Talk:Human female sexuality/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Rape fantasy and violent pornography

Konecat, regarding this and this, see WP:Primary sources, WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:Due weight. Why are you adding material that should have better support in the literature before it's added here, especially in the "Modern studies" section as though this is something researchers are typically studying (or have typically studied) with regard to women? "Some analysts have suggested" are just suggestions. And "there is a higher prevalence among women" with regard to what? If the text is meant to state that there are more women into rape fantaises than not, that is not supported by the general literature. If it's meant to state that there are more women into rape porn and other violent porn than there are women who are into non-rape/other non-violent porn, that is not supported by the general literature. And none of this material is based on WP:Secondary and tertiary sources, which are preferred over primary sources. And media sources are not good sources for academic material either. I suggest you read WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:RSBREAKING. If you want to add some rape fantasy and porn material to this article, there are secondary and tertiary sources that are available for such material. And it should go in its own section, something titled "Rape fantasy and pornography" or similar. If it's just a single sentence or a few sentences, however, then, per MOS:Paragraphs, it's probably best that it's not in its own section. Considering that we have a Rape fantasy article, most of the material on rape fantasy should go there anyway. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• You don't need to get so worked up over it. I thought it was fine, but your argument is stronger here, feel free to remove it. Regarding your comments on the sources see: WP:No original research. You're right in that it isn't really encyclopedic high-quality standard. But neither is most of wikipedia. I wish you defended with the same tenacity the inverted article. Perhaps I hit a sensitive spot? -- Konecat (talk) 01:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Konecat, what I stated above has nothing to do with "get[ting] so worked up." It has to do with informing you of how this site is supposed to work. I'm not sure why you are pointing me to the WP:No original research policy; other than the WP:Primary sources section I pointed to, it has not a thing to do with this discussion. And, given my many years at this site, I'm clearly already aware of that policy. As for most of Wikipedia not being of "encyclopedic high-quality standard," it's well-known that this site is not a standard encyclopedia; it covers a significantly wider range of topics. But for academic topics on this site? WP:SCHOLARSHIP is clear. Perhaps you have not been reading the high-quality academic articles on this site. And as for the Human male sexuality article, I revert what should be reverted at that article as well. Both of these articles need work, but I am not obligated to devote any of my time to these articles. I am not obligated to devote as much of my time to the Human male sexuality article as I do the Human female sexuality article. Given that I am female/a woman, which you obviously know (given the inflammatory parts of your above comment), it is only natural that I would be more interested in female topics/topics pertaining to women. After all, Wikipedia:Gender bias and editing on Wikipedia and Gender bias on Wikipedia are clear about men being more interested in male topics/topics pertaining to men and this, in addition to this site consisting of more males/men than females/women, having created an imbalance on Wikipedia. Interesting, though, that the males/men on this site are far more interested in female anatomy and female sexuality than they are in male anatomy and male sexuality. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

"Definition" section

LauraHale, regarding the "Definition" section you added, I removed it because not only is it not about human female sexuality specifically, it is just one definition. It's not like the World Health Organization is the only definition of sexuality. And as made clear with sources in the Human sexuality article, human sexuality is not easily defined anyway because of how broad the term is. I do at times add a "Definitions" section to an article, but only if it's needed and if the definitions are specifically about the topic. I do not see that a "Definitions" section is needed in this case, especially the one you added. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

About the opening picture

Please see Talk:Human_male_sexuality#Let's_talk_opening_picture for context. —Srid^🍁 14:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Removed image. Like I stated here, that image doesn't at all speak to human female sexuality. Yes, regardless of the pair being a heterosexual couple. Per MOS:LEADIMAGE, not every article needs a lead image. And this is especially the case when a lead image cannot be representative of the topic. If there is any image that comes closest to being representative of this topic, it is the Venus symbol that was there. This symbol is used to represent the female sex and female sexuality across various sources. I was also clear at Talk:Human male sexuality#Let's talk opening picture that, given that male and female sexuality differ in a number of ways, there is no need to try to have these two articles parallel each other. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree that no image is better. I'm not sure about the Venus symbol. Johnuniq (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

As I have now said over there, I have also come to agree that no picture is better. Neutral on the Venus symbol at this time. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

complex

Female sexuality is more complex than male sexuality.

"However, as Basson (2001) noted, female sexuality is more complex, variable and multi-dimensional as compared to male sexuality. Examples of differences include the women’s capacity for multiple orgasms, ability to feel satisfied with non-orgasmic sex, her menstrual cycle, ability to conceive and ability to breastfeed. Perhaps the biggest difference (especially for people under 35) involves the reliability and predictability of sexual response. The man is easily aroused and erect, the arousal is autonomous, and he has one orgasm during intercourse accompanied by ejaculation. The woman’s desire, arousal, and orgasm is more variable, flexible and interactive. It is also influenced more by emotional and relational factors."

Benjamin (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for going to the talk page. Which source is this quoting from? The first, being a primary source study, does not meet WP:MEDRS for any use. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

References

misconception

Contrary to common misconception, orgasm in women has typically been divided into two categories: clitoral and vaginal (or G-spot) orgasms.

"Despite a common assumption that there is only one type of female orgasm" Benjamin (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

This is also a primary source study. And it seems it would be important to note somehow that it says that the different sensations are from the different parts of the clitoris and what it calls the CUV complex - not separate systems in the case of the two kinds. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

This source is only being cited for the claim that it's a common misconception, not the underlying medical facts. Benjamin (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, but I don't see how it supposedly being such a misconception is WP:Due. Really, Wikipedia articles typically do not have a style in which they debunk misconceptions, and that should apply here. Better to just say the truth so readers remember that. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

To the contrary, it's somewhat common. The misconceptions listed at List of common misconceptions, for example, are also mentioned in their respective subject articles. Benjamin (talk) 14:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

References

That study is a very weak source for the claim that there are two kinds of female orgasm, as it is a "pilot" study based on three subjects. It is not a source at all for the claim that it is a "common misconception" that there is just one kind of female orgasm. It just states a claim, and gives no evidence to support the claim. --Macrakis (talk) 23:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

For the claim that it's a common misconception, what evidence would you expect? If you take a look at the list, only a small handful of the entries actually have survey data. For all the rest, it is enough for the source to simply make the claim. For the claim that there are two types of orgasm, what do you think of the other sources in the article? Benjamin (talk) 23:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that few entries have survey data. But many are backed up by multiple reliable sources explicitly saying that something is a common misconception.

What's more, to be a "common misconception", something needs to be a misconception in the first place. I am certainly no expert, but our orgasm article says "most scientists contend that no distinction should be made between 'types' of female orgasm." If this is true, or if the number of 'types' of orgasm is a matter of serious debate in the relevant research community, saying that one position or another is a "misconception" is inappropriate. --Macrakis (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Asexuality

I know there isn't even much on female homosexuality, but if someone expands the section on sexual attraction, I would like to see asexuality be mentioned. Paradox Marvin (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Adding see also links for specific parts of different pages

Hi, I noticed on the human male sexuality page there were 'see also' links for orgasm, erogenous zone, promiscuity etc. I wondered how I create a link to a certain section of those pages so I can add the same links for the female page here? Thank you Dancelover0800! (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Dancelover0800!, To create internal links to other pages, see WP:WL. However, a word of caution about "see also" sections. You should read WP:SEEALSO. In general, we try to keep such sections fairly short, and ideally incorporate those wikilinks into the page itself. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)