Talk:Human female sexuality/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

POV comment re lesbians

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

"(real or avowed) lesbians" ??? is this not a glaring POV?

I have just attempted to create a stub - it is going to be an interesting exercise for all editors who may get involved. --Bhadani 15:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

And, I would love to see a lot of by different editors - that shall make the page truly encyclopedic. --Bhadani 15:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Female sexuality vs. human sexuality in general

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This article should be specifically about female sexuality; references to human sexuality in general should point back to the main article on human sexuality; similarly, references to specifically male sexuality should point to the male sexuality article. -- The Anome 14:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

All topics listed below are merely expressions of angst and intellectual tail-chasing. I suggest we attempt to keep the loonies out as best we can by discussing this topic rationally and not pandering to a thinly disguised political stance. This includes omitting or at least sidelining Arts/Humanities Faculty style nonsense which only confuses any issue it approaches as a means of side-stepping the responsibilities inherent in maintaining ones existence in reality. Female Sexuality should be about precisely that. Not about rape or poor lifestyle choices, or why women aren't responsible for their actions and are always fighting the power. Give me a break. Anne Coulter is a woman too. If we are going to discuss irrational nonsense from the left then it's only fair that we throw in some equally disturbing nonsense from the right. Most of the "concerns" below can be addressed over drinks with a few half-intelligent friends, we don't need to drag the good name of Wikipedia through the mud to address people's "concerns" and insecurities. Please, let's attempt to be impartial. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.101.64.153 (talk • contribs) .

The spirit of bluff pipe-smoking ultra-masculinity lives on, I see. Unless, of course, the comment above was meant as parody? -- The Anome 14:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

See WP:SOAP. Black-Velvet 08:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I know it's a stub, I don't want to dump on what's been done, but there are problems with two lines in particular (in the 'Historical conceptions' section):

Even in the twentieth century, many people did not believe that
respectable women should enjoy sex; rather, it was said that
they should "lie back and think of England".

The sentence overall is vague, and the statement, "lie back..." doesn't actually say anything. Citations would help, as well as a more factual definition of what was actually expected of women in conjugal relationships; also, what does 'respectable' mean in this context? I think less POV definitions of women's roles, labels and expectations would help. Also (not to be too critical, sorry), both the 'think of England' line and the vagueness of the paragraph lends an Euro-centric (or even British-centric) viewpoint. Either be specific about what culture is being described, or compare/contrast 20th century views of women's sexuality v/v different cultures.

The phrase originally came from; Alice, Lady Hillingdon (1857-1940) married to the 2nd Baron Hillingdon in 1886. She wrote in a Journal in 1912,

"I am happy now that George calls on my bedchamber less frequently than of old. As it is, I now endure but two calls a week, and when I hear his steps outside my door I lie down on my bed, close my eyes, open my legs and think of England."

Nevertheless, many studies have shown that women's actual sexual
behaviour throughout history appears, like that of men, not
to have been controlled to anywhere near the degree desired
by society.

Citations would be good. Right now it's vague and POV.--Anchoress 06:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Go for it! -- The Anome 02:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Huh?--Anchoress 01:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

By which I mean, "please feel free to improve the article" -- The Anome 14:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

sexual prime/peak

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

where is the mention of when a female reaches the height of interest in sex during her lifetime generally? Isn't a womans sexual prime much later than that of a man for example? 67.5.156.117 03:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I would think this kind of data if apocryphal at best. Vranak 20:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

buudi hbhgy hgub hggdtyfsjh hvhgtsd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.208.154 (talk) 03:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

POV issues?

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Several comments in the Feminist Concepts section seem blatantly POV, such as:

"Feminist attitudes to female sexuality have taken two, superficially opposing, directions."

and

"A short-lived movement towards political lesbianism within the feminist movement led to temporary schisms within the feminist movement between heterosexual and (real or self-avowed) lesbian women, then rapidly floundered in the face of the acceptance that most women's sexuality was not defined by politics, but by their own sexual preferences."

