Talk:Animal sexual behaviour/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Name of the article

Why "Non-human animal sexual behavior"? Why not just "Animal sexual behavior"? We do not have any human animal sexual behavior. Is there anything more behind it? Miraceti 19:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Humans are animals. "Animal sexual behavior" would include humans. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

There's terrible inconsistency in cases like this. What about animal language - why not rename it non-human animal language? Or a little closer to home, what about homosexuality in animals? There's not really any need to talk about humans in an article on animal sexual behavior - we're only one species. Having something about this at Naming conventions would help. It's a little problematic that there's no word for a non-human animal, but its too contrived and PC to name things this way. Richard001 03:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

non-human

Humans constitute very small subset of animals. So i removed "Non-human" from the title, but left a disambig for humans. Thanks. Lara_bran 04:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Pedophilia among animals

I heard from somewhere that there are no gender or age barriers for sexual activity among primates, but I'm not sure how accurate it is. Nevertheless, has pedophilia been observed among animals? I think that it possibly exists in bonobo society. Zachorious 08:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You might wanna have a look at the zoological or biosocial material included in Adult-child sex so far (which happens to be a very new article), as well as the discussions pertaining it on its corresponding talkpage. --Tlatosmd 13:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like newcomers to the article keep editing it out because nobody got around to re-name our article to anything like adult-juvenile sex yet. Here is a bit more stable version. --Tlatosmd (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

In case anybody is still interested in this topic, quote psychiatrist Jay R. Feierman, in the preface to the book Pedophilia: Biosocial dimensions, a collective work by the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality (publisher of Journal of Sex Research and Annual Review of Sex Research; see for their involvement with this book here, under the headline Researching "Touchy" Sex Topics):

[...] "most of the lay and professional literature, although voluminous, reflect a narrow anthropo-, ethno-, and chronocentrism that precludes any real understanding of the topic with anything more than the preconceptions of our times. The writing is anthropocentric because the topic often is discussed as though humans were the only species in which sexual behavior between adults and nonadults is found. The writing is ethnocentric because the behavior is discussed as though it were, somehow, peculiar to Western industrialized societies. The writing is chronocentric because the behavior is discussed as though it were a recent development in the history of the human species. All of these ‘-centrisms’ obscure the fact that the behavior is seen in other species, societies, and times and has to be understood within these broader contexts." (Feierman, J. (ed.), Pedophilia: Biosocial Dimensions, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1990)

Combining that book with the other scientific large-scale biosocial analysis of paedophilia by Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg 1985/88, it seems that consensual sexual activity between juveniles and adults deserves a similar headline as the one you're quoting in the article here as 1,500 animal species practice homosexuality. Quite a large deal of it appears to not be due to social incompetence or lack of access to willing adult partners as that hyena case cited in this article here makes it out to be. --TlatoSMD (talk) 10:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Bondage

Somebody please mention the question of this connection: Talk:Bondage_(BDSM)#Bondage_in_cats. Jidanni (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

I've boldly added auto archiving of threads stale for two months - the bot will leave at least five threads so the page doesn't empty. -- Banjeboi 22:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Citations?

"Hybrid offspring can result from two organisms of distinct but closely related parent species, although the resulting offspring is not always fertile[citation needed]. According to the definition of a species, If two organisms cannot or will not mate and produce a fertile offspring, they are different species[citation needed]. "

What the hell is this? I of course mean the two [citation needed]s. The first is explained in the sentence following this passage, the second IS THE DEFINITION. I learned that in 8th grade biology! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.253.124.24 (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Nasal sex

The Times article is definitely not a joke, the question lies if the exhibit is. Here's the section of the article.

'A model — the one that invariably draws most giggles from the exhibition’s younger visitors — shows a male Amazonian river dolphin penetrating another’s blowhole. “This is the only example of nasal sex we have in nature,” Brockman observes.'

