Talk:Human male sexuality/Archive 2

Text that was embedded in the article's edit box - Moved here:

Images of Male Sexuality over the Decades

The idea was thhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human_male_sexuality&action=editat it was acceptable for females to display their bodies to arouse males took hold during World War II. Photos of scantily-clad women were sent to soldiers weary from fighting the war. These were dubbed “calendar” or “pin-up” girls. After World War II, the trend continued and some of the popular pin-up girls became popular movie stars in the 1950s, most notably Marilyn Monroe.

Both men and women took their own cues about what was acceptable body image in terms of attracting a mate from watching the movies. Other trends associated with a society more open about matters of sexuality and male arousal soon followed, particularly with the appearance of the first “men’s” magazine featuring scantily-clad women (Playboy, and again, the popular pin-up girl and then movie star Marilyn Monroe was featured.)

Both men and women observed these trends and followed them to the degree. It quickly became acceptable at least for single men to subscribe to Playboy, and share copies with their male friends. The men’s magazines played a major role defining male sexuality in the culture of the 50s and 60s, as well as what was acceptable behavior for women. Women started wearing two-piece bathing suits at the pool or beach, and men were delighted at the display that they may find to be sexually-arousing. By the late 1950s, the two-piece suits became smaller and smaller, and, called bikinis, revealed more and more of the woman’s body in public and to men observing them.

Many women soon decided that since there was nothing wrong with having men look at their bodies at the pool or beach, then why not in other venues as well? The 1960s ushered in the ultra-short mini-skirt, and variations such as hot pants. Now a woman could reveal more of her body and presumably attract the attention of a male other locations other than at beach or pool, such as being observed strolling and being seen at covered shopping malls (newly appearing and the place for young men and women to be seen in the late 50s into the 60s).

Heterosexual men began to think that if a woman is successful in attracting the attention of a man and perhaps arousing them, why would not an analogous approach work for them? If women could reveal body parts that men found arousing at a pool or beach, why could not men likewise. In the 1960s US men started wearing ever smaller and more form-fitting swimsuits at the pool or beach, including the Speedo-style brief. This more revealing design, introduced in Australia two decades earlier, was already popular there and in Europe before men in the US adopted it in any numbers. The men’s swimsuits in the 1950s and 60s usually revealed a covered outline of the male genitalia underneath, and women at that time appeared to be comfortable with this.

Heterosexual men of the period too were in search of ways to display their body to women with the idea in venues other than swimming pools and beaches. They were in search of clothing designs that would do the same thing for them as mini skirts had done for women. Homosexual men had long been interested in clothing styles revealing body shapes other gay men would find attractive and perhaps arousing. The new clothing styles for men in the 60s were often variations on designs that first appeared among homosexual men, in particular, shirts, pants and jeans with a body-hugging fit. These clothing styles soon became popular with most men in the 60s regardless of sexual orientation, and in particular, men wearing these styles were not labeled by women as “probably homosexual” and therefore an inappropriate choice as a mate.

The 1970s marked the beginning of an era that continues to the present in which women have been attempting to redefine their image away from the concept of woman as sex object for men’s pleasure and toward the concept of complete equality with men. Some women nowadays are very uncomfortable with the idea of a woman displaying her body in such a way as to arouse the male. Instead, some women see themselves as not needing men in order to achieve, and that men are only useful as being necessary to provide semen for procreation. To the extent that a woman wants a career and not children, men are not useful at all. Indeed, the idea that men can provide women pleasure in sex is often now sometimes seen by a woman as not as a positive but as a negative.

Still, in the 21st century, most women probably still find it acceptable for women to display their bodies as a means to arouse and potentially attract a mate. Women still appear at beaches or pools scantily-clad in bikinis or even thongs. A short walk through any modern shopping mall reveals large numbers of young women clad in skin-tight form-fitting jeans specifically designed to attract the attention of young men, who are also walking the mall largely in an effort to observe young women.

But a fundamental shift in images of male has occurred. In the 21st century, men are expected to dress very differently in this respect, and in particular to not wear any clothing that would reveal their own bodies as a means of attracting or arousing a woman, especially in North America (including the USA). In 21st century American culture, a young man’s body at the shopping mall is expected to be covered in baggy, loose fitting jeans, and an equally oversized shirt. It seems to be common "knowledge" that this style emerged from ghetto neighborhoods. At the pool or beach, the young man is expected to wear oversized board shorts or “boardies” with folds of fabric that cover any glimpse of and therefore disguise the shape of male genitalia.

