in this French paper? [16] While he is obviously not wrong about everything, I do get heavy fringe/crackpot vibes from his work (and also from the way someone is obsessed with promoting it on Wikipedia when he is largely uncited) - do you at all agree?
Thanks so much for looking into this. -Crossroads- ( talk) 03:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
In conclusion, in the absence of cultural values stigmatizing particular sexual behaviors (i.e., homophobia), it seems that the innate tendency to search for erogenous zones’ stimulations by partners, as seen in the Bonobos, leads to the learning of a sexuality that would in most cases be bisexual and diversifiedI've read a lot of dumb shit in academic papers before, but this has to be in the top 5. Some of the stuff he says is consistent with other sources – like
(3) the behavioural dynamics that emerge with the hominidae — from factors that still exist in heterosexual copulation — would seem to be based on a quest for erotic reward, by stimulation of the erogenous zones;, but that's also true for most animals – other assertions are pretty Facepalm. The reflex stuff is mostly nonsense since the act of engaging in intercourse isn't reflexive; it's just the positioning of the female during intercourse that is. The assertions about pheromones and hormonal fluctuations (e.g., animals that go into heat) is true for some animals but not others. He's basically arguing that all non-hominids engage in sexual intercourse due to homeostatic reward as opposed to pleasure while hominids really only engage in intercourse for pleasure; I don't even need to read the paper to know there's no evidence to support the assertion about non-hominids. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 09:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
|
Just to be clear, I think Wunsch's arguments in those papers are WP:FRINGE. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 09:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
A sock case at SPI for Yohan Castel has now been opened: link -Crossroads- ( talk) 03:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to comment on one last thing in this thread since I think it's worth pointing out. Nature vs nurture or genetics vs the environment used to be considered a duality, but the discovery/study of epigenetics made that line of thinking archaic. The environment can affect the expression and transcription of genes by altering epigenetic marks in humans and other animals and those alterations to the epigenome are heritable; i.e., they can be passed on to offspring. Moreover, the phenotypes - be it behavioral or physical - that those epigenetic alterations produce in the parent are also observable in the offspring. The inheritance of this type of gene-environment interaction is called transgenerational epigenetic inheritance, and research suggests that it is the mechanism behind the prevalent pathologies that exist in the children of holocaust survivors in addition to the distinct physiological or behavioral characteristics (relative to the children of unaffected parents) that are present in the children of people who survive famines or endure other highly stressful or traumatic life experiences. A very specific example of this in rats and the precise mechanisms involved is described here: Addiction#cite_note-54. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 08:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
The SPI case was rejected because none of the accounts have edited for the last 2.5 years. Nonetheless, because the pattern is to come back after a dormancy period, and the problems with the information he adds are generally not immediately obvious, I am summarizing here so any readers know what serves as a signature that this person has returned. Pinging Seppi333 to make sure you see this too, as his preferred subject is your area of expertise.
The individual:
-Adds references to work of Serge Wunsch.
-Adds diagrams uploaded to Commons by Yohan Castel.
-Really likes talking about the evolution of neurobiology.
-Contrasts animal with human sexuality.
-Usually brings up rodents, lordosis, and pheromones.
-Has apparently used the accounts Yohan Castel, Castel Yohan, and JaKomensky, as well as an IP from France.
-May appear with a new account or IP; the behavioral tells listed above will give him away.
If anyone reading this runs into material added by this person, per the discussion that took place in this section, it should probably be removed. If the person seems to have come back, it would be helpful to post on this talk page so the same people who saw this discussion will know. Reopening the SPI case may also be a good idea in that situation.
Hope this is helpful. -Crossroads- ( talk) 02:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC) minor change because of additional info added below -Crossroads- ( talk) 06:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
For ease of study, here are the relevant details from the SPI case:
These accounts are all obsessed with adding very similar, poorly sourced, synthesized material on neurobiology to sex articles. [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] This material discusses the same things - rodents, lordosis, pheromones, then evolution into hominids, rewards, cognition, culture. These accounts use the same sources, especially promoting the work and even doctoral thesis [22] [23] of Serge Wunsch, an obscure researcher who gets almost no cites other than from himself [24] and has zero publications on PubMed. [25] The accounts also use the same pictures, uploaded to Commons by Yohan Castel. [26] The many problems with the material added by these accounts are discussed here: [27] [28] [29] Yohan Castel faced criticism and pushback from other editors for his material; [30] [31] when JaKomensky appeared, one of those editors suspected him of not being new, but JaKomensky did not admit any previous account. [32] It seems clear that the name changing is an attempt to evade scrutiny and to make it appear that there is greater support for certain ideas. Yohan Castel has been adding the same bad material, and more, extensively to French Wikipedia, including the very fringe idea that sexual orientation is learned, [33] and has been active there up until last year. [34] Additionally, some of Yohan Castel's pictures appear to be copyvios of Wunsch's work (for just one example, compare [35] with p. 135-136 of [36]) and he has committed copyvios 3 times before. [37]
And the recent in-depth discussion of the problems with the material added by these accounts can be found here:
1st discussion (above on this page, and listed in the SPI quote)
-Crossroads- ( talk) 06:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Also noting that this topic had been brought in August to the fringe theory noticeboard, and an uninvolved editor there agreed on the basis of the first two discussions about this material that Wunsch was considered fringe and that the points above could help detect future sock puppets. -Crossroads- ( talk) 00:57, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
The problem with this is that the policy on fringe is intended to cover that which isn't supported by at least some peer-reviewed published research. Here, what we have is a minority view that is supported by peer-reviewed research which was published in a reputable journal and reported on by the mainstream media. The fact that it is a single study doesn't make it fringe- it makes it a minority viewpoint thus far. This is in line with WP:NPOV . To attempt to say otherwise is likely borne out of inappropriate political motivation, given the subject matter. Also, attribution is appropriate because it is not "mainstream consensus" - there is no mainstream consensus on human sexuality in terms of psychology, rather there are several broad psychological theories pertaining to human sexuality. (i.e. Freudian theory, Gessalt Theory, etc.) These theroies tend not to agree on certain points, and the cause of homosexuality is a major point of disagreement. Those interested may want to study this in more detail before editing. I am therefore reverting for these reasons. 66.90.153.184 ( talk) 03:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
The material on Freud's views about the origins of homosexuality in the article is garbled and inaccurate, and I would suggest that it be removed. That would include all of the following text: "Freud wrote that all human beings as capable of becoming either heterosexual or homosexual; neither orientation was assumed to be innate. According to Freud, a person's orientation depended on the resolution of the Oedipus complex. He said male homosexuality resulted when a young boy had an authoritarian, rejecting mother and turned to his father for love and affection, and later to men in general. He said female homosexuality developed when a girl loved her mother and identified with her father, and became fixated at that stage. Freud and Ellis said homosexuality resulted from reversed gender roles. In the early 21st century, this view is reinforced by the media's portrayal of male homosexuals as effeminate and female homosexuals as masculine."
