Talk:Sexual attraction

message: 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)
replies: text: Do you wanna have fun at min 92.23.248.90 (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pheromones 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reproduction 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Serious NPOV issue:  sexual attraction in humans is not distinct from other forms of attraction 

message: 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)
thread_title: Pending changes

message: 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)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Edit request on 3 December 2011 

message: 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===
Men have been found to have a greater interest in  uncommitted sex  compared to women Buss, D. M., & Shmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: A contextual evolutionary analysis of human mating. ‘’Psychological Review’’: 100, 204-232.  as well as a greater interest in visual sexual stimuli Ellis, B.J., & Symons, D. (1990). Sex differences in sexual fantasy: An evolutionary psychological approach. ‘’Journal of Sex Research’’, 27, 527-555. . 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. Wiederman, M. W., & Allgeier, E. R. (1992). Gender differences in mate selection criteria: Sociobiological or socioeconomic explanations? ‘’Ethology and Sociobiology’’, 13, 115-124.
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.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
===References===
DrLight12 (talk) 18:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request April 13, 2012 

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

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

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Describing sexual attraction 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Physical attraction without sexual arousal 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Laughter is an aphrodisiac? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Human Sexuality Wikipedia Assignment 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thank you very much for these comments, they are really helpful Swifty1995 (talk) 11:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual Preferences and Hormones Copy-Edit and Review 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Peer review comment 

message: '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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: Add  template.
--186.84.46.227 (talk) 22:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2016 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV violation? "other animals" 

message: 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  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7572396_Women's_sexual_interests_across_the_ovulatory_cycle_depend_on_primary_partner_developmental_instability
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)
thread_title:  Error in last paragraph, heading "Sexual preferences and hormones", subheading "Ovulation and Female Sexual Preferences" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Women are most attracted to the smell of men who are most genetically different from them 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Scope of article needs to be articulated to readers 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Sexy girls" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Sexy women" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: ...because it has relied on only one citation to a study from the 1970s for the entire section since December 2012. Here is the abstract:
Rationale: WP:PRIMARY, "Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability." WP:GNG, "'Sources' should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability."
Talib1101 (talk) 07:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Section 4 of Sexual attraction: Sex and sexuality differences 

message: This article was quite dated, considering the amount of weight it gave to the now outdated ovulatory shift hypothesis. To summarize, the studies from two decades ago showing that women want to cheat on their partners when fertile have, to put it mildly, a replication crisis, and newer studies show that, while women are more sexual when fertile, they do not have an increased desire to commit adultery.  That in mind, as with ovulatory shift hypothesis, I have removed a lot of proposals presented as fact in the Wikipedia which have not been replicated in recent studies.  See Talk:Ovulatory shift hypothesis for full discussion and consensus building process. Samboy (talk) 02:24, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Ovulatory shift hypothesis is considered outdated 

message: I think it is relevant and a good idea to add a section or a complete article on sensuality and its distinction with this article. Hastengeims (talk) 04:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  New topic 

message: Has there been a sex/gender swapped version of the test been administered? ChecksMix (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  “High Anxiety”