Gonna mark this for a POV check. toll_booth (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like fact 2 me :) Louisa Petit-Ladoumegue (talk) 20:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the first poster is certainly on to something: this is independent research at best, and probably essentialism at worst (ie all feminists thought either x or y,and nothing else ever.) Also, the mention of French psychoanalytic feminism as "the most significant at the end of the 20th century" is oddly judgmental. I've known quite a few psych students and practitioners, and not all of them have read Cixious or Kristeva, let alone agree on their validity. The entire section begs for a major over-hall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.215.26 (talk) 08:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Current image

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The current image is captioned "Representations of female sexuality are as old as human civilization." I would argue that the image is not particularly represenative of female sexuality - it's just a sculpture of a naked woman posing coyly. Seems more like a representation of male sexuality, to me. It is also interesting how the female sexuality article is not partitioned into heterosexual and homosexual sections as is the article on male sexuality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.204.137 (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree! I'll have a look to see if I can find a better picture.Lova Falk talk 16:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The picture for female sexuality is a painting of a girl masturbating, while the picture for male sexuality is a symbol representing male sex. Seems a bit lopsided to me. Why is the graphic painting necessary when discussing female sexuality? There are paintings out there of males masturbating... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.28.176 (talk) 12:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Age of consent matters

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"The first is that female sexuality should be accepted and women should be free to have sex when they like, with whomever they like, provided they are of legal age and are willing to participate."

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't there a few sex-positive feminists who believe that the age of consent should be done away with? If so, I would like to see that reflected in the article, but only if such a volatile claim would have the proper citation. toll_booth (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

While I am sure one could find a group who believes in anything, I see no reason why that particular point of view has encyclopedic value. Even if a reference can confirm that someone believes that way, it doesn't need to be in the article unless the belief - and the expression of this idea in public discourse - has some sort of significant political or cultural impact.70.126.45.101 (talk) 06:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Female sexual arousal and orgasm

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I have written a new article that is intended to provide more factual background to understanding women's sexuality in terms of a genital focus rather than purely reproductive. The more traditional view of female sexuality depicts women's sexuality almost entirely in terms of vaginal intercourse within a committed sexual reltionship. I am hoping for some feedback on whether the article can be used as a standalone resource to support the general overview of female sexuality. I am author and founder of the female sexuality forum www.WaysWomenOrgasm.org.

Kind regards, Jane Nosper (talk) 11:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This comes too close to original research to qualify, as-is. This does not mean your article is unusable; however it must follow some sort of editorial process. To ensure that the article is encyclopedic, and not the expression of an individual's opinion, users should also avoid citing anything they have written themselves unless no other option is available (and of course it qualifies otherwise). Peer-reviewed academic journals and texts would be the preferred sources, but if neither is available then online resources may be used if they meet the guidelines.70.126.45.101 (talk) 06:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. What is the way forward? Who do I ask to review? What is the editorial process? I am happy to leave out references from my own website. I have included plenty of other references to published texts by the accredited specialists. Nosper (talk) 15:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Vague language

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is plenty of vague language and weak generalities ("many", "could be", etc.). 93.172.46.55 (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Weird evaluations

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

"The variety of erogenous zones that a woman has on her body and that can be stimulated are an advantage that women have and men do not."

... Wikipedia articles don't usually make ethical claims, at least not ones this unspecific - an "advantage"... The article on, say, poverty doesn't state that "Poor people should try to get out of poverty". The article on Christianity doesn't state "Being a Christian has many advantages" - though (I guess) there is less of a consensus in this latter case than there is on poverty, not that there is a complete consensus on poverty either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.156.248.222 (talk) 13:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm deleting this section for now:

Obligations and Assumptions Frequently women find themselves in a situation where they must navigate their own safety in terms of negative social constructions. In U.S. society, women are expected to be sexually available to men and they have internalized this form of male domination. They see it as their job to not only please men sexually but to make themselves sexually available, even when they are no longer interested or aroused [8]. Once a woman consents to sex, she feels obligated to continue despite her own feelings. If a woman demands condom use in a heterosexual sex encounter, she risks being seen as promiscuous or not trusting of her partner. As the use of condoms is frequently seen as a sign of infidelity or promiscuity, women are faced with other challenges in engaging in safer sex discourse with their male partners [11]. Little attention is paid to women’s opinions of condom use as little attention is paid to women’s sexual desire. Women are often assumed to not mind condom use, as it is seen as more of an inconvenience for the man. Condoms are seen as physically uncomfortable for men but how they may be physically, aesthetically or tactility uncomfortable for women is ignored [12]. Women also see condom use as the end of a sexual encounter. Because of the coital imperative ideology, sex is then defined and predictable which for some women is unsatisfactory [11]. Women feel pressure to not use a barrier and thus put themselves at risk for pregnancy, STIs and HIV.

