Talk:Lordosis behavior/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Lordosis behavior. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I don't mean to doubt the factuality of any contributor's statements, but it would be appreciated if the cited article were available freely to everyone. JSTOR is free to libraries, but otherwise requires a subscription. Freedomlinux 18:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me that neither the image of the wolves nor the elephants show lordosis at all, and in the case of the wolves, the female's shoulders are elevated above her haunches, due to the incline. Is this correct? 72.42.169.170 (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I have deleted these images and moved the remaining two to the body of the article.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

It would be nice if the images more clearly showed lordosis, for example the one of the cat could definitely be a lot better, I don't think it shows the lordosis posture well at all. Plus it would be nice if not all the photos were exclusively during copulation. There have got to be some photos out there of cats demonstrating lordosis when they are not actually copulating; it is pretty common for some female cats, like my weird cat, to do it almost any time they are happy. MsBatfish (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Can somebody please add a clear drawing of what this article is talking about. The medical English isn't clear. Jidanni (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

What about this Commons image? The High heels article and media don't seem to have fashion shots that would illustrate it well. --Hjal (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

An image used in this article, File:Billed14.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Billed14.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

His back doesn't look particularly arched... --TiagoTiago (talk) 06:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The image also doesn't seem particularly germane to the article, since this is atypical sexual behaviour particular to humans which does not extend from the normal mammalian trait and does not employ all the same neuro-physiological reflexes and mechanisms or even necessitate the same posture. But I admit it's a grey area. Snow (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It is because of the evidence summarized here and discussed here, and still being discussed here. The applicable policies and guidelines are WP:NOR, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:RS. Lazy-restless, please do not make any more edits to these articles until you have read everything I just linked you. I would appreciate letting me know once you have read them. Pinging Lazy-restless to make sure he sees this (though he should have anyway because watching a page watches the talk page too). -Crossroads- (talk) 19:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC) updated -Crossroads- (talk) 21:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

-Crossroads-, can you tell me, from which angle or which point of view of WP:OR the diagrams are original research? I have found many references on the topic on google books see here. Lazy-restless (talk) 02:37, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I promise to answer this question, after you tell me truthfully whether you have read the background and guidelines I linked you to just above. If you have, and it is still unclear somehow, I will answer. -Crossroads- (talk) 02:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I read all, and found that there is no problem with the diagrams because the diagrams undoubtedly represent on the referencial writings of the article, and the presence of homosexuality in non -primate animals doesn't mean that the obviously proved neourobiological innate effects of heterosexual copulation on many non-primate will vanish, animals can poorly control their desire, which human and primates can more strongly for more independent neurobiological system. Lazy-restless (talk) 04:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The whole thing with homo/heterosexuality is irrelevant here. The pictures are the "own work" of the editor Yohan Castel, as seen in the info on Wikimedia Commons, [1][2] being "adapted from" numerous other sources. They are therefore synthesis/original research, therefore they must go. It's just icing on the cake that the person who created them is not trustworthy due to fringe theory pushing, as you read about above. Both me and Flyer22 Reborn have removed these pictures after you restored them. So, that is all there is to be said on the matter. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:29, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The person Yohan Castle can be untrustable, but I don't see any contradiction of the diagrams with the article's cited information, there are many more self-made theoritical diagrams are present in wikipedia, so what's wrong with this ones? Leave whatever is Yohan Casel, but this diagrams are not contradictory. Lazy-restless (talk) 06:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

See there are four academic books where mentioned lordosis neurobiological diagrams without any major difference resembles this diagram.^[1][2][3][4]. Lazy-restless (talk) 08:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with Crossroads1. If we restore some aspects, it should be better implemented. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, I think we should actually cut further. It seems to be redundant and overly detailed as it is, and relies too much on primary sources. Later on we can replace some of the primary sources with secondary ones (and check for accuracy in the process). -Crossroads- (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I see you all have more wish to cut rather than to improve. Lazy-restless (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Cutting is improving if done right. We are editors, not just writers. -Crossroads- (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

____

What should we do with the content in this article? As it is, it remains heavily written by Yohan Castel and his doppelgangers (the top 3 in this chart [3]), who are discussed here and in the discussions linked therein. Originally, before Castel showed up, the article looked like this: [4] Then he added a huge chunk of content [5] which was gradually modified over the years. JaKomensky (who is almost certainly Castel) also added some later on: [6] More recently, Flyer22 Reborn cut out a bunch of stuff after the first discussion about this person, and I cut out their OR diagrams: [7] After that, I cut much further on 19 August, replacing with pre-Castel content, but another editor came along and reverted everything, there was some edit warring, and along the way, regarding my 19 August cut, Flyer22 Reborn stated she did not agree to all of that deletion. Some of it should be downsized, though. All this can be seen in the page history: [8] At any rate, almost nothing has changed since then. [9]

The content that remains has some statements that seem dubious. For example, Olfactory circuits make it possible to recognize the partner of the opposite sex... and Moreover, olfactive, auditive and visual signals perceived during the copulation may by conditioning become sexual signals, which optimizes the innate pheromonal signals. But these seem like an overemphasis on olfaction and an overgeneralization of all non-human animals (as do some other statements), and it seems to fit too well with Serge Wunsch's fringe theory that only animals have innate sexual orientations because they have pheromones and we don't. [10]

The content also seems overly detailed and quite repetitive. Based on the previous discussion linked above, there are very likely more non-obvious problems, like sources being used to support things they do not say.

