Talk:Human sexual activity/Archive 1

Removed Text
"Like other primates, Homo sapiens use fucking for reproduction and for maintenance of social bonds. Yet, child sexuality has historically been severely limited in Western societies. In the late 19th century, the hysteria surrounding what was then often called "self-abuse" (masturbation) amongst children reached its peak, and in the United States led to the widespread adoption of circumcision. "

I removed this from the section "Sexual Relationships" because it's obviously not right. In fact, as quoted somewhere below on this Talk page, it once said 'homo sapiens use sexuality for reproduction,' and when I removed it, it said 'fucking,' not 'sexuality.' If this is to stay in the article, please tidy it up and make it appropriate/correct. I fail to see how circumcision is a punishment, an effect of 'high levels of masturbation.' -- Sakkath 04:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Invite to sexual ethics
sexual ethics was redirected to sexual norms which I didn't feel was appropriate, so I was bold and made a new page. Perhaps someone here would be interested in editing that page since currently it's wildly POV(mine)? I really don't know much about the topic and need some help. Vesperal 21:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

what is human sexual behaviour
this article des not seem to address the actual question of what is the nature of human sex behaviour in the way that we might say a flower or a frog and just clearly express the answer.

obviously the flower or the frog is a bit easier to study but i fear that this article does seem, to beat about the bush as to what humans actually do about sex,...eg.

what is the norm for the human animal? gestation period? mammals mammal action? do humans mate for life? why not? what is the nature of the behaivour?

there are people who have studied this please could somebody who is interested in this topic find a person who has .......

i know i know otherwise it will be up to me and i dont want to do it.

perhaps a [place to start might be somthing like the text"the red queens race" (author mat ridley)

thanks for your continuing understanding and patience

Sexual relationships
"Like other primates, Homo sapiens use sexuality for reproduction and for maintenance of social bonds." The phrase "Like primates", is misleading. Sexual relationships among primate species vary. For example, some have harems, some are monogamous and some are polygamous. See "Why is Sex Fun? by Jared Diamond.

General
I want yo know what books on sexual intercourse are fit to be read

Hey, shouldn't someone change this page? It seems to be a commentary about how to satisfy your partner sexually (think of their feelings too). Surely an encyclopaedia is not that sort of thing? User:Mark Ryan

It looks fine to me...

Me too...


 * This is just fine. It is a very brief but well phrased description of what human sexual behaviour is, how it is classified, and the social moraes that exist surrounding it. Per your "think of their feelings, too," I will add a comment in the main page to reflect your concern. -EB-

Pregnancy seemed to be treated as a disease in this article so I changed it. In general, this article seemed a bit discombobulated -- I just did some general copy editing, but perhaps more general organizational changes are necessary. Partly the question here is what is the purpose of this article? Do we want to include anything like a history of sexuality? As a rule, I think this article needs a more positive spin in general to make it come around to npov, though of course npov is difficult to define with something like this. Frequently, NPOV means biological-sounding, though that has a sterilizing effect that is decidedly political. Similarly, reating "pregnancy" and "sexually transmitted diseases" in the same section of the article certainly doesn't seem NPOV to me. Tom

-Should something about the "bases" terminology be added? I think its relevant.

Merge
This needs to be merged with Human sexuality. AxelBoldt 01:41 Oct 13, 2002 (UTC)

I'm not clear about the reason for this article. It seems 'eclectic'. Why is it different from other articles about sexuality? Haldrik 23:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Haldrik

Frottage
"Frottage" a common sexual practice? its a paraphilia, and a criminal one at that. -- user:Anonymoues


 * Frottage isn't a paraphilia! Rubbing yourself against someone is hardly unusual and certainly not criminal! I can't say I agree that it can only be done between two people of the same gender, though, I'm gonna remove that comment. &mdash; OwenBlacker 13:37, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * Depends on whether or not you consider the term "frottage" to include dry humping. -Sean Curtin 01:15, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm going to put frot where frottage used to be, clearly a man and woman can dry hump (frottage), but they certainly can not frot ,

The name of the paraphilia is frotteurism. By contrast, frottage is any sexual rubbing. Haldrik 23:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Haldrik

Cultural determinations of monogamy
''There is also a widespread belief that sex acts are devalued when engaged in outside of a long-term, monogamous romantic relationship. Historically, most societies and religions have viewed sex as appropriate only within marriage, but extra-marital sexual activity is increasingly accepted in modern society.''

