Jump to content

Talk:Sexual coercion among animals/Archive 1

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

Is "red bowlers" a typo?

@User:Marina ily92: Was "red bowlers" in this article intended to refer to red howlers? It appears that there is no species of monkey called a "red bowler", so it seems clear to me that this may have been unintentional. Jarble (talk) 02:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

That editor most likely won't be responding to you; he or she very likely created this article as part of a class project, which is what I stated at the Wikipedia:Education noticeboard. Those type of editors are usually never heard from again on Wikipedia after doing their class project. Flyer22 (talk) 02:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Cats

Mention male cats grab the female by the neck with their teeth. Jidanni (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

BDSM

Indeed all this coercion makes one curious if there is somehow a documented connection with BDSM in humans. Jidanni (talk) 16:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your point. This isn't about animals enjoying being wrapped in latex and whipped. Paul B (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Well I think he means BDSM as a mating strategy. The male ties up the female and there for makes her easier to mate with similar to how chimpanzees corner and rape their mates. For example:

"Wild chimpanzees can charge at females, shake branches, hit, slap, kick, pound, drag, and bite them. " We share most of our DNA with chimpanzees and BDSM uses hitting, slapping pounding and biting. Wild chimpanzees may have been the first inventors of BDSM. 24.239.124.140 (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Systematic anti-male bias in the article

The tone of this article is very misoandrist (anti-male) and anti-sex in general, implying in many cases that all mating is coerced by the male and physically harmful to the female, even when this is demonstrably false. Let me be clear, I do NOT condone sexual coercion in any shape or form (who in his/her right mind does?), but this article deliberately ignores the distinction between coerced and consensual mating in a number of examples. Specifically:

  • Grasping/grappling -- This is not always (or even predominantly) a distinctive feature of coerced sex, but in fact commonly occurs in the mating behavior of most species (including people), and occurs in a given species no matter whether the mating was coerced or not; in fact, it's only coerced mating if the female tries to shake the male off! Other false or unproven statements in this section: "The phallus that male waterfowl have evolved... aids in inseminating females without their cooperation" -- In fact, it is unlikely that phalluses of waterfowls have evolved specifically to inseminate females against their will (as opposed to the much more likely evolutionary advantage of making insemination more efficient by squirting the load much deeper in the female's vagina), and in fact the female's convoluted vagina makes her highly unlikely to conceive from forced mating; "Lock-like mechanism" found in dogs and pigs -- Once again, the involuntary locking together of the male and female does not, in itself, make the copulation forced if the penetration was consensual, and in fact the mating of dogs and other canids is usually consensual (the female being usually able to successfully deter or defend herself against rape); Immobilization of the female -- Yet again, this is not in itself a coercive technique, being common in consensual mating as well (including in humans, where in the missionary position the woman is partially immobilized -- despite which, it's very commonly used in consensual sex and not just rape or sexual assault).
  • Secretions/ejaculations (also just "Secretions") -- Once again, if the fluids make the female more inclined to mate or to be faithful, that makes the mating consensual, doesn't it? After all, in humans the man's semen also contains all sorts of hormones and prostaglandins that can variously cause the woman to experience pleasant contractions in her private parts, help put her in the mood to have sex again, get her to become attached to a particular man, etc., etc. -- but that does not make all sex between humans forced, and in fact in humans these factors play a significant role only in consensual sex, because they cannot by themselves overcome the psychological revulsion a woman feels for a man who rapes her against her will. Also, the formation of a mating plug often has more to do with making sure the fluids don't spill back out than with making sure another male can't mate with the female -- in fact, these so-called "mating plugs" can often be broken with some extra effort, and many species (including humans) have evolved penises which can do just that!
  • Costs to females#Direct -- The energy and time expenditure discussed there comes not just with coerced mating, but in fact is an inherent feature of all mating, whether coerced or not. This is so obvious as to not require any further explanation, and the fact that in many species (including humans, dogs, cats, horses, elephants, songbirds, etc.) the female plays an active part in attracting the male despite the expenditure of time and energy only goes to show that in those species, mating is mostly consensual and only occasionally coercive. Also, pathogens can be present in semen regardless of whether it was squirted into the female coercively or consensually, so the chance of infection is present in both cases -- ever hear of "honeymoon cystitis"?

