Talk:Copulation (zoology)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Creation of this article

This article was created as a result of the following discussion: Talk:Copulation#Article created and redirected again. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The "to do" list

Jarble, regarding the "to do" list you added, keep in mind that this article is specifically about copulation (meaning penis-in-vagina sex for insemination or non-vaginal insemination). It is not about animal sexual behavior in general. We clearly already have an article for that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: I revised the list on this page, so it is now more specific to this article's topic. Jarble (talk) 00:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

In Mammals Section almost a duplicate to Lordosis behavior Article, has too much information that this article has

A lot of the content in the In Mammals section has duplicate content to the Lordosis behavior found on this article. The current In Mammals section could be briefly summarized and a Lordosis behavior link could be included as a hatnote. Afish131 (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Problematic material on mammals

As I (admittedly vaguely) alluded to in my edit summary, the extensive discussion located here shows that the material in this article on mammals is riddled with non-obvious problems. To summarize what was found: it was originally written (but copied here later by another editor) by an account whose main purpose appears to have been to promote fringe research. Many of the questionable ideas discussed there are present here. Some examples of the problems:

In non-primate mammals (rodents, canines, felines, bovines, and equines), the anatomy of the reproductive organs and some circuits of the nervous system are specifically organized for heterosexual copulation. In humans also the anatomy of the reproductive organs are organized for heterosexual copulation (how could it be otherwise?), and plenty of species scattered throughout the animal kingdom engage in homosexual behavior, as do humans.

Similarly, 90% of sex pheromone receptor genes became pseudogenes, and the vomeronasal organ was altered. Misleading since there are other chemical receptors; pheromones may still play a role.

Sexual activities gradually became dissociated from the hormonal cycles, especially in pan paniscus and humans. An example of the bonobo fetishism typically found among sexuality crackpots. Actually, other animal clades vary in the roles played by hormonal fluctuations.

It is rather an erotic activity, among others, carried out voluntarily to obtain cerebral reward (sexual pleasure). Can't put it better than Seppi333:

but that's also true for most animals...The reflex stuff is mostly nonsense since the act of engaging in intercourse isn't reflexive; it's just the positioning of the female during intercourse that is. The assertions about pheromones and hormonal fluctuations (e.g., animals that go into heat) is true for some animals but not others. He's basically arguing that all non-hominids engage in sexual intercourse due to homeostatic reward as opposed to pleasure while hominids really only engage in intercourse for pleasure;...there's no evidence to support the assertion about non-hominids.

So, what we have currently constitutes misinformation. If we keep this article, I recommend temporarily chopping the mammal section way down and tagging it with expansion, and I will write up new material shortly thereafter. -Crossroads- (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that all of that material, or rather all of those aspects, should be cut. Clearly, some of it belongs. It's just that we need to tweak it. That includes cutting some or most of the material, rewording where appropriate, making sure none of the material is undue or too fringe, and adding fresh material. And I state "too fringe" because fringe ideas are allowed in articles as long as we appropriately apply the WP:Fringe guideline. Some mammal material (other than what the lead states) needs to be here. I'm also currently against merging this article, since having the article resolved a couple of issues (including WP:Pipelinking) noted in previous discussion. It could now be merged with and redirected to Animal sexual behaviour#Copulation, but I'd rather keep it.

Some of those sources are fine. For example, the "Knobil E., Neill J.D. (Eds). The physiology of reproduction. Academic Press, 3nd edition, 2005" source. As long as the material stays true to the sources, is not undue, synthesis, or too out of step with the literature, it should be fine to include.

The existence of sex pheromones in humans is dubious. That is why the "In humans" section of the Sex pheromone article (permalink here) is currently the way it is and the Human sex pheromones article (permalink here) is currently the way that it is.

As for non-human animals engaging in sex for pleasure, non-human animal sexual activity is driven more so by things such as estrus and the mating season, and sex pheromones, whereas this is not the case in humans. Non-human primates are different than other animals since they are closer to us than others. So it's no surprise when researchers talk about non-human primates engaging in sex for pleasure. The research on non-human animals engaging in sex for pleasure is still developing, but non-human animals (meaning the animal kingdom in general) still largely engage in sex for reproduction. The exception aspect is noted at the Non-reproductive sexual behavior in animals article. The "sex for pleasure" aspect was discussed at the Animal sexual behaviour talk page. In that discussion, DrChrissy (who is no longer with us) stated, in part, "Furthermore, where do we 'draw the line' in the purported experience of 'pleasure'? Do mating birds experience the same emotions as mammals? Do mating insects experience 'pleasure'? Does a male fish shedding sperm into the water experience 'pleasure'? If we are to go down this line we will need to be very sure of what we state." Why non-humans animals engage in sexual activity that does not lead to reproduction does involve a lot of speculation, although there is also some evidence to support "for pleasure" aspects. We don't know what is going on in these animals' minds. With humans, we ask/survey, and deduce based on our own experiences. In the section immediately above the "sex for pleasure" discussion at the Animal sexual behaviour talk page page, I stated, "When non-human animal sexual behavior is discussed, it is usually in terms of reproductive behavior. That is true. This is not a matter of '[s]ome sexual behaviour [being] related to reproductive behaviour'; it's about the fact that the term sexual behavior, when used in reference to non-human animals, is usually discussed in terms of reproductive behavior. [...] Some sources showing what I mean regarding the term sexual behavior usually being discussed in the context reproductive behavior when it comes to non-human animals are the following." I then listed sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Seppi333 to get his thoughts on what material is too fringe and undue for this article, and on this conversation.