Besides being inaccurate (for example, it completely ignores the fact that Freud recognized a biological predisposition toward homosexuality), I note that some of it is followed by "page needed" templates, meaning that no one knows what page of the cited book, Human Sexuality Today, that content is supposedly based on. It may seem unfair to call this content inaccurate and suggest it be removed, when I haven't proposed anything better as a replacement, but it is all definitely sub-standard. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 07:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
talk Apparently you did not carefully read and understand the point. First, I was simply throwing Frued and Gessalt out there for illustrious purposes. (there are many more theorists on the subject matter which are too numerous to mention, all of which demonstrates that there is no "consensus" in the scientific community on the subject.) Further, your point on Fruedian theory is moot, because most psychologists no longer accept Freudian theory in actual practice. Rather the point is that peer-reviewed research by one of the more distinguished universities, which was published in a reputable journal, and then reported on by the mainstream media IS scientific, even if it might be a minority position. - in fact the information reflects the 'lastest' scientific discovery on the subject matter at hand which renders the older citations to be scientifically incorrect information. Last time I checked Wikipedia is supposed to be factually based, with a Neutral point of view. The fact remains that you are attempting to call something "substandard" which is cutting-edge science merely because you disagree with it for your own political reasons, which i highly suspect as your motivation. Therefore, given what WP:Fringe and WP:NPOV clearly state about this your arguments boarder on the clearly frivolous. Therefore it is again reverted for those reasons. 66.90.153.184 ( talk) 01:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
First, I was simply throwing Frued and Gessalt out there for illustrious purposes. (there are many more theorists on the subject matter which are too numerous to mention, all of which demonstrates that there is no "consensus" in the scientific community on the subject.) Further, your point on Fruedian theory is moot, because most psychologists no longer accept Freudian theory in actual practice.You just contradicted yourself in saying that Freudian theory helps demonstrate there is no scientific consensus in one sentence, then in the next admitting psychologists no longer accept it. There is a scientific consensus that Freud was wrong. -Crossroads- ( talk) 02:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I plan on creating a new article called “Sexuality under Colonialism” because colonialism has shaped the way we think about every part of society, including sexual relations. This new article will be important in helping people understand that pervasive norms about sexuality are neither inevitable nor natural. Rather, cultural ideas surrounding sexuality are incredibly diverse across time and space, and it is crucial that people have access to knowledge about what is possible, despite historical erasure. Here are some potential sources:
Staff. “Africa Must Decolonise the Violent Patriarchy Solidified by White Colonialism.” The Black Youth Project, May 17, 2018. http://blackyouthproject.com/africa-must-decolonise-the-violent-patriarchy-solidified-by-white-colonialism/. This source will help me understand how colonization brought western concepts about gender roles to colonized countries and how these ideas impacted relationships between men and women for years to come. It will help me learn how power dynamics within sexual and romantic relationships transformed before and after colonization.
Gill, Colin. “Transcending the Binary: Gender and Colonialism.” The Radical Notion, October 31, 2017. http://www.theradicalnotion.com/gender-colonialism/. This source will help me understand how western concepts of gender conflicted with other cultures that understood gender as more of a spectrum than as a binary. It will help me explore cultures that collectively respected non-binary people, and examine how these cultures were impacted by colonization.
Val Kalende, for Think Africa Press. “Africa: Homophobia Is a Legacy of Colonialism.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, April 30, 2014. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/30/africa-homophobia-legacy-colonialism. This source will help me understand how homosexual relationships were stigmatized in some countries as a result of colonization. It will help me explore to what extent heteronormativity was a colonial import.
Cogswell, Betty E. "Variant Family Forms and Life Styles: Rejection of the Traditional Nuclear Family." The Family Coordinator 24, no. 4 (1975): 391-406. doi:10.2307/583026. This source will help me understand the possibilities of families beyond a family unit tied together by marriage. For example, it used to be customary in many cultures for a child to be raised by a community.
