Template:WAP assignment

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sexology and sexuality Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Template:WP1.0

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.

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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 in this article, 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, where the material is unverifiable:

• 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 source poorer than the good secondary scientific sources that should appear (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 her (much, much less so for me, or the vulture-like flock-ins).

Regardless of the course taken, 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 assessments, and may be potential valued contributors in future. Bias against them is against WP policy. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]