Often nowadays, choosing clothing that would allow men to display their bodies as a means of attracting a mate or partner now labels the man as gay not as straight, and therefore unsuitable for a woman as a mate. In short, heterosexual women can still wear whatever they believe a heterosexual man might find attractive or sexually arousing. If a woman does so, heterosexual men generally will not label the woman as a lesbian. But if a man chooses clothing that in any way displays or reveals his body, he will be immediately become labeled by many heterosexual women as a gay and therefore unsuitable as a mate for a female. By this visual cue, whether true or not, many women believe that now only gay men now wear Speedo-style swimsuits or tight-fitting shirts and jeans. Many women are very fearful of marrying or even getting seriously involved with a man who has had or could possibly be interested in having sex with another man, and the man’s clothing if too revealing provides initial visual cues as to which men should be avoided. However, popular styles in Europe and Asia reflect opinions that are similar to that of the 1970's, with tighter-fitting jeans, and men more into modern style.

These fundamental differences in what is now considered permissible in clothing styles and beachwear for both men and women reveal a lot about both male and female sexuality, and in particular the changing identity of men and women and their roles in society. Men generally do not complain that women continue to wear body-revealing clothing in an effort to attract them nor claim that such women are likely lesbians, but the same rule does not apply to men. A "dual standard" applies. If men choose clothing that reveals anything about their bodies, many women would claim that this is neither desirable nor arousing, but instead that the man looks "ridiculous".

Of course, choice of dress is not the only way men can assert their sexuality. In the 1960s it was common for men to drive vehicles with oversized engines as a way to “impress” women. The choice of vehicle to drive remains a very important part of the process men frequently employ to attempt to attract a mate, and it is commonly believed that the guy with the most expensive vehicle will have the best opportunity in the mate attraction game. Whether women see the automobile as being as important to the dating process as some men seem to believe remains an unanswered question in need of further research.

Clearly, some types of motor vehicles are far more appealing to men than women as men attempt to make a sexual statement by what they drive. In recent years, males have attempted to reassert their sexuality by driving outsized vehicles. The popularity of the Hummer relates directly to the fact that it's design has become a symbol of masculinity. Other men drive large trucks and Sport Utility Vehicles (SUV’s) as a way of asserting their masculinity and desirability to women.

---

Why does Male Sexuality get deleted when Female does not? I think there is plenty of information out there that is purely about men and not about sexuality in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TSG Cavalier (talk • contribs)

See Talk:Female sexuality for a list of topics to discuss; the male side of each of the contrasts mentioned is likely to be relevant here. -- The Anome 14:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Changing Templates

There seems to be a consensus. I am changing the templates to somthing a little bit more immediate and dire. --75.161.253.98 00:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Commonly held by who?

I think the list of "commonly held" but "possibly stereotypical" aspects of male sexuality is unencyclopedic and innacurate. Shouldn't this article talk more about male behavior and the role sex has in male life rather than spewing what sounds like feminist slander about how males are sexually "aggressive"? --Berserk798 21:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like radical feminist 'all-men-are-rapists' rhetoric. I'm removing it. 91.107.218.77 (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This article should be purged until someone writes something worthwhile

This article reads like a college freshman's paper--and a bad one at that. There are sweeping generalizations that do not take into account the life stages of an adult male. There are clear differences in male behavior depending upon age or stage of development (each has its own line of thought). This article--and the one on female sexual behavior, and not worth the pixels they are written on.

I agree 100%! If this page is not almost entirely POV, I don't know what is. Eyknough (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Also agree. This is a half-baked conglomerate of mostly outdated ideas. Absolute rubbish. It seeks to somehow demonize the "Western" ideal of male sexuality, by implying that Western ideal are somehow fringe, but then relies only on India, the Middle East, and Indonesia as the Western foil. What are the views of male sexuality for East Asian populations, for example? 98.235.79.159 (talk) 09:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to say remove it

I think this is a brilliant observation, which I personally agree with. However I saw no mention, of any data or research. It’s truly is only an opinion. Regardless of the fact the author maybe spot on. It should not be included. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.196.223.11 (talk) 08:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Comment on biases in representation of content

Some observations in this article may be apt when discussing certain aspect of male sexuality as a commentary pertaining to American Culture. However, the observations presented on changes in fashion and their links to the development of male sexuality do not necessarily correspond to other forms of development in other areas of the world. As such this article (specifically the section citing sexuality within the U.S.) loses coherence if we try to locate male sexuality within a broader framework. Any attempt at a definition of male sexuality must be more coherent in representing the plurality of experiences that are found across the world. Mazzers 03:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted

I deleted the "fact" that men are only aroused by female breasts, buttocks, and midriffs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.189.65.223 (talk) 14:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

what is going on

no references?? nothing? this article needs serious revision.... not that it hasn't been said before..

also, it seems to be getting a bit biased towards the end, as in, pro-male. its sounding as though, men are being treated unfairly by the double standards, through from a feministic point of view isn't it also unfair towards the woman? she is expected to reveal her body, considered frigid/unfit if she doesn't, and a man isn't expected to reveal his. by this, men are not under as much pressure to look good for the females as the females are for them... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tidy (talk • contribs) 11:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

I see more pro-female, feminist prejudices and anecdotal observations lining this article than anything. Not only does the author list virtually no sources, but the "information" presented here seems to feed directly off of stereotypes and anecdotes about men that have had little empirical support by psychological experiments. For example: "although men typically desire both love and sex, they are traditionally held to be more likely to desire sex even in the absence of a loving relationship". What empirical evidence is there to support any of that, not only as pertaining to modern men, but to men in different cultures all over the world? And what evidence is there to prove that women don't "desire sex even in the absence of a loving relationship"? This article, as well as the Human female sexuality article, is in dire need of: a) A rewrite b) Neutrality of Tone and c) cited sources. There simply needs to be more research here before these articles can even be considered halfway credible. Mikhajlovich (talk) 05:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This article should be completely dumped and started over

I made no specific edit, mainly because I simply don't know where to begin.

I'm not even clear on what value the existence pf this article adds to the encyclopedia. It will either be a fairly dry collection of non-controversial, medically validated common knowledge that can be found in other articles, or it will be a platform for political/social agendas.

This article is an embarrassment to the project, as well as insulting to many people who read it. If I were to write a parody satirizing the writings of a way-out-of-the-mainstream radical feminist with poor writing skills, it might sound a great deal like this article.

Another "Completely Rewrite" Request Here

I came to this page expecting to find a comprehensive article on sex as it pertains and relates to the human male. Instead I found what might pass for the introduction to the article I was looking for, and little more.

I'm certainly not knowledgeable enough to add to this article myself (hence why I came here in the first place), so if anyone has any worthwhile content to lay down, it would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlinus (talk • contribs) 06:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. This article is not Human male sexuality, this article is the sociology (and anthropology) of human male sexual identity. There is no corresponding biology of human male sexuality with information on the relationship between sexuality (the process not the identity!!!) and hormones from studies involving male gendered (not sociologically "sexed") humans, etc

The closest thing we have is Sexual attraction and human sexual behavior. Human sexuality includes multiple academic fields. A rewrite of this article should be multi-disciplinary. Alternately, make two new articles titled per above. --gwc (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

GWC, I agree with you, but this article is in fact referring to the male "gender" and not "sex"; you are confusing the two. when you say "sociologically sexed" I think you mean to say gender -- in sociology and anthropology SEX refers to biological aspects and GENDER refers to a socially assigned and constructed sexual identity.

The article could be re-titled "Masculinity," which refers to the social aspects of male sexuality rather than the biological, though the two are arguably always intertwined to some extent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.220.97 (talk) 04:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Reproduction

Human male sexuality is part of human's ability to reproduce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.65.243 (talk) 10:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Very wrong... reproduction is a subsidiary part of human male sexuality, not the vice versa. (59.180.132.92 (talk) 09:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC))

Moved essay

Considering the terrible state of this article and all the templates, i think the addition of this uncited essay a bad idea, so moved it here to be cited and rewritten:

Till about a century ago, male gender and sexuality in the areas that we today call the West, was structured in almost exactly the same way as in the non-Western societies of today. People who were born males were divided into two basic genders or identities: "men" and the "third gender". In the entire medieval period, however, the third gender was extremely persecuted in the West under the rule of Christianity, which unacknowledged the third gender as natural, in contrast with the ancient 'West', e.g., ancient Greece, where the third gender was recognized as a different category from 'men' and 'women.' In the medieval West, the third gender went underground, and as the modern age set in, they came out in small ghettos all over the West around the eighteenth century. till this time, although the 'men' category included primarily masculine gendered males, it was defined in terms of those who penetrate, and the "third gender" which primarily included feminine gendered males and which was known by different names in different parts of the West, were defined as "males who get penetrated."