Here is the link to my Sandbox: /info/en/?search=User:HappyGourd/sandbox
My sandbox includes a much more extensive list of potential sources I will be drawing from. HappyGourd ( talk) 06:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
The article is impressive as a broad subject, and you do a very good job of having an introductory paragraph for a person who wants to learn about Human Sexuality without having to go super deep into Wikipedia. I would suggest working on adding links to the sections you improved and the new ones you added as well as making your contributions a bit deeper than just a paragraph. It would be useful if you rethought the organization of certain sections and see if they really belong in the Human Sexuality article or should be contributions to other articles. Wuchrist ( talk) 19:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
I find it confusing that the only references to infant sexuality come from psychoanalysis which is pseudoscientific. This section should be expanded to at least include its criticisms. 190.97.33.144 ( talk) 05:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
It is known that the Holy Bible and the Church Fathers included sexual drive in the list of mortal sins. As I was confused by lack of this important information I decided to add it to the appropriate section of the article ( Human sexuality#Religious sexual morality). At first EvergreenFir reduced WP:NOR to the absurd by equating quotations with Original Reseach, and consequently removed them. After I had adduced confirming sources, Crossroads removed my revision again citing WP:RS AGE. It is incorrect because the directions of the Church Fathers ( sacred tradition) are reliable forever and cannot become obsolete or outdated in the Eastern Orthodox Church which has no "revisionist" principles, such as ex cathedra and Papal infallibility. Moreover, old sources written by the Holy Fathers are considered to be more reliable and God-inspired than contemporary writings:
According to the teaching of the Fathers, the only kind of monastic life appropriate for our age is a life under the guidance of the Holy Fathers’ writings with the advice of experienced, living monks. But even this advice must be checked against the writings of the Fathers. The Fathers of the first centuries of the Church suggested that one find a God-inspired guide and submit oneself to him in complete, unconditional obedience. The called this the shortest path, which it is, the surest, the one most beloved by God. However, the Fathers who lived a thousand years after the coming of Christ, while repeating the advice of the early Fathers, already complained about the scarcity of God-inspired guides and the appearance of many false teachers. As a solution, they recommended a monk who was guided by the Scriptures and the Holy Fathers. The Fathers closest to our own time consider true God-inspired elders to be a thing of the past, and more decisively recommended the guidance of the Holy Scriptures and the carefully considered advice of contemporary monks, but only with the most careful scrutiny of their advice in the light of the same Scriptures.
— Ignatius Brianchaninov, "My Lament", The Field: Cultivating Salvation. Complete works of St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, Vol. I. Translated by Nicholas Kotar. Holy Trinity Monastery, 2016, pp. 333-334
The same can be said of the argument "Excessive use of WP:PRIMARY sources". This rule has nothing to do with the tenets of religious (Orthodox) faith wherein canonised ("primary") sources are admitted to be infallible. The argument "As [for] a non-English source, it's less than ideal since there is no shortage of English sources on this topic" seems unsound, too: 1) the Eastern Orthodox Church is not English-speaking; 2) information with a non-English source is better than lack of information; 3) nothing prohibits you from adding more "ideal" sources instead of removing information. Similarly, Pepperbeast removed my quotations as soon as I added them to the main article ( Religion and sexuality). Such actions seem to be censorship determined by disagreements between Eastern and Western Christianity on sexuality matters. In contrast to the Catholic Church, Eastern Christianity does not proclaim that " sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure" ( Catechism of the Catholic Church 2362), with it being "noble and worthy" (Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World of Today, no. 49: AAS 58 (1966), 1070). In order to avoid one-sidedness when examining Christian views on sexuality, we have to create an appropriate section and place information there. -- Puszczanin ( talk) 14:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
This is why I oppose your and EvergreenFir's attempt to convert Wikipedia into a theological seminary which you create when replacing exposition of a religious doctrine by citing scholarly literature.truly astounding, given that I had nothing to do with the edit you complained about. As for User:EvergreenFir, he was following Wikipedia policies and cited them for your benefit. Asking for contemporary sources for contemporary religious doctrine is not even close to converting Wikipedia into a theological seminary. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 11:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Is there a section or article for the sexuality of young adults? The sexuality and age section only has sections for children and the elderly. Anyway... [40] 21:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ceelise.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 00:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 June 2019 and 31 July 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mgammon.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 22:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 5 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): HappyGourd. Peer reviewers: Ennis Architect, Wuchrist.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 22:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 17 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kev1nmcnulty99, Kevin Mcnulty909. Peer reviewers: Carolyn15.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 22:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
@ Crossroads: A recent (07:34, 25 January 2022 ) edit removed a large amount of material that belonged in other articles, but in the process it removed {{ main}} templates from several sections. I don't know whether that was deliberate or inadvertent, but I don't see any obvious reason for the removal of the {{ main}} templates. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 13:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Someone vandalized the beginning of the article. Seeing as I can't remove it, it has to be a hack. Please have someone come fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.140.85.143 ( talk) 03:21, 10 February 2007
I reverted Ideafarmcity's edit that focused on reproduction for the lead sentence. I reverted because human sexuality is not solely or even mainly about reproducing, as should be clear from simply looking at the article. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 00:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Furthermore, the drive to reproduce is generally believed by researchers today to no longer be an innate quality in humans, but rather a learned quality among humans. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 00:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Ideafarmcity, you can WP:Edit war on this matter as much as you like...until you are WP:Blocked, but your text will not be staying, especially since there are no WP:Reliable sources to support it. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 01:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Ideafarmcity, this is my last time responding to you about this, especially since you are not engaging on the talk page. Your text is not supported by WP:Reliable sources. WP:Verifiability is policy. This is why I added sourced definitional material. There are no sources, absolutely zero, that define human sexuality as "behaviors and experiences that result directly from the human reproduction system. The term embraces copulation, marriage, and gender roles, as well as behaviors and experiences that do not involve pregnancy, childbirth, or the raising of children. The term is also used more narrowly to refer to erotic experiences."