The article does not say that the reproduced behaviour really occurs or has occurred in nature. I am very certain that Brockman is joking. He is not observing an occurring sexual act, but a model of it. According to the article he takes his observation from the model, which he comments as being the only example of nasal sex.

My bottom line is, according to the article, no nasal sex between real dolphins has occurred anywhere. If this is the case, please submit an undisputable reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Efnian (talk • contribs) 21:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Humans

The tone of this article suggests humans as being just another animal which I found radically humorous at first but it got annoying and distracting as I read on. There are too many instances for me to fix so I'm hoping someone else will do the honor. dearly (talk) 04:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• In response to the above comment, I assume that the author is of a fundamentalist religious persuasion and is therefore irrationally sceptical of the evidence that human beings are an evolutionary product. Their religious convictions of special creation restrict their understanding of the natural world and cause an inability to grasp basic biological concepts such as evolution.

All respective research in biology, chemistry, physics, geology, archaeology, paleontology etc. show conclusively and without exception that all life on earth, including humans, are members of a family tree. Every living creature on Earth today has at some point in the distant past shared a common ancestor. However this is a page about homosexuality in animals, so I would recommend that you read up on the basics of biology before returning to this page. Here is some recommended reading to help you out in that area;
The Ancestors Tale and The Evidence for Evolution by Richard Dawkins,
Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne,
The Human Genome by Matt Ridley

If I have failed to 'do the honour', I would appreciate corrections to be made appropriately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Das geordie (talk • contribs) 02:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe the initial point was that this is an article about non-human animals but the article mentions human beings a lot. That was what I took the point to be anyway. Nicander (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

anal

There is a section on oral sex (although its very short and mixed up with autofelatio (which should be covered as masturbation)), but do animals do anal?--86.15.153.179 (talk) 12:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixing

Exactly what i was trying to work out. The article states that say, for example, male lions have sex, but it doesn't say how. I assume anal, but it really is vague on this whole male male sex in animal thing. Please say how! I assume this is the way, but it really needs an explicit statement.IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 11:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Why does it need an explicit statement? The article starts off sttaing that sex takes many forms. -- Banjeboi 00:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Homosexual sheep section

It sounds like one study, which has been dismissed by peers due to obviously flawed methods and really doesn't qualify for a whole subsection. I move to remove the whole section on the grounds that it concentrates on the study and adds very little to the subject of animal sexuality other that "a studies shows a correlation between homosexuality in sheep and brain design, but other scientist pointed out why the study sucked and should not be taken seriously!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.153.179 (talk) 13:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Non-human animal sexual behaviour → Animal sexual behaviour —There is no substantive reason to use "non-human animal" as a term, let alone to canonize such a term by using it as a title. The ambiguities mentioned by the mover in his rationale are only technical, and not common, and in any case he appears not to have gotten consensus for the move first. Furthermore, the term "non-human" and "animal" are each alone sufficient, such that using both makes it such that the other is superfluous. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 07:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. "Non-human sexual behavior" could include plants. Some utilize animals to asist in reproduction, some have various other interesting reproductive behaviors (although this may be stretching the term "behavior". "Animal sexual behavior" certainly should include humans, as we are animals, too. I think the article location is just right. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: the move seems to have messed up the archiving of this talk page, but this has been discussed several times before. See Talk:Animal_sexual_behaviour/Archive_1#Rename?, Talk:Animal_sexual_behaviour/Archive_2#Name, Talk:Animal_sexual_behaviour/Archive_3#Name_of_the_article and Talk:Animal_sexual_behaviour/Archive_3#non-human.