In summary: Quit tarring all sex with a broad brush, and focus on actual examples of sexual coercion! 24.5.122.13 (talk) 09:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, IP. As you can see, this article is about sexual coercion among non-human animals. From what I've looked at regarding sources on this topic over the years, a lot of what is in this article is what the vast majority of WP:Reliable sources state about it. The researchers are not anti-male (not usually anyway); this is simply what they have consistently found when studying the topic. Wikipedia does not take a stance on these issues, as WP:VALID makes clear (or at least Wikipedia is not supposed to); it simply reports what the WP:Reliable sources state, per the WP:Verifiability policy. If you have WP:Reliable sources to support your claims, we can add those and the accompanying text to this article with WP:Due weight.
On a side note, like I mentioned above (in the #Is "red bowlers" a typo? section), this article was very likely created as a WP:Student assignment. Flyer22 (talk) 14:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, no. The OP is right: this article is horrendously, bitterly anti-sex. I wouldn't characterize it as anti-male, because it is so virulently anti-female. The judgments and interpretations fly fast and furious, taking scientific findings and warping them beyond recognition. For instance, I have never read--anywhere but here--that sexual dimorphism is a rape-enabling mechanism (the typical interpretation of the phenomenon has more to do with the degree of sexual fidelity in the species, and the resulting male-male competition). And that's not due to political correctness: female reproductive strategies--completely ignored and misinterpreted here--are obviously just as valid as male strategies when you look at how the DNA game plays out. 169.229.135.25 (talk) 06:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

As per above, prove what you are stating with WP:Reliable scholarly sources. Until then, I don't see how everything you or the OP stated is right. Flyer22 (talk) 07:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Also see what I stated in the #Female benefits section below. Flyer22 (talk) 07:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