So if you re-add that piece or anything similar to it, this matter will be going to a noticeboard. I do not have the time nor patience to play around on this topic. And by "play around," I mean entertain your edits. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 02:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
To whom it may concern, I also added "or the way people experience and express themselves as sexual beings" with two reliable sources supporting it. I would have preferred to retain "is the capacity of humans to have erotic experiences and responses" for the lead sentence, since it is clearer and is not redundant by stating "sexuality is being sexual," but significantly fewer sources use that wording. The sources more often state "the way people experience and express themselves as sexual beings," or they define human sexuality in some other broad way. If no one beats me to it, I will likely remove "the quality of being sexual" and simply stick with "or the way people experience and express themselves as sexual beings." Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 03:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
None of the sources on human sexuality focus on sexual reproduction, except for naming it as an aspect; in fact, they go out of their way to make it clear that human sexuality is significantly broader than sexual reproduction. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 03:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Sangdeboeuf, regarding this, see what I stated above. I stated, "I also added 'or the way people experience and express themselves as sexual beings' with two reliable sources supporting it. I would have preferred to retain 'is the capacity of humans to have erotic experiences and responses' for the lead sentence, since it is clearer and is not redundant by stating 'sexuality is being sexual,' but significantly fewer sources use that wording. The sources more often state 'the way people experience and express themselves as sexual beings,' or they define human sexuality in some other broad way. If no one beats me to it, I will likely remove 'the quality of being sexual' and simply stick with 'or the way people experience and express themselves as sexual beings'."
So I obviously agree with you removing the "the quality of being sexual" part. You asked "what is a sexual being?" The line after the initial sentence states, "This involves biological, erotic, physical, emotional, social, or spiritual feelings and behaviors." It's supported by two reliable sources, and the sources are not limiting human sexuality simply to sexual acts. So I removed your "explain" tag. If you have a better idea for the first and/or second sentence with reliable sources, then I'm open to hearing it, but like this 2009 "Human Sexuality: Biological, Psychological, and Cultural Perspectives" source, from Taylor & Francis, pages 32–42, states, human sexuality is a broad term that lacks a precise definition. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 18:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Changed "as sexual beings" to "sexually." Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 18:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Of course, right now we have the Human sexuality article stating "is the way people experience and express themselves sexually" and the Human sexual activity article stating "is the manner in which humans experience and express their sexuality." And there is some article overlap. There has been recent discussion about limiting the scope of the Human sexual activity article. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 18:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://sciencestage.com/d/15250715/towards-a-broader-concept-of-reproductive-rights..htmlWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I reverted an addition by Adams1peace, not only because there was WP:Editorializing (such as "there is now good scientific evidence") and WP:OR involved, but also because the argument that women have not lost estrus is a minority viewpoint. I made this clear at Talk:Estrous cycle#Human female sexual receptive behaviour in estrous (permalink here). This level of "human estrus" detail in this article was also WP:Undue weight. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 06:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't look like any of the sources that Adams1peace included use the term estrus or are making a "women have not lost estrus" argument. The sources are talking about the menstrual cycle and ovulation. This is indeed similar to the discussion I had with others at Talk:Estrous cycle#Human female sexual receptive behaviour in estrous. Do read that discussion. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 07:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Update: The discussion on this is now seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Estrus in humans, and estrous cycle vs. menstrual cycle. A permalink for it is here. As that discussion shows, the topic is now covered at the Menstrual cycle article. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 19:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
[My original first comment in this section is below this intro]
Hi, Seppi333, I wanted to ping you again because some input on the situation here would be very valuable. There are 3 issues involved. 1. Are Wunsch's ideas fringe, and by how much? 2. Does the RS policy suggest he should be removed? (Remember, according to Google Scholar, almost nobody cites him except himself.) 3. What do you think about the possible connection between the accounts Yohan Castel and JaKomensky, along with the IP editor I mention below, and between these editor(s) and Wunsch himself?
Flyer22 Reborn has not suggested bringing back this material, but did recently suggest pinging you.
Taking the time to read over this thread and comment at the bottom is much appreciated. Thank you. -Crossroads- ( talk) 06:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
[Original opening comment:]
I removed the section on the evolution of neurobiology because examination makes clear that it promotes a POV - namely, that human sexual desires are largely learned rather than innate - that contradicts the scientific consensus found in Bailey et al 2016, LeVay 2017, Balthazart 2012, and others.
It was added all at once by a single IP editor: [1]
Its sources make this clear as they are cherry picked. Agmo 2007 argues that human sexual orienation is learned; this makes it out of step with scientific consensus. Nei et al 2008 and Zhang and Webb 2003 are about animals - original synthesis perhaps going on here. Wunsch 2014 and Wunsch 2017 argue similarly to Agmo, but are by a fringe researcher, as his relative lack of cites on Google Scholar makes clear. [2] Gagnon 2005 is a nearly unchanged reissuing of a book from the 1970s, arguing for a "social constructionist" perspective which posits, again, that sexuality is learned.
Incidentally, I have found that French Wikipedia pushes this POV heavily. Its articles on sexual orientation consistently argue that because pheromones and reflexes don't play much of a part among humans, sexual orientation is learned instead. I can't do much about this since I use Google Translate to view other language Wikipedias, but if anyone reading this knows French and wants to correct this, that would be a great help.
Information on evolution and/or neurobiology may be useful for this article, but this isn't the material we're looking for. Crossroads1 ( talk) 03:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
More findings in this case. The account JaKomensky tried to add similar material to sexual intercourse.
/info/en/?search=Talk:Sexual_intercourse/Archive_9#Neurobiological_material
JaKomensky and Yohan Castel must be the same person. Their pattern of edits, the info they add, are the same.
/info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Yohan_Castel
/info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/JaKomensky
They are obsessed with adding content about neurobiology of animals and how this evolved in humans, etc. They promote the fringe papers of Serge Wunsch, along with cherry picked sources and super old ethnographies to push their all nurture agenda. Like I said before, Castel/Komensky almost certainly has *ahem* a very close association with Wunsch, because their arguments are again the same and Castel claims Wunsch's pictures as his own on Commons.
