Jump to content

Talk:Human sexual activity/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Merge to Human sexuality

"Human sexual behaviour" is an uncommon phrase. Human sexuality includes both physical and mental "behaviours" and "feelings". Separating as physical and mental would be original research. Nowhere else on net we find such title, except wikipedia. Also lead section of the article is empty. We better merge it to human sexuality, you can refer to other dictionaries or encyclopedias. Article can be developed better if merged, it helps both in contents and editors attention. Please post your view. Thanks. Lara_bran 04:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is an old veiw #Merge. Back in 2002 :) Lara_bran 04:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This article should be deleted. It is clearly included merely to espouse positive views regarding deviant (in the statistical sense) sexual behavior. The simple fact "child sexuality" is a dominant section should indicate this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.254.2 (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Should be kept, as sexual behavior seems to be an encylopedic subject on its own, while sexuality can include data on feelings, on issues of drives vs. actions, and on other topics very separate from this article. A link to sexuality should be enough to satisfy. Aleister Wilson (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
An embarassment as it now stands and no name space distinction from the merge target. Current §§ 1.5,6 are especially questionable. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah, so the would-be merge target indicates this is supposed to be about sexual love/relationship which is what lead me here. Adjusting tags appropriately. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there seems to be a lot of confusion here, probably to do with the highly charged (repressed) nature of the subject matter. Sexual activity is an abstract concept and therefroe should first be introduced as such. It is a cultural concept although it has primary psychological drives and reproductive origins. What is and what is not "sexual activity" is therefore a matter of opinion and perspective. The biological and physical aspects of intercourse, as well as solely erotic behaviours (those that do not entail reproductive sexual intercourse) should be detailed in separate articles from the area in general, which in my opinion should provide an overview of the field. For instance, Freud's concepts of sexual gratification and development span the human lifecycle. Tantric concepts include aesthetic components as well as physiological (physical biology) and emotional aspects. Both of these are here sublimated to the mechanistic theory. I have added the word "psychological" into the heading in this light. LookingGlass (talk) 12:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Good source?

I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere, but this looks like a decent source.-Wafulz 00:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone for gay sex

The decision to redirect gay sex to this page was made some time ago. I did not have the opportunity to vote on that decision, but I would have voted against it. After all, oral sex does not redirect here. Both are a part of human sexual behaviour. Gay sex is nothing to be ashamed of and should be treated like any other sex act. Punctuallylate (talk) 10:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Punctuallylate

You seem to be treating "gay sex" as one act. There are a number of pages relating to various sexual activities. They are not, in general, segregated by homo/hetero sexuality (though there must be exceptions such as tribadism and frot). I think treating people as people is healthier, after all safe sex is an issue for everyone. --Simon Speed (talk) 11:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

"a partner who is physically at risk"

In the section on Safety and ancillary issues, the first risk item is "choosing to trust a partner who is physically at risk." I don't understand this.

  1. What is really being described here? What are the possible causes of this physical risk?
  2. If one partner is physically at risk, what is the safety concern for the other partner; how does that create a trust issue for the other partner?

Jojalozzo (talk) 04:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It's most likely a typo - "trusting a partner who is physically a risk" covers a wide range of sexual assault issues (assault, rape, through to injury and infection) which is a risk a person may sadly run if they seek sexual activity with a partner that they unwisely trust or don't know.
That said these days it could be better worded and in any event a list like this should be sourced and cited to an authoritative reliable source. FT2 (Talk | email) 05:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Section on Sex and the Law

Currently the sex and the law section only covers homosexual sex, but not forced prostitution, prostitution, extreme BDSM etc. which are also illegal in many countries. That doesn't seem to be NPOV to me. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Section on female sexual pleasure

I deleted information about the g-spot and clitoris that was not sourced and poorly written. I added facts that I referenced about the nerve fibers of the clitoris.TheSexResearcher (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC) I deleted information about the g-spot that was not sourced. I researched more accurate information on the g-spot going back to the original paper by Grafenberg and looking at the research up to the present day. I also researched anatomical studies of the clitoris. This article now reflects the current scientific data and viewpoints about female orgasm, the clitoris, and sensitivity within the vagina.TheSexResearcher (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Aspects of human sexual behavior