The Knobil and Neill source is probably okay, but I don't trust what this account adds and how he used sources.

I'm not saying human pheromones exist, they probably do not; but we shouldn't imply that they definitely do not exist.

As for pleasure in animals, I think Seppi333 could clarify that as well, but he did already say that the reward system is involved in both humans and animals.

Removing cites to Wunsch is not enough; Wunsch's ideas and the ideas pushed by Yohan Castel and his alter egos are the same. And from the papers, it is clear that he does push a rather strict dichotomy between "reproductive behavior" in other mammals and "erotic behavior" in humans and bonobos. As Seppi333 stated, He's basically arguing that all non-hominids engage in sexual intercourse due to homeostatic reward as opposed to pleasure while hominids really only engage in intercourse for pleasure; I don't even need to read the paper to know there's no evidence to support the assertion about non-hominids.

For now, we can keep stuff that hasn't been specifically refuted by Seppi333, but I would like to eventually rewrite based on secondary sources possibly including the source you mentioned. Flyer, you and I are in agreement that [W]e need to tweak it. That includes cutting some or most of the material, rewording where appropriate, making sure none of the material is undue or too fringe, and adding fresh material.

Also, I am curious why you are giving the benefit of the doubt to what this guy added; I thought we already established that he was a crackpot. Given that he is trying to push a very fringe idea (remember, almost nobody cites him), and made basic errors that a supposed neuroscientist should have known better about, errors that Seppi333 pointed out. -Crossroads- (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Regarding human pheromones, the text (both before and after our cuts) to the article did not state that they don't exist; it states, "90% of sex pheromone receptor genes became pseudogenes, and the vomeronasal organ was altered." This is not cited to Wunsch. Text in the article also previously stated, "Vaginal coitus is still practiced in humans, but it is no longer a reflex motor activity, guided by pheromones and controlled by hormones. It is rather an erotic activity, among others, carried out voluntarily to obtain cerebral reward (sexual pleasure)." This was not cited to Wunsch, after I cut the "(in French) Wunsch S. (2014) To understand the origins of human sexuality. Neurosciences, ethology, anthropology." source. Various reliable sources are clear that sex pheromones in humans likely do not exist or have very little effect if they do exist. Again, this is why the "In humans" section of the Sex pheromone article (permalink here) is currently the way it is and the Human sex pheromones article (permalink here) is currently the way that it is.

For me, it's not about giving the editor the benefit of the doubt. Well, unless you are saying that I think he could have relayed some material accurately (meaning in accordance with the sources). I am saying that we should look at the sources and what they state, and if the text needs to be reworded to align with the sources, and also to see what material aligns with what the literature generally states on these matters. When it comes to WP:Preserve, I am about all of that. I never agreed that Wunsch is a crackpot since he does (as also noted by Seppi333) touch on things that are true or likely true. I've seen researchers with all types of theories. Some people think that Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer are crackpots for their book A Natural History of Rape (more on that is in the Sociobiological theories of rape article), but we still cover their views on Wikipedia. The key is to cover the matters with due weight when they should be covered and not cover them at all when they shouldn't be covered. It's clear that not everything Wunsch has stated should be omitted, whether we cite him or another source for the material. I get that you'd rather not cite him, and we can do that, but some of what he has stated is supported by the literature. I'm not speaking of whatever views he has on sexual orientation (as opposed to sexual behavior). In that regard, I understand calling him a crackpot. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

And as for pleasure, I'd refer back to what DrChrissy stated. We simply don't know enough on the matter with regard to non-mammalian animals. We still don't know as much as we'd like to on mammals other than humans. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so I just want to make 3 points to show where I stand. (1) The situation with Thornhill and Palmer is different. Thornhill and Palmer's ideas are acknowledged by other researchers, even if only to refute them, though some are agnostic. Wunsch is near-totally ignored. Having his ideas at all is undue, and I appreciate that you cut most of it. As you said, we can look for further undue weight and so on. (2) The reason Wunsch is fringe in my view is not because everything he says is wrong. It isn't. The problem is that what he is right about, is not his, and what is new from him, is wrong. That is what I mean by his ideas - his original ideas. (3) The other thing that makes me distrustful is the way the accounts that add his material have behaved, and the evidence that there is a conflict of interest there. This self(?)-promotion is a hallmark of fringe theory behavior, something I knew long before joining Wikipedia.

One thing that was not addressed at the other thread was whether Wunsch is a reliable source. So, Seppi333, if you do respond, would you cite Wunsch as a source? Doesn't the fact that almost no one is citing his ideas mean we should not also per WP:UBO?

Beyond this, I guess we could wait and see if Seppi333 responds. If not, we can work on further editing of the material we have. -Crossroads- (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, of course, the Thornhill and Palmer matter is different. I just used them as an example of researchers who have been called crackpots.