I found that at French Wikipedia, this guy (as Yohan Castel) has run wild. (Use Google Translate to read.) Their article on sexual orientation says that it is learned:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientation_sexuelle
He created several superfluous articles that are obvious OR:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comportement_érotique
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comportement_de_reproduction
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Préférence_sexuelle
And he spammed the same fringe material on neurobiology across many other articles; here is just one example:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Position_sexuelle#Origine_neurobiologique_des_positions_sexuelles
I cannot stand blatant self-promotion, fringe theory pushing, and sockpuppetry. -Crossroads- ( talk) 06:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in responding. I'd forgotten to follow-up after receiving the first notice due to things going on off-wiki. Based upon https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Human_sexuality&type=revision&diff=766706802&oldid=765648895 and what I've seen in this image, I wouldn't restore that content. In any event, I'll look into Wunsch's papers within the next day or two to see what he says as well as look into those editors when I get around to looking into this more. I will make a few quick points now though.
Rewarding stimuli induce both associative learning (i.e., operant/classical conditioning) and motor learning (think: learning how to ride a bike) and erogenous zone stimulation is an intrinsic reward (i.e., it's rewarding due to being inherently pleasurable as opposed to a conditioned/learned association). Most people use the term "learning" in the sense of declarative learning (think: learning a fact). I don't see declarative learning/memory as having much at all to do with sexual intercourse; it would be involved to some extent in sexuality. Motor learning (which facilitates reward acquisition) and associative learning (which modifies behavior) are definitely involved in sexual intercourse.
Will comment on sexual desire later. Need to log off for now. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 21:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Just a quick comment to point out some corroborating evidence about the connection between Wunsch and the editor(s) here. Wunsch is located at the Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes in Paris, France. The IP who added the material in this article is from Paris, France. This on top of the fact that we know that Yohan Castel is French and interested in the same things as Wunsch [11] as well as the fact that Wunsch, Yohan Castel, JaKomensky, and the IP all make the same arguments using the same sources and using the same pictures. -Crossroads- ( talk) 14:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
pretty much every form of desire is “learned”, I did not mean to suggest that people are blank slates that have 0 preconception of reward at birth; what I meant was that all desire for specific rewarding stimuli (e.g., wanting a particular food, craving a drug, desiring a particular person, wanting to engage in a specific activity, etc.) is learned after birth. In the context of sexual activity, a person can't want to have sex with someone without the value of the perceived reward being updated somehow. That typically doesn't occur by having sex with that person; it happens by observing desirable characteristics (e.g., attractive appearance, well-adjusted personality, and other traits that one finds innately desirable) in that person. As described in [12], beauty is a pleasant sensory stimulus. That's one way sexual reward (specifically, the "wanting" component) is updated/"learned" without having sex with a person. If the distinction between "general wants" and "specific wants" isn't clear, just think of the general form as a desire to satisfy a particular biological need (a "homeostatic reward" as that ref I liked calls it) as opposed to a desire to acquire/consume/experience a specific stimulus. Reading subsections 1, 2, and 3 under the heading "D. What Makes Rewards Rewarding?" in [13] might help clear things up if there's still some confusion about this.
This is one reason we know that a child who is sexual with another child in a way that is child-on-child sexual abuse (as distinguished from playing doctor) is due to that child having been sexually abused or having learned of one or more sexual acts via the media or having witnessed one or more sexual acts.Simply knowing about a sexual act wouldn't cause a child to engage in a particular behavior. Any behavior a person elicits when they're not actively exerting cognitive control over their behavior is guided by reward acquisition and the avoidance of aversives. So basically, that child would have to find sexually aggressive/assaultive acts rewarding in order to actually do it. "Reward" is more than just pleasure and want, it functions as a "go" signal for behavior in general via motivational salience.
And many people have sexual desires for things without having had some sort of positive experience from it.As I explained above, one doesn't need to physically experience a particular sex-related stimulus in order to prefer it over others (i.e., want it more than related stimuli), but some form of sensory exposure to it or a sufficiently similar stimulus is necessary for that to happen. There's a lot more to how changes in incentive salience for specific stimuli occur, but it's very abstract and I'd prefer not to go into it here (see reward cross-sensitization and Pavlovian-instrumental transfer if you're curious). Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 07:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
What causes paraphilias is still up for debate, and some paraphilias, such as pedophilia, do seem to have a biological basis. But, as seen in the Causes section of the Paraphilia article, "behavioral explanations propose that paraphilias are conditioned early in life, during an experience that pairs the paraphilic stimulus with intense sexual arousal. Susan Nolen-Hoeksema suggests that, once established, masturbatory fantasies about the stimulus reinforce and broaden the paraphilic arousal."That's not only plausible, it's almost certainly true. Conditioned rewards such as that are called extrinsic rewards and acquiring them (e.g., money) has been demonstrated experimentally in some cases to induce pleasure. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 08:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Okay, so I was hoping for more comment on the accuracy of the added content/Wunsch's ideas overall. Two papers he has in English are here: [14] and [15].
In the first one, his conclusions are: (1) the dynamics of sexual behaviour has significantly evolved from the anthropoid primates; (2) the functional dynamic of heterosexual copulation is very probably disorganized; (3) the behavioural dynamics that emerge with the hominidae — from factors that still exist in heterosexual copulation — would seem to be based on a quest for erotic reward, by stimulation of the erogenous zones; and (4) in humans, due to the extensive cognitive development, sexuality is structured by cultural representations.