I haven't deleted from the article (as I have a strong POV on this) but this seems to be culturally determined. What do people think? Secretlondon 19:01, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is culturally determined, and I stated how most cultures have seen it in the past as well as how culture today seems to see it. Perhaps if the word most were changed to many?
 * I understand you probably have a strong POV about the necessity of marriage or the lack thereof, but that doesn't change the fact that most societies have had taboos against sex outside of marriage (even when widely practiced, especially by hypocritical leaders) for the last several millenia.
 * The main reason I added the comment was the strange apparent reluctance to even mention marriage; it's true that committed monogamous relationships do occur outside of marriage, but historically, the norm that society and religion encouraged was marriage (in its various forms, even including some we might not recognize today).
 * Jdavidb 19:07, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

All this seems odd to me. Monogamy and limiting sex within marriage is relativaly recent in human history, within the timeframe of christianity largely. Even within the christian era, sex and sexuality outside of marriage was not that uncommon or considered socially unacceptable prior to the Victorian period and the Puritans. Consider the views during Ancient Greek and Ancient Romanan times, monogamy and limiting sex within marriage had little value or emphasis in those cultures. Polyandy(Polygamy) was widely accepted and practiced by early christian, jewish, islamic, hindu and buddhist religions. From a 30,000 year view of human society, monogamy is a relatively recent invention. The way it could be viewed is that ever since the sexual revolution, we have started to revert away from monogamy, and shake off the limitations placed on us by recent religious trends as religion has lost political power and influence. Atom 03:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
I've got to say that this article is presently a marvelous example of NPOV. It's obviously been worked on quite a bit since some of the comments above. I'd say it very well mentions different attitudes toward the subject without passing value judgments on those opinions; very impressive. The only weakness I saw was either an apparent attempt to avoid mentioning the connection with marriage in favor of "committed monogamous relationship" (yes, those do occur outside of marriage, but surely marriage is the most common expression of that ideal; or, at least, most cultures in history have felt that is how it should be), or else just a lack of being able to see things from the point of view of someone who would consider marriage. Made a couple of edits which I hope enhance the article without spoiling NPOV. Jdavidb 19:04, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Emotional bond implication

 * Consenting noncommercial sexual behavior between people usually implies some kind of emotional bond, at least during the sex.

This strikes me as very POV. - Montrealais

It says "usually", not that it is the only appropriate. If it feels good that is an emotion. With bond I meant to include one just for the time of the sex. Why would you do something if you do not like it, do not earn money with it, do not want to do the other a favor, and are not forced? --Patrick 12:57, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I thought it was real NPOV, except I did feel like the final phrase was almost a humorous comment. I thought your original sentence was fine, although the replacement also seems fine.
 * I think some people have so much trouble getting their POV out of the way that even noting the fact that some slightly-moral attitude toward sex exists makes them think a POV has been expressed. Jdavidb 16:25, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Merge 2
Content merged from Gay sex and Different-sex sexual practices (or whatever they were called at that point). The decision was to merge Different-sex sexual practices and keep Gay sex. Thus this page has now been drug into the conflict.Hyacinth

Sex or gender?
The section headers say "different-gender" and "same-gender", but the content says "different-sex" and "same-sex". Obviously they're not the same thing, but which term should be used? -Sean Curtin 03:58, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That's a very tricky one. Since we are talking about technical things, I think that "same sex" would be more appropriate, since this bit is talking about "the same sexual organs (genitals)". It might be appropriate, though, to mention transgender people, namely, that sex does not always equal gender, and relationships that appear homosexual might, according to the people in that relationship, be straight - or vice versa. In such a relationship, even if whatever combination of genitals is present, what is praktically done might differ very considerably from what ususally happens when this combination is involved. Then again, it might not. As I said, tricky subject. When transgender people get into such articles, it is easy to double their lenght. -- AlexR 09:00, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking, but I didn't want to step on any toes. -Sean Curtin 15:33, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

this article is about sexes, certianly not genders, as it is about genitals et al, not social roles. who are the puritans that insist upon inflicting 'gender' erronously upon us simply because they desire not to say 'sex'?