Where is the 'Male Sexual Pleasure' section? Are only women such a sexual riddle that they require a section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatcud (talk • contribs) 17:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

NPOV problems

This article takes a cissexist POV. The page for transgender sexuality complements this one but is specifically marked as transgender. This page makes it seem like cisgender sexuality is the norm and doesn't need to be marked. Can we fix this?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Minomask (talk • contribs) 21:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I have a lot of respect for transgender people and I know several myself. But I'm sorry, 'cisgender' sexuality is fairly clearly the norm and its completely unnecessary for it to be referred to with additional terminology. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Cisgender sexuality is absolutely not the norm. Saying so is cissexist. Minomask (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)minomask

It is not at all clear that the descriptions of sexuality do exclude the transgendered. It is the postion of most TG people that theirs is completely normal hetero- or homo- sexuality. When the article says "human" why should we assume the transgendered are not being referred to? In any case this "cisgender" terminology is not helpful. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Good point. To clarify my above point, by "normal" I don't mean there is anything wrong with being transgender, but that a significant majority of the population are not transgender. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"objective..."

"The objective of sexual activity in humans is typically to achieve orgasm" If the objective of sex was simply orgasm,given that orgasm can be achieved through masturbation,( even more reliably so for many women) why would anyone seek partnered sex? why would anyone take on the risks and costs? this seems logically false and needs to be modified —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.239.158 (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Combining religious and ethical topics is deceiving

The combination of religious and ethics should be reconsidered. The two fields are vastly different from each other, one based on supposed divine revelation and the other based on human reasoning. In addition to that, if ethics is understood broadly as moral behavior, it implies that religion is concerned with ethical issues, however it is clear the many religious organizations have no interest in moral sexual behavior but rather lead the way in sexual immorality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baumgaertner (talk • contribs) 06:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to fix it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

hh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.108.137 (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Photographic illustrations

This article is about "physical sexual activities", but the only illustration is a medieval manuscript. Is there any objection to adding more illustrations, and if so, on what grounds?93.96.148.42 (talk) 06:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I've just read the article. It doesn't need an image of sexual behaviour. It is too much of an overview for that. Articles on specific behaviours should probably contain illustrative depictions, though. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Descriptions of Human sexual activity

This article is about sexual practices (i.e., physical sexual activities). However it doesn't even mention most physical sexual activities, and most of those it does mention are only described by name with a wiki-link. This would seem an appropriate place to summarise, and link to, different sexual practices.93.96.148.42 (talk) 07:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The article does need more content. But what that is, I'm not sure. As the lead points out, human sexual activity is a lot more than just physical arousal and contact. This is an important and potentially controversial article, so please proceed with care. If you intend expanding it, look in your local medical library or search Google Scholar for textbooks on human sexual behaviour and get a feel for how much weight each gives to different sub-topics of the topic. Our article should reflect the emphasis the average textbook gives to each subtopic - sociological, legal, physiological, reflex, interpersonal, sexual practices, etc.
Most veteran editors here, and there are some very good writers here, would approach this project with awe and trepidation, and I strongly recommend you do the same. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

XKCD

The April 1st XKCD comic now sources from this page. It's about to get busy! The Simonator (talk) 10:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like fun! Trcarman (talk) 15:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Laws on sex outside marriage

In this edit, the opening of this section began to lose coherence and meaning. Later edits have tried to make something of it, but I wonder what the thrust of this section really is. There is certainly no need for it to begin with a short sermon on morality and permissiveness, no matter if it is sourced to something from the Atlanta Daily World dated 1983, so I have chopped some of that out. --Nigelj (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Cyberbot II has detected links on Human sexual activity which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://ebooks.abc-clio.com/reader.aspx?isbn=9781851095322&id=RELSEXE-h2-6
    Triggered by \bebooks\.abc-clio\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 03:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Race and sexual behavior?