We did discuss reliability at Talk:Human sexuality with regard to Wunsch, but we disagreed. Seppi333 didn't discuss that aspect, and maybe Seppi333 not discussing it is what you meant above. Now that you have framed it as "almost no one is citing [Wunsch's] ideas" rather than "almost no one is citing him as a source," I understand your point better. As you know, I argued at Talk:Human sexuality that we could use Wunsch as a review of the literature, cite him for things that are not fringe. I wasn't supporting any use of fringe material. Above, I did mention that fringe ideas can be included, but that's because they can be. Too often, we think of fringe as "can't be included." That stated, I'm not saying that I want fringe ideas in this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay... was busier than I expected. I just went ahead an rewrote the entire section. FWIW, the cognitive and behavioral neuropsychology of sexual reward as discussed in http://www.kringelbach.org/papers/nru_Georgiadis2012.pdf is fully consistent with that of rewards in general. That paper was being used to cite an assertion in the article which it didn't support though (Sexual learning, induced by sexual rewards and the reward system, became a major factor in hominids.). That paper doesn't even use the word "hominid" and the only thing statement about a major factor in sexual learning in the paper is: pleasurable genital stimulation is thus a major factor in sexual learning. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Re: So, Seppi333, if you do respond, would you cite Wunsch as a source? Doesn't the fact that almost no one is citing his ideas mean we should not also per WP:UBO? Technically, sources are forms of media produced by an individual, but if you meant cite his publications, then it depends. Assuming it's a review article that's published in a reputable journal (i.e., basically any peer-reviewed) journal that doesn't appear sketchy for some reason), I wouldn't rule out citing him; however, knowing that he has odd views on things would make me look critically at other original ideas he introduces in a review article and check to see if others have cited the paper and covered the idea elsewhere. If others haven't repeated his idea and the idea seems unsubstantiated and/or absurd, I would just click the red X at the top right of my screen for that window and not give it any further thought. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Questions for FTN

So, I have decided to alert the fringe theory noticeboard. I think we really need more outside opinions to address these issues. Some essential background should be read briefly at here and here, as well as at the diagram caption located here. If desired, some additional info can be found in the rest of the discussions, beyond the subsections I have been linking to.

1. Is it accurate to call Wunsch a fringe theorist? Does it matter that some of the things he says are true, or should we focus primarily on his original ideas when deciding this?

2. Is it likely that given the evidence, there is a conflict of interest between Serge Wunsch and Yohan Castel (and his doppelgangers)?

3. Is Wunsch a reliable source, and is it undue to give any space to his ideas? How do WP:UBO and WP:RS/MC apply?

4. How much, if at all, should we trust the material added by these accounts?

Thank you for your time. -Crossroads- (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

1. Not sure if he's a fringe theorist in general, but his views (In conclusion, in the absence of cultural values stigmatizing particular sexual behaviors (i.e., homophobia), it seems that the innate tendency to search for erogenous zones’ stimulations by partners, as seen in the Bonobos, leads to the learning of a sexuality that would in most cases be bisexual and diversified ) on male vs female partner preference being conditioned ("sexual learning" is just "associative learning" which means classical and operant conditioning) are certainly fringe as I stated on the other talk page. It's just not consistent with the fact that there are clear differences in certain neural structures between straight vs gay people when averaged. It predicts that cultural variations would yield variable proportions of straight/gay people, which does not appear accurate. But more relevant to WP, I've never seen anyone else say this and it is indeed an extreme assertion which requires coverage in an independent (from him) secondary source, not a secondary source written by him.
2. Would need to ask a checkuser again if he becomes active. Regardless of what we think about them, only a CU can verify identities based upon IPs and issue blocks on that basis.
3. The stuff on non-human animals falls under WP:SCIRS; the stuff on human neuropsychology (i.e., human behaviors, cognitive processes, and the corresponding neural substrates for them) falls under SCIRS or WP:MEDRS depending on whether or not the claim is clinically-relevant.
4. Just replace the content on other pages with what I wrote in this article.

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey, Seppi333, thank you so much for writing up new material, and for your replies here. To clarify 3 of my 4 questions a little:

1. The impression I got from Wunsch's material is that he also has a peculiar classification of sexual behavior between animals and humans. He seems to say that human sexuality is totally different from animal sexuality, since most animals engage in "reproductive behavior", but hominids engage in "erotic behavior". This can be seen in Wunsch's papers here [1][2] and in Yohan Castel/JaKomensky's writing here. [3][4][5] This seems like a fringe theory, since the vast majority of authors do not make such categorical distinctions. Rather, innate and learned factors interact in a wide variety of ways across the animal kingdom. Is all this accurate?

2. I was looking for a comment to see if you agreed that there is some kind of conflict of interest between Castel and Wunsch. [6] I know outing is not allowed, so let's just say there is a close association. But why else would Castel cite Wunsch's papers so heavily when almost nobody else does, even Wunsch's doctoral thesis, and repeat the same ideas with the same pictures? If he reappears, he certainly seems prime for receiving Template:Uw-refspam. As for any connection between the Castel-like accounts, the CheckUser data would be expired if only one of them reappears, but a behavioral investigation may still be possible. We'll have to address that if and when it happens. But personally, I am convinced that they are all the same person.

4. The new material looks great. I was looking though for a comment on the trustworthiness of Yohan Castel's material in general. I would say it has a strong tendency to cherry pick sources, say things that are not in the sources (synthesis), and use poor sources (i.e. Wunsch). Seems untrustworthy to me, and it is best to remove it, and if needed, replace with better material, as we have been doing. -Crossroads- (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