And: In the Hominidae, in which all these changes and evolutionary features are brought together, the functional dynamic of sexual behaviour has been significantly altered. The only system that remains wholly functional is the system of reward associated with the erogenous zones. For these reasons,the neurobiological factors that have changed shift the orientation of sexual activity away from heterosexual copulation and towards erotic stimulation of the
most erogenous areas of the body. Functionally, it appears that heterosexual copulation has become ‘‘disorganized’’ and that the functional dynamic has evolved in favour of behaviour in which erogenous zones are stimulated.
In the second one, his conclusions are quite radical. He states: in Man, the behavior that leads to reproduction may be conceived not as an innate “reproductive behavior,” but as an acquired “erotic behavior” involving behavioral sequences of stimulation of the most erogenous body zones by a partner—no matter his sex.
And: In conclusion, in the absence of cultural values stigmatizing particular sexual behaviors (i.e., homophobia), it seems that the innate tendency to search for erogenous zones’ stimulations by partners, as seen in the Bonobos, leads to the learning of a sexuality that would in most cases be bisexual and diversified
.
Looking at all this stuff together, he basically seems to argue that while in animals sexuality is based on reflexes and pheromones, in hominids, it is mostly about seeking stimulation of the erogenous zones. Because of that, human sexual attractions largely come from individual and social learning.
Does this seem like a fair assessment? Is his division of "reproductive behavior" for lower animals and "erotic behavior" for hominids accurate or misleading? Has he really disproved the widely thought innateness (mostly) of sexual orientation in favor of learned "sexual preferences", as in this French paper? [16] While he is obviously not wrong about everything, I do get heavy fringe/crackpot vibes from his work (and also from the way someone is obsessed with promoting it on Wikipedia when he is largely uncited) - do you at all agree?
Thanks so much for looking into this. -Crossroads- ( talk) 03:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
In conclusion, in the absence of cultural values stigmatizing particular sexual behaviors (i.e., homophobia), it seems that the innate tendency to search for erogenous zones’ stimulations by partners, as seen in the Bonobos, leads to the learning of a sexuality that would in most cases be bisexual and diversifiedI've read a lot of dumb shit in academic papers before, but this has to be in the top 5. Some of the stuff he says is consistent with other sources – like
(3) the behavioural dynamics that emerge with the hominidae — from factors that still exist in heterosexual copulation — would seem to be based on a quest for erotic reward, by stimulation of the erogenous zones;, but that's also true for most animals – other assertions are pretty Facepalm. The reflex stuff is mostly nonsense since the act of engaging in intercourse isn't reflexive; it's just the positioning of the female during intercourse that is. The assertions about pheromones and hormonal fluctuations (e.g., animals that go into heat) is true for some animals but not others. He's basically arguing that all non-hominids engage in sexual intercourse due to homeostatic reward as opposed to pleasure while hominids really only engage in intercourse for pleasure; I don't even need to read the paper to know there's no evidence to support the assertion about non-hominids. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 09:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
|
Just to be clear, I think Wunsch's arguments in those papers are WP:FRINGE. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 09:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
A sock case at SPI for Yohan Castel has now been opened: link -Crossroads- ( talk) 03:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to comment on one last thing in this thread since I think it's worth pointing out. Nature vs nurture or genetics vs the environment used to be considered a duality, but the discovery/study of epigenetics made that line of thinking archaic. The environment can affect the expression and transcription of genes by altering epigenetic marks in humans and other animals and those alterations to the epigenome are heritable; i.e., they can be passed on to offspring. Moreover, the phenotypes - be it behavioral or physical - that those epigenetic alterations produce in the parent are also observable in the offspring. The inheritance of this type of gene-environment interaction is called transgenerational epigenetic inheritance, and research suggests that it is the mechanism behind the prevalent pathologies that exist in the children of holocaust survivors in addition to the distinct physiological or behavioral characteristics (relative to the children of unaffected parents) that are present in the children of people who survive famines or endure other highly stressful or traumatic life experiences. A very specific example of this in rats and the precise mechanisms involved is described here: Addiction#cite_note-54. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 08:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
The SPI case was rejected because none of the accounts have edited for the last 2.5 years. Nonetheless, because the pattern is to come back after a dormancy period, and the problems with the information he adds are generally not immediately obvious, I am summarizing here so any readers know what serves as a signature that this person has returned. Pinging Seppi333 to make sure you see this too, as his preferred subject is your area of expertise.
The individual:
-Adds references to work of Serge Wunsch.
-Adds diagrams uploaded to Commons by Yohan Castel.
-Really likes talking about the evolution of neurobiology.
-Contrasts animal with human sexuality.
-Usually brings up rodents, lordosis, and pheromones.
-Has apparently used the accounts Yohan Castel, Castel Yohan, and JaKomensky, as well as an IP from France.
-May appear with a new account or IP; the behavioral tells listed above will give him away.
If anyone reading this runs into material added by this person, per the discussion that took place in this section, it should probably be removed. If the person seems to have come back, it would be helpful to post on this talk page so the same people who saw this discussion will know. Reopening the SPI case may also be a good idea in that situation.