Is it worth adding a part about that?MicroMacroMania (talk) 12:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@MicroMacroMania: There are several Wikipedia articles that discuss this (such as Racial fetishism, Sexual capital#Race, miscegenation, and African American culture and sexual orientation). Jarble (talk) 01:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:Class assignment

Vern0019, regarding this tag you added to the top of this talk page, what plans do you and/or other student editors have for this article? Often, it is important for student editors to discuss this with more experienced Wikipedia editors to ensure that the edits are in compliance with WP:Policies or guidelines. Flyer22 (talk) 02:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC) Flyer22, My classmates and I are new to wikipedia; we are in a Positive Psychology class, so we are looking at adding how sexuality makes you happy, and how sexuality contributes to your well being.Vern0019 (talk) 00:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Vern0019, this bit that you added to the top of the talk page is not an informative answer to my above question. You should keep that in your sandbox. How much asexuality content are you looking to add to this article? It should not be much, but rather a WP:Summary style approach, especially since asexuals usually avoid sexual activity (unless it's masturbation, or for the sake of a romantic partner, because they want kids, or because they are gray asexual). Flyer22 (talk) 23:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22, Hello, we were told to post some references that we plan on using to the talk page, so that is why it is there. Asexuality will be a small part, but based on studies, asexual people will still engage in order to satisfy happiness. We will be posting further text within the next week or so for it to be evaluated. Thank you for your input, we do appreciate it. Vern0019 (talk) 00:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Vern0019, yes, I gathered that you are a WP:Newbie. Thanks for explaining. I was wondering how you plan to add asexuality to this article. I am one of the main contributors of the Asexuality article. So I know that some asexual people will engage in sexual activity to satisfy a non-asexual romantic partner; I take it that's what you mean by "asexual people will still engage in order to satisfy happiness." Flyer22 (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Also, consider WP:Indenting your posts; I indented for you above. And since this article/talk page is on my WP:Watchlist, there is no need WP:Ping me to it. Flyer22 (talk) 00:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
As for posting references to the talk page, they should not go at the top of the talk page. You should either post them in this section or start a new section for them. Newer sections go at the bottom, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout. Since they are references you and your class will be considering, I don't see why they need to be posted to this talk page, though. Posting them to your sandbox, and posting a link to your sandbox here for review is sufficient enough. Flyer22 (talk) 00:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Vern0019, regarding this edit you made, which I tweaked, be mindful of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS) when it comes to adding information about a person's health. Also be mindful of WP:Fringe.

You stated that you and your class would be posting material to be evaluated; I took that to mean you would be posting the material in your sandbox and/or to this talk page for more experienced editors to assess first. Above, I noted that "Posting them to your sandbox, and posting a link to your sandbox here for review is sufficient enough." Jena1993 (talk · contribs), who seems to be with your class, added to the article and was reverted by Samtar with valid reasoning. Jena1993 re-added material and expanded it, and I tweaked it (as seen here, here and here); these problems could have been avoided had Jena1993 proposed their material here at the talk page first, by linking to their sandbox showing the text. Flyer22 (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

And this addition by Lexib82? I reverted because the references are not references; they are copied and pasted text. And, like other edits by this class, it relies on WP:Primary sources. Do read the WP:Primary sources policy. Simply adding study after study, especially primary studies, is not a good way to build an encyclopedia. Flyer22 (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

With this edit (followup edit here), I reverted FannyHager and Hyemmm because the text had WP:First person issues, other WP:Tone issues, WP:Undue weight and WP:MEDRS problems, and other problems. We should not be directly talking to our readers in Wikipedia articles. We do not need all of this material about asexuality or casual sex; those topics have their own Wikipedia articles, and we should therefore be using WP:Summary style for those topics when reporting on them here at this article. Per MOS:Paragraphs, a subsection heading is usually not needed for a little bit of material. Wikis are not WP:Reliable sources. And when it comes to health material, the sources should be compliant with WP:MEDRS. I am fine working with classes as long as they are editing well and are trying to engage with the more experienced Wikipedia editors about the appropriateness of their edits, instead of simply adding text to the article(s) to get a grade. This class is not editing well, and I will likely note this at the WP:Education noticeboard and/or at the Education Program:Carleton University/Positive Psychology (Summer 2015) talk page. I need help engaging this class. KateWishing, I'm pretty much currently alone helping out at this article. Do you mind helping to keep an eye on this article, including when it comes to helping with this class? I've been meaning to ask you if you didn't mind helping to keep an eye on the Sexual intercourse article, and the Anal sex article could also benefit from you keeping an eye on it, but the Human sexual activity article is clearly the sexual topic I need help with at the moment. Some of this class's edits can be restored with better wording, formatting and sources. Flyer22 (talk) 02:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