1. The simplest reason I can give you as to why his views are wrong are that they're inconsistent with experimental models of sexual addiction and the behavior of humans with a true sexual addiction (i.e., a pathology defined by ΔFosB overexpression in the nucleus accumbens as opposed to a set of diagnostic criteria). There is unequivocal evidence that sexual addiction can occur in male rats on the basis that the "sexual addiction" phenotype of excessive/escalating engagement in sexual activity and the "drug addiction" phenotype of excessive/escalating drug use represent the same process of a pathology defined by operant reinforcement AND the fact that a rat will only exhibit the "addiction phenotype" following operant conditioning with sexual and/or drug rewards if and only if ΔFosB is overexpressed in the nucleus accumbens (sources for this are in the 2nd paragraph of Addiction#Behavioral addiction). This "sexual addiction" entails that all behavior exhibited by ΔFosB-overexpressing male rats is always under stimulus control; what that means is that, whenever they're exposed to a sexual cue, they exhibit compulsive sexual behavior wherein pathologically high levels incentive salience for sexual rewards dominate both the animal's capacity to override the behavior using inhibitory cognitive control (this is what makes the behavior compulsive) and the level of motivational salience for all other rewarding and aversive stimuli (this determines the dominant behavior under stimulus control). These rats engage in intercourse with females excessively (per the papers), and it has been established that ΔFosB mediates this change in behavior through reward sensitization, which is a continuous and not a discrete process (i.e., desire doesn't simply jump from a "healthy" level to a "pathological" level, but rather increases progressively and becomes pathological upon passing the threshold defined by the animal's capacity for inhibitory control). Hence, the sexual behavior of male rats is governed by incentive salience at least as much as it is by reproductive rewards. The fact that male rats can become addicted to sex is a clear flaw in Wunsch's idea about animal sexuality, but the implications from these experiments about incentive salience for sexual reward in healthy male rats (i.e., that sexual desire dominates reproductive rewards in rats, analogous to humans) outright contradicts his view due. A tangential point that's interesting to note is that there's experimental evidence in rats about drug-induced cross-sensitization with sexual reward, namely amphetamine administration increasing sexual desire, thereby acting as an aphrodisiac; you don't need to look any further than a prescription drug insert for an amphetamine pharmaceutical to learn that "changes in libido" is a side effect in humans, but I can personally attest to the fact that amphetamine affects incentive salience in humans in the same manner as described for rats.

As for humans, since a true sexual addiction entails incentive salience for sexual reward dominating aversive salience for any/all aversive stimuli (NB: aversive salience becomes desensitized in addicts), reconditioning a "gay aversion" (which was previously conditioned with aversive salience for cultural taboo, at least under Wunsch's theory) into a "gay reward" (due to incentive salience for the now dominant "tendency to search for erogenous zones’ stimulations by partners"; in sex addicts, that is not merely a tendency to want erogenous stimulation, it's a compulsive urge that manifests as a craving) could and, given enough time, would eventually occur in the absence of receptive female partners. I've yet to see any studies or sensationalized news stories about sex addicts suddenly "turning gay" though; that's probably simply because people don't "learn" their gender preferences like Wunsch asserts. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

2. I don't really see the point in looking into it unless they come back; it's a waste of time to look into this otherwise.

4. Well, if content he wrote elsewhere is anything like how he wrote the section in this article (a reasonable assumption) and assuming he wrote all of the section before I revised it (I didn't check), then there's probably problems with the material he's added to WP; the sources did not support several of the statements I revised and the existing content completely ignored contradictory assertions in the sources that were cited, which is why I had to rewrite the entire section. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. It definitely looks like his take on these things is way off. Much of his content is rather similar any time he adds it, and he did write that section; in fact the version here had already been cut down a lot by Flyer and then by me before you saw it. The original version is here. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

In response to the questions above:

1. Wunsch's original idea about the development of human sexual orientation is definitely WP:FRINGE. He's the only one saying this, and his idea lacks prominence and endorsement in secondary sources like reviews of sexual orientation studies.
2. It is very likely given the behavioral evidence.
3. I think it would be WP:UNDUE to mention Wunsch's idea about human sexual orientation in articles. Not sure how accurate his review of animal literature is; others can better judge that part.
4. As stated by User Seppi333.

Also, though this is a bit off-topic, I followed the links above to another talk page (the Human sexuality talk page) and then followed the link mentioned in there to French Wikipedia's 'Sexual Orientation'article. The French article has serious problems: it is solely stating Wunsch's hypothesis as the explanation for how sexual orientation is formed even though it is WP:FRINGE. In doing so, it is overstating the role of postnatal environment and downplaying the role of biological factors in development of sexual orientation. And if the Google translation is correct, the French article even says that sexual orientation can change over time but does not clarify that for the majority of people at least, sexual orientation does not change with time. The French article needs to use better sources and make serious corrections. —Human10.0 (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Human sexuality vs. non-human animal sexuality, and sex pheromones

Seppi333, with regard to Crossroads1's statement that "[Wunsch] seems to say that human sexuality is totally different from animal sexuality, since most animals engage in 'reproductive behavior', but hominids engage in 'erotic behavior'.", I really don't see human sexuality/human sexual behavior as too similar to non-human animal sexual behavior/human sexuality in the vast majority of cases. Perhaps "totally different" is not accurate to state with regard to some mammals. But if we are talking about all of the non-mammal animals out there, like fish? Did you have a look at the aforementioned "sex for pleasure" aspect that was discussed at the Animal sexual behaviour talk page? Above I noted that in that discussion, DrChrissy (who had expertise in this area -- non-human animal sexuality and other non-human animal research -- and is no longer with us) stated, in part, "Furthermore, where do we 'draw the line' in the purported experience of 'pleasure'? Do mating birds experience the same emotions as mammals? Do mating insects experience 'pleasure'? Does a male fish shedding sperm into the water experience 'pleasure'? If we are to go down this line we will need to be very sure of what we state." Petter Bøckman stated, "To my knowledge (and this is not my area of expertise) almost all research of sex-as-pleasurable is centred on birds and mammals. By the logic of phylogenetic bracketing, if sex is nice for birds and mammals, it should be so for reptiles too. The brain anatomy of amphibians are quite similar to reptiles, so whatever goes on in their brains is likely to also go in in amphibian brains. The problems is that the only things we actually know (or at least can gone an informed opinion on) is birds and mammals. I don't know the field well enough to say anything about fish, and the brain architecture is so different in arthropods and molluscs to say anything definite. As for other chordates and other deutrostomes, the brain is more or less absent in the adult animal, and they tend to be indiscriminate spawners."