I note that all but the 2005 entry are brief and non-substantive, and that you personally have been almost the sole voice of opposition —making your view plain. I often disagree with plain views, if they are in fact simplistic views. "Humans" are not "animals." Or at least there are thousands of important and compelling differences, some of them noted below. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 18:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I just realised I've caused confusion by forgetting to sign above. The Comment was by me, not UtherSRG. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 04:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Human sexuality | Animal sexual[ity] | Plant sex[uality]

UtherSRG, that the title "non-human sexual behaviour" "could include plants," is interesting, if the concept here were to deal with the subject of "animal and plant sexual behaviour" (pollenation of course, as you noted, is a case where there is overlap). But one problem with that conceptualization is there are differences between how animals and plant sex works, such that they are fundamentally separate topics that require separate articles. There is also the problem that "plant sex" cannot be called "behaviour." There is also the problem that a conceptualization of "non-human animal sexual behaviour" has overlaps with human sexuality, even though animals (ie. the beasts) don't have sexuality, but rather sexual behaviours. Finally, the terminology "non-human animal sexual behaviour" isn't actually scientific...

I appreciate the ideas of 1) being abstract such that the topic includes both animal and plant concepts, and 2) attempting to use scientific jargon to make a distinction, rather than the typical convolution, between what humans do and what non-humans do. But the term "non-human animal(s)" again is a convoluted term based largely in an equally convoluted notion about how scientific classifications are more accurate or correct or clear and that its terminology is likewise more correct or intelligent. It is in fact rather a misapplication of "science" to suggest that scientific classification should override common intelligent distinctions between whom we call "humans," what we call "animals," and what we call "plants." "Humans" are human, "animals" are not, and "plants" are something quite else, such that the active concept here "sex" has different classifications, ie. sexuality, sexual behaviour, and sexual processes, that are distinct among them. Regards, -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 19:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support move. Current title is awful and inconsistent with other articles. Propaniac (talk) 17:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
• support move back to Animal sexual behavior, with a hatnote This article is about sexual behavior of animals excluding humans; for human sexual behavior see human sexuality. --Cubbi (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support move back per Cubbi; to the extent that specifying non-human non-plant is a problem, the hatnote is the better solution. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support move back Though I'm not sure where this idea that humans are not animals is coming from, I think most readers would expect human and non-human animal sexualities to be covered in separate articles, and "Animal sexual behaviour" is an intuitive title. Cubbi's idea of a hatnote is good, though I'd suggest the more succinct This article is about the sexual behaviour of non-human animals; see also Human sexuality. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 04:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Chimpanzee rapes a frog

Have you ever seen this? it needs to be mentioned here, it's video evidence. and i think there could be a lot of interesting things that scientists might think of to say about this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVE60zwXx1k —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.98.35 (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Homosexuality is exclusive

Uhhhhh.......correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't homosexuality EXCLUSIVE same-sex sexual behavior? And wouldn't that then mean that male dolphins that engage in sex play together in pursuit of females are not homosexual, but bisexual? And how many of the supposed 1500 homosexual-including species are more accurately bisexual? Sounds like pro-homo propaganda to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.141.100 (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

- I know right? ~ Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.55.174.9 (talk) 10:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Found a bunch of pictures

At http://www.weirdexistence.com/very-naughty-animals/ . There are photos of cross species sex (or at least humping), like giraffe with donkey, deer with dog, raccoon with dog, and a few animal oral sex (mostly monkeys/apes). There's also a few pictures of confused/desperate males using substitutes. If I knew about copyrights and all the permission stuff, then I try to do it myself. Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 17:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Alot of those seem like photoshop jobs. Except the monkey blow-j, that might be a good candidate for this article, but that site shouldn't be the source. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 00:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Use of Snopes.com as a reference

I like snopes and use it all the time, but I was surprised to see it used as a reference for this article. Perhaps I don't understand their qualifications or the Wikipedia criteria for references. I would certainly have the same concerns about weirdexistence.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmigoNico (talk • contribs) 14:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Mating during pregnancy

Hi everyone, I'm from Israel and I'm a member of the Hebrew Wikipedia. I was asked by a colleague of mine to write here a question on a topic which we couldn't find an answer for. So we hope that maybe someone here would be able to answer our question.
The question is: Are there any known examples or observations of animals of some kind that engage in sexual activity (mating) during the female's pregnancy? Any example on this topic would be appreciated. Thanks, Rony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.229.106.119 (talk) 13:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

