You are reading: Wikiafripedia, the free encyclopedia that you can monetize your contributions with ads
All Wikipedia Editorial rules applies here + you are free to place ads on articles you authored on Wikiafripedia and earn revenue based on the number of people that read your article daily - imagine if Wikipedia was like that.
Right now, the most read article on Wikiafripedia is SSSniperwolf
If you need help getting started, WhatsApp Shusmitha on: +2348032569168
You are reading: Wikiafripedia, the free encyclopedia that you can monetize your contributions with ads
All Wikipedia Editorial rules applies here + you are free to place ads on articles you authored on Wikiafripedia and earn revenue based on the number of people that read your article daily - imagine if Wikipedia was like that.
Right now, the most read article on Wikiafripedia is SSSniperwolf
If you need help getting started, WhatsApp Shusmitha on: +2348032569168

Talk:Sexual attraction

From Wikiafripedia, the free encyclopedia that you can monetize your contributions or browse at zero-rating.
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Template:Article History

Pheromones[edit source | edit]

Pheromones are controversial, actually modern scientific community tend to go in the "humans no longer use pheromone" category. Also physical attractiveness or the way you intake somebody through your senses is not the only way to have sexual attraction, culture have shown us that Social Status(and thus the understanding of behaviors) plays a big role too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.23.69.115 (talk) 15:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Reproduction[edit source | edit]

Regarding the assertion "Although in many species it serves no immediate reproductive goal" - I'll suggest that it does not serve any reproductive "goal" in most species. For example, oysters do not set "goals", although they do have sex. My guess is that oysters and other animals have sex because they enjoy doing so. Sexual activity is a step in sexual reproduction, but I think it's safe to say that oysters, birds, cats etc. (and for that matter, a substantial number of humans) do not know this, much less set it as a "goal." -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Serious NPOV issue: sexual attraction in humans is not distinct from other forms of attraction[edit source | edit]

Is Wikipedia seriously attempting to say that sexual attraction is an attribute *only* of humans? Not even of primates or other mammals but only humans? This article needs to be named human sexual attraction and even more correctly modern human sexual attraction. A more correct factoring of articles would be:

  • sexual attraction covering the subject the way, say National Geographic Wild Sex would, each species being treated as interesting in its own right - part of biology not specific to humans
  • primate sexual attraction covering what is known about monkeys, Great Apes especially bonobos (nearest human relative) and any theories of early human sexuality that predate our involvement in tame civilized modern societies - part of primatology not specific to humans
  • modern human sexual attraction acknowledging that we know absolutely nothing about pre-modern or pre-state-society humans because we didn't test them before we wiped them out, and have inexorably altered sexual attraction in all human societies we have encountered - evidence suggests that we'd have to make this part of sociology as well as sexuality because we can't separate social from other influences given we are the products of many generations of domestication.

Also there is human sexual behavior and physical attractiveness (another bad name as "physical" implies even less human specificity than "sexual" and could bloody well mean gravity) which need a total refactoring in this process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.109.103 (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Sexy[edit source | edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} Remove {{redirect|Sexy}} at the beginning of the article, as sexy is now a disambiguation page. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 03:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Done —EqualRights (talk) 03:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Should also mention sexy son hypothesis and rewilding (anarchism) as the latter is a movement in which primitive skills are elevated in social desirability.

Definition issue[edit source | edit]

Quote: For example, a gay or lesbian would typically find a person of the same-sex to be more attractive then one of the other gender. A bisexual person would typically find both sexes to be equally attractive.

A bisexual person does not necessarily find both sexes equally attractive. Bisexuals are sexually attracted to both sexes, but may have a greater preference towards one sex than the other. The preferences may also fluctuate in intensity. Homosexuality and heterosexuality in a clinical sense is an exclusive attraction to one sex (either your own or of the opposite sex). 121.73.7.84 (talk) 12:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed this is nonsense, Kinsey had at least a scale of 1 to 6, and that should probably be referenced in this context.

Pending changes[edit source | edit]

This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC).