It's incorrect to try and read morality into the behavior of animals. It's not my place to condone or to not condone animal mating strategies.108.131.82.144 (talk) 02:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this article does not meet Wikipedia's standards. This article is very well researched, well cited, and engaging to the reader. However it is clear that the ultimate goal of the piece is to make an argument. For that reason, this article does not conform to the spirit of Wikipedia. It must be rewritten with the more appropriate goal of giving a balanced summary of the literature and points of scientific consensus the field in a professional and neutral manner. For example, many evolutionary biologists would strongly disagree with the fundamentalist adaptationism of this article. Also while I agree that we should not fall prey to the Naturalistic fallacy, it would greatly enhance the quality and professionalism of this article to be much more mindful of the tone and avoid overly zealous and potentially offensive language. Though this article is thoroughly cited, the citations here have two problems. First, the article makes stronger claims than the original sources can be said to support with certainty. Second, many of the peer-reviewed sources are not primary empirical literature but opinionated review papers that selectively draw together evidence in order to make an argument for a particular theoretical perspective (much like this article itself). Sources like these are legitimate (they are peer-reviewed), but they should be summarized in the text in a way that makes their genre clear, eg. "Biologists So & So argue that...", rather than stating such claims as a fact. Finally, the general tone of this piece betrays a lack of neutrality and professionalism. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style. (For example, we should avoid overly casual language eg. "basically," "it's".) I want to be diplomatic in saying this because it is obvious that the primary author(s) have put a lot of time and effort into writing this thoughtful and intelligent piece, which I appreciate as a doctoral student in this field. I understand why they might be proud of their work and unwilling to erase it, so I will make a constructive suggestion: This piece might be more appropriate, helpful, and better received in a another forum. For example, it would be an excellent post for Psychology Today's Evolutionary Psychology Blog, or with some cleaning up it might even be accepted as a theoretical/review academic publication in a small peer reviewed journal, such as The Journal of the Evolutionary Studies Consortium. However, persuasive writing -- even very good persuasive writing-- does not belong here on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.35.111.43 (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Your understanding of how Wikipedia is supposed to work contrasts my understanding of how it is supposed to work, and I've been editing here since 2007. For example, you stated, "I agree that this article does not meet Wikipedia's standards. This article is very well researched, well cited, and engaging to the reader." That is contradictory. Yes, you stated, "However it is clear that the ultimate goal of the piece is to make an argument. For that reason, this article does not conform to the spirit of Wikipedia.", but I fail to see that by looking at the article or such a notion in a Wikipedia policy or guideline. You also stated that "many of the peer-reviewed sources are not primary empirical literature but opinionated review papers that selectively draw together evidence in order to make an argument for a particular theoretical perspective (much like this article itself)." And that is why I must point out that Wikipedia prefers secondary sources (academic books and literature reviews, and even media sources in some cases), not primary sources. See WP:Primary. Since you posted in this section, which is about a supposed "anti-male bias in the article," and your criticism of the article is not specific when it comes to what you think the article needs so that it can be improved, except for where you stated "many evolutionary biologists would strongly disagree with the fundamentalist adaptationism of this article" and "the article makes stronger claims than the original sources can be said to support with certainty," I do not have a good grasp on your issues with the article. If your main issue with the article is that it's clear that the vast majority of sexual coercion in the animal kingdom is committed by males, then it's a fact that you (and others) have to accept (see WP:Due weight, which is an aspect of the WP:Neutral policy you cited). If you want that fact given more or better context, then you need to be clear about what the more or better context is, and preferably cite sources for your arguments. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Female benefits

Come on... really guys? This section is ridiculous.

"A possible benefit of [rape of female humans] that would come out in the long run is the “good genes” hypothesis."

I feel like this is suggesting that human males should just go around raping females for the females' benefit. Seems kinda sexist. If anything the rape genes would make the population more violent and rapey. 24.239.124.140 (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

We go by what the WP:Reliable sources say, per WP:Verifiability. That section, this entire article, is about non-human animals. Not humans. If someone interprets it to extend to humans, well, that is that person's interpretation. Flyer22 (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello - While this article may be from VALID sources and they pertain largely to non human animals, it appears void of Female dominated species where there is coercion and sexual aggression. For example Hyenas, Bonobos, Several primate species, Praying mantises, spiders etc. The article also downplay the human female behaviors of coercing males to father their offspring possibly due to significant financial benefit, especially where the male is a dominant or wealthy individual. By omitting these relevant facets, the article reads like feminist propaganda and will only serve to discredit Wikipedia in the long run, which by all measure has already started. --WilliamGan (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Produce some WP:Reliable sources for your statement, and then we can consider your argument regarding what should be in the Sexual coercion article. Well, except for your feminist propaganda claim. Like I stated in the #Systematic anti-male bias in the article section above, which you seem to have seen, judging by your capitalization of "VALID," "The researchers are not anti-male (not usually anyway); this is simply what they have consistently found when studying the topic. Wikipedia does not take a stance on these issues, as WP:VALID makes clear (or at least Wikipedia is not supposed to); it simply reports what the WP:Reliable sources state, per the WP:Verifiability policy. If you have WP:Reliable sources to support your claims, we can add those and the accompanying text to this article with WP:Due weight."
Similar to rape topics among humans, the vast majority of sources on sexual coercion in the animal kingdom are focused on males sexually coercing females; if there were as many sources about females sexually coercing males, the article would not be this way now; I highly doubt that the editor responsible for the vast majority of material in the article was editing from a feminist point of view. Rather that editor was simply a student who presented what the vast majority of sources state on this topic. By all means, present the "females sexually coercing males" aspect, but we should not give WP:Undue weight to it in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Also, regarding your "downplay the human female behaviors of coercing males" argument, keep in mind that this article is not about humans; nor should it be. Flyer22 (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The intro to the article explains that there are valid evolutionary reasons why male animals develop sexual coercion as a sexual strategy to a disproportionate degree compared to females - females tend to care for the young, and so are not advantaged by having a large number of children, limiting the supply of female mating partners.108.131.82.144 (talk) 02:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Suggest changing article title to: Sexual coercion among animals