Although, the concept of 'homosexuality' was introduced around 150 years ago, the Western society did not start to be divided on the basis of the 'sex' of the partner one claims to have sex with, till about a century ago. This was the time, when the media played a key role in dividing males into homosexuals and heterosexuals.

When the third gender males started to be defined as 'homosexuals' or 'men who like men', then those who belonged to the 'men' category started to avoid sex with men around the eighteenth century and this slowly gave rise to the heterosexual identity, which became prominent only some fifty years ago. This 'heterosexual' identity was primarily triggered by the insistence of those who defined themselves as 'gays' to create a sexual division in the society. Many 'heterosexual' males still do not think of themselves as 'heterosexual' but just as 'men'. The sexual identity becomes important only when contrasted with the homosexuals.

This homo-hetero division in the society greatly brought down the incidence of male to male sex, at least its reporting, in the Western world. While before this division, most men participated in such sexual activities/ bonds, after this division only a few percent, most of whom are classified as either gay or bisexual now indulge in sex with men.

This division has caused many men to suppress or be confused about their sexual feelings, because now choosing to act on your sexual feelings is no more a fluid, personal issue. It requires a huge social movement from one category, which is powerful and much preferred (the heterosexual category) to the opposite category, which is immensely stigmatized for men (the homosexual category). Many men do not find making this great leap to be an easy task. Especially when the heterosexual identity is also invested with manhood, while the homosexual identity is, in common public perception, seen as a transgendered or queer category.

The Western society is sharply divided between those who support this homo-hetero divide and those who oppose it. The supporters who are known as essentialists claim that sexual identities are innate and unalterable. The opposite camp calls themselves the "Social Constructionsists" who claim that these identities are socially constructed and not universal or unchangeable.

There was another change in the Western conception of human male gender and sexuality. The Western society started to claim that Gender, or the innate sense of being male or female, irrespective of one's sex identity, is a social construct, not an innate thing. Therefore, it started to identify members of the third gender as 'men', unacknowledging their gender orientation as valid. They defined the 'third gender' in terms of their perceived sexual choices -- as "men who like men" or "homosexuals", while earlier they were not considered 'men'.

However, as people had more sexual freedom in the West, more and more transgendered males started to emerge who were heterosexuals. Most surveys of transgendered males in the West point to the fact that the overwhelming majority of them are heterosexual.

The transgendered heterosexuals related more with the 'homosexual' group (probably because of its historical ties with the 'third gender' identity) than with the straights. Therefore the Homosexual community in the West, is now called the LGBT or the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered community.

At the same time, although, few masculine gendered males ever join the 'homosexual' group (again probably because of its association with the traditional third gender identity), many of those who adopt the 'homosexual' identity, by acknowledging their sexual need for men, feel they don't really belong in the community, and relate more with straight men than with gays. A growing number of such men today are seeking to break with the homosexual identity, looking for various other options . Although, joining the mainstream 'straight' male community (corresponding to transgender heterosexuals joining the LGBT community) is unavailable to them, because of immense hostility present in straight spaces for intimacy between men, unlike mainstream men's spaces in non-Western cultures.

Thus the contemporary western male society is today divided between masculine male heterosexuality on the one hand and the masculine and feminine homosexuality plus feminine heterosexuality (as LGBT) on the other hand.

The transgendered males are further classified into different categories as "cross-dressers", "transvestites" and "transexuals" depending upon the degree of transgenderism.

.Yobmod (talk) 09:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk and Editing Done in a very Biased Fashion

Some of the material removed and issues brought up are very anti-femanist perspective. too many guys are reading this and not liking what is says due to some chauvinistic attitude or whatever. I agree the page has some organizational issues but i don't see anything particularly biased or unreliable information. Im going to be working on the page now with the help of my professor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloudblazer (talk • contribs) 01:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Would be great to have someone get this article into shape. I did most of the removing and re-ordering, but i have never removed any thing with a citation (and am certainly not biased against women, most of my contibution are to feminist science fiction and women in comics). I wasn't aware thare was much disagreement about men's sexuality from feminist or non-feminist sources - feminism is pretty much the mainstream in acedemia. So hopefully we will get to learn something :-).

What editing do you see as biased? Anything with out citations that you disagree with should be tagged with {{fact}} or {{dubious}} tags. I'll back up any such legitimate tagging. The main problems i see are not bias, but lack of information about massive areas of mens sexuality (its development through life, virility, impotance, paraphilias, fetishes, taboos, sterotypes) and the poor organisation and writing. YobMod 08:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Unencyclopaedic

This article is presently unencyclopaedic; it simply lacks any citations for its many assertions - some of which would be very surprising to a newcomer to sexology or the history of sexual politics.