 * Actually, human sexual behavior is very dependent on constructed social roles. For (a somewhat over-the-top) example, some humans--albeit a minority--are sexually attracted to animals, but many (that is, a vast majority of the aforementioned minority) don't act on their feelings because "it's not right" and does not fit with their social roles. PS: I moved the section "Gender =! Sex" down here since it's essentially the same topic. Viannah 04:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Queen victoria signiture
Removed from article:
 * When Queen Victoria was asked to sign the law, it did include provisions against lesbianism, but she crossed them out. When asked why, she replied, "It never happens."

Is this in anyway verifiable? if so, feel free to replace... Iainscott 14:39, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * direct quote from http://www.swade.net/lesbian/tribal_chant/les_hist.html
 * "The Labouchere Amendment, criminalising all same-sex activity, was introduced in 1885. Althought widely believed, Queen Victoria's refusal to believe lesbianism existed resulting in lesbianism's omission from the Act is probably false.  It is believed those presenting the amendment removed it (as the House of Lords did nearly 40 years later) fearing criminalizing lesbianism would alert women to its possibility. The story was useful, however, when her statue was made the focus of a demonstration in 1977 promoting lesbian visibility on International Women's Day."
 * further discussion http://www.guardian.co.uk/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-19315,00.html
 * --Mysteronald 12:03, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Ahaa... preventing the old beans in nose pitfall :P - GSchjetne 21:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

the art of Women
The art of women's thinking. Many women dont understand how they work entirely. Most women dont know what they want in the oppisite sex. They always yern for mr.nice guy and want him to sweep him off her feet. but when she finds that guy and he treats her like gold, she runs over him like a black cat on halloween. When they have a dick for a boyfriend they always complain about how mean they are and they dont spend time with them and they treat them basically like shit and they always get the girl. you know why because they tell the women what they wantt o hear. and it always works. then the women get played and the men leave like nothing even happened. and they always want the nice guy. if they ever find that nice guy they will fuck him over and make than man want to hang himself because of how bad they made them feel. See the thing with nice guys is, they dont see it coming. Right when they have opened up there heart to them the women throw a fuckin access denied grenade right in there and crush everything they have ever felt for them and they guys now are crying there eyex out wondering what happened? You got fucked buddy!. And the women never realize what they have lost until its far too late to have them back. The one draw back that anice guy has is they never forgive and never forget. This is because once they have been hurt to that much of an extent they turn bitter and will never forget that pain that woman has inflicted on him thats just how it works. To find out more about women. please look up the following words, Bitch, Cunt, Back stabber, Trick, Hoe, slut and tramp.


 * Er, don't we have an article somewhere on how men and women are different? I was going to recommend John Gray, but I don't think anyone's bothered to explain his theories there: they only blasted him for upsetting the apple cart. Uncle Ed 02:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

On the necessity of 'Finding a Sex Partner'
Removed entire section (with sub-sections). This section appeared after the "Safety Caution" section.

Before having sex with another person, first it is necessary to find a partner. This may not be easy, as it requires meeting people who are available for a relationship (or who just want to have sex).

Where to look for Mr./Ms. Right
The various methods of meeting potential sex partners include flirting with and/or introducing oneself to others wherever one happens to find them, clubbing, going to singles bars and singles events, answering personal want ads (in newspapers and on the web), posting personal want ads, hiring or joining a dating service, going to parties, and hiring a prostitute (which is illegal in most places).

What to do once you've found Mr./Ms. Right
Once you've located the person you desire to have sex with, the first thing you must do is introduce yourself or position yourself in such a way that he or she will introduce himself or herself to you. Flirting is a good way to attract someone to you, or at least find out if they are attracted to you.