"Homosex" redirect page

Why does this page redirect to this article instead of Homosexuality? Jarble (talk) 00:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human sexual activity. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Human sexual activity. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Purpose

" Although the primary evolutionary purpose of sexual activity is reproduction" I think it is a poor phrase to adduce purpose in connection with evolution. Would "effect" or "result" or "driver" do, or does that have to be rewritten so as to remove the suggestion in different phrasing? Midgley (talk) 10:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human sexual activity. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Asexuality

(Moved from User_talk:TSP for wider discussion)

In an article on human sexuality, I'd have no trouble with that section, but since asexual people do not engage in sexual activity, it has no place in the article on Human sexual activity. If you wish we can discuss this on the appropriate talk page. Kleuske (talk) 12:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I see that argument; but I think the topic is already wider than that. The first sentence of the lead is "Human sexual activity, human sexual practice or human sexual behaviour is the manner in which humans experience and express their sexuality." This is already a much broader article than just physical acts of sex.
The place where I added the Asexuality section is titled "Orientations and society", and has sections on Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, and Bisexuality and pansexuality. If this page was simply about the physical acts of sex, then it might have sections on sexual activity between same-sex partners, and between different-sex partners; but these are different to heterosexuality and homosexuality, and certainly to bisexuality. Perhaps the asexuality section was overlong, but I think if we are going to mention that some people are attracted to a different gender to their own, some to the same gender, and some to multiple genders, it seems to lacks balance to entirely omit to mention that some people are attracted to no-one. It is an aspect of human sexual behaviour that some humans are not inclined to engage in sex at all. TSP (talk) 14:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
@TSP: Call me uninformed, if you will, but isn't one of the fundamental tenets of asexuality the lack of sexual activity, sexual practice and sexual behaviour? As in, asexual people do not engage in it? Not having sex, after all, can hardly be called "sexual behavior", though it would make a lot of virgins people happy. Kleuske (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Kleuske and TSP, regarding this edit, I would state that it is fine to include some asexual material in this article, but perhaps not as much as TSP included. It appears that TSP was attempting to do WP:Summary style, though, by including the entire lead from the Asexuality article. But then again, the summary does touch on important aspects concerning the topic. And, yes, Kleuske, some asexual people do engage in sexual activity; this is made clear in the Asexuality article, which I am a significant contributor to. Some asexual-identified people masturbate, and some have sex for the benefit of a romantic partner who is sexual and/or specifically to produce a child. Also, per some definitions of asexuality, the term/concept includes people with a very low sex drive; this is also made clear in the Asexuality article. The term may refer to sexual attraction and/or sexual behavior. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
@Flyer22 Reborn: If any of that were in TSP's contribution, I'd have no trouble with it. However, it focuses on the definition, study and identity, ignoring the main subject of the article: behavior. Discussing asexualiy as a sexual orientation is fine in human sexuality, but not in an article specifically focused on behavior. Lets call it a WP:Summary style-misfire and allow TSP to improve. Kleuske (talk) 13:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Kleuske, the other sexualities content in the "Orientations and society" section begins by noting what they are and then discussing behavior. So I do think that we should tell the reader what asexuality is first, especially since many confuse it with celibacy. And, yes, it is probably important to note that some researchers accept asexuality as a sexual orientation and others do not. TSP's material did include some behavior material, but I agree that an asexual addition should focus more on the behavior. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
@Flyer22 Reborn: I'd argue the other sections belong in human sexuality, too, and for pretty much the same reason. We're conflating sexual activity and sexual identity here. I've known plenty of affirmed homosexuals who engaged in heterosexual sex at some point. The way the section is phrased here, implies that the activity and identity are pretty much the same. Human sexuality is a lot more complicated than that. You're right, however, that if we leave these sections in, some explanation of the term is due. Kleuske (talk) 14:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Kleuske, no need to ping me to this page since it's on my wachlist. As for "conflating sexual activity and sexual identity," sexual orientation and sexual identity are related but distinct. And sexual orientation commonly affects sexual behavior, but sexual behavior does not automatically reflect sexual orientation or (as you noted) sexual identity. From what I see, the article is simply acknowledging that sexual orientation commonly affects sexual behavior/sexual activity and how people are treated because of the association between sexual orientation, sexual identity and sexual behavior. For example, sodomy laws are noted in the "Orientations and society" section. Sexual orientation is an aspect of human sexuality and therefore an aspect of human sexual activity. As is made clear in the Sexual orientation article, the article should, however, state that sexual activity does not automatically reflect sexual orientation. And I see that the Homosexuality section currently states, "It is possible for a person whose sexual identity is mainly heterosexual to engage in sexual acts with people of the same sex." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I know that and I should have used "orientation" instead of "identity", but got the appropriate terminology mixed up. However, my point still stands. This article is about activity and behavior and is distinct from identity and orientation. Kleuske (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
My latest point is that a Wikipedia article specifically about the topic of sexual activity/sexual behavior should include sexual orientation aspects. Heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior, and laws concerning them, exist, which is why the material is even in this article. Does the material need work and tweaking? Yes. But I see no reason that sexual orientation material should be excluded from the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Aspects? Yes. But I think we can agree that activity and orientation/identity are not the same. Engaging in heterosexual behavior does not (ipso facto) make you a heterosexual, and pretty much the same goes for other orientations (mutatis mutandis). So instead of summarizing the specific articles on orientations, I think we should focus on the activity/behavior, here. Kleuske (talk) 00:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Because of what you stated about there being "plenty of affirmed homosexuals who engaged in heterosexual sex" and per what the aforementioned piece in the Homosexuality section states, it is important to include some sexual orientation/sexual identity material in the article. It's also why the Sexual orientation article includes sexual identity and sexual activity material. For topics like these, there is going to be overlap. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
For the record, I would be fine with the current material being downsized. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Normal vs Common