More analogues to humans needed

Please add Dominance and submission or some other comparison to humans at #Coercive sex. Jidanni (talk) 09:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Monogamy

Where is the actual section on Monogamy? The section with that title is actually Non-monogamous behavior.
Also, the non-encyclopedic long chain of references shouts of "Oh look! See how many references I found?" - How does one merge information from 15 sources to synthesize a sentence with 18 words? ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 03:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Roosevelt University's Brain and Behavior class

Working bibliography

Instructor's comment

4 of these references look like primary sources of information. Please continue to look for secondary sources of information. Neuropsychprof (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Preliminary outline

I. Introduction

A. What is Oxytocin?

B. What is the role of Oxytocin in humans?

C. What is Vasopressin?

D. What is the role of vasopressin in sexual behavior in humans?

II. What role does Oxytocin play in sexual behavior or humans/reproduction?

A. Physiological changes

B. Bonding for mating as well as with young.

III. What role does vasopressin play in sexual behavior of prairie and meadow voles?

A. Bonding and Mating

B. Promiscuity

C. Lifelong partnership.

IV. What role does Oxytocin play in Rat sexual behavior?

A. Mating/ reproduction

B. Caring for young.

C. Bonding.

V. What role does Oxytocin play in Primate sexual behavior?

A. Mating/Bonding

B. Caring for young.

C. Bonding.

D. Promiscuity/ lifelong partnership.

VI. Conclusion

A. Future Studies

B. Limitations of some studies.

C. Importance of Oxytocin/Vasopressin in Animals.

-What would happen without it?

References Kennett, J. (2011, October). Oxytocin: An emerging regulator of prolactin secretion in the female rat. Retrieved from EbscoHost: http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.roosevelt.edu:2048 Mario, G. (2011, November). Oxytocin in the medial preoptic area facilitates male sexual behavior in the rat. Retrieved from EbscoHost: http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.roosevelt.edu:2048/ehost/detail?vid=6&hid=127&sid=6e0d Ostrowski, D. N. (2011, June). Oxytocin receptor mRNA expression in rat brain: Implications for behavioral integration and reproductive success. Retrieved from EbscoHost: http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.roosevelt.edu:2048 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychmjr12 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Instructor's comments

• Group, it looks like you are starting to write before you formulate an outline. From what's here, it looks like you're getting too detailed before you have a sense of the overall picture in the literature. Part of your difficulty may be that you are reading primary sources of information. Find secondary sources, which are more likely to give you an overall picture of the literature. Consider also which sections of the article your project will add, and how your newly added info will fit in with the rest of the article.
• The preliminary writing you have above is suspicious for plagerism. Please review this Plagiarism handout. Always use quotation marks when you take something literally from another's writing (and cite appropriately), but please quote sparingly.
• I've edited your headings a bit to make your sections stand out from other editors' comments

Neuropsychprof (talk) 18:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Neurochemistry

Oxytocin, called the hormone of love, is found in the hypothalamus of the brain and is associated with the ability to maintain healthy interpersonal relationships as well as physiological changes during reproduction. These changes include stimulation of the mammary glands to release milk, and assists in contracting the uterus during the final stages of childbirth.. Oxytocin may also be the biological reason why mothers to feel a need to cuddle and protect young. Some studies have indicated that women who experience strong positive emotions also have an increase in oxytocin release. Vasopressin, also called antidiuretic hormorne (ADH), is another hormone found in Hypothalamus. Vasopressin is responsible for regulating blood volume and salt concentration. Oxytocin and Vasopressin are also involved in parenting habits as they contribute to feelings of protection and evoke spending time raising young.