Social constructions of female sexuality have a place in this article but the claims in this section are absurd- "[women] have internalized this form of male domination", "little attention is paid to women's sexual desire"- these don't sound like they're based on factual evidence at all. 148.85.240.84 (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

A lot (if not all) of what you removed is true (for example, "Condoms [being] seen as physically uncomfortable for men") and, as seen in your removal, was backed to reliable sources. But I see that the "Women as responsible for sexual safety" section is also tackling the issue. I would say that the information you removed should be added back, but tweaked, and the "Women as responsible for sexual safety" section should be combined into that. I'll do that at a later date, if no one else does first, not sure when. Flyer22 (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

POV, Bias, Outdated information and outmoded concepts.

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This article exhibits extreme bias toward certain perspectives, and a strong biases against other perspectives that are both common and trusted in regard to CURRENT AND MODERN gender studies.

A number of points made are either completely false or outdated. An example are the points made regarding the lack of evolutionary purpose for female orgasm. Science produced over the past 5 years has shown that female orgasm holds evolutionary benefits both socially and in terms of reproductive success. The 'G' Spot, or female prostate has also been identified and mapped quite well.

The entire notion that female sexuality has been repressed to any greater extent that mens in most societies is contrary to established FACT. Read the history of male chastity devices in western society sometime, it is enlightening. table skirts are another great read on that matter. The point being that particularly in western society, both male and female sexuality have been scorned and oppressed. Circumcision in America was not introduced for Hygienic or religious purposes, but to curb potential masturbation in young boys.

Also the notion that the rules, laws, mores about female sexual expression are in any way a cultural constant is downright absurd. A cursory glance as to why tribesmen in New Zealand wear colorful headdresses alone dispels that notion.

"The variety of erogenous zones that a woman has on her body and that can be stimulated are an advantage that women have and men do not." Such comments not only show a pro female (as in white power pro) bias, but also illustrate the authors tendency to portray men as inferior. This is an outmoded concept in social sciences that has been challenged and is now thought of as hate speech by those of us who actually bothered to study sex and gender, staying on top of developing trends in the science. Such remarks are factually invalid, based on a cultural perspective and amount to comparing apples and shoelaces.

The fact that this article is not part of HUMAN SEXUALITY as whole, further serves to illustrate its bias. This is clearly a rambling interest, produced as a result of second wave propaganda and a very hateful bias. I understand that Wikipedia is a second tier resource, but I honestly expect better in terms of self regulation.

Cainchild (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Cecil Westervelt

WP:BOLD Vranak (talk) 01:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Cainchild. Regarding this article, I cleaned up some things and added sources in December 2011. I have been steadily tweaking things in it since then, but, yes, the article obviously still needs much work. Work I may not have time for. I want to go over a few of your points:

You say "An example are the points made regarding the lack of evolutionary purpose for female orgasm." This section, Biological and evolutionary function, is one of the sections I sourced. Before I came along, it was completely unsourced. There are, in fact, researchers who don't believe that there is an evolutionary purpose for female orgasm. And they usually base that belief on their conclusion that it is not reproductive. I sourced that, even just minutes ago,[1] but I also included the view that there is a purpose. Dr. Helen O'Connell speaks of the clitoris/female orgasm having a reproductive purpose.

You say "The 'G' Spot, or female prostate, has also been identified and mapped quite well." I have to say that the G-Spot has not been "mapped quite well." This is why there is a great debate about the G-Spot. Many researchers either don't believe it exists or don't believe it exists as a distinct structure. And its size and location is generally not always consistent. This is part of what I added to this article back in December, backed by reliable sources. See WP:Reliable sources. Reliable sources are what Wikipedia articles are (and should be, if they are not) based on. For topics like this, we generally should go by reliable scholarly and medical sources. See WP:MEDRS. With the exception of the lead (intro), since leads can be unsourced as long as they are backed by references lower in the article, you can remove anything that is unsourced, although trying to find a source for it is usually better.