Photos[edit source | edit]

The text and the photos in the introduction are ridiculous... I would change change them replacing them in one. --Catalaalatac (talk) 03:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 December 2011[edit source | edit]

Scents have an important role in sexual behaviour of primates whith vertebrates. The scent of either male of females is used for recognizing the opposite sex and it can also attract opposite sex which inceases potential mating. Usually females are more attracted towards male scents which is an important interaction between the main and accessory olfactory systems.

Jane L., Hurst . "Female recognition and assessment of males through scent." Behavioural Brain Research 2 (2009): 295-303 . Scholars portal Journals. Web. 1 June 2009. 999212150.utsc (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. I am unable to discern whereabouts to insert the above text.--Hazel77 talk 17:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request April 13, 2012[edit source | edit]

If you could add this section below 'Enhancement' I feel the page could be expanded a bit to include some research on sexuality/sexual orientation differences in sexual attraction. If you feel there is somewhere better this belongs, feel free to inform me.

Sex and sexuality differences in sexual attraction[edit source | edit]

Men have been found to have a greater interest in uncommitted sex compared to women [1] as well as a greater interest in visual sexual stimuli [2]. Additional trends have been found with a greater sensitivity to partner status in women choosing a sexual partner and men placing a greater emphasis on physical attractiveness in a potential mate, as well as a significantly greater tendency toward sexual jealousy in men and emotional jealousy in women. [3]

Bailey, Gaulin, Agyei, and Gladue (1994) analyzed whether these results would vary according to sexual orientation. In general, they found biological sex played a bigger role in the psychology of sexual attraction than orientation. However, there were some differences between homosexual and heterosexual women and men on these factors. While gay men and straight men showed similar psychological interest in casual sex on markers of sociosexuality, gay men showed a larger number of partners in behaviour expressing this interest (proposed to be due to a difference in opportunity). Self-identified lesbian women showed a significantly greater interest in visual sexual stimuli than heterosexual women and judged partner status to be less important in romantic partnerships. Heterosexual men also had a significantly greater preference for younger partners than homosexual men.[4]

References[edit source | edit]

  1. Buss, D. M., & Shmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: A contextual evolutionary analysis of human mating. ‘’Psychological Review’’: 100, 204-232.
  2. Ellis, B.J., & Symons, D. (1990). Sex differences in sexual fantasy: An evolutionary psychological approach. ‘’Journal of Sex Research’’, 27, 527-555.
  3. Wiederman, M. W., & Allgeier, E. R. (1992). Gender differences in mate selection criteria: Sociobiological or socioeconomic explanations? ‘’Ethology and Sociobiology’’, 13, 115-124.
  4. J.M. Bailey, S. Gaulin, Y. Agyei, B. Gladue. (1994). Effects of gender and sexual orientation on evolutionarily relevant aspects of human mating psychology. ‘’Journal of Personality and Social Psychology’’, 66(6), 1081-1093

DrLight12 (talk) 18:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Request fulfilled[edit source | edit]

Page no longer protected, included section within body of the page. DrLight12 (talk) 03:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Describing sexual attraction[edit source | edit]

I think this page could potentially be improved with a description of what sexual attraction feels like, or at least more description of the physiological symptoms associated with sexual attraction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galingy (talkcontribs) 06:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely. The book "Sexual Attraction: The Psychology of Allure" says the essence of sexual attraction is what it feels like. It describes this feeling as the experience of a magnetic "allure". It says that allure is felt differently in different sorts of sexual attractions (to friends, strangers, or lovers)with different sorts of helplessness and sexual fantasies. Allure sounds like it is a description of what sexual attraction feels like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gouldboxx (talkcontribs) 08:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Discrimination[edit source | edit]

Sexy girls redirects here, but not sexy boys. Seems to discriminate against blokes 129.180.175.45 (talk) 08:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Physical attraction without sexual arousal[edit source | edit]