Then you get whatever prerequisites you might have out of the way (see below).

About the moved section
The above smacks of advocacy. It sounds like Wikipedia is telling people to go out and find sex partner.


 * You must introduce yourself ...
 * Flirting is a good way ...

Um, aren't we supposed to avoid advocacy? Uncle Ed 02:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, we are supposed to avoid advocacy. That's why I made an effort to get excise the "second-person" (i.e. references to "you" and "your" etc.) from the first few subsections.  I note with interest that your first objection came in the subsection where I left off, which still contains the "you" word.  Rather than deleting the section, another approach might be to systematically change the tone of the article to a fact-based tone as opposed to a how-to tone.


 * We could continue throwing out the babies with the bathwater, (after all, the string "you" still appears 11 times in this article) or we could go through it carefully to change instances of advocacy into clear explanations of sexual behavior. Then, after we've worked to fix this article (and the List of sex positions, too, by the way) we can watch it, and then fix useful tid-bits that come in full of second-person advice.


 * --GraemeMcRae 03:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Go for it, GraemeMcRae. Be bold. Do it. Be aware that putting a section that needs a lot of work into the talk section is entirely appropriate. Time spent here is voluntary and not everyone has both the time and desire to fully correct everything he finds that shouldn't be allowed to stand as is. Putting the questionable material into talk allows the article to be immediately "fixed" AND allows those with the time, desire, and ability to fix the moved section at their leisure. Cheers. WAS 4.250 04:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

proposed edit for this section
Thanks for that, WAS 4.250. Here's my proposed edit for this section:

--GraemeMcRae 05:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments on proposal
Others may disagree, but I think it is good enough to add to the article and edit further while part of the live article. Improvements needed:
 * 1) Too limited to secular, modern, western.
 * 2) Most people today and throughout history meet sex partners thru marriage, parents/family, religious institutions, and friends.
 * 3) The alcohol section is problematic. Cocaine, marijauana, pills, etc are relevant if alcohol is. Your summary ("on balance") is POV. We let the reader add up the pluses and minus themselves.
 * 4) It is too oriented toward a one night stand and deals inadequately with establishing relationships that lead eventually, sometimes, to sex.
 * 5) Too much about being (1)single and (2)young and (3)heterosexual in (4) modern (5)America. Alternatives to all five of these need to be covered if this is to go into an encyclopedia. WAS 4.250 13:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) It's also still very much a "how-to" article. I just managed to couch this section of it in more neutral language to make it look more encycolpedic. -- GraemeMcRae 16:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Regarding objections 1 and 5.1 through 5.5, I agree with them, but I believe fixing them would entail expanding this section into a full-fledged article in its own right, something I would like to see. Then, this section could be a summary of that article, with a  eyecatcher under the section heading.


 * With that, I'll be bold. I'll move this section back in the article, addressing just the easy parts of the criticism.  Thanks for the encouragement. -- GraemeMcRae 16:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Sexual desire vs. sexual attraction / sexual pleasure vs. sexual attraction
Is it possible for a totally straight person, who is not sexually attracted to a person of the same sex, to get at least some sexual pleasure from sexual contact with a person of the same sex, especially with receiving a sexual act from the same sex? If their not totally freaked out that a person of the same sex is doing something sexual to them and they try to relax and enjoy it and maybe even close their eyes and think about the opposite sex in a sexual way and if their both alone together. Although, enjoying say giving a person of the same sex oral, seems much more likely that the person is really gay or bisexual, especially if they keep doing it and liking it. If they like giving oral to the same sex just because it's taboo or something different or the opposite sex is watching and liking it, then their probably not really gay or bisexual. It's even possible to suggest that a guy might like getting jerked by another guy better than by his girlfriend,especially if she has no or little experience and people of the same sex tend to know the same sex body better than the opposite sex and what a person of the same sex wants sexually. The reason why I associate the possibility of being totally straight much more with the enjoyment of just the receiving end from the same sex is because with receiving your body can actually feel being touched and I think it shouldn't really matter if it's a male or female touching you sexually, as long as their not really horrible at what their doing and your not totally freaked out and you try to relax and enjoy it, you should be able to get at least some pleasure from it no matter what sexual orientation you fit into. Giving usually just involves mentally enjoying it with no actual physical pleasure involved, except for like in the case of heterosexual intercourse or anal sex. If a girl enjoys giving oral to another girl, she probably enjoys it because her partner enjoys it or she is sexually attracted to the girl, there's no real physical pleasure involved for the girl that is giving oral which makes it seem much more likely she's really lesbian or bisexual, unless it's just because it's a taboo thing or her bf is watching or something like that.