You say "The entire notion that female sexuality has been repressed to any greater extent that mens in most societies is contrary to established FACT." But you need to provide a reliable source (one very good one) or two or more reliable sources showing that. And if you do, it should be presented with WP:DUE WEIGHT to any reliably sourced views that report the opposite of that. We should generally present both sides, per WP:Neutral. That of course also applies to lines such as this: "The variety of erogenous zones that a woman has on her body and that can be stimulated are an advantage that women have and men do not." I do not see that line in this article, however. I even just Googled it to see if I could locate it. Are you sure that you weren't looking at an old version of this article? Sometimes, old versions remain on the web for a long time and people click on those versions instead of the actual Wikipedia article. See WP:MIRROR.

As for this article being separated from the Human sexuality article, it's because it is a notable topic that can stand on its own. There is no need to limit it to the Human sexuality article, making that article unnecessarily longer or mostly about female sexuality, when we can just split this topic from it. The same goes for the Human male sexuality article. Flyer22 (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Top image

Latest comment: 10 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

Top image is supposed to represent the article content in best possible way. Masturbation is hardly an all-encompassing image for female sexuality. I suspect it was thrown in as a random free image, rather than a result of conscious decision. Let us select/discuss an appropriate image . Especially welcome are opinions of female wikipedians and sexologists. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Staszek Lem is referring to this image and this image. I argued against replacing the first image because the first image clearly shows an aspect of sexuality while the second image does not clearly show it. I reverted Staszek Lem, then Staszek Lem reverted me, then Staszek Lem removed the image altogether.[2][3][4][5] This article, while not only about sexual behavior, is largely about sexual behavior, just like all Wikipedia articles concerning sexuality are (because that's what WP:Reliable sources usually focus on with regard to sexuality), which is what I meant by "sexual activity." As shown in the #Current image section above, there is no image that is going to represent all of what the human female sexuality topic deals with. As such, I see nothing wrong with having a lead image that deals with one or two aspects of that topic; in this case, it was an image of female masturbation, which concerns physiology and sexual pleasure and is important because not only does it not show a need for a man for a woman to attain sexual pleasure, but shows one of the primary ways that women achieve sexual pleasure; it is quite common that women don't enjoy or orgasm solely from penile-vaginal penetration. And as this article discusses, society is far too focused on the idea of women needing a man for sexual pleasure, and heterosexual men are often far too concerned with sexual penetration when it comes to sexually pleasing a woman, more so than they are with educating themselves on the things that sexually please a woman and making sure that the woman is sexually pleased.

Since Staszek Lem especially welcomes the "opinions of female wikipedians and sexologists," I invite female Wikipedians Lova Falk and Kyledueck (at least I think Kyledueck is female), who are involved in editing sexuality topics, to this discussion. As shown in the Current image section above, Lova Falk has been involved with this article before. Lova Falk is also a psychologist. She has not been editing Wikipedia too actively these days, however. And to help balance things out, I invite male editors Johnuniq, Jim1138 and Grayfell (at least I think Grayfell is male) to this discussion; all of them are in one way or another involved in editing sexual topics, and I find all of them to be supportive of female sexuality topics. Johnuniq and Jim1138, for example, are involved with the Female genital mutilation article. Oh, and as for me, I am female and am quite involved in editing anatomy, sexuality, psychology and other medical topics, as many at this site know.

All editors who weigh in on this discussion, consider weighing in on the one immediately below this one that Staszek Lem started as well. Flyer22 (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

First, I accept your arguments. However I find it disturbing that lead images of both Human male sexuality and this one are masturbation. Yes, both m&f can do without the opposite sex to satisfy immediate urges. But aren't we pushing a bit too far by implicitly presenting it as the central point of sexuality? Staszek Lem (talk) 02:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Second, aren't we pushing a bit of a straw man here? I am suggesting noting of the penile penetration. Quite contrary, the image I selected shows a woman in a feat of passion, whether she was masturbating, or being penetrated, which is not shown. That's why I assumed it was a better choice. In other words, please don't let feminist struggle against male domination skew the discussion. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Per the reasons I gave above in this section, I fail to see how it is disturbing to have the lead image be of female masturbation. And I don't think that it is presenting masturbation as the central point of sexuality, if there is even a such thing as "the central point" with regard to sexuality. And I doubt that the general public considers masturbation the central aspect of sexuality. I objected to your image because, like I stated above, it does not clearly present sexuality; a person can certainly interpret that image as being non-sexual. This is why I asked you when reverting you for a second time, "And who is to state that the woman 'is in passion'?" If we state that the author does, that does not negate what the readers may interpret. I did not revert you with feminist intentions in mind; I also do not identify as a feminist. As even this edit I made last month shows, I stated, "Also, we already have a feminism section; let's not have this article become all about feminism/politics." I don't like feminism getting in the way of reporting sexuality, just like I don't like any WP:Activism getting in the way of reporting sexuality (for example, in the way of what the vast majority of sources state); this can be seen with my participation at the Sexism article. I thought you were reverting with feminist intentions (for example, likely thinking that I'm male and that I therefore simply am not coming from an understanding view concerning what should be the lead image); I'd just seen this post you made at the Human male sexuality article. I mentioned the self-pleasure aspect with regard to the masturbation image as reasons why I see it as perfectly acceptable to have a female masturbation image in this article, whether as the lead image or placed lower.

