As I’ve been following my different online communities, I’ve come to realize that human sexuality seems to be the core around which many of these groups build either the entirety of their identities, or at least substantial pieces of it. Therefore, I figured the most valuable subject for me to get brushed up on via Wikipedia was “Human Sexuality.” Wow, was I wrong.
Defining human sexuality as “the capacity to have erotic experiences,” (interesting how the word “human” didn’t even come in to play there), Wikipedia’s Human Sexuality article is a behemoth, trying desperately to cover every single facet of the topic one could possibly imagine. Here’s the article directory:
1 Nature-versus-nurture debate
1.1 Thomas Aquinas
1.2 Sigmund Freud
1.3 John Locke
2 Evolutionary aspects
3 Biological and physiological aspects
3.1 Physical anatomy and reproduction
3.1.1 Brain
3.1.2 Female anatomy and reproductive system
3.1.2.1 External female anatomy
3.1.2.2 Internal female anatomy
3.1.3 Male anatomy and reproductive system
3.1.3.1 External male anatomy
3.1.3.2 Internal male anatomy
3.2 Sexual response cycle
3.3 Sexual dysfunction and sexual problems
4 Psychological aspects
5 Sexuality and age
5.1 Child sexuality
5.2 Sexuality in late adulthood
6 Sociocultural aspects
6.1 Religious sexual morality
6.2 Sexuality in history
7 Sexual behavior
7.1 General activities and health
7.2 Birth control
7.3 Sexual attraction
7.4 Creating a relationship
7.5 Legal issues
8 See also
9 Footnotes
10 Further reading
11 External links
Yikes. From a sex ed 101 understanding of reproductive organs and birth control options, to nearly every single philosophical and psychological development on the topic since the dawn of agriculture, this article covers nearly everything except what I was looking for…except for how individuals incorporate their sexuality into their identity (examples that are particularly relevant to me would be the emergence of queer culture, the abstinence/purity movement , and feminists and the sexual revolution). Although religious perspectives were briefly touched upon, the summarization of each religion’s perspective was so brief that it wouldn’t really help me in understanding say, the different perspectives various Christian denominations have traditionally held on the topic.
Overall, it seems that the article left out cultural and social perspectives on human sexuality, and the affect sexuality has on individual human’s identities, in order to take a very hard—facts stance on the subject. Biology, psychology, and a very facts-oriented historical perspective dominated, leaving me high and dry with regards to the information I was hoping to get from the article.
The talks page, relative to the giant article, was fairly quiet and uneventful. A few grammar corrections, a debate over whether pansexuality was a sexual orientation, and a cleanup of some simplistic language regarding the Catholic Church’s position on sex was all that was really going on there.