Does a person have to be sexually attracted to another person to sexually desire to have sex with a person? The asexuality article on Wikipedia points out that some or a few asexuals have no sexual attraction, but have sexual desire that's not directed at anything, and may feel the need to act on it through masturbation or having sex, or both. My bf has said that he's not sexually attracted to himself, yet he still has sexual desire for himself and masturbates and enjoys it, which goes along with the sexual attraction vs. sexual pleasure thing as well.

I think someone should think about or study into these ideas or maybe mention it or at least the possibility of it in this article or other related articles.

well, i would say its the difference between lust and orientation then, that lust overcomes orientation, thus mixing up the whole thing

Clean-up Notice
How exactly does this article need to be cleaned up? 24.18.171.99 07:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It all seems okay to me, apart from the section Personal prerequisites to having sex with someone, which reads quite casually. I might clean that bit up if I get chance. Mushintalk 20:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I think it's clear that the subject matter is pretty dirty. ;)

student doing research
Hello,

I'm a student doing research on sexual deviance, and sex in general. I found your comments varying interesting, but I have a few question; if allowed I did not read the Wikipedia instructions, before signing in.

Hope this is not out of left field. My assignment is to befriend a deviant group (societies thinking), not saying anyone is deviant. My paper must assert the groups opinion as a whole not mine. So, how does one go about this? Well to gain a understanding of whatever, deviant group I befriend. Again, not my definition societies. Paper will be turned in on March 7, 2007. Hope this is a approbate an an acceptable request.

Thank you, for allowing the posting.

207.119.4.107 21:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an instruction manual
I have removed the following from this article:

Safety Caution - Read this entire section carefully before proceeding. Sex may be fun, but it is not safe unless you take the necessary precautions. The three main dangers of having sex are: unplanned pregnancy, disease (which can cause disability and even death), and breaking the law.

As it says at What Wikipedia is not, ''Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, and recipes. Wikibooks is a Wikipedia sister-project which is better suited for such things.''

--Craig (t|c) 23:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism
Somebody vandalised this page recently by putting the words "mitchell brown likes to do this with mad kevin ( kevin clarke )" at the start of the article. I removed the text but doubtless whoever put there will return and put it back. I urge wikipedians to keep an eye on this article and investigate into who is responsible for this vandalism. User:Tom walker, 21:26 GMT 6 February 2006.

More vandalism was posted under Cultural aspects. I deleted "The most famous gay sex was performed by Ed Welsch and Joey Donatoni. These 2 are known worldwide and every gay in the world would want to stroke the hair of the world wide idols. Eddy's favorite move is when he swirls his tongue around the tip of Joey's scrotum. (sometimes the tip, if it is under room temperature.) He loves getting his partner. Joey loves the taste of cum.

Rumor has it*** that Joey is 5 inches erect, and Eddy is 12. This is very unusual.

Joey is taking emails for his secret recipe. joedonatoni@yahoo.com Please send mail!!"

I agree with Tom walker; the vandal will most likely return to this page and should be stopped.