I have been in a discussion with Jtrrs0 about the choice of words 'normal' and 'common'. I stated the former was quite contentious with regards to asexual people not being 'normal', and implications of negative sexual relationships and some prostitution elements that lead to already mentioned nonconsentual sex or whatnot. But more importantly, I couldn't find that choice of word in the source given, so after discussing with the user, I've agreed to change it to 'common' with a reliable source attached. If no one objects, I'll proceed. Barely made one (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I in principle believe that the change to "common" is unnecessary and that saying "normal" doesn't imply anything negative towards anyone, but if scholarly publications more regularly use "common" then I am no expert in this field and believe this talk page is the appropriate forum (in the non-internet sense of the word) to discuss this. Jtrrs0 (talk) 03:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
For the record, this is the text being discussed. I don't mind the text being changed to "common." Jtrrs0's above comment is sound, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I can't see that reference behind a registration wall, but I presume it's the same as this one and if so, this one should be used instead as it gives full text one click away. The GALE ref was added by a one-day SPA in 2013, so no point leaving them a message about it now. Mathglot (talk) 06:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Meh, I had a source prepared but I'm starting to think the change is pointless, as it wasn't my original intention to cause a disagreement from my initially conspicuous edit. At first I thought 'naturally' would be a decent word replacement, but it seemed to imply redundance so that's when I went with 'common'. Now I realize that the former is the better choice, since I'm planning on making more edits of similar nature to both similar and different articles on here, & I don't want them to be more prone to reversions/edit-warring. So I'll be changing it to 'naturally'. Barely made one (talk) 08:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

A physiological function is obviously natural...unless we are speaking of some sort of dysfunction or cancer matter. So there is no need to state "natural." In fact, "a normal" can simply be removed in this case. No replacement word needed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I've considered just removing it several times, but it didn't seem to flow with the rest of the sentence. I've decided I'll be changing it to 'innately', along with replacing the url with the above mentioned one.Barely made one (talk) 03:01, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Regarding this, I don't see how the content wouldn't have flowed just as well without "normal" or any of the suggested replacement words. "Sexual activity is a physiological function." is enough. But then again, I don't see why that section needs that statement at all. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
It's probably quite true that the statement isn't needed, although I can't think about any way to reword it without saying 'activity' twice, other than 'Like other physical activity, sex has its risks'. And I'm not sure if that's an improvement. But you could remove 'innately' if you want, I'm just a little preoccupied with other stuff. Barely made one (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Lead image

WanderingWanda, regarding this and this, like I stated, "threesomes are relatively uncommon. And since you cited MOS:SHOCKVALUE and WP:GRATUITOUS at Talk:And Then There Were None#RfC: And Then There Were None and racial language, you are well aware of not going with images that our readers likely won't expect. Wikipedia is not the place to be trying to combat supposed heteronormativity."