This article is primarily about non-human animals. Many of the concerns expressed in the discussions above might be obviated if the article was renamed to reflect that. There could be a separate article on "sexual coercion" which would default to the human animal. Memills (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

As you know, you can go ahead and officially request that this article be moved to your suggested title (via WP:Requested moves), but I don't see it as needed or how retitling it will soothe the relatively few concerns expressed above. And the article regarding sexual coercion among humans is the Rape article, like that article is clear about and like the WP:Hatnote of the Sexual coercion article is clear about. Well, the Rape article and the Sexual assault article. An article titled Sexual coercion that is about humans would be nothing but a WP:Content fork, more precisely a WP:POV fork aspect of WP:Content fork, and I'm certain that WP:Consensus would be against it. I'm not too opposed to this article being retitled Sexual coercion among animals or Animal sexual coercion, and having sexual coercion redirect to the Rape article, per WP:Primary topic, similar to how we have the Animal sexual behaviour article while sexual behavior redirects to the Human sexual activity article, per WP:Primary topic.
Regarding the sexism and feminist claims, and the suggested title change to obviate some of those concerns, I don't know many female Wikipedians to call upon who might not only be interested in commenting on this matter, but that I trust to give an unbiased viewpoint, except SummerPhD. I mean, there are editors who I suspect are female, but I don't know for certain that they are female. But among the male Wikipedians that I trust and often or sometimes interact with, and who are involved with sex-related articles, there is NeilN‎, Zad68, Johnuniq, Jim1138 and Grayfell. Flyer22 (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Probably a good renaming per WP:PRECISE (notwithstanding humans are animals too). Against creating a sexual coercion article for humans as it'd be a content fork. --NeilN talk to me 23:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Despite what I stated above in this section about soothing, I suppose retitling the Sexual coercion article to make it clearer that it is about non-human animals would stop the type of connections to humans that editors have made in discussions above. Flyer22 (talk) 23:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Renaming this article would do nothing to obviate concerns from passers-by who will want to use this page to discuss their favorite theory regardless of the title. Before any serious consideration of the title occurs, it would be desirable to make a list of similar articles (animal vs. human) and consider them all at the same time. In general, short titles are good, and currently I do not see a reason to add a couple of words to the title. Since a few thousand years ago, sexual coercion among/in humans is a cultural phenomenon with such coercion having almost no effect on evolutionary outcomes (other than for some exceptional individuals). By contrast, this article is about evolution—of course the males are not thinking of their progeny while engaging in coercion, but it's still evolution all the way down. Johnuniq (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Wrong. It is turtles.
Check out the physiology article. Its lead notes: "Given the size of the field it is divided into, among others: human physiology, animal physiology, plant physiology, cellular physiology, microbial physiology (see microbial metabolism), bacterial physiology, viral physiology.
The issue is whether there is enough information to justify a sexual coercion -- humans article. If the topic is broadened to include both conscious and unconscious psychological manipulation (verbal, visual, phenomenal, etc.) I think that there is. Or perhaps a better, broader title might be sexual manipulation in humans. Memills (talk) 02:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
"Wrong" about what? And again, I don't see anything that would justify a Sexual coercion among humans article, an article that would be seen by many editors as redundant to the Rape and Sexual assault articles (an unneeded WP:Content fork). If such an article were created, I would argue for its deletion or WP:Merge per WP:Content fork, and I would undoubtedly be successful in achieving either one. As for a Sexual manipulation article, that could be considered as something different than rape or other sexual assault (though it is likely to touch on those aspects), depending on how it is written. But the term sexual coercion is completely tied up in rape and other sexual assault topics, which is not only clear by the Rape and Sexual assault articles but is also indicated by the lead of the Sexual coercion article currently stating, "Such behavior has been compared to sexual assault, including rape, among humans." Flyer22 (talk) 03:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Turtles.
Yes, you are correct. Coercion implies force or threat of it. However, I think sexual manipulation in humans might be a worthwhile article. And, come to think of it, this article might be renamed and broadened to sexual coercion and manipulation in animals -- some of the topics (e.g., harassment, seminal fluids) are more manipulation than coercion (force or threat of force). Memills (talk) 03:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm confused by what you mean by "turtles" since I don't see that term mentioned before your reply above. As for the term coercion, it covers harassment and seminal fluids (well, not seminal fluids regarding humans unless used in a sexual assault manner that is considered coercion); sources in the Sexual coercion article support this use of coercion (though you seem to consider it a broad use). Therefore, I don't think "and manipulation" needs to be added on to the title. Flyer22 (talk) 03:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Re turtles: It's my weak joke above. Saying it's "turtles all the way down" is sometimes used to dismiss the arguments of people who promote intelligent design. I was saying that the sexual coercion in this article is the result of evolution. In humans, coercion is much more complex because we are supposed to have willpower that (mostly) modulates our desires according to local culture. Johnuniq (talk) 05:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Before the turtles, it was elephants.