Hope this is helpful. -Crossroads- ( talk) 02:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC) minor change because of additional info added below -Crossroads- ( talk) 06:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
For ease of study, here are the relevant details from the SPI case:
These accounts are all obsessed with adding very similar, poorly sourced, synthesized material on neurobiology to sex articles. [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] This material discusses the same things - rodents, lordosis, pheromones, then evolution into hominids, rewards, cognition, culture. These accounts use the same sources, especially promoting the work and even doctoral thesis [22] [23] of Serge Wunsch, an obscure researcher who gets almost no cites other than from himself [24] and has zero publications on PubMed. [25] The accounts also use the same pictures, uploaded to Commons by Yohan Castel. [26] The many problems with the material added by these accounts are discussed here: [27] [28] [29] Yohan Castel faced criticism and pushback from other editors for his material; [30] [31] when JaKomensky appeared, one of those editors suspected him of not being new, but JaKomensky did not admit any previous account. [32] It seems clear that the name changing is an attempt to evade scrutiny and to make it appear that there is greater support for certain ideas. Yohan Castel has been adding the same bad material, and more, extensively to French Wikipedia, including the very fringe idea that sexual orientation is learned, [33] and has been active there up until last year. [34] Additionally, some of Yohan Castel's pictures appear to be copyvios of Wunsch's work (for just one example, compare [35] with p. 135-136 of [36]) and he has committed copyvios 3 times before. [37]
And the recent in-depth discussion of the problems with the material added by these accounts can be found here:
1st discussion (above on this page, and listed in the SPI quote)
-Crossroads- ( talk) 06:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Also noting that this topic had been brought in August to the fringe theory noticeboard, and an uninvolved editor there agreed on the basis of the first two discussions about this material that Wunsch was considered fringe and that the points above could help detect future sock puppets. -Crossroads- ( talk) 00:57, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
The problem with this is that the policy on fringe is intended to cover that which isn't supported by at least some peer-reviewed published research. Here, what we have is a minority view that is supported by peer-reviewed research which was published in a reputable journal and reported on by the mainstream media. The fact that it is a single study doesn't make it fringe- it makes it a minority viewpoint thus far. This is in line with WP:NPOV . To attempt to say otherwise is likely borne out of inappropriate political motivation, given the subject matter. Also, attribution is appropriate because it is not "mainstream consensus" - there is no mainstream consensus on human sexuality in terms of psychology, rather there are several broad psychological theories pertaining to human sexuality. (i.e. Freudian theory, Gessalt Theory, etc.) These theroies tend not to agree on certain points, and the cause of homosexuality is a major point of disagreement. Those interested may want to study this in more detail before editing. I am therefore reverting for these reasons. 66.90.153.184 ( talk) 03:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
The material on Freud's views about the origins of homosexuality in the article is garbled and inaccurate, and I would suggest that it be removed. That would include all of the following text: "Freud wrote that all human beings as capable of becoming either heterosexual or homosexual; neither orientation was assumed to be innate. According to Freud, a person's orientation depended on the resolution of the Oedipus complex. He said male homosexuality resulted when a young boy had an authoritarian, rejecting mother and turned to his father for love and affection, and later to men in general. He said female homosexuality developed when a girl loved her mother and identified with her father, and became fixated at that stage. Freud and Ellis said homosexuality resulted from reversed gender roles. In the early 21st century, this view is reinforced by the media's portrayal of male homosexuals as effeminate and female homosexuals as masculine."
Besides being inaccurate (for example, it completely ignores the fact that Freud recognized a biological predisposition toward homosexuality), I note that some of it is followed by "page needed" templates, meaning that no one knows what page of the cited book, Human Sexuality Today, that content is supposedly based on. It may seem unfair to call this content inaccurate and suggest it be removed, when I haven't proposed anything better as a replacement, but it is all definitely sub-standard. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 07:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
talk Apparently you did not carefully read and understand the point. First, I was simply throwing Frued and Gessalt out there for illustrious purposes. (there are many more theorists on the subject matter which are too numerous to mention, all of which demonstrates that there is no "consensus" in the scientific community on the subject.) Further, your point on Fruedian theory is moot, because most psychologists no longer accept Freudian theory in actual practice. Rather the point is that peer-reviewed research by one of the more distinguished universities, which was published in a reputable journal, and then reported on by the mainstream media IS scientific, even if it might be a minority position. - in fact the information reflects the 'lastest' scientific discovery on the subject matter at hand which renders the older citations to be scientifically incorrect information. Last time I checked Wikipedia is supposed to be factually based, with a Neutral point of view. The fact remains that you are attempting to call something "substandard" which is cutting-edge science merely because you disagree with it for your own political reasons, which i highly suspect as your motivation. Therefore, given what WP:Fringe and WP:NPOV clearly state about this your arguments boarder on the clearly frivolous. Therefore it is again reverted for those reasons. 66.90.153.184 ( talk) 01:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
First, I was simply throwing Frued and Gessalt out there for illustrious purposes. (there are many more theorists on the subject matter which are too numerous to mention, all of which demonstrates that there is no "consensus" in the scientific community on the subject.) Further, your point on Fruedian theory is moot, because most psychologists no longer accept Freudian theory in actual practice.You just contradicted yourself in saying that Freudian theory helps demonstrate there is no scientific consensus in one sentence, then in the next admitting psychologists no longer accept it. There is a scientific consensus that Freud was wrong. -Crossroads- ( talk) 02:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I plan on creating a new article called “Sexuality under Colonialism” because colonialism has shaped the way we think about every part of society, including sexual relations. This new article will be important in helping people understand that pervasive norms about sexuality are neither inevitable nor natural. Rather, cultural ideas surrounding sexuality are incredibly diverse across time and space, and it is crucial that people have access to knowledge about what is possible, despite historical erasure. Here are some potential sources:
Staff. “Africa Must Decolonise the Violent Patriarchy Solidified by White Colonialism.” The Black Youth Project, May 17, 2018. http://blackyouthproject.com/africa-must-decolonise-the-violent-patriarchy-solidified-by-white-colonialism/. This source will help me understand how colonization brought western concepts about gender roles to colonized countries and how these ideas impacted relationships between men and women for years to come. It will help me learn how power dynamics within sexual and romantic relationships transformed before and after colonization.