Park Street 00:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Park Street

Someone has vandalised the heading to Section 5. I am sure it is not meant to read "My dick is the size of a deep fried cat fuck", but then again you never know. 86.141.92.73 21:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing clean-up notice
Since no rationale has been given for the clean up notice, and the article has gone through significant revision since it was put up, I'm removing it. --Go for it! 23:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Removing verification notice
Since no rationale was given for the notice other than "it stinks" ("of original research") in the edit remark, and no elaboration was provided by the poster on this talk page, I'm removing the notice. It doesn't appear any more true for this article than for the vast majority of Wikipedia pages, and simply detracts from the article. --Go for it! 00:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit
I've restructured the article to the following rough scheme:


 * Aspects -- the relevant background material on human sexuality
 * Partner selection - everything about "how do people select partners and decide about having sex" (**)
 * Sexual activity - everything about "what do people do sexually" (**)
 * Safety and ancillary - everything related to safety, risk, medical etc
 * Legal issues surrounding sexual behavior
 * Lists of activities and practices


 * (**) including gender and cultual variations

I haven't added much if any new material, so the following gaps are apparent in the existing article:
 * A broader cultural perspective of courtship, partner selection and sexual activity
 * Issues such as forced marriage
 * Other common problems
 * Other aspects, such as commercial sexual activity, or rape (these are "sexual behaviors" too, and belong somewhere in this article, even if in many people's eyes not good ones)

FT2 (Talk) 18:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Same-gender sexuality dating
The following lines present in section 3.1, different-gender sexuality:

''Courtship, or dating, is the process through which people choose potential sexual and/or marital partners. Among straight (presumably middle class) teenagers and adolescents in the mid-20th century in America, dating was something one could do with multiple people before choosing to "go steady" with only one, the eventual goal being either sex, marriage, or both. More recently dating has become what going steady was and the latter term has fallen into disuse.

Different-sex sexual practices may be monogamous, serially monogamous, or polyamorous, and, depending on the definition of sexual practice, abstinent or autoerotic (including masturbation).

have no analog in the same-gender sexuality section, even though (as should be obvious?) courtship and sexual practices are also present in relationships of the same gender. Either courtship and sexual practices should be moved to a different section covering all sexualities, or some lines about same-gender sexuality should be added. (I'll come back and add some myself, if need be). Heartofgoldfish 23:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Close Relationships template
I added the close relationships template. This is the article on human sexuality that most closely deals with human relationships. The concept of relationships is introduced in the second paragraph, to which the articles in the Close Relationships template directly apply, and the article contains a subsection that lists different types of partnerships, some of which are included in the Close Relationships template. The concept of close relationships--also referred to as intimate relationships or romantic relationships--is a topic that has received decades of research attention in psychology, sociology, and anthropology. This template will help readers interested in the general topic of Close Relationships find the articles they seek in Wikipedia. Kelly 14:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

OR
I have tagged this article OR, though an 'unreferenced' or 'verify' tage would probably be as applicable, because it makes extraordinary speculative claims, and because there is ONE citation in what is really quite a long article. I suggest any regular editors of this article familiarise themselves with the official Wikipedia citation policy – There should be dozens of citations in an article like this, and I suspect the verifiability requirements would strike much of the material from this article. mg e kelly 19:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"a partner who is physically at risk"
Under "Safety and ancillary issues", what is "choosing to trust a partner who is physically at risk" supposed to mean? It does not appear to be elaborated on in the section and I can't make heads or tails of it. --Strait 22:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Islam
I have no idea how this article is built up, so i would like to request somebody who does know to creat a summar section to Islam and sexual techniques.--Striver 12:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Is homosexuality a choice? -silly question
Perhaps the best way of answering the question is to ask those posing it when and why THEY "decided" to become hetrosexual !80.229.222.48 08:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That is a good question, I've used it several times, myself, but please bear in mind that Wikipedia isn't a discussion forum -- if you can, refer to verifiable reliable sources, research, and expert opinion. If something is original research, we should probably avoid adding it to the article. – Luna Santin  (talk) 08:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Am I crazy or is this section pretty biased against gays? Freud, for example, isnt well respected in modern psychology... I would like to work on this section, but I'm concerned that I'd have the opposite bias. Could someone with neutral feelings about homosexuality take a look at this section and see how this can be presented in a balanced and accurate manner? jaaronw 04:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm scrapping the following sentence in the article: "However only a few accept today the antiquated and outmoded conception that to choose a homosexual lifestyle is deviant." Though it might be true that the particular conception is antiquated and outmoded, it's certainly not neutral. Worse, the "only a few" is extremely sketchy, especially outside of North America and Europe.Vonspringer 00:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Is homosexuality a choice?
Is it 22 or 32 pairs of brothers that was studied?