You argued that "[your] stylized image is no more gratuitous than the stylized image of a man fingerbanging a woman. 2. Sometimes an edge case is a better representation of a broad subject. 3. The fact that we should be mindful of reader expectation does not mean we need to be afraid of reader narrow mindedness. 4. Heteronormativity is a form of bias and we are supposed to combat bias."

Um, no. Like I stated before, this article is about human sexual behavior. That is why that image makes for a good lead image. The caption speaks of sexual exploration. And per MOS:PERTINENCE, images do not have to be exactly what the caption states. They only need look like what the caption states. The image looks like a curious man exploring. A threesome lead image is not at all something people would expect to see. And as for combating heteronormativity? Per WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, Wikipedia is not the place for your or anyone else's WP:Advocacy. The human sexual activity literature is overwhelmingly heteronormative. As someone who has extensively studied human sexuality topics and works in that field on Wikipedia, I know. Does heteronormativity suck for LGBT people? Yes. But I am not going to go out of my way to insert LGBT images or LGBT-related images at the top of articles as though LGBT sexuality is the majority, or even close to the majority, of the topic. It is not for you or anyone else to be editing articles to try to go against the mainstream. Like WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS notes, "We can record the righting of great wrongs, but we can't ride the crest of the wave." Every time we get editors doing what you are trying to do, they get reprimanded...whether via a warning, a WP:Topic ban or a site ban. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Yikes. Rather than trying to have a reasonable conversation about this, you're jumping right to talking about me being banned. An absurdly hostile escalation. If I thought the image was outside of Wikipedia's guidelines I wouldn't have posted it. "Human sexual activity" is a hugely broad subject and the current image does not capture that broadness. Sexual behavior covers straight sex, and gay sex, and young sex, and old sex, and group sex, and masturbation, and roleplay, and BDSM, and white people, and people of color, and prostitution, and a million other things, and the current image is, well, exactly what you would expect given Wikipedia's systemic biases: white. Heterosexual. Male-gazey (the woman is exposed and the man isn't). Etc. Was my picture the perfect representation of the topic? No. But it was better! The men and the women were equally unclothed, for example, so it's less gender-biased. And yes, it's better because it covers a continuum of straight sex and gay sex. You can go on about how LGBT sexuality isn't the majority but here's the thing: your average person does have something "non-mainstream" about their sexuality and sexual preference. Paradoxically, including elements that are rarer (like three-ways or gay penetration) actually makes the image more universal and a better overall representation of this extremely broad topic.
With all that said, am I married to the particular image I chose? No. As always I am happy to look at various options and try and work towards common ground. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 04:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Oh, one more thing, regarding this: The caption speaks of sexual exploration....The image looks like a curious man exploring. A threesome lead image is not at all something people would expect to see. If you didn't notice, when I changed the picture I changed the caption to match. (My caption read: Three people having sex together in erotic art by Édouard-Henri Avril.) WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 04:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I mentioned what I did regarding a warning, a topic ban or a site ban, because, like I noted, we do not edit like you are editing. We are not supposed to do that. And editors who do that have been warned, indefinitely blocked, or banned. Reading this editor's talk page, for example, it's easy to see how their advocacy to try to go against the majority or mainstream views on sexuality, and their penchant for adding WP:GRATUITOUS images when less offensive, equally alternatives exist, got them in a world of trouble. That editor, who disagrees with how certain or all paraphilias are viewed medically and by general society, was even recently blocked for returning to the same behavior after being given another chance. As many on this site know, I am against advocacy on Wikipedia. WP:Advocacy says it all. I don't see that I need to state more on that. One of the reasons that many editors respect me and trust me to edit sexuality topics is because despite whatever personal views I might have on a topic, I stick to the rules, including WP:Due weight, and I don't engage in advocacy on Wikipedia. WP:Due weight states in part, "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and imagery." The image you added is clearly undue. I fail to see how it is a better image when it is not at all representative of this topic and when engaging in a threesome (though a common sexual fantasy) is a relatively uncommon act. Human sexual behavior being a hugely broad subject doesn't negate the fact the literature is overwhelmingly heteronormative and that we should not go with the significantly less relatable image. Like Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Offensive images states, "Per the Foundation, controversial images should follow the 'principle of least astonishment': images should respect conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article." I've learned that any sexual image is an offensive and therefore controversial image (because it's going to be an offensive image to some people), but going with the less offensive image is key on Wikipedia. That is why our Wikipedia articles these days mainly use drawings or paintings for sexual acts rather than real-life photographs, which are always more offensive to our readers and get far more "it's porn" complaints. You argued that "your average person does have something 'non-mainstream' about their sexuality and sexual preference." Exactly what non-mainstream acts are you talking about? Where is your WP:Reliable source for such a comment? I can provide a WP:Reliable source for any sexuality claim I make. You argued, "Paradoxically, including elements that are rarer (like three-ways or gay penetration) actually makes the image more universal and a better overall representation of this extremely broad topic." No. Sex education is also heteronormative, but you don't see us falsely balancing that article with LGBT content. Instead, we include a LGBT sex education section in that article...while pointing to the main article on that topic. If that topic was a topic that benefited from images, we wouldn't prioritize an LGBT image over a heteronormative one.
Fingering is more common than threesomes. Also, since the man is barely touching the woman, the image is hardly a fingering image. And it's not labeled as one either. That the couple is a man and a woman is no valid reason to change the image. That the woman is exposed and the man isn't should not matter. And the term male gaze is thrown around much too loosely these days. Anyway, it's not like we are trying to show all types of sex acts or alternative scenarios in the lead. As noted at WP:LEADIMAGE image, it's not always going to be easy to find a representative lead image. Articles don't always need a lead image either. But if this article doesn't at least try for a lead image, then we will get some editor throwing one up there anyway. The current lead image is at least captioned in a way that speaks to the essence of this topic -- human sexual exploration. As for you changing the caption to match your image change? And? It's still a threesome image. You tried the same "let's go against the grain" thing at the Woman article. I noted there that "WP:LEADIMAGE is about trying to find a representative image. Sometimes a traditional or stereotypical image is more representative to the masses." Your issue is that you keep trying to "enlighten" readers or broaden readers' expectations. That is not what Wikipedia is about. We follow the majority or mainstream; we do not lead.
As for you choosing another lead image, you are free to post images here on this talk page for consideration -- preferably, per WP:GRATUITOUS, images that are not real-life images -- but I'm not sure that I am going to agree with any of the options you bring to the table. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I am going to agree with any of the options you bring to the table. It's the little things that make me feel welcomed and appreciated. :) (My suggestion for the woman article, for the curious, was a pretty fresco of some random women from a Minonan palace: about as radical and sharp-edged as a loaf of Wonder Bread. The image that was ultimately chosen, that Flyer22 didn't object to, was of a non-white woman engaged in some traditionally-masculine mechanical work.) WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 05:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Your suggested image for the Woman article was very poor for reasons I noted there and reasons anyone will be able to see from the discussion I linked to. As for this topic, I stand by everything I stated above. Stating that I'm not sure that I am going to agree with any of the options you bring to the table is not meant to be offensive or make you feel unwelcomed. It's how I feel due to previous interaction with you and having seen how you edit. We might be able to compromise, just like we did on this matter at the Vagina article. I wasn't keen on adding that image, but I compromised. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
That's true and I appreciated it. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 06:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The issue appears to be this edit to add a fantasy painting of three-way sex. That is not appropriate because (unless reliable sources say otherwise) the depiction is a construction by the artist with very little relation to human sexual activity. Sure, it's technically possible, but a RS would be needed to say it is more than a fringe activity. Johnuniq (talk) 07:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