The dictionary definition of "coercion" means the use, or threat, of physical force. Harassment (sans threat or use of force), seminal fluids, pheromones, psychological gambits, etc., are not coercion, they are manipulation. There are many forms of non-coercive sexual manipulation in both animals and humans. Thus, the suggestion to include " ...and manipulation" to be more accurate and inclusive re this topic. Memills (talk) 05:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Memills, you know that Wikipedia often goes on more than a dictionary definition for complex topics. The sources in the Sexual coercion article disagree with the way that you are limiting the term coercion in this case. There are many sources beyond this article that disagree with the way that you are limiting the word coercion in this case. And sexual coercion specifically, not simply coercion, includes the use of violence, threats, harassment, and other tactics (as the article notes). Furthermore, many people consider coercion, whether sexual or not, to be harassment if it involves threats. I agree that there are forms of non-coercive sexual manipulation in humans and non-human animals, which is why I stated above that a Sexual manipulation article can be considered distinct from a Rape or Sexual assault article, but that's not the point at the moment. Flyer22 (talk) 05:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
It has been my experience that Wikipedia does rely on dictionary definitions of terms like "coercion." However, besides that, it seems we are in basic agreement. I propose that we add " ...and manipulation" to the title of this article, and, that a new article on human sexual manipulation be created. Any volunteers? Memills (talk) 05:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The topic of coercion is one thing; the topic of sexual coercion is another. For the latter, better sources (meaning WP:Reliable sources beyond dictionaries) should be used to define that term. As for adding "and manipulation" to the article title, I've already disagreed above; let's see if any of the others watching this article have anything to state on that matter. Creating a Sexual manipulation article is too complex for me to want to tackle, at least at this point in my Wikipedia editing (where I'm generally stressed off Wikipedia and am not as enthusiastic about Wikipedia as I used to be; in fact, there's barely any enthusiasm left); I'll leave creating that to someone else, though I will WP:Watchlist it and help out if I see that I'm needed to do so. Flyer22 (talk) 05:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm late to the party, but anyway: I'm weakly opposed to adding "...in animals" to the title, per the discussion above and the hatnotes. Actually adding "... in animals" might make the (mild) problem of the very occasional Talk-page comment worse by encouraging those who want to point out "Humans are animals too!" I think there's enough content to fill out an article with the current scope "Sexual coercion" without the need to expand the scope by adding "... and manipulation". Zad68 12:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Just in case anyone missed it, Yev Yev created the Human sexual coercion article. Per concerns above about that title, the article should be renamed. Yev Yev has created different sexual articles today, some of which should perhaps be WP:Merged per WP:Content fork. Flyer22 (talk) 00:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, yeah, consent to unwanted sex might be a good candidate for being merged into human sexual coercion (or whatever that article gets renamed to). My guess is that the average person who looks up "sexual coercion" is looking for information about human sexual coercion. I was kind of aghast, by the way, to see that the hatnote implied that all human sexual coercion is rape; that's almost as bad as this other hatnote that was finally rightly removed. Yev Yev (talk) 00:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Yev Yev, as noted above, the topic of human sexual coercion is usually discussed in the context of rape. As for your reference to that previous Pedophilia WP:Hatnote, what do you mean by that? And how do you, someone with relatively few Wikipedia edits, know about it? I had my suspicions that you are not new to editing Wikipedia, and now I'm completely certain that you are not. Flyer22 (talk) 00:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm a longtime Wikipedia reader, who noticed today that the hatnote was no longer there when I went to make an analogy to it. I never did like that hatnote; I thought it engaged in some of the same abuses of language that we see in conflating sexual coercion with rape. "Sexual coercion" is broader than rape; if they were identical, we would just say "rape" because it would save us five syllables. Yev Yev (talk) 00:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
With this article you created right out of the gate (an edit that I just noticed when looking at your contributions), I would state you are more than simply a longtime Wikipedia reader. But going back to the topic at hand: I agreed that sexual coercion manipulation is broader than rape; still, these two terms (rape and sexual coercion) are very often used interchangeably, especially regarding a human context. Hopefully, the article about human sexual coercion is able to distinguish itself enough from rape, and forms well from here on out. Flyer22 (talk) 00:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I pointlessly lied by omission, since it was inevitable you'd discern the truth. Anyway, with regard to creating that article right out of the gate, I'm a strong believer in WP:BEEF. I hate getting embroiled in deletion and undeletion debates that could have been avoided. Yev Yev (talk) 01:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
There's a strike in my "00:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)" post because I've been consistent above that human sexual coercion is usually considered rape, and I want to stick with that. The topic of sexual manipulation, however... Yes, that's broader. Flyer22 (talk) 00:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Yep. Flyer22 (talk) 00:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

