Talk:Human sexual response cycle

Problematic Sources

specifically, #5 - Pro Plus Medical. this is merely a sex shop (or store for sexual 'enhancement' items and/or sexual "accessories"). as the given link only went to a "blank" page, i tried to search for something relevant to the material here where it was cited. so i clicked on the "Ladies Libido Enhancement System" link on the "blank" page, and was taken to a page with 5 truly delightful items for sale. two of which mention increasing blood flow to certain areas; none of which discuss female "organic" lubricating liquid. and the first of which is a product with claims of, "A couple of drops mixed with any liquid will turn the coldest women into a hot sex starved nympho. Can be taken by mouth or put in any liquid without detection, but you should get her permission." it is terribly sweet of them to add that last little bit. as i'm not finding anything relevant to the material on this page, and because i'm a bit concerned now about just what infection/s i may have on my system after being on that site, i'm going to hide/block that source for now.

also, #4 - Sinclair Intimacy Institute at HowStuffWorks.com. yes, the page linked to does contain a few paragraphs about the phases of sexual response. nothing more than what is already here, and with no more credibility than if the passages using this source had simply been left unsourced. and, again, it seems to be more about selling things--the entire site of "How Stuff Works"; it's full of ad links, and when clicking on the Sinclair Intimacy Institute link at the top, first i see in the address bar "Shop..." and then i get a page that's halfway not available, and the rest of which is yet another sex toy/enhancement/accessory store. is this page just being spammed by these places?? once again, i'm going to hide/block that source. i'm going to be pissed if i have some sort of virus after 'daring' to check on a source.

i'm not going to check any other sources, but if there's anyone out there that gives a damn about this page, and similar pages on WP, i think Source Checking ought to become a priority.Colbey84 (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Colbey84, thanks for your concern. Those are obviously not ideal sources. The HowStuffWorks source used to be a Discovery.com source, though (by that, I mean that Discovery.com at some point became HowStuffWorks.com across the board), and it's based on information from the Sinclair Intimacy Institute. I will improve some of the references and other things regarding this article at a later date. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Colbey84, you can see Discovery.com's relation to HowStuffWorks.com with this link. The site definitely is not meant to be a spam site. If you see spam, feel free to remove it per WP:SPAM. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

thanks for checking, Flyer22. i thought, when i first saw the link, that HowStuffWorks was a legit site. i wouldn't have said it was related to Discovery Channel, but it seemed that i'd heard of it before. so i was pretty surprised at what popped up. i DID try to find another page on the site that more clearly backed up what was here. but everything seemed to be ad/links. then i checked the other source. i didn't just delete them because i wasn't sure if i, maybe, just hadn't found the right page on the sites. and i didn't mean to be so snippy about this page. i was just surprised that there was NOTHING on the Talk page; made it seem like no one was ever checking this page.Colbey84 (talk) 05:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Colbey84, no apology is necessary. I understand. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The last paragraph under "Excitement in both sexes" ("An increase in muscle tone (myotonia) [...]") is confusing and possibly wrong. 1. Muscle tone AFAIK describes muscle condition, not state. 2. myotonia is a disease or abnormal condition, according to the link. Later (under Plateau phase) there is a reference to muscle *tension* which probably was the original intent of this sentence, yes? So this is a "problematic source" issue but also something else and should be cleaned up to eliminate vagueness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisbedford (talk • contribs)

The paragraph you tagged as unsourced is unsourced. So I don't see how it's a problematic source issue. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Estrous cycle

okay, i found the older Talk page discussions. i saw there the request/recommendation to change Estrous Cycle to Menstruation Cycle (or Menstruation). the reasoning for that request/recommendation was valid; yet Estrous Cycle was still on this page. i was going to edit it to make the change, but then i searched through the other info found on this page, and nowhere does Menstruation or Menstrual Cycle come up. not directly, and not indirectly. this Human Sexual Response Cycle page discusses the Sexual Response as it may occur for AN instance of sex, and not for a longer period of sexual contacts. so, if menstruation or lack thereof is not a consideration for the Sexual Response Cycle, it should not be included in the See Also section. so i simply deleted Estrous Cycle.

if others think it should be included, then there should also be links to issues of male hormonal cycles, as those hormone changes would have as much effect, if not more, than the female hormone cycles. although...i'm not sure there are any WP pages on male hormone cycles yet.Colbey84 (talk) 07:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Colbey84, I agree with you removing the link to the Estrous cycle article; this is not only for reasons I made clear at that article's talk page (the fact that "estrous cycle" usually refers to non-human animals rather than to humans), but also because of the reasoning you gave. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Human sexual response cycle. 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/20060427023137/http://health.discovery.com/centers/sex/sexpedia/sexresponse.html to http://health.discovery.com/centers/sex/sexpedia/sexresponse.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130311180852/http://www.obgyn.ubc.ca/SexualHealth/sexual_dysfunctions/index.php to http://www.obgyn.ubc.ca/SexualHealth/sexual_dysfunctions/index.php

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 16:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)