Gill, Colin. “Transcending the Binary: Gender and Colonialism.” The Radical Notion, October 31, 2017. http://www.theradicalnotion.com/gender-colonialism/. This source will help me understand how western concepts of gender conflicted with other cultures that understood gender as more of a spectrum than as a binary. It will help me explore cultures that collectively respected non-binary people, and examine how these cultures were impacted by colonization.
Val Kalende, for Think Africa Press. “Africa: Homophobia Is a Legacy of Colonialism.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, April 30, 2014. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/30/africa-homophobia-legacy-colonialism. This source will help me understand how homosexual relationships were stigmatized in some countries as a result of colonization. It will help me explore to what extent heteronormativity was a colonial import.
Cogswell, Betty E. "Variant Family Forms and Life Styles: Rejection of the Traditional Nuclear Family." The Family Coordinator 24, no. 4 (1975): 391-406. doi:10.2307/583026. This source will help me understand the possibilities of families beyond a family unit tied together by marriage. For example, it used to be customary in many cultures for a child to be raised by a community.
Here is the link to my Sandbox: /info/en/?search=User:HappyGourd/sandbox
My sandbox includes a much more extensive list of potential sources I will be drawing from. HappyGourd ( talk) 06:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
The article is impressive as a broad subject, and you do a very good job of having an introductory paragraph for a person who wants to learn about Human Sexuality without having to go super deep into Wikipedia. I would suggest working on adding links to the sections you improved and the new ones you added as well as making your contributions a bit deeper than just a paragraph. It would be useful if you rethought the organization of certain sections and see if they really belong in the Human Sexuality article or should be contributions to other articles. Wuchrist ( talk) 19:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
I find it confusing that the only references to infant sexuality come from psychoanalysis which is pseudoscientific. This section should be expanded to at least include its criticisms. 190.97.33.144 ( talk) 05:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
It is known that the Holy Bible and the Church Fathers included sexual drive in the list of mortal sins. As I was confused by lack of this important information I decided to add it to the appropriate section of the article ( Human sexuality#Religious sexual morality). At first EvergreenFir reduced WP:NOR to the absurd by equating quotations with Original Reseach, and consequently removed them. After I had adduced confirming sources, Crossroads removed my revision again citing WP:RS AGE. It is incorrect because the directions of the Church Fathers ( sacred tradition) are reliable forever and cannot become obsolete or outdated in the Eastern Orthodox Church which has no "revisionist" principles, such as ex cathedra and Papal infallibility. Moreover, old sources written by the Holy Fathers are considered to be more reliable and God-inspired than contemporary writings:
According to the teaching of the Fathers, the only kind of monastic life appropriate for our age is a life under the guidance of the Holy Fathers’ writings with the advice of experienced, living monks. But even this advice must be checked against the writings of the Fathers. The Fathers of the first centuries of the Church suggested that one find a God-inspired guide and submit oneself to him in complete, unconditional obedience. The called this the shortest path, which it is, the surest, the one most beloved by God. However, the Fathers who lived a thousand years after the coming of Christ, while repeating the advice of the early Fathers, already complained about the scarcity of God-inspired guides and the appearance of many false teachers. As a solution, they recommended a monk who was guided by the Scriptures and the Holy Fathers. The Fathers closest to our own time consider true God-inspired elders to be a thing of the past, and more decisively recommended the guidance of the Holy Scriptures and the carefully considered advice of contemporary monks, but only with the most careful scrutiny of their advice in the light of the same Scriptures.
— Ignatius Brianchaninov, "My Lament", The Field: Cultivating Salvation. Complete works of St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, Vol. I. Translated by Nicholas Kotar. Holy Trinity Monastery, 2016, pp. 333-334
The same can be said of the argument "Excessive use of WP:PRIMARY sources". This rule has nothing to do with the tenets of religious (Orthodox) faith wherein canonised ("primary") sources are admitted to be infallible. The argument "As [for] a non-English source, it's less than ideal since there is no shortage of English sources on this topic" seems unsound, too: 1) the Eastern Orthodox Church is not English-speaking; 2) information with a non-English source is better than lack of information; 3) nothing prohibits you from adding more "ideal" sources instead of removing information. Similarly, Pepperbeast removed my quotations as soon as I added them to the main article ( Religion and sexuality). Such actions seem to be censorship determined by disagreements between Eastern and Western Christianity on sexuality matters. In contrast to the Catholic Church, Eastern Christianity does not proclaim that " sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure" ( Catechism of the Catholic Church 2362), with it being "noble and worthy" (Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World of Today, no. 49: AAS 58 (1966), 1070). In order to avoid one-sidedness when examining Christian views on sexuality, we have to create an appropriate section and place information there. -- Puszczanin ( talk) 14:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
This is why I oppose your and EvergreenFir's attempt to convert Wikipedia into a theological seminary which you create when replacing exposition of a religious doctrine by citing scholarly literature.truly astounding, given that I had nothing to do with the edit you complained about. As for User:EvergreenFir, he was following Wikipedia policies and cited them for your benefit. Asking for contemporary sources for contemporary religious doctrine is not even close to converting Wikipedia into a theological seminary. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 11:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Is there a section or article for the sexuality of young adults? The sexuality and age section only has sections for children and the elderly. Anyway... [40] 21:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ceelise.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 00:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 June 2019 and 31 July 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mgammon.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 22:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 5 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): HappyGourd. Peer reviewers: Ennis Architect, Wuchrist.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 22:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 17 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kev1nmcnulty99, Kevin Mcnulty909. Peer reviewers: Carolyn15.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 22:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
@ Crossroads: A recent (07:34, 25 January 2022 ) edit removed a large amount of material that belonged in other articles, but in the process it removed {{ main}} templates from several sections. I don't know whether that was deliberate or inadvertent, but I don't see any obvious reason for the removal of the {{ main}} templates. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 13:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)