Prairie Voles have a monogamous mating style. After a male and female Prairie vole sexually reproduce with one another, they form a lifelong bond. Montane voles, on the other hand, exhibit a polygamous mating style. A male and female Montane Vole fornicates with one another, and each goes off without forming any attachment to the other. Studies on the brains of these two species of Voles have found that it is two neurohormones and their respective receptors that are responsible for these differences in mating strategies. Male Prairie Voles emit Vasopressin after copulating a female Prairie Vole. An attachment to the female ensues. Female Prairie Voles will release Oxytocin after reproducing with a male Prairie Vole. An attachment to this male Prairie Vole ensues. In Montane Voles-- both males and females--such a high quantity of Oxytocin and Vasopressin does not exist in their brains when they mate. Even when injected with Oxytocin or Vasopressin the mating style of the Montane Vole does not change; contrast this to the Prairie Vole who, even without mating, may form a lifelong attachment to another Prairie Vole of the opposite sex, if Oxytocin or Vasopressin is injected into him/her. The reason for this is that Prairie Voles have more Oxytocin and Vasopressin receptors than do Montane Voles, and are thus far more receptive to the two neurohormones. it is not quantity of the hormone that determine social attachment, mating-bonds and sexual-lust, but rather the number of receptors receptive to that quantity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phineurosia8 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

What role does Oxytocin play in Rat sexual behavior?

Mating/ reproduction

Oxytocin is also referred to as the love hormone because it plays such a large role in all the basic elements of life; copulation, birth, care and bonding. Oxytocin is released during pregnancy and surges after birth of mammalian young. This surge allows the animals to affectively bond with their young, care for them, as well as protect them from harm. Rats experience dual motivations as we will see shortly. Studies have shown that without Oxytocin, rats will not experience this maternal behavior which shows that Oxytocin truly plays a role in the motherhood of rats.

Caring for young

Female rats show some interesting characteristics in regards to sexual behavior. Mother rats may solicit male rats to their nest after the birth of their young. Mother rats show maternal instincts most heavily right after birth much similarly to the way humans do. This is referred to as postpartum estrus in rats. The female mother rats will solicit male rats to the nest but at the same time will become aggressive towards him in protection of her young. This shows that rats can carry on two completely opposite motivations at once and that the male rate is just a neutral stimulus. This is true of typical rats when they experience the normal levels of Oxytocin. However if the rat is given injections of an Oxytocin antagonist, they will no longer experience these maternal instincts (Kennet 2012). The lack of maternal behavior points to the idea that Oxytocin plays a large role in bonding as well.

Bonding

Studies show that bonding in rats is achieved through the secretion of prolactin. Prolactin also regulates a wide array of activities and feelings from stress to immunity. This prolactin is released largely after birth, during feeding of the young, mating, and the presence of ovarian steroids (Kennet 2012). This increase in prolactin has been shown to be regulated largely by Oxytocin.

What role does Oxytocin play in Primate sexual behavior?

Mating/Bonding

Oxytocin plays a similar role in primates as it does in humans. The levels are increased heavily at birth and are maintained through the feeding and caring process. The hormones also play a role in the ability for monkeys to soothe their partners. When the monkey experiences a period of distress, the higher Oxytocin monkeys were much more able to soothe their partners than monkeys who had lower levels of oxytocin.

Caring for young

Similar to any human parent child relationship, the role of Oxytocin in monkeys is much alike. The similarities between monkeys and humans are generally very obvious, and their care for their young is similar to ours. Oxytocin has much of the same affect, and most mammals experience these actions the same way. Additionally, there have been instances where monkeys have cared for human babies, and humans have cared for monkeys allowing for bonding to occur across species. At Brookfield zoo here in Chicago, a small toddler fell into a pit with the 500 pound gorillas. Much to everyone’s surprise the large gorilla picked up the toddler and protected her from harm until authorities came to help the child. This shows that the care that these apes have for their young is similar to ours, and also that the protection of young in general is a paramount part of their life cycle.