Let's say a male finds other males physically attractive, to the point where he may be more inclined to check out men than women, but is not sexually aroused by men, and he only has sex with women. Do you think physical and sexual attraction could easily be confused by some people (particularly those who don't experience [significant] physical attraction for those they aren't sexually attracted to), and that explicitly differentiating the two might be worth a few sentences in this article?--Xagg (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why that needs to be in this article. We have the Physical attractiveness and Sexual attraction articles because these topics are distinct, though they do significantly overlap. That stated, if what you propose is WP:Reliably sourced, it can be added to this article and/or to the Physical attractiveness article. It is not WP:Lead material, however. And, per MOS:Paragraphs, a few sentences generally do not warrant a heading. Flyer22 (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Laughter is an aphrodisiac?[edit source | edit]

The most common thing women say that they want in a lover is that he must make her laugh. Some women say that he must make her laugh until she wets herself or cries. Millions of women are 'laughed into bed' by men. However, the reverse doesn't happen - women don't laugh men into bed. The article should state this and say why that is the case. If laughter is an extremely effective aphrodisiac, why does it only work on women? Jim Michael (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is so re[edit source | edit]

from the edit screen : : "This article is specifically about nonphysical attraction. If you would like to contribute to aspects of human attraction that are physical and visual, please use physical attractiveness."

what does that even mean? 'the aspects of human attraction that are physical and visual' are a separate topic from sexual attraction? this is why such articles are so weirdly broad or full of disparate smaller points that they have trouble saying anything of value. Tangy 303 Mamet Sauce (talk) 02:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Tango303 (Tangy 303 Mamet Sauce), by that note, I see that you mean the "General edit notice" when you click the "Edit" option. I don't know who added that edit notice, but the person is trying to state that physical attractiveness is not the same thing as sexual attraction (though they do overlap), which is why we have two different articles for them. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
alright. who can change the wording of that notice? all it needs to do is not imply is that the topic, and therefore the WP article 'sexual attraction' is:
--not "specifically about nonphysical" attraction.
--separate from a 'visual aspect' of attraction.

These are goofy things to say or imply, if you just examine them for a second. someone please clarify what the intent of the notice was & re-word it. or remove it. thanks. Tangy 303 Mamet Sauce (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Human Sexuality Wikipedia Assignment[edit source | edit]

As part of our wikipedia assignment for Human Sexuality we will be adding a section titled 'Sexual preferences and hormones.' Swifty1995 (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


Sexual Preferences and Hormones Copy-Edit and Review[edit source | edit]

You've really thoroughly addressed the topic of hormones in relation to sexual attraction here. However I have made a few copy-edits to some of your paragraphs; I found some of the sentences a little long-winded, so I have just cut a few words. For example, I adapted "are seeking" to "seek". There might be a few other areas you might like to cut, just to address your research as concisely as possible.

As Wikipedia entries are supposed to be as objective as possible, try to make sure your writing doesn't sound like you're writing an essay to argue for or against one theory or another. It reads beautifully, but maybe words like "furthermore" could be dropped. Your point would still be just as relevant and clear without them!

Good note -- hopefully touching up on these areas will add clarity BigPapa1995 (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

There are couple of technical terms such as "E3G levels" which could be explained or made into a link to another Wiki page.

You've done a really great job, though! Interesting to read and good research used!

Tinaballerina02 (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


Thank you very much for these comments, they are really helpful Swifty1995 (talk) 11:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Peer review comment[edit source | edit]

You have obviously covered a lot of research to justify the points when explaining the evolutionary perspective which provides a very interesting read. However, from reading your contribution I would suggest that where possible, you should avoid discussing the research as if it is your own interpretation. For example, it may be better to avoid using the phrase "research shows" and make more of a definitive statement backed up with a citation.

I understand how difficult this is because research is not always "correct", but that is my only suggestion. Apart from that, nice work!