When an elephant makes love to a pig

Well, not that, but seal and penguin. Should the article have a cross-species section? [1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Wikipedia has another article that describes this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarble (talk • contribs)

Sexual Intimidation

Do you think that this area of sexual coercion should be added? A small paragraph about how the dominant sex can often use intimidation (maybe due to size, strength etc.) in order to get intercourse from the mate? Schulhofer, S. J. (1998). Unwanted sex: The culture of intimidation and the failure of law (Vol. 99). Londres: Harvard University Press. Lupet123 (talk) 15:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Lupet123, that aspect is already covered in the article, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Flyer22 Reborn, So it is. That was my mistake - Apologies Lupet123 (talk) 09:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 6 July 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to Sexual coercion among animals. For the time being, I have left the redirect target of Sexual coercion to the new title - as checking the What Links Here, some of the links refer to human sexual coercion, but many of the links refer to animal sexual coercion, and the links should be updated to the relevant targets before the redirect is re-targeted. (closed by non-admin page mover) Steven Crossin 16:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

(closed by non-admin page mover)

Sexual coercion → Animal sexual coercion – When people come to this article, they are expecting to see information about humans. Having the article titled "Animal sexual coercion" or "Sexual coercion among animals" is precise and doesn't surprise our readers. In a human context, sexual coercion usually falls under the rape category; see the Rape article. I suggest that "sexual coercion" redirect to the Rape article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2019 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sexual_coercion_among_animals/Archive_1&oldid=1082473803"