Bonding

The bonding process is also shown through the use of grooming, much like human parents and their children. Grooming, sex, and cuddling frequencies correlate positively with levels of Oxytocin. As the level of oxytocin increases so does the interest in sex, and grooming. While Oxytocin plays a major role in parent child relationships, it is also found to play a role in adult sexual relationships. Its secretion affects the nature of the relationship or if there will even be a relationship at all.

Promiscuity/ lifelong partnership

Studies have shown that oxytocin is much higher in monkeys that are in lifelong monogamous relationships as opposed to monkeys which are single. Similarly the oxytocin levels of the couples correlated positively. When the oxytocin secretion of one increased the other one increased along with it. Higher levels of oxytocin also showed that monkeys exhibit more behaviors such as cuddling, grooming, and sex while lower levels of Oxytocin mean less interest in these activities.

Recent research on oxytocin’s role in the animal brain suggests that it plays less of a role in behaviors of love and affection than previously believed. “When oxytocin was first discovered in 1909, it was thought mostly to influence a mother’s labor contractions and milk let-down. Then, in the 1990s, research with prairie voles found that giving them a dose of oxytocin resulted in the formation of a bond with their future mate (Azar, 40).” Oxytocin has since been treated by the media as the sole player in the “love and mating game” in mammals. This view, however, is proving to be false as, “most hormones don’t influence behavior directly. Rather, they affect thinking and emotions in variable ways (Azar, 40).” There is much more involved in sexual behavior in the mammalian animal than oxytocin and vasopressin can explain.

Comments on recent student edits

I'm not knowledgeable about this topic, but here are some comments on the recent additions.

• Much of the added material is unsourced, and should be sourced. There is a long string of references at the end of the added material -- the references should be added specifically to the sentences or paragraphs they support.
• Overall the additions have good material but I think are poorly organized and sequenced -- the reader has to read through the whole section to work out what is being said. For example, just looking at the paragraph about voles, it's very specifically about voles' behaviour, and the context is only implied -- I assume this is intended to illustrate the role of oxytocin in animal sexual behaviour. If so (and assuming you have sources for this) I would suggest recasting this to say something like "The role of oxytocin in animal sexual behaviour can be seen by comparing prairie voles to montane voles". In fact, overall, if I understand your material, the whole added material ought to read more like this:

  Two brain chemicals, vasopressin and oxytocin, have key roles in the neurochemistry of animal sexual behaviour. These neurochemicals have effects X and Y in humans, and related effects have been noted in some other mammals. For example, prairie voles ... but montane voles ... This is because of the difference in the number of receptors in their brains. In rats we see behaviours A and B, and in primates C and D. Overall it is believed that ...

  This sort of structure allows the reader to understand where you're going a little better -- the facts you have added are interesting but the reader needs more structure.

• Some stylistic issues:
  • Avoid capitalizing words like "vole", "hypothalamus", and "oxytocin".
  • Section titles should be declarative: "The role of oxytocin" rather than "What role does oxytocin play...?"
  • Avoid "here in Chicago"; this is meaningless to a reader, who knows nothing about the author(s) of the article. Just use "in Chicago".
  • Try for an encyclopedic tone -- for example, rather than "Much to everyone's surprise", which is how a journalist might phrase it, say "Surprisingly".

Overall this is a good start, but it's rather choppy at the moment, it needs sourcing, and it needs a little more structure. I hope this is helpful; any questions, please leave a note here or on my talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Peer Feedback 1

I think the beginning of the neurochemistry section is good. It gets a little confusing when you begin talking about prairie voles etc. I understand what your talking about because of class but for another reader it might be helpful to better explain that section. R.EEGbrittry (talk) 19:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Peer Feedback 2

A lot of good and useful information on this page! The format used for the roles of Oxytocin has a good flow.

where is that same section, but for Vasopressin? It was introduced, but didn't see anything about its roles, if any.