I dont understand this paragraph.
"Dean Hamer, a gay researcher, conducted a study of thirty-two pairs of brothers who were not related and exclusively homosexual. As they were not related, they should not share the same genes. However, two-thirds of the pairs (22 pairs) shared the same type of genetic material, supporting the hypothesis that there is an existing gene that either influences homosexuality, or is caused by homosexuality"

First it says the brothers are not related, but two thirds share genetic material?????

Sections removed
I have removed several sections from this article. The introduction states: "This article is about sexual practices (i.e., physical sex)" this article is not a laundry list of reasons homosexuality is bad. Things like anal intestinal parasites and psychological problems in homosexuals ought to be in the homosexuality article, or something like that.

Adult-child sex
An editor removed the section I had created about adult-child sex. a.z. 05:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you view that as a problem?--A 05:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not the editor who removed that, of course. But I do feel that that section should be clear on what is a child. For instance, I do not view 17-year-olds as children. Pedophiles (actual pedophiles) wouldn't either. I may call a 17-year-old a kid, but not a child. And I can surely see a 17-year-old having sex with an older person and not being harmfully affected by that, considering that there are 18-year-olds who have sex with older people all the time and aren't harmed by that, and 17 is only one year less than 18.

When I think of a child, I think of a 5-year-old, a 12-13-year-old, you know, an actual child. I don't see laws varying in too many states (especially America) to allow adults to have sex with people of those ages. I do, however, see laws varying from state to state about 16-17 year-olds (and in rare instances a little higher than that) due to Age of consent, and am wondering if that's what the source/sources you added mean when it/they say "children"...since I haven't read that source or those sources yet. Flyer22 06:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In Spain, the age of consent is 13. a.z. 07:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that in some countries age of consent may be below age 14, but I stated that it's not often that you see age of consent applying to 5-year-olds, if ever, and age of consent usually applies to people older than 12 and 13. That section as it is at this moment, as you stated in your edit summary, does need a re-write. And I feel that it does need to mention age. The way it's stated now, it makes it sound as though sex with a 5-year-old is legal and varies from state to state, or that it may be talking about 16-year-olds or 17-year-olds, and that it's actually surprising that a 16-year-old or 17-year-old may not be negatively impacted by sex with an older person. It seems as though it's bunching all youth under the age of 18 in the same category or so that you can't clearly distinguish what it means by the word child or children. It needs to state exactly what age/ages it feels may not have a negative impact on a child...or whichever youth it means. Flyer22 07:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ahh it was you, A.Z, who created it. NPOV demands we do not push the pro-ped view exclusivelty hence my removal of the single ref claiming child sexiual abuse does nopt harm children, SqueakBox 17:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Another editor removed the section. Please, see the discussion on SqueakBox's talk page. I have explained to him why the section should exist, but he seems to have ignored me. a.z. 20:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As may have been noticed, I have clarified on the main subject of that section, as in it seems to be more so about actual children, not a late adolescent. And I specified on the issue of Age of consent, and how it usually applies to youth older than 12 or 13 years of age (though I didn't use those exact words). Flyer22 08:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a reason why I removed this section. Just take a good look at what this article is about. This article is not about every single possible permutation of 2 humans or more ever having sex. Adding this section clearly biases adult-child sex over any other possible permutation. I do not know whether this content should stay within the whole encyclopedia or not but I really do believe that this does not belong on this article.--A 01:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The section was removed again but I believe it's a worthy inclusion in the article, and I think we should be working on it rather than just removing it. Squeakbox, what specific parts of the section did you think needed citation? I would be happy to make an effort to find citations. Anchoress 04:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * See adult-child sex. A.Z. 04:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

{talkarchive}}