I've considered the suggestions to discard this article and (hope for a) re-write; however, am loathe to discard so much effort by a contributor, which has at least produced an interesting and plausible account! Surely a better way forward would be to:

1. Back up the article's major assertions with suitable citations and references - if possible (otherwise discard them), and then
2. Re-organize the material, if still necessary?

To make a start on improving the article, I've edited the leading 'Nature versus Nurture' section in two respects:

1. Adding {{fact}} tags to request citations, wherever a dubious or unsupported assertion is made;
2. Slight improvements to the English grammar, particularly in respect of overuse of the determiner "the" in some patently non-native ways.

Please feel free to do some further constructive editing! yoyo (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

While the tags added are for the most part useful, at some places they seem to be pretty unreasonable ... where the statements are general observations about sexuality, that are undisputable, like this one here:

An individual's sexuality is determined both, by nature and nurture. While the natural part of human male sexuality remains more or less the same across the globe, ...

It's a kind of statement that is plain simple common knowledge. Such statements are pretty much found in most articles of this kind. If you read the articles on LGBT issues, or on heterosexuality e.g. there are numerous such statements that may not have a direct citation, but are common knowledge that anyone who knows about these issues knows.

So, its kind of redundant to put them here. That's what I feel. (Masculinity (talk) 10:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC))

I have to agree. Unless whoever put 'citation needed' thinks that people around the world have such large genetic differences that we're not all the same - a proposition that requires citation more than what's in the text.

As it says at the top of the page: "Please ... remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes ...". Happy to debate what does and doesn't need citations in support, but could I please at least know your handle? Thanks. Besides, a later reversion has swept away all the text on which I was commenting and to which I had made some slight changes, with which you quibbled! As a result, I no longer feel the article is unencyclopaedic, which makes this whole section rather irrelevant. yoyo (talk) 13:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Goodness gracious

just trash this wreckage. What a disaster. Worst entry I've ever encountered on WP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tao2911 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I reverted to an earlier version. Some editors just don't understand the basic tenets of wikipedia: WP:Verify and WP:NOR.

Earlier version of the article? Certainly an improvement on what I found here in May; plenty of citations, at least. But please sign your Talk page edits! ;-) - Thanks. yoyo (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that was me. I don't know why, but this article has continuous problems with uncited essays being added, until it gets so bad that someone finally cuts away the dead wood. It seems people have a lot of theories, but no desire to do the research.YobMod 16:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Highly unbalanced article

When I clicked on the title 'human male sexuality', I was expecting to see an article primarily about biology and demographics, with some discussion of the social concept of masculinity; instead I found... this. This article is almost entirely about male sexuality in non-Western cultures, with particular emphasis on homosexual relations; it has very little about Western culture, and virtually nothing about heterosexuality, despite the fact that the considerable majority of men are heterosexual. This article should probably be renamed to 'Male gender and sexuality in non-Western societies', since that is what it is actually about; or rewritten from scratch entirely. Robofish (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• While you may be right that this article is not comprehensive about male gender and sexuality, there is a reason for this.

I think that the main problem is that some people have merged the article 'male gender and sexuality in non-western societies' together with this article (human male sexuality) which virtually had very little text. So that is why it looks so much about 'non-western sexuality'.

But, another reason is that the strong western groups of LGBT and 'heterosexuals' have not given any space to discuss human male sexuality in its broader perspective, which is over and above the petty homo-hetero divide of the west. You cannot understand the overall human sexuality with the limited perspective that the concept of homo-hetero provides.

The Western ideas of human male sexuality, represented by the powerful lobby of people divided on the lines of 'homo-hetero' is already given thorough representation in the articiles on 'heterosexuality', 'homosexuality', 'sexuality', 'sexual orientation', etc. This lobby is so strong that it refuses to give any space to any other point of view but that which sees sexuality as divided between 'homo-hetero' or the concept of sexual orientation as seen by the West, particularly the anglo-european based societies.

Therefore, the article on Human male sexuality then is like the marginalized space given to the other point of view, which maybe the dominant concept of sexuality practized the world over, but is not strong in the West, and so doesn't find its deserving place.

I would suggest, you let this article be in this form and add more material which is not already covered in the articles such as 'homosexuality' and 'heterosexuality'. Only then will Wikipedia truly be an international and comprehensive databank of information. Otherwise, it threatens to become just a mouthpiece of the intense politics of human sexuality being played in the West, which are bent on controlling information to suit their ideology.