And above, I stated that the research on non-human animals engaging in sex for pleasure is still developing, but non-human animals (meaning the animal kingdom in general) still largely engage in sex for reproduction. The exception aspect is noted at the Non-reproductive sexual behavior in animals article. I stated that why non-humans animals engage in sexual activity that does not lead to reproduction does involve a lot of speculation, although there is also some evidence to support "for pleasure" aspects. We don't know what is going on in these animals' minds. With humans, we ask/survey, and deduce based on our own experiences.

You added the following to the article: "Despite the fact that humans do not possess this organ, adult humans appear to be sensitive to certain pheromones that putative pheromone receptor proteins in the olfactory epithelium are capable of detecting. While sex pheromones clearly play a role in modifying sexual behavior in some mammals, the extent to which pheromones are involved in regulating human sexual behavior has not yet been determined." I appreciate that you were careful with the wording, but I think that the current wording leads readers to think that sex pheromones definitively exist in humans, when science is not definitive on that matter. This is why I stated above, "The existence of sex pheromones in humans is dubious. That is why the 'In humans' section of the Sex pheromone article (permalink here) is currently the way it is and the Human sex pheromones article (permalink here) is currently the way that it is." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

My take, still hoping to get Seppi's thoughts: Even given that human sexuality and animal sexuality differ on average in certain ways, it is still original research/a fringe theory for Yohan Castel to say that some animals have "reproductive behavior" and others have "erotic behavior". He does this clearly at French Wikipedia (the only Wikipedia to do this) here: [7] Via Google Translate: In most animals, there is a reproductive behavior: the purpose of sexual activities is copulation. Main article: Reproductive behavior. But in primates and humans, several biological factors that control the reproductive behavior have changed during the evolution.2 For these reasons, there is rather an erotic behavior: the purpose of the sexual activities is the stimulation of the body and erogenous zones. By simplifying, hominids seek sexual activities because they provide intense erotic pleasure. Main article: Erotic behavior. Both those "main articles" are by Yohan Castel and do not exist on other Wikipedias (one mistakenly has interwiki links for a different article). That categorization is Wunsch's, but is not acknowledged by scientists aside from Wunsch. That is a problem no matter what.

Now, I think it is pretty clear that the same basic neurological reward system is involved in animals as in humans. I think the confusion is arising because "pleasure" has extra baggage attached to it compared to "reward". As you quoted DrChrissy saying, Do mating birds experience the same emotions as mammals? Well, we're not considering emotions so much here, just sexual attraction and learning. And pleasure and emotions tie in closely with philosophical issues like consciousness and sentience. This is way out of our purview. And some researchers have criticized excessive fear of anthropomorphizing anyway, suggesting that animals have more similarity in feelings than we give them credit for. My point is that human sexuality is not categorically different than animal sexuality in the way Wunsch/Castel propose. I know it is still different in other ways.

As far as the pheromone material, if you still have concerns after we get feedback, then it could be modified.

I do hope Petter Bøckman can weigh in also. Should he be emailed to ensure he sees this discussion? If he also wants to weigh in on my "Questions for FTN" above about Castel/Wunsch, that would be much appreciated as well. -Crossroads- (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, and I know you know this, I'm not trying to support Wunsch, but humans and non-human primates differing with regard to engaging in sexual activity for pleasure vs. reproduction is supported by various reliable sources. What I've tried to be clear about on this matter is that scientists still understand non-human animal sexual behavior to mainly be reproductively motivated, and this is despite research on non-reproductive sexual behavior in animals, which covers non-human primates more than other non-human animals anyway. Humans engage in copulation for reproduction, yes, but it's not the main reason that they do. When observing the animal kingdom as a whole, meaning all of the other animals that exist, we can see that copulation in the animal kingdom is mostly reproductively motivated. This is regardless of whatever reward is involved in terms of sexual pleasure. I can list sources if needed, but only if we disagree that "when observing the animal kingdom as a whole, meaning all of the other animals that exist, we can see that copulation in the animal kingdom is mostly reproductively motivated."

Given that Bøckman is on Wikipedia sporadically, I think dropping him an email about this discussion is fine. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

And at Talk:Animal sexual behaviour/Archive 6#Sexual verses reproductive, I can be seen stating, "When non-human animal sexual behavior is discussed, it is usually in terms of reproductive behavior." and "Some sources showing what I mean regarding the term sexual behavior usually being discussed in the context reproductive behavior when it comes to non-human animals are the following." I then listed sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll email him then. It can't be that when a rat has sex, it does so because it wants to altruistically reproduce for the good of the species; it does so to get reward. Perhaps the issue is proximate vs. ultimate causes? Maybe for both animals and humans, the proximate cause of sexual behavior is sexual reward; but the ultimate cause is reproduction in most species, but often just pleasure itself, possibly for social/pair ponding, in some species including humans. Wunsch is incorrectly saying that the proximate motivations behind sexual behavior are overly different between rodents and humans. At any rate, I think we need Seppi333 or Bøckman to address this. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

