Talk:Nudity and sexuality/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Since this article deals with the topic almost exlusively in the USA, why not move it to a new topic Nudity and sexuality in the USA so that a proper world encyclopedic topic can be created here without disturbing the value of what has been written? --Interesdom 08:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This section was removed as irrevelent. The prisoners were held 24 hours a day. Most men get erections during sleep.

Some suggest that the fear of getting an erection is itself a major factor preventing erections. This idea is, however, refuted by the fact that one of the means of abusing Abu Ghraib prisoners was to mock their involuntary erections (that is, even their utmost fear wasn't able to prevent erection).^[1] DNBR 07:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Article needs work

This article needs a substantial amount of work. I did a little copyediting, but it needs much more. Atom (talk) 02:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

article issues

Without a shred of evidence all this may appear (or at least some of it) as WP:OR. At any rate, can this no tbe blended into Nudity or Sexuality, if it can't then someone can easily get sources from both, and then look for some more. Why should this be notable on its own stead? Lihaas (talk) 17:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Naturism and sexuality

Nudists have long claimed that nudism reduces lustful desire. This might be true. However, I read recently (sorry, I don't remember where) that (at least some) nudists do use nudism as an excuse for ogling the opposite sex, and that nudist camps are sometimes locales for sexual pickups. This needs careful research. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

What is (in connection to the claimed statement above) the link between nudity and sexual arousal? What are the triggers that differentiate situations from one another re the mentioned link? When is the sexual arousal triggered by seeing nudity and when not?--82.137.14.34 (talk) 02:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

File:At the nudist beach.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:At the nudist beach.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

confused and biased article

IMHO, this article is confusing nudity with sexuality with eroticism. Nudity is the state of absence of a clothing while sexuality is gender awareness, while eroticism is about desire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.119.228.239 (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of problems with this article. Note this sentence from WP:AND: Titles containing "and" are often red flags that the article has neutrality problems or is engaging in original research. The article was already tagged with a refimprove template (significant proportions of it are unsourced), so I've added an original research template. Personally I'd be in favour of cutting the article back to a stub based on the citations, or proposing it as an article for deletion. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 10:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

why I cut it, and will continue

First graf:

In most societies and cultures, human nudity is often associated with sexuality.

Fourth graf:

Some cultures equate nudity with sexuality, but that is not always the case.

(Each, incidentally, dependent on two weasels.)

As I find it, fully half the article is hidden (poorly) behind the metaphoric skirts of being in the lede section. While that convention has purpose — namely, protecting an abstract (or perhaps an abstract) from being overburdened by demands for citation — here it is being abused in order to dodge responsibility for intellectual honesty.

Basically, it's a very poor article. Once the fat is chopped away, its proper status as a dictionary definition will become plain, and everyone knows WINAD, therefore this will be offered up for speedy deletion. If some editor wants to make a case as to how the article might be salvaged — suggestion: decide what it's actually about — that input will be welcomed.

Of the two claims cited above, I am cutting the first as the most offensively overreaching, then will rearrange the lede to unsnarl it a bit; next I might make the lede 15 words or so and put the rest in the body, where it can be readily chopped.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support deletion. This article seems to be little more than a stub about nudity and a stub about sexuality with very little to connect them. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

seeing as this has been flagged for refimprove since 2014, I'm simply going to remove the most obvious essayisms.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Foundations II Group 7c Proposed Edits

Regarding the multiple issues that are brought up in this article, our group will add references and other points as appropriateJacklyn.Ang (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Group 7B Student review of Group 7C's Goals

1. These edits do not substantially improve the article and do not follow Wikipedia's guiding framework. A good portion of the additions are not cited and are unsubstantiated claims.

2. The group did not accomplish the task in carrying out it's goals. Only one reference was added, and as aforementioned the other ones are unsubstantiated or lack proper citation.

3. The claim written in the "Sexual and Non-Sexual Nakedness" section is not well-written. I would insert the Genesis example into it's own section, perhaps entitled "Religous Beliefs Regarding..." and do more research on the primary assertion. The passage does not fit the context of the previous statement: "...human nudity can be sensually pleasing without overt sexual context..." and the terminology of "sexual objects" does not fit the logic of the example especially in lieu of the original text and has several consequential connotations. In essence, I would add additional and multiple references (because explicitly referring to the Bible, perhaps reference the actual passage) to support the claim and explain this passage in more detail and context and place it in its own section.Wrd530 (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

1) Further edits can be made to substantially improve the article.

2) Yes, the goals were met; however, further credible sources can be should be added.

3) Prompt: Does the draft submission reflect a neutral POV? Yes, the edits were neutral and unbiased. Jessicabee55 (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Group 7b Student Review

The edits slightly improved the article but lacked references for the most part.

The edits attempted to meet the goals, but the addition of more references would improve the quality of the article. I would also recommend addressing the questionable statements (e.g. "many people find nudity inherently erotic and even sexually arousing" and "Individuals may have a compulsive desire...") made in the article.

Are the points verifiable with secondary sources that are readily available? Secondary sources were not used. The reference added was only one interpretation of the Bible. Adding multiple interpretations would strengthen the claims made in the article. Alicewu95 (talk) 06:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Fanny's Peer Review for UCSF Foundations 2 2019, Group 7c goals

1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? This group still can improve the article, they are making progress thus far!