I would also like to challenge the dominant western view that the majority of human males are 'heterosexual'. Sure, they are in the West, but that is so because of a reason. The west is a highly heterosexualized society, with intense social pressures on men to be heterosexual, only a fraction of which are religious and explict pressures. The majority of human male is actually bisexual, with different aspects of sexuality becoming prominent during different times in one's life.

If we discuss things only through the western perspective, then this important fact is lost, like it is lost in the Western society. The western perspective in power, looking at human sexuality through the concept of 'sexual orientation' has already been discussed to death on other pages, where powerful groups refuse to give space to the broader, more comprehensive view. In fact, they insist on distorting facts about other cultures, about history and about animals through this western worldview as well.

But, if at all, this article is tampered with, to make it conform to western viewpoint in power, then I suggest, that the part about the "Non-western male gender and sexuality" be transferred to its original form as a separate article. It's the only sane voice in the ocean of myths created by the Western world. (Masculinity (talk) 06:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC))

"(non-westernised) non-western world"

I changed this to only say "non-westernised" but I think the original intent might have been non-Westernized East or some such. 4.176.21.59 (talk) 06:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

An important subject we should do real work on rather than deleting

I stumbled upon this page clicking around after a link to the kinsey scale. I think that a page on male sexuality is a case where Wikipedia can do something rather useful and/or important by simply providing useful information from valid sources like the kinsey reports that provide information that, while controversial and commonly disputed out of ignorance, are encyclopedic and to the extent of modern knowledge correct. I don't make many changes here, for lack of better excuse because I haven't taken the time to learn the details of cleanly editing the pages here, but this article is a prime candidate for an adoption. Please do not delete this page, if nothing else we should start from scratch on it.69.224.71.96 (talk) 13:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

citations about Third Gender being prevalent all across the non-Western world

The Wikipedia page on Third gender contains a list of Third Gender identities prevalent all across the globe, from Africa, to Asia, to Americas, Australia and Europe. It has the relevant citations too. I have decided to just give a link to the page on Third genders here, rather than give citations for the prevalence of Third genders in each part of the globe, in order to avoid duplication and too much material to read. If this is not enough then please help me add the citations on this page about Third gender in various parts of the world. (Masculinity (talk) 05:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC))

Third gender in the West and the evolution of Heterosexuality

Not only does this subsection have no references, but it also is clearly POV. I suggest it be removed.149.138.100.2 (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Generally unsourced trash, worthy of a college frosh, and a very bad one at that

No seriously. It's hard to figure out if it was written by a complete macho, a radical feminist satire of such (demonstration of Poe's law), a homophobe who slept through the last 50 years and still thinks homosexuality and transgender are the same thing, some ignorant white dude who is completely blinded by conservative orientalism or what. The article is mostly irretrievable as it stands. I suggest a vote for deletion. Some of the sources cited are vanity publications to boot, and often more than merely minority views (the man2man website should never be used as a source for anything to do with anyone but themselves, ever), but insignificant even compared to minority views. The third gender sections have almost no sources and the Kinsey quote is one of the many blatantly misleading quotes in the piece: it doesn't say what the person who put it in thinks it does. Snapdragonfly (talk) 02:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

If you could point out the sources that are published by vanity firms that would be a good start. As for the Kinsey quote, could you elaborate?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 04:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Lots of edits

I'm editing this page a ton. I'm trying to add images and clear up not only all the awful punctuation usage but also all the unclear sentences in general. I'm taking out links that no longer exist, and I'm reorganizing pretty much the entire thing, making it more clear and concise. I think this page could be really helpful; it just needs a revamping! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.29.198.114 (talk) 03:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Masculinity (user) and why this article might need deletion