We should keep in mind that how rats behave obviously doesn't mean that their behavior applies to animals in general. Rat studies are usually used to provide knowledge on possible human behavior and things that may affect humans (such as disease). The Non-reproductive sexual behavior in animals article also mentions rats. Again, to echo what DrChrissy stated, we simply don't know enough about the "sexual pleasure/rewards" matter with regard to non-mammalian animals. And we still don't know as much as we'd like to on mammals other than humans. Back in 2015, Bøckman stated that, to his knowledge, "almost all research of sex-as-pleasurable is cent[e]red on birds and mammals." We can look into how that statement holds up today, but I have observed that the "sex for pleasure" literature focuses on non-human primates (and to a certain extent dolphins) more than it does on other non-human animals. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Seppi333, for making this edit with regard sex pheromones. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Hallo Gents (and thanks for the heads up)! As stated by several here, the field of sexual behaviour is a very active field and any statement about what "makes animal tick" (or not) in regards to sex is bound to be dated the moment it's written. Obviously, the only animal we can ask are ourselves, behaviour for all others have to be interfered from behaviour and invasive brain studies.

It is however quite possible to attack this problem from another angle. The term "sex for reproduction" implies a certain amount of intent on behalf of the actor. As as far we know, humans are is the only species able to tell that sex might result in babies. It's possible that the chimpanzees and perhaps gorillas and possibly orangutans apes have connected the dots here, but that would be speculation. Dolphins, experiencing the world as a sort of continuous ultra-sound scan and having a greater encephalization quotient than apes is another candidate for having made the connection, but again that is speculation. I think we can very safely say that other animals have sex because they want to have sex, while humans at least have the possibility of having sex for the expressed purpose of reproduction. So the statement on why humans and other animals have sex should if anything be turned on its head.

While the reasons animals do anything at all can still only be guessed at, there has been a revolution of sorts in ethology for the last 15 years of so, where the norm has shifted from seeing animals as slaves to their instincts to active choosers, basing their choices on evaluation of needs and balancing urges. Considering the danger animals put themselves in to reproduce (whether their salmon wearing themselves out by swimming up a river or banana slugs fighting to gnaw of their opponents penis before mating), it is very obvious that the urge to reproduce is no less pronounced in other species than they are in humans, Assuming the pleasure principle (a fairly safe bet at lest for vertebrates), animals have sex because they enjoy it. just like we do.

Now we only need sources... Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Petter Bøckman, thanks for weighing in. As you know, what researchers mean by "sex for reproduction" with regard to non-human animals is what the lead of the Animal sexual behaviour article currently states: "[F]or most non-human mammals, mating and copulation occur at oestrus (the most fertile period in the mammalian female's reproductive cycle), which increases the chances of successful impregnation." In 2015, in the aforementioned "sex for pleasure" discussion, I cited this 2012 "Motivation: Theory, Research, and Application source, from Cengage Learning, page 24. It states, "In humans and perhaps some other primates such as the Bonobo (see deWaal, 1995), sexual behavior has been somewhat uncoupled (pun intended) from reproduction. Humans and Bonobos engage in sex for reasons other than reproduction." Before that, it also states, "Some might argue that sexual motivation is not as important as the previously mentioned analysis suggests because many animals engage in sexual behavior only rarely, and sexual behavior usually occurs only when the female is receptive. These points, however, really show just the opposite; that is, reproduction is so important that the behaviors leading to impregnation must be reserved to those times when they are most likely to produce offspring. As Emilie Rissman (1995) notes, mammals evolved in the tropics when sexual receptivity tends to be year round, but researchers most often study animals that live in temperature zones where seasonal changes in temperature, food, and so forth make successful reproduction more likely at certain times of the year than at others. As a result of these seasonal changes, it is thought that cyclic sexual receptivity evolved to restrict sexual behavior to those times when successful reproduction was most likely to occur."

Like I stated, I have observed that the "sex for pleasure" literature focuses on non-human primates (and to a certain extent dolphins) more than it does on other non-human animals. Sources commonly note that humans aren't driven by things such as estrus, the mating season and sex pheromones. So while some non-human animals do seem get pleasure from sexual activity, there are internal things actively driving them toward reproduction in a way that is absent in humans. And with regard to the spider and insects material included in the article, does it not seem that they are doing that reproduction rather than for pleasure? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The problem here is the underlying meaning of the term "sex for reproduction", because it implies a conscious link between behaviour (sex) and outcome (offspring), a link for which there is no proof whatsoever. The other interpretation of the term is from an evolutionary point of view, like in "animals are adapted to having sex so as to result in offspring". However, this reading of the expression ascribes motivation to either the species as a whole or to evolution itself, both of which are necessarily false. The only actor able to have a reason to engage in sex is the individual animal. While ascribing motivation to whole species and to phenomena is conventional in everyday language, it is nevertheless factually incorrect, and the alternative reading (that each animal do it in a conscious effort to have offspring) is likewise wrong.