Also, I would have made "Promiscuity/lifelong partner" their own section.

e.g. Promiscuity could include sub categories like "prostitution", and if Oxytocin or Vaspressin has any role in it.

good luck fellow class mates!

(ThatsSoAleks (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC))

Peer Feedback 3 From Bpetersenroosevelt

• Your outline of information is very clean, nice transitions between topics and logical flow
• The first sentence on Oxytocin doesn't seem to fit with the general voice used on Wikipedia. Something along the lines of "Oxytocin, sometimes referenced as..." Or just simply link to the Oxytocin page.
• Also, avoiding titling your pages with questions, again it doesn't seem to follow the general Wikipedian standards
• Some of your sentences also draw rather pointed conclusions that should be avoided: "which shows that Oxytocin truly plays a role..." No study ever "truly shows" anything, and I would definitely caution against making such statements in the article.
• FInally, there is a rather significant lack of links to other Wikipedia articles, which would be very helpful.

Bpetersenroosevelt (talk) 06:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Peer Feedback 4

The section on the role of oxytocin in mating and reproduction and the Neurochemistry section have similar opening statements. Vasopressin is alluded to throughout the Neurochemistry section but far more attention is focused on oxytocin. None of the other topic headings in the wikipedia article start with a question, I suggest "Role of Oxytocin/Vasopressin in..." to give some uniformity. Promsicuity/lifelong partnerships" should be its own section with the material prepared about primates left in place and the paragraph on prairie vole relationships should be incorporated in. Do as you wish, I feel the section is readable otherwise. Your section does not contain any workable links. Good work so far.

User: Funky3cold3medina User talk: Funky3cold3medina 11:30, 30 October 2012

Peer Feedback 5

I really like how you explain the role of Oxytocin because not everyone knows what it does and besides Wikipedia is meant for the general public and not for academics necessarily. The paragraphs are balanced and sources are cited well. Great job and I really have no criticism for you guys because I understood all of the information and for the terms that not everyone knows, you explained what they were and why they mattered! Awesome addition to the article! :)

User:Maryrus User talk: Maryrus 12:34 p.m. 30 October 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 17:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Peer Feedback 6

I understand the organization that is posted, but I feel there is not enough information for each animal to have individual subcategories. Possibly only having the subcategories "bonding, reproduction" etc. and mentioning the animals' roles within each would make more sense. Also, the Vole research on this topic is very important to understanding the role of Oxytocin and Vasopressin in animals. I'm not sure there is a need to define them seperately prior to introducing that research. The results of the studies help to define them; therefore the introduction can be either omitted or combined. If not, then you should include a solid transition from the introductory paragraph to the Vole research. As far as content, it seems that this information was well researched, but not well cited. A few of the citations are not consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines. Overall, it is a strong start to a wonderful article. With a few organizational adjustments, and more focus on the weight/influence of Vole research, you will have a well written contribution. I can't wait to read it!

Epottala (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Peer Feedback - Ryanfinn20

I overall found this whole article to be very interesting, especially in the comparisons to animal and human sexual behavior. Other than a few edits that have already been mentioned, it is very good! I like the organization alot too and overall style. (User:RyanFinn20 (talk) , 30 October 2012 (UTC))

Instructor feedback

• Mike Christie has great feedback above. Please incorporate his suggestions
• There's quite a bit of overlap between sections on rat and primate sexual behaviors. Recommend that you combine them.
• The subsection on promiscuity/lifelong relationships can fit into the mating/bonding subsection
• Please edit out irrelevant though interesting info. For example, no obvious relationship between oxytocin and the gorilla protecting a human child is articulated. If there is no direction relationship, then this piece should not be in the neurochemistry section
• You've got plenty on oxytocin. Do you have enough for a section on vasopressin?
• Present information about voles only to support the points you want to make about oxytocin & vasopressin. Remember the encyclopedic style is different from an essay. State your points then support with references. Be concise.
• You've got nice content. Now you just need to edit this piece to be encyclopedic.

Neuropsychprof (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)