That stated, I am not highly concerned with having a lead image for this article, sexual or not. Flyer22 (talk) 03:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion about either image, and I'm somewhat on the fence here. I see no problem with an artistic depiction of masturbation being in the lead image, since that's an element of sexuality that any woman can participate in, regardless of her sexual orientation or relationship status. Still, an image that shows a woman experiencing sexual pleasure without showing a specific sexual act may be the most appropriate for the lead image, since this is an article about general female sexuality rather than a specific sexual act. However, the suggested replacement image would not be my first choice. It's a poor quality image (yes, I'm aware that it's from 1890), and it could just be seen as a nude woman sleeping. I have a slight preference for the image depicting masturbation, but that's mostly due to it being a higher quality image.

Also, I'm not female or a sexologist, but you have my opinion anyways! :) --kyledueck (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

kyledueck, since you've stated that you are not female, this is the first time I have paid close enough attention to your username to see the name "Kyle" in it. Anyway, thanks for commenting. Flyer22 (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

This eloquent discussion has become sidetracked from my original comment. Let me rephrase it: Let us together select the best (in common opinion) image to represent female sexuality. It is not a contest between the two recent versions. Please look through the whole available set. If we all decide that masturbation is the best choice, I will only chuckle over community's preferences.

I understand that possibly there is no single image to cover all facets of the topic. Therefore I suggest you to consider an option used in articles about ethnicities, namely, a collage. Now that I've thought of it, IMO ity woild be the best choice. Staszek Lem (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that any Wikipedia articles about ethnicities have an image that would be appropriate as the lead image for this article, one that depicts some form of human female sexuality, or that there is a collage focusing on the topic (though we can make such a collage by grouping together WP:Free images, similar to what is done for the lead image in the African American article, but without an infobox). And by "human female sexuality," I certainly don't mean a woman wearing "feminine clothes" (whether "sexy clothes" or not). What would be fine, however, is to include a lead image that focuses on the female form and using a caption to indicate that the female form is considered a powerful aspect of female sexuality; this is shown by Googling the topic (whether on regular Google, on Google Books or on Google Scholar) and in the Female body shape article, which has pictures. The picture does not have to be a nude picture, of course; there are a variety of pictures, even sculptures similar to (but not a copy of) Venus de Milo in their approach at displaying female beauty/female sexuality, we can choose from on WP:Commons.

Now if you object to using an image to focus on the female form because you think it's objectifying women, then I must object. The female form is not only about men who use such imagery because they find it sexually appealing or because they consider women as sexual objects; it's also often about women admiring their own or other women's physical beauty and expressing their sexuality. Often, it's about a man admiring the physical beauty of the female form and wanting to capture that in an artistic way. And either way, the female form aspect should be discussed in the Human female sexuality article, and the article already addresses objectifying women. Also, I repeat that I don't like activism getting in the way of reporting sexuality...unless of course it's WP:Fringe sexuality. I don't have any other idea for a good lead image; I definitely like the idea of a collage, one that focuses on different aspects of human female sexuality...including sexual activity (which is where the female masturbation image could come in). A feminist image could also be included in the collage to address the political aspect of this topic (well one aspect of politics concerning human female sexuality anyway), and the caption could focus on emphasizing the "broad range of behaviors and processes" that the lead addresses with regard to human female sexuality. Flyer22 (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and it's only several minutes ago that I realized you weren't suggesting that any Wikipedia articles about ethnicities have an image that would be appropriate as the lead image for this article. Flyer22 (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