Animals (humans included) are driven by urges. Urges take the form of an emotional inclination to act, or to prefer one action over another. This is particularly obvious when it comes to mating, where the urges are particularly strong and felt particularly acutely by the actors. What separate humans from other animals is that we are also able to act out of reason to achieve a goal (like having babies). The whole discussion of mating seasons only shows that animals are adapted not to feel the need to mate when no offspring would occur. The source you cite is correct in pointing out that in some species the sexual urges are "decoupled" and employed in other social settings. The reason for this if of coerce the intense pleasure involved is a a very strong motivator. Notice how all the species where the pleasure principle can be shown are species with very well built out social systems. Bears, haddock, earthworms and barnacles have no social life to speak of, and hence have no sexual urges outside the mating seasons because such urges would only serve to put the individual animals at risk for no gain.

Treating human sexual behaviour as entirely different from that of other species (erotic rather than reproductive behaviour) is obviously incorrect. Having engaged in sex a few times I can certainly confirm there is "internal things actively driving" as you put it. It would be better not to single out human sexual behaviour (which like the rest of what we do is necessarily very complex), and stick to what this article is purportedly about. Petter Bøckman (talk) 05:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't see the matter as being about the terminology "sex for reproduction" implying a conscious link between behaviour (sex) and outcome (offspring)." I'm not saying that all animals are consciously seeking reproduction, although consciously seeking reproduction does appear to be the case for a number of animals, whether they know what is driving them or not. I think it's clear that the reason DrChrissy asked the questions "Do mating insects experience 'pleasure'? Does a male fish shedding sperm into the water experience 'pleasure'?" is because, surely, while these animals very likely do not understand reproduction (at least in the way that we do), something is driving them to reproduce and we don't know if that's tied to pleasure.

To repeat, "Sources commonly note that humans aren't driven by things such as estrus, the mating season and sex pheromones. So while some non-human animals do seem get pleasure from sexual activity, there are internal things actively driving them toward reproduction in a way that is absent in humans." By that comment, I'm not saying that intense pleasure is not a motivating factor for non-human animal sexual activity. But I am saying that "sex for pleasure" rather than for reproduction has not been proven for all non-human animals and that reproduction is intertwined with non-human animal sexual behavior in ways it's not intertwined with humans. What researchers know is that, like the "Motivation: Theory, Research, and Application" source states, "many animals engage in sexual behavior only rarely, and sexual behavior usually occurs only when the female is receptive." All I'm saying is that human and non-human animal sexuality/sexual activity is largely different (and in a number of ways), as made clear by various reliable sources, and that human reproduction is not tied to factors such as estrus, the mating season and sex pheromones. All I'm saying is that it's no surprise that non-human primates, the animals closest to humans, engage in copulation for pleasure and engage in a variety of different sexual activities. We know a lot more about them with regard to "sex for pleasure" than other animals, and this is why the "Motivation: Theory, Research, and Application" source and many other sources focus on humans and other primates, especially bonobos, when speaking of non-human animals engaging in sex for pleasure. As I mentioned before, dolphins are another popular "sex for pleasure" topic.

You stated, "While ascribing motivation to whole species and to phenomena is conventional in everyday language, it is nevertheless factually incorrect, and the alternative reading (that each animal do it in a conscious effort to have offspring) is likewise wrong." Again, I was not speaking of a conscious effort. But how can we rule out a conscious effort in certain cases? You have talked about some things definitively. Do you have any sources speaking on them and in the way that you are speaking on them? I'm familiar with sources that talk about non-human animals engaging in sex for pleasure, but most of those sources single out mammals and specific types of mammals, and still state things about how most non-human animal sexual activity occurs when the female is receptive or occurs during a certain time of year. It's one of the key differences that researchers point to when distinguishing human sexual behavior and non-human animal sexual behavior. And back in 2015, you stated, "To my knowledge (and this is not my area of expertise) almost all research of sex-as-pleasurable is cent[e]red on birds and mammals." And above in this discussion, you stated, "Now we only need sources." Yes, I prefer to go by what reliable sources state than our speculations. I do understand your points, and they are food for thought.