I also made a small copy edit with punctuation :)

Taylahurlock (talk) 17:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, we will re-word some of our contribution in order to make it clear that our statements are based on scientific research. Swifty1995 (talk) 11:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
yeah that's a fair point - having more research will also probably help us objectively display the findings instead of creating arguments for either side BigPapa1995 (talk) 11:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Peer review comment[edit source | edit]

'Sexual preferences and hormones' is a well researched and quite multi-faceted contribution to the page at hand. Well done! There are a couple of things I'd like mention in terms of constructive criticism:


1. Phrasing: a)'These findings are explained through the evolutionary hypothesis; during ovulation, women seek a partner with high levels of reproductive fitness.' Talking about 'the evolutionary hypothesis' might be a little confusing to readers (especially if the term is not hyperlinked to another page). Just saying that there is an evolutionary explanation would be much clearer. Also the use of a semi-colon, even though grammatically correct, disrupts the reading flow.

Fair point - we'll make sure the page links to the evolutionary page to save us from offering an unnecessary explanation. BigPapa1995 (talk) 11:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

b) 'Whilst long-term mate preference is fairly consistent, short-term preferences varied across cycle shifts.' 'Consistent' in what regard? 'Varied' how?


2. Additional Explanations needed: a) 'E3G levels' need explaining, either through a hyperlink to the appropriate wiki page or simply with a sentence stating what they are. A reference (or clearer referencing) in regard to E3G[citation needed] is also needed.

Yeah somebody else raised this issue as well so it's something we definitely need to address in more detail - cheers BigPapa1995 (talk) 11:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

b) Special terms like Ovulatory Shift Hypothesis[citation needed] should be referenced directly. Maybe some background information about the hypothesis could be useful? I would start a new paragraph at that point, given that it does not seem related to women's temporal ambiguity mentioned in the previous sentence.


These are just minor things really. All in all great article contribution!Roja123 (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, we will edit our contribution based on your suggestions. Swifty1995 (talk) 11:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2016[edit source | edit]

Add {{Pp-semi}} template.

--186.84.46.227 (talk) 22:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done — JJMC89(T·C) 04:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

NPOV violation? "other animals"[edit source | edit]

"For sexual attraction among other animals, see Animal sexual behaviour" at the top of the page implies that humans are animals. Seeing as that isn't universally agreed on, can someone please remove "other" from that sentence? I can't, as the page is locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.99.154.74 (talk) 10:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Isn't universally agreed on? Regardless of popular language separating humans from the animal category, humans are animals. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

You disagree that Primates are animals? On what basis? Dimadick (talk) 08:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Error in last paragraph, heading "Sexual preferences and hormones", subheading "Ovulation and Female Sexual Preferences"[edit source | edit]

There is an error in the last paragraph under the heading "Sexual preferences and hormones", subheading "Ovulation and Female Sexual Preferences".

In this sentence: "Women whose partners have high developmental stability have greater attraction to men other than their partners when fertile", the word "stability" should be "instability".

Here is the relevant sentence in the abstract of the cited research: "In a sample of 54 couples, we found that women whose partners had high developmental instability (high fluctuating asymmetry) had greater attraction to men other than their partners, and less attraction to their own partners, when fertile." I copied this sentence from researchgate.net [1]

Also, I think the words "and less attraction to their own parterns" should be added. Adding these words will better reflect the researchers' discovery.

Macbruins (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Typo/spelling error?[edit source | edit]

Ovulation and ornamentation

"It is possible that women's are sensitive to the changes in their physical attractiveness"

shouldn't that be women not women's?

Women are most attracted to the smell of men who are most genetically different from them[edit source | edit]

That means a woman won't be sexually attracted to the smell of a man that's her brother because he would be genetically similar. That gives a reproductive advantage because parents that are genetically different from each other will have healthier children than parents that are genetically similar to each other. Why isn't that in the article? Parents that are genetically close to each other will likely have children with birth defects. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage#Genetics - WorldQuestioneer (talk) 02:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Scope of article needs to be articulated to readers[edit source | edit]

The edit notice says that this article is about non-physical aspects of attraction, and that those should be at physical attractiveness. This doesn't seem to be articulated in the article itself, though. Can we add a hatnote or other pointers (such as an empty section that redirects)? I think a lot of readers will come here expecting to read about physical attractiveness. Sdkb (talk) 07:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

"Sexy girls" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit source | edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sexy girls. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

"Sexy women" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit source | edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sexy women. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)