The user "masculinity" continues to change this article, adding immense amounts of texts with no citations, poor grammar, and terrible punctuation and spelling. I have tried to revamp this article so many times, yet "masculinity" continues to sabotage my work. I will check back at this article, and there will be paragraphs of nonsense written by him, sounding more like strange personal dilemmas he goes through than actual fact. I say just delete the article or block "masculinity" from editing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.167.38 (talk) 00:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. There is clearly a lot of unjustified original research here, which needs to be removed, before reorganising the rest of the article. Freelance Intellectual (talk) 13:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Also agree, deletion would be a solution but it's a fairly good presentation of the POV it's pushing .Suggest it be moved to something like "Male sexuality from a Queer Studies Perspective", being a little facetious there but serious about the solution concept. Lycurgus (talk) 10:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Further, the whole implied bias of the article is wrong. First human sexual orientation as a special case of the general phenomenon of mammalian sexuality is primarily a biological, physiological phenomenon, and this article makes the opposite presumption that sexual orientation is a social construction. For that reason it cannot have its current content at its current place in name space with so obvious a bias. Second, since sexual orientation is one underlying physical phenomenon with two or four outcomes depending on how you look at it, it's wrong to separate and also unclear what exactly is meant by "human male sexuality". Is it the orientation of those who are biologically male, a resultant outcome of the process that produces sexual orientation or what? Note the contrast with human female sexuality. Lycurgus (talk) 05:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Male sexuality from Queer Studies perspective gutted

Per the many complaints but no action and after seeing something like the right thing done at human female sexuality I decided to move to act on the apparent consensus in the threads above. The old psychobabble oriented content can be pulled back into the proper section on a selective basis. Lycurgus (talk) 06:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

And FTR, I am a homosexual male. Lycurgus (talk) 06:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

So have restructured restoring some of the old content in a proper perspective. Work of Masters and Johnson and others can be used to start the fill of the physiology and psychology sections. Margaret Mead and many others for Anthropology, etc. etc. Lycurgus (talk) 06:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for Addition to the Page

Sections like human male sexual response cycle, orientation, physiology, psychology, etc. need to be expanded upon. I don't know when they were removed, or if they were never included in the article at the beginning of its creation, but the female counterpart of the topic seems to cover those areas of information, while this page does not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linkkid185 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, there is a lot more to male sexuality than homosexuality of some men. Plenty of things are universal and need to be added.--Sanya3 (talk) 06:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Article is mislabelled.I

I do not understand why an article that contains substantive information about human male homosexuality ONLY, should be titled as though it deals with (the much broader topic of) human male sexuality. It is more than a little frustrating to the user looking for information about the latter to find information that treats only the former. (The first paragraph deals with sexuality generally, but is definitional, not substantive in nature.) My objection is strictly about the editing principle involved, and not about the specific information that is given: the title of an article should accurately reflect it's content. Finding a solution may require more than a straightforward change of the title to "human male homosexuality" (which would satisfy my objection) because of the need to consider how that change would fit into the total set of existing articles dealing with human sexuality and whether it would duplicate or otherwise create problems with any of the titles assigned to them. I don't have the time to conduct that analysis, and so have no considered solution to suggest. However, I would like to point out that human male sexuality is a topic worthy of it's own treatment, both in itself but also with regard to any differences that are know to exist between it and human female sexuality (the latter being the point of interest that led me to research the topic in the first place). MarilynConant (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Since wikipedians claimed to be 90% males, no wonder they are interested mostly in Human female sexuality. The the fact it covers homosexuality is easily explained by LGBT activism. Yes, the article is in poor state, but the only way to fix it is do it yourself. No amount of eloquent complaints in talk page will help: we are all volunteers here, and if I am not interested, that's it. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Expansion

I absolutely love that there is a page dedicated to this topic. However, there is a tremendous lack of research and data to support this topic. The research is definitely out there. I think it would be great to include a subheading on race and culture. It is important to discuss the origins of human sexuality, but there needs to be different perspectives on the origins of sexuality. With the little information that is provided, this article may be too subjective. The lack of sources can account for the lack of objectivity. There is so much potential that can be done with this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PriscillaJSolis (talk • contribs) 17:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review

- You could include sections about the other types of male sexuality, like bisexuality and heterosexuality, and other ones if there are any. - You could add in a few more text links for things like harassment. - Add the Thornhill and Palmer text links to the first time they appear - There's no references in the "rape as a by product" paragraph - The leading paragraph (introduction) seems quite short. Perhaps you could extend this to include more about different, and how this has changed over time to provide some background to your article. A brief overview of all the sections would be fine. - You could add more to the paragraphs after the sexual coercion section, because right now its kind of skewed in favour of that. The rest of them only have one bit each - Overall this is a really good article thats been improved a lot. You've got a lot of references, and a lot of good information. I've learned a lot. You should be proud. If it was me, I'd give you all firsts, like an 85/100 at least — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmase1 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, very helpful - we will definitely take it into consideration for our parts of the page :D TanGND (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

For peer review purposes

The parts we contributed to the page were Male homoeroticism and the two sub topics underneath (History and evolution of male homoerotic behaviour and functions of homoerotic behaviour.) TanGND (talk) 14:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer review 2

I thought this was an excellent article giving scientific and up to date information on male human sexuality. Particularly:

• All paragraphs that you contributed read very well and were informative. I learnt a great deal about homoerotic behaviour, thanks.
• All paragraphs provided no value judgement but were stating facts and theories based on evidence as per Wikipedia guidelines.
• I thought that it was good you included a number of different cultures/ societies which provides support for the evolutionary perspective.