A section does not belong to this article

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Section "Women as responsible for sexual safety" does not belong to this section. Please think where shall it be moved. Safe sex? Staszek Lem (talk) 21:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

How does that section, which is mostly about human female sexuality and social constructs with regard to it, not belong in this article? Placing it in the Safe sex article will do nothing but have it attacked and/or removed (in whole or in part) as violating WP:Neutral (including the WP:Due weight aspect of WP:Neutral). Flyer22 (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

This page belongs to a narrower topic, not here, in the same way it does not belong to the page sex or woman, despite the fact it is "mostly about" women and sex. Per wikipedia:Summary style, you may have a summary section here (and in some other articles as well), but the specific topic is "safe sex." If you are afraid of WP:Neutral, then there is something very wrong. Please explain which exactly WP:UNDUE-type problem you expect, and we can think how to avoid it. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Human sexuality is a narrower topic? As for the section in question, I was simply asking how it does not belong in this article; from what I see, it does, even if the section is significantly cut down by moving parts of it elsewhere. I see that topic as very relevant to the discussion of human female sexuality, exactly for the reasons that are discussed in that section. As for moving the section, in part or in whole, to the Safe sex article: I am not afraid of WP:Neutral concerns; it's that I know that WP:Neutral concerns will be addressed. We have a lot of male Wikipedia editors who don't like any discussion of female oppression with regard to sexuality or act as though the topic is overblown, as shown by discussions at the Sexism article (which I noted in the section immediately above this one). Those editors will feel that having an entire section about women being socially controlled/oppressed when it comes to safe sex is a WP:Due weight violation or is not neutral simply because of what is stated; they will suggest that there must be an "other side" to aspects of the topic, even if this "other side" is not well supported in the literature. And on that note, such a section is likely to draw WP:Fringe text from masculinists.

That stated, I definitely feel that the section in question should be cut down, as is shown by this diff-link. Flyer22 (talk) 03:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, some of the text in that section is not simply about safe sex in the way that the term safe sex is usually defined/used; it's about women's sexual safety in general and other matters, so all of that is not appropriate for inclusion in the Safe sex article. Seems to me that the heading of that section should be changed to better reflect its content; otherwise, some of that content may fit better elsewhere in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 03:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Safe sex is a very relevant subject of female sexuality. All reliable sources that I've seen about female sexuality and sexuality in general cover this topic, so this article should too. I agree that this section is perhaps too big, would benefit from being renamed, and there may indeed be neutrality issues, but I would argue against removing this section, or moving it to another article. --kyledueck (talk) 14:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Researchers say that most women are either bisexual or homosexual

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Researchers recently concluded that most women are either bisexual or homosexual. Can this be included in this article? Here is the source.

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-34744903

- Veera.sj (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

No, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:REDFLAG. There are sure to be more click-bait stories based on the single study, but it is far too soon for a suggestion to be included as encyclopedic knowledge. Johnuniq (talk) 01:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Either I previously missed this section or forgot about it, but Johnuniq is correct about this, Veera.sj. Researcher after researcher keeps concluding that women are significantly more sexually fluid than men, which is addressed in the Sexual fluidity article, but that's different than stating that most women are necessarily bisexual or that most women are homosexual. Then again, sexual fluidity is commonly viewed as an alternative term for bisexual. The study you've cited would be more appropriate for the Sexual fluidity article than this article, but it's a single study, and so WP:Due weight applies. WP:Primary source too. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Human female sexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.webmd.com/sex/want-better-orgasms
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110921233701/http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102266304.html to http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102266304.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Dual sexuality of women

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is room for more on the dual sexuality of women, specifically relating to the role of estrus.Danwbell (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Sources on female sexuality across religions (I think this is a topic that needs to be discussed in this article)

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Dialmy, Abdessamad. "Sexuality And Islam." European Journal Of Contraception & Reproductive Health Care 15.3 (2010): 160-168. Academic Search Complete. Web. 6 Oct. 2016.

Labovitz, Gail. "Freedom And Honor In Rabbinic Constructions Of Female Sexuality." Journal Of Feminist Studies In Religion (Indiana University Press) 28.2 (2012): 69-87. Academic Search Complete. Web. 6 Oct. 2016.