I'm all about sticking to what this article is about. That it addresses things like "In most female mammals, the act of copulation is controlled by several innate neurobiological processes, including the motor sexual reflex of lordosis" and "female lordosis behaviour became secondary in hominidae and is non-functional in humans" is relevant to the article. I don't view it as singling out humans in some unnecessary way. Humans are different, and we should relay that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Flyer22 Reborn: I literally wrote a lengthy 4 paragraph response 3 times before experiencing a browser crash, losing my page cache, and then generally just hating life. Will follow up later incrementally, but I wanted to address one thing first. There's actually 2 separate issues pertaining TAARs functioning as "pheromone receptors". The first is the one that actually matters: does olfaction of volatile amine odorants by TAARs that are expressed in the olfactory epithelium induce attraction/aversion to the odorant stimuli? The second question is whether or not they're pheromone receptors if they do have this property. Based upon the accumulated evidence involving trimethylamine at TAAR5 - and in the event you're unfamiliar with the smell of rotting seafood keep in mind that trimethylamine (in high concentrations) smells just fucking disgusting - I think it's fairly likely that TAAR5 triggers aversive salience to trimethylamine at high concentrations. I wouldn't be surprised at all if that proved to be the case for other olfactory TAARs. Now that said, in humans, trimethylamine is excreted by people with fish odor syndrome. Now, the idea that chronically avoiding people with trimethalminuria confers an evolutionary benefit seems fairly stupid to me. That's also a rare condition. Dimethylethanolamine is another ligand. According to NIOSH and its MSDS, that has a suffocating, ammoniacal, rotten egg-like odor [8][9]. As they're both tertiary amines, tertiary amines tend to have similar smells [10], and TAAR5 binds tertiary amines in other species, it's safe to assume its agonists in humans are all tertiary amines. Now, off the top of my head, the only other rotten egg/fishy odor in humans occur in various forms of infectious vaginitis. If you consider that the volatile amine odorants from infectious vaginitis and trimethylaminuria are all actually produced by microorganisms inside humans and that the smell of rotting fish is produced by microorganisms in rotting food and by pathogenic bacteria, it makes much more sense that TAAR5 is actually a kairomone receptor that produces aversion to volatile amine odorants emitted by harmful infectious and spoilage bacteria that are found in rotting food and elsewhere. I've been wondering why no one has bothered to consider that this might actually be the functional role for that receptor in particular, and the TAARs in general (as basically all amines smell fishy; tertiary amines like cadaverine, putrescine, TMA, and DMAE just tend to be a bit offensively so) for roughly 3 years now. Anyway, that's just my 2 cents on their function in olfaction. I'm more interested in their functional roles within different tissues.
• I don't know what volatile amine odorants are produced by humans besides the trace amines and polyamines, but at some of those (e.g., phenethylamine) don't appear to bind to olfactory TAARs (granted, some of them are still completely uncharacterized). So, in a nutshell, I don't see human TAARs playing any role whatsoever as sex pheromone receptors. The only reason they're mentioned is that they likely mediate aversion to agonist odorants and thus modify behavior, which is a phenomenon that people seem skeptical about. Frankly, I would be skeptical about TAAR5 not mediating aversion, because I don't know what kind of person could just stand next to a pile of rotting fish.
• What the subjective experience of pleasure feels like to other animals is irrelevant; as long as they experience a positively-valenced percept that can be stored in declarative memory, it would suffice to substitute for "pleasure" in the reward system, as it would serve the same purpose as a metric for computing updated wanting. Now, if you assume that animals simply do not feel pleasure just because, then you are actually assuming that the current scientific understanding of reward is completely flawed because this paradigm sans pleasure predicts that non-human animals can't learn what they want (think back to what I said on the other talk page); they also lose the capacity for associative learning with rewards due to not having "wants" to associate conditioned stimuli with. And that's because, like I've stated several times already, pleasure is a learning signal for desire that is used to compute "reward prediction error", which is necessary for the subsequent computation of updated "wanting". This is a review on the neurocognitive computation of reward which covers this: [11].

I'll comment on the rest later. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 09:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Just to ad to what User:Seppi333 wrote, the current paradigm of animal behaviour is based on animals making choices. To attribute a sort of mindless, non-experience of pleasure and pain flies in the face of the last 15 or so years of research example, and would need sourcing. Petter Bøckman (talk) 13:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Seppi333, yeah, I've come to some similar conclusions about the possibility of sex pheromones in humans. And, no, I don't "assume that animals simply do not feel pleasure just because."

Bøckman, to echo what I stated above, I certainly was not voicing the opinion or implying a "mindless, non-experience of pleasure" for all animals. But to repeat what DrChrissy stated, "Do mating birds experience the same emotions as mammals? Do mating insects experience 'pleasure'? Does a male fish shedding sperm into the water experience 'pleasure'?" Do we know? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

"Do mating birds experience the same emotions as mammals? Do mating insects experience 'pleasure'? Does a male fish shedding sperm into the water experience 'pleasure'?" Do we know?

• That depends on whether the non-mammalian brain contains hedonic hotspots; there are at least five anatomically remote hotspots in humans, so I imagine that at least one of these would still exist in some form even in bugs. If they do not have a hedonic hotspot, then re:above - this paradigm sans pleasure predicts that non-human animals can't learn what they want (think back to what I said on the other talk page); they also lose the capacity for associative learning with rewards due to not having "wants" to associate conditioned stimuli with.. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, to adress your question: No, we do not know what most animals feel. The great apes appear to feel basically what we feel, and we have a fair idea of what goes on in mammals, but outside that it's becoming increasingly difficult with phylogenetic distance. We can however directly observe that they want to mate. The question of whether what they experience is similar to our experience is rather academic. If we are to apply the strictest criteria of knowledge, we don't know what other humans experience either, we just know that they apply a set of phrases to the experience that we have all agreed pertain to that experience. Thus any article of animal mating should stick to the observable (the eagerness with which animals pursue sex), and refrain from delineating the human experience. Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

As you know, human and non-human animal sexuality/sexual behavior are compared in various reliable sources. This is why we should also cover such comparisons on Wikipedia, rather than "refrain from delineating the human experience." That is why we currently include comparisons in the "In mammals" section. These comparisons are done by sources for knowledge, including to better help us understand human vs. non-human animal sexuality/sexual behavior. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

As for "we don't know what other humans experience either," whether we are speaking of a strict sense or not, I'll have to disagree on that (outside of one's personal thoughts). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: I randomly stumbled across this paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327034670_How_Female_Mice_Attract_Males_A_Urinary_Volatile_Amine_Activates_a_Trace_Amine-Associated_Receptor_That_Induces_Male_Sexual_Interest

Mouse TAAR3 is a pheromone receptor for the mouse sex pheromone isobutylamine, so it probably was worth mentioning TAARs in this article. That really doesn’t reflect at all on TAAR function in humans though; even if human TAAR3 weren’t a pseudogene, the number of functional TAAR genes, their amino acid sequences, their ligands, and some of their tissue-specific functions vary widely across species due to evolution, so animal research on TAARs does not translate well across species. E.g., there are 15 mouse TAAR genes and 1 pseudogene whereas humans have 6 TAAR genes and 3 pseudogenes. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)