Some minor improvements, however would be:

• I thought maybe there could be a brief explanation of the difference between homosexuality and homoeroticism at the beginning of the section. Yet you do provide a link to the page on homoerotic behaviour which does explain in full but a brief definition couldn't hurt.
• The section 'functions of homoerotic behaviour' that you contributed appears to be missing some citations at the beginning.
• potentially some pictures could be added to break up the blocks of text, however this wouldn't really add much to your already outstanding contribution.

CallamConstant (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer review on 3rd Year Human Sexuality Assignment

Hello,

You've provided a very thorough and well-researched contribution to this article, well done! As mentioned in the peer review above, I also had trouble understanding the difference between homosexuality and homoeroticism, until of course I read paragraph that you've added. You could clear this up by referring to homoeroticism specifically in the introduction (although I do like how concise the introduction is now), or you could add a couple of sentences before History and Evolution.

I also believe history and evolution could be separate paragraphs. It seems that you have found a lot of sources for what you are describing, so History could stand on its own if you wished to expand on it. Of course, evolution and history do go together, but if you added evolution as one explanation, then social factors, which you do refer to (social gain), could serve as another perspective.

I've noticed that you refer to K’ekchi’ of Belize. I tried looking up a wikipedia article about them, to see if you could add a link and found one that calls them Q'eqchi', and that K'ekchi' is former orthography. You could change it to Q'eqchi' and add a link to the article!

I can't find anything else to comment on to be honest, your work is very professional and detailed. You've included a lot of references and links to other articles which is great.

Amazing work!

Dimitris

D.toumazou (talk) 16:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer review section

For peer review purposes we did male sexual strategies and factors influencing male sexual behaviour Srt1996 (talk) 16:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review of Male Sexuality

I found your additions extremely insightful and you had loads of good links to other pages. The footnotes you added were relevant and I especially liked the description at the beginning of Sexual Coercion. I felt it explained it without being too wordy.

• I would suggest, to cut up the text, you could put the two hypotheses about rape under 1 and 2. For example:

1. Rape as a 'By-Product' Explain.. 2. Rape as an 'Adaptation' Explain...

• Furthermore, I would put rejected hypotheses under a subheading to cut up the text further and to let people know if they are just skimming through that they have been rejected.
• If a footnote applies to an entire sentence, such as Barabo & Shackelford, then it should be at the end of the sentence
• Can you further define Influences on male sexual behaviour and male sexual strategies because at the moment I see the two as being very closely related, especially with Influences of Sociosexuality on male sexual strategies. DaisyParker1995 (talk) 10:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Peer review on sexual strategies and factors influencing male sexual behaviour

You've added a substantial amount to the page with relevant evidence, on the whole, it is a great job and reads well!

– Your 'Sexual Coercion' paragraph is great but quite long, maybe try breaking it down into sub-sections so it's more digestible for readers. I'd suggest breaking it down into the 2 plausible hypothesises and the research behind each hypothesis

– There's no explanation as to why those 2 hypothesises, in particular, are plausible if it's mentioned in the paper or in another paper mention it.

– I haven't read up on it but is there any research that supports either of the reasonable hypothesises? If so add it as it will make the section even more reliable

– The addition of the rejected hypothesises is a great idea but again formatting it better would make it much easier to digest

– I think you could hyperlink to rape in the first sentence

– Whilst not necessary it may be a nice to add a picture to the sexual coercion section

– Maybe to give a more even view on the topic add criticisms of the hypothesises

– In early childhood experiences, the second sentences mentions research has found father absence and it initially seemed to me that there would be a lot of research on it, if there is just cite it there, but if there isn't then it's cool!

– You might want to look at other factors for factors influencing male sexual behaviour, if you don't have time you could just make a short note beneath it and list where people may be able to find wikipedia pages that may elaborate more on factors that will effect sexual behaviour such as parasite-stress theory.

R.E.Flanagan (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human male sexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100808063222/http://staff.jccc.net/scorbett01/ch8/zuni_berdache.htm to http://staff.jccc.net/scorbett01/ch8/zuni_berdache.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)