Talk:Human sexuality
From Academic Kids
Facts of Life Redirect NOT Appropriate
I typed in "Facts of Life" to go to the entry on the T.V. and it took me here. This redirect needs to be eliminated in favor of a disam page. Pacian 01:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
| Contents |
I am sorry, but the idea that human sexuality is governed by instinct is hopelessly outdated. Get your information straight. For instance, it does not need to take one man and one woman. A woman or a man can have sex by themselves. Not everybody in this world defines themselves as man or woman. Two women or two men (or three or four or more) can have sex. But the main thing is that we learn sex, we do not just instinctively do it. If you don't agree, think back to your first time. You will have to admit that you had to learn a great deal and perhaps you have since that time. Can you walk on two feet (a distinctly human trait) without anybody teaching you? Can you speak complex sentences (equally as human, no animal comes close to humans in the use of language) when you do not grow up in a social environment? You cannot. If you want to compare your sexuality to that of chimps, I suggest you watch chimps copulate (I can't even call it sex). If that compares to your sexuality, you have my sympathy, but I happen to last a bit longer than a few seconds.
User:nielsft12 April 2004.
- I have two objections to your edit. First one is that in this version it posits an either-or situation with does not necessarily exist. It is a fallacy.
- The other is that even if you hold that human sexuality is entirely learned behaviour, NPOV requires that you state the other opinions (which hold different degrees of intinct involvement) and give give reasons (citings etc.) why your point should be more prominents etc. etc.
- --Calm 16:46, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
---
I agree with 200.191.188.xxx, who added the abortion link back into the article. In fact, I'd put it right under pregnancy. But it's extremely disingenuous to ignore the link between abortion and sexuality. <>< tbc
LOL. That was my opinion. :-) Western society must be the first in history to de-couple sexuality from a link with pregnancy. (I'd put abortion with Birth control/Contraception on the page, myself, but I think we should leave it as a "see also" for now.)
- Our high intelligence and complex societies have produced in us the most complicated sexual behaviors of any animal.
That's very subjective opinion. Compared to other animals, human sexuality is quite simple. You know - you need just a male and a female and ... done :) Many important aspects of normal animal sexuality like estrus, sexual demonstrations, fighting between males before any copulation, eating partner or partner's previous children don't exist or exist only in very reduced form in humans. --Taw
- Tush. I revised it and put it back on the page - hopefully the new version is less mantis-bashing :-). And I think most of the behaviors you list are present in humans in an attenuated or sublimated form.
- I think the initial wording above is actually better than the current one. Our intelligence has little if anything to do with the complexity of our sexuality as a species. And it is more complex than the act of coitus which is pretty basic when you get down to it. Courting rituals and cultural taboos ad such are highly elaborate, and it can even be argued that most of our culture is directly or indirectly derivative of that, from art, to music, etc. I think the original wording is much more NPOV and accurate. With all due respect to Taw, I suggest we revert back to that wording. Lestatdelc 20:14, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)
- And -- many aspects of (well, maybe not important and maybe not normal) human sexuality such as high-heel shoes, alimony, Queer theory, contraception, de Sade (yeesh), red sports cars, panty raids, hentai (need I go on? :-) ) don't exist in animals.
- Well, of course Queer theory doesn't exist in animals; they typically refrain from theorizing, to my knowledge. - Montréalais
- Well, as far as we know such complex self-study of animal societies of their own species does not occur, yet homosexual anbd bisexual behavior, iuncluding complex social behaviors sorrounding such does occur in the naimal kingdom. I suggest reading Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity (http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=17-0312192398-0) by Dr. Bruce Bagemihl . Lestatdelc 23:37, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
- what's the link between this article and human sexual behaviour ? Martin
The term "instinct" is not very helpful in this discussion. It appears that there are some behaviors that are absolutely "hard-wired", but they are very simple, e.g., all babies react to the feeling of "the bottom dropping out". But many other behaviors may have a hard-wired basis that needs to meet the appropriate imprinting to be activated in a way useful to the individual.
Patrick0Moran 05:41, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Wisdom and Human Sexuality
There have been several changes to the line that currently reads "Historically, wisdom has not been a dominant factor in human sexuality." I don't think the current phrasing is very good. But I think that it should be resolved on the talk page instead of through back-and-forth changes in the article itself. Any suggestions for a good wording?
Acegikmo1 03:06, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
- I don't think the paragraph is necessary at all. I wanted to remove it, but thought I would try re-wording it first. I don't see any reason why the wisdom or intelligence of human sexual behaviors would be relevant to a page which is nothing more than a List Of page. If these comments are even appropriate for an encyclopidic article, they should probably go in their own "debate on human sexuality" page or something. -- Crag 15:07, 2004 May 17 (UTC)
- H'm, agreed. I tried re-wording it myself when I first saw it, but you're right that it really has no place in the article. I'll remove it. Thanks
- Acegikmo1 00:28, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
Why is this not merged with Human sexual behaviour? -SV 21:54, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)
- Probably because it would take a lot of work, as the articles are organized quite differently.
- Acegikmo1 18:05, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
human category
is it okay for this page to be under category:human ?
--LegCircus 04:22, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
- Its fine, I would think, except that Category:Sexuality is a subcategory of Category:Human behavior, which is a subcategory of Category:Human, which means that because it is in Category:Sexuality it is already in Category:Human. Phew! -Seth Mahoney 19:13, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
clarify sex vs. gender issue
I have made a minor change in the first paragraph because the article did not properly reflect the difference between sex and gender. Sexual identity is not a matter of socialization. Determining the sexual identity of a person breaks down into several objective questions: What is the chromosomal sex of this person (XX, XY, XXY...)? What is the status of the genitalia (typical female, typical male, XY individual with unmasculinized genitalia, etc.,etc.)? Societies generally insist on a 2-category system, the basic criterion for inclusion in one category or the other is whether the individual has, will have, or once had the capacity to produce ova or to produce spermatazoa. The ways that individuals are taught to represent what they are and what they want to do in a social/sexual/life-task context is called gender. P0M 05:53, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