2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? This group can improve the article by breaking up the content into more sections.

3. Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? The edits so far are formatted correctly.

Fannnypack (talk) 21:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Non-Sexual Nudity

The section "Non-Sexual Nudity" seems to me blatantly off-topic. The title of this article ('Nudity and sexuality") means that it should cover only the intersection of nudity and sexuality. It should not also cover non-sexual nudity (nor non-nude sexuality for that matter). The Nudity and protest article does not include a section on "Non-protest nudity". Non-sexual nudity is already well covered in the Nudity article and much of the material in the "Non-Sexual Nudity" section is (or should be) in other articles such as History of nudity instead. I therefore propose that we delete the "Non-Sexual Nudity" section entirely to remove the incentive for editors to add further information about non-sexual nudity to this article. Any content in this section that is not already in other, more appropriate articles can be moved there. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 12:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

As nobody has objected I have started working on this. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done - Polly Tunnel (talk) 12:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Nudity and sexuality into Nudity#Sexuality. "Nudity and sexuality" is a stub article that has never successfully grown. Its small size would allow it to fit easily into the much larger "Nudity" article. That article already has a "Sexuality" section which deals with much the same subject as this article. It would be a good place to put this content. Polly Tunnel (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion is at Talk:Nudity#Merger proposal. Please leave any comments there. Polly Tunnel (talk) 16:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion concluded with consensus to WP:SPLIT the "Sexuality" section from the Nudity article into this article, replacing all the content here. Polly Tunnel (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Reboot

This article will continue, but on the basis of, as once suggested, starting over from scratch. I made a brief survey of its past incarnations, but am not interested in resurrecting much of it. The exception is the discussion on non-sexual nudity. Just as Nudity has significant content on clothing, a concept or topic is often defined in contrast to its apparent opposite. Indeed, the title is Nudity and sexuality, not Sexual nudity.

I subsequently read the reference to WP:AND above. which only quotes the last paragraph of that guideline. The full text recognizes the need to use "and" in a title that links distinct but related topics that are worthy of a seperate article.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The convoluted history of this article seems to be in large part because there was never an agreed-upon definition of a topic that allowed for decisions on what goes here and what goes in another article. I will begin the reboot by trying to do so, first by referencing the two parts of the equation, as stated in the first lines of their main articles:

"Nudity, or nakedness, is a state of being in which a human is not wearing clothing or is not covering the genitals."

"Human sexuality is the way people experience and express themselves sexually."

It is the contention of many that being naked, even among strangers, is no more sexual than being clothed. Instead, clothing is often designed to call attention to sexuality.

The topic of this article then becomes the ways in which nudity is sexual, but also about ways in which the naked body is sexualized in some cultures, but not in others. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Notability

Why is this article here? Content on nudity is covered on nudity-related pages, while content on sexuality is covered on sexuality-related pages. It seems to me that the topic lacks notability and that the article is unnecessary. I have tagged it accordingly. SunCrow (talk) 04:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

As I've said above, I would support the deletion of this article. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 13:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Polly Tunnel. I have proposed deletion. SunCrow (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, SunCrow. As the article has now been refused WP:PROD, do you think we should list it at WP:AFD instead? - Polly Tunnel (talk) 12:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Polly Tunnel, I would support such a listing, but I don't feel motivated to initiate the process myself. SunCrow (talk) 02:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

SunCrow, another possibility would be to merge this article into the appropriate section of the Nudity article (Nudity#Sexuality). What do you think? - Polly Tunnel (talk) 14:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Polly Tunnel, in all honesty, I don't think any of the content in this article is worth merging into any other article. SunCrow (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

SunCrow, I agree with you about that. I'm just not confident that I could successfully get this article through WP:AFD myself. The editor who refused WP:PROD said that "the subject is certainly notable , & here are dozens or hundreds of good refs available". I'm not sure how to satisfy WP:DEL-REASON in this instance. My argument, which seems to fall outside this system, is that this is an article like, say, Carpentry and fish. I'm sure there are reliable sources contextually combining the two, whether it be about carpenters dining on fish or fishermen using carpentry on their boats. I just don't see any point in having a "Carpentry and fish" article. It's not a lack of notability, so much as an incitement for WP:SYNTH or for unrelated content on two topics. Up till now this article has attracted content about nudity and content about sexuality, but very little about sexual nudity. My suggestion of a merger was really about how to avoid having this as a stand-alone article, with all the problems that's entailed in the past. I'm not sure that the content of Nudity#Sexuality is particularly worthwhile either (the last of its three paragraphs is unsourced), but the "Nudity" article gets much greater scrutiny than this one and the editors there might be able to either make something out of this content or decide to remove it. The process associated with WP:MERGE is straightforward and it would be a way of getting this article out of the problems it's currently languishing in.- Polly Tunnel (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

OK, Polly Tunnel. I am persuaded. SunCrow (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The refusal of the PROD and the failure of the MERGE were indeed justified: my search in a university library for social science articles with "nudity" in the title and "sexuality" in any other field returned thousands, even when limited to recent years. None involve spurious (carpenter/fish) connections. The reboot of this article will take much more time than I thought when assuming that it would mainly involve splitting content from the main article on nudity.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

the massive list of unused sources

The article space is not a cache space for unused sources. What's the explanation behind all the pile of unused material? Graywalls (talk) 04:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)