"India's Sensual Past." Wilson Quarterly 35.4 (2011): 73-74. Academic Search Complete. Web. 6 Oct. 2016.

Langenberg, Amy Paris. "Sex And Sexuality In Buddhism: A Tetralemma." Religion Compass 9.9 (2015): 277-286. Academic Search Complete. Web. 6 Oct. 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klink216 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I am considering building a section on female sexuality in religion, focusing on religions other than Christianity. Here is a little blurb I wrote on a small aspect of sexuality in Islam. Let me know if you have any thoughts!

Regarding sexual norms proclaimed in sacred Texts, Dialmy explains his claim of Islamic views of sex as “paradoxical” by stating that sexuality is allowed and encouraged, but only between married, heterosexual couples. Even then there is “discrimination” between male and female sexuality, as sex is defined as a male-centered act; he is always on top of the woman, he is encouraged to be dominant, and having multiple wives and even concubines is allowed. Additionally, while the Koran and Sunna encourage female climax, it is not because female pleasure is necessarily valued, but it is thought to discourage her from seeking sexual pleasure from sources other than her husband. Additionally, in M.A. and S. Khans’ analysis of the role of the Quran in sexual education, they emphasize that, because Islam is a way of life that encompasses all facets of human existence, “human sexuality cannot be conceived without marital or family life” (Khan and Khan). Consequently, the subject of sex is not treated as an act of pleasure. Nikah, the word in Islam for the act of marital sex, is holy, sacred, and a “superior human relationship aimed to create love, affection and tranquility between the spouses for a healthy happy life” (Khan and Khan).

Dialmy, Abdessamad. "Sexuality And Islam." European Journal Of Contraception & Reproductive Health Care 15.3 (2010): 160-168. Academic Search Complete. Web. 12 Oct. 2016.

Khan, M. A., and S. Khan. "Quranic Approach About Sexuality Education." JAPS: Journal Of Animal & Plant Sciences 25.5 (2015): 1210-1215. Academic Search Complete. Web. 12 Oct. 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klink216 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Carpenter, Karen, and Dana Kaplan. "Non-Marital Sex In Reform Judaism: Reconciling Theory With Reality." Sexuality & Culture 19.4 (2015): 916-927. Academic Search Complete. Web. 26 Oct. 2016.

Chanana, Karuna. “Hinduism and Female Sexuality: Social Control and Education of Girls in India.”Sociological Bulletin, vol. 50, no. 1, 2001, pp. 37–63. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23620149.

"India's Sensual Past." Wilson Quarterly 35.4 (2011): 73-74. Academic Search Complete. Web. 6 Oct. 2016.

Khan, M. A., and S. Khan. "Quranic Approach About Sexuality Education." JAPS: Journal Of Animal & Plant Sciences 25.5 (2015): 1210-1215. Academic Search Complete. Web. 12 Oct. 2016.

Labovitz, Gail. "Freedom And Honor In Rabbinic Constructions Of Female Sexuality." Journal Of Feminist Studies In Religion (Indiana University Press) 28.2 (2012): 69-87. Academic Search Complete. Web. 6 Oct. 2016.

Ribner, David S., and Peggy J. Kleinplatz. "The Hole In The Sheet And Other Myths About Sexuality And Judaism." Sexual & Relationship Therapy 22.4 (2007): 445-456. Academic Search Complete. Web. 26 Oct. 2016.

Zakaria, Rafia. "Sex And The Muslim Feminist." New Republic 247.3 (2016): 8-11. Academic Search Complete. Web. 26 Oct. 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klink216 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Can Trans Women Be Included?

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

They are women, they have sex, and are not mentioned in this article! (Atlantic Ranter 9705 (talk) 02:34, 8 December 2018 (UTC))

Talk:Human female sexuality/Archive 1

Contents

POV comment re lesbians

Female sexuality vs. human sexuality in general

Suggested topics

Thanks for starting this

sexual prime/peak

POV issues?

Current image

Age of consent matters

Female sexual arousal and orgasm

Vague language

Weird evaluations

POV, Bias, Outdated information and outmoded concepts.

Top image

A section does not belong to this article

Researchers say that most women are either bisexual or homosexual

External links modified

Dual sexuality of women

Sources on female sexuality across religions (I think this is a topic that needs to be discussed in this article)

Can Trans Women Be Included?