A completely different approach worth considering: a montage of the various instruction-manual-esque sex illustrations that a lot of the sex articles have. (Missionary position, etc.). They're kind of ugly (err, with apologies to the Wikipedian who created them) and the people in them are exclusively white, but otherwise they could offer a reasonably broad and neutral visual overview. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 08:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:NOR there is no good way for editors to choose images that (in their opinion) depict typical human sexual activity. There are links to relevant articles and people can follow them and find as many images as they want. It that's insufficient, they can use Google to find anything they fancy. The article just needs an image depicting human sexual activity and that's what it's got. Johnuniq (talk) 09:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Regarding multiple images, some editors have interpreted MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES as even applying to cases like this. It states, "Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a photomontage or gallery of images of group members." In my opinion, that line is specifically about articles about groups or similarly large human populations. This is article is not about a group of people or a large human population. Still, I don't think we should go the montage or Template:Multiple image route. We try to stick to one lead image and don't want editors making a habit of having two lead images or a succession of images that descend in a row, which can cause problems. Going with Template:Multiple image or similar has more often led to image swapping and image wars than going with one lead image. I don't like when images are constantly being swapped by editors based on their personal preferences. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that the proposed image of a threeway is an improvement over the current image, or that it would be appropriate for this article's lead. Human sexuality is very wide topic, but the lead image (if we're going to have one) should be at the mainstream end and fairly tame at that. The current image is both, and has been in the lead for at least five years. I would suggest that any proposed change to that image should first be raised on this talkpage to see if there is consensus to make the change.
I participated in the NOETHNICGALLERIES discussions, and there was no intent to have that apply to anything outside of large population groups. Having said that, any article with a montage of supposedly illustrative images is likely prone to some of the same problems that led to NOETHNICGALLERIES. Such collections of photos are just an invitation to arguments over how many and which images to use. I'm also not a fan of them because the images are usually too small to be useful. Meters (talk) 04:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Here's what I'm going to propose: just 4 images. 4 different sexual activities. Decending order from most to least common.

Image 1: masturbation, the most common sexual activity. Specifically male masturbation because that is more common than female masturbation.

Images 2 and 3: heterosexual sexual relations.

Image 4: Gay sexual relations. Specifically, I picked a non-penetrative male-male picture. (Could be wrong but my guess is that MM sex acts are more frequent than FF sex acts. Also, I believe that non-anal sex is more common than anal sex for men who have sex with men.)

With just 4 images the montage shouldn't feel too cluttered or illegible. And with 3/4 of the images not being gay this should hopefully satisfy the handwringing about gay representation being disproportionate in the image I came up with earlier. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 08:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

What is the aim of all this? What reliable source suggests these images represent a typical and inclusive selection of human sexual activity? Regardless of that, the visual effect of jamming these four images into a suitable space at the top of the article would be very unsatisfactory. It's not going to happen. Johnuniq (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
And here we go... Which pictures? How Many? Who gets to choose? My pictures are more representative than your pictures...I also do not agree to this proposal. Meters (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Yep; and agree with Johnuniq above; it's fine as is. Mathglot (talk) 01:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Regarding those image selections, if we were to go the collage route, including a heterosexual couple in the missionary position is more standard than including a heterosexual couple engaging in a "from behind" position or in fingering. Yes, we have the current main image that we have, but I explained why above (the current image looking like a curious/exploring matter). Regarding the frot image... Yes, oral sex and mutual masturbation are more common than anal sex among male-male pairings, as stated or indicated by a number of reliable sources, including this one. But anyone stating that frot (not just frottage in general) is more common than anal sex among male-male pairings? That needs a reliable source. Either way, as noted above, I don't support the collage or a similar route for the lead of this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Alright, sounds like the current image is going to stay. I appreciate everyone who talked this through. Well, everyone who did without aggressively threatening me with a ban. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 16:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I did not threaten you with a ban. And regardless, I thoroughly addressed how we are supposed to edit on matters like these. Above, it's clear that other editors agree with me on that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Human sexual activity sidebar

Hey I made a sidebar because human sexual activity is a very important topic with many pages on wikipedia to link to. Check it out and edit what you feel needs fixing. Mangokeylime (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Mangokeylime, there was no need for that when we already have Template:Sex and Template:Human sexuality. It seems like you copied Template:Sex. Anyway, I can see why you placed the template at the top of this article, but I don't agree with this template being placed on the top of every sexual topic article. Really, Template:Sex at the bottom of the articles is enough. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
I ask that you don't ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:59, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Your argument seems fair enough. No need to splatter the sidebar all over Wikipedia. I will not ping you.Mangokeylime (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human_sexual_activity/Archive_2&oldid=928518271"