I am unsure what to do with what we have. Seppi333, I pinged you hoping if you had time you could look over the article, and my comment above, and see what you thought, and maybe make recommendations (or edits, if you like). Flyer, I know you don't need to be pinged. My recommendation is to cut it down quite a bit further, removing excessive detail and redundancy, and any statements that seem questionable, like what I mentioned above. We should also be careful to say that if an experiment was about rats, to say so and not overgeneralize.

Rather than WP:PRESERVE, I think WP:DON'T PRESERVE may apply more. If content is excessively detailed or redundant, or has any chance of being OR, we should remove it. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Something I thought was really moronic when I read that guy’s explanation about what mediates lordosis after he called it a “reflex” is that his discussion focused on things like: The lordosis reflex is hardwired in the brain, controlled by hormones in the hypothalamus,[2] triggered by touch stimuli on flanks, rump, tailbase or perineum,[3] and facilitated by vaginal stimulation[4] and by sexual pheromones.[5] (quote from this article).

I would like to take a moment to emphatically Facepalm at this.

The neural substrate of a reflex is a reflex arc, literally by definition. With limited exceptions, virtually all reflex arcs involve the spinal cord without any involvement from the brain. The exceptions to this only include reflexes that affect autonomic functions of any kind (coughing, swallowing, vomiting, sneezing, vasovagal, and a fair number of others).

That two part relay - (1) a sensory pathway transmitting a signal to a specific structure in the central nervous system (i.e. brain and spinal cord, but again, in almost all cases, reflex arcs are exclusive to the spinal cord) which the generates the reflex via an involuntary motor command being sent from that region to a muscle group - is ALL the neurobiology there is to ANY reflex. And again, that’s because a reflex arc is the neural substrate of a reflex, by definition.

The funny thing is that the “lordosis reflex arc” is covered as if it were like an aside about technical trivia, nestled way down in the Neurobiology section:

More precisely, the lordosis sexual reflex is mainly hardwired in the spinal cord, at the level of the lumbar and sacral vertebrae (L1, L2, L5, L6 and S1).[3] In the brain, several regions modulate the lordosis reflex. The vestibular nuclei and the cerebellum, via the vestibular tract, send information which makes it possible to coordinate the lordosis reflex with postural balance. More importantly, the ventromedial hypothalamus sends projections that inhibit the reflex at the spinal level, so it is not activated at all times.[11] Sex hormones control reproduction and coordinate sexual activity with the physiological state. Schematically, at the breeding season, and when an ovum is available, hormones (especially estrogen) simultaneously induce ovulation and estrus (heat). Under the action of estrogen in the hypothalamus, the lordosis reflex is uninhibited.[2] The female is ready for copulation and fertilization.

Honestly, I’m not that familiar with lordosis since I was never interested enough in non-human animal behavior or neurobiology to care to learn about a topic like that; however, IF lordosis is indeed a reflex like fringe author whatever-his-name-was (Wunsch?) asserts it is AND he actually wrote the statement about it being “hardwired” by the brain despite it being just another spinal reflex, then that guy is literally a fucking moron. The article includes a little more detail than this, but this is what the reflex arc looks like based upon what’s stated in the lead and above:

Lordosis is a reflex that involves the involuntary lowering of forelimbs and raising of hind limbs (etc... the lead is too detailed on that). The lordosis reflex arc, which produces the lordosis reflex, is composed of a sensory pathway and a motor pathway. The sensory pathway transmits tactile impulses from tactile sensory triggers on the flanks, perineum, and rump of female mammals to the spinal cord; subsequently, the spinal cord transmits a motor impulse to [whatever muscle groups in the forelimbs/hindlimbs], which results in the lordosis reflex.

The hypothalamus stuff is relevant, but it’s not part of the reflex arc. Basically, the lordosis reflex arc is inhibited ventromedial hypothalamus at most times in female mammals; when female mammals are in heat, increased estrogen concentrations within the ventromedial hypothalamus cause (via estrogen receptor-mediated regulation of hypothalamic neural firing) the disinhibition of the lordosis reflex arc, thereby permitting the reflex to occur.

</end rant> Anyway, I would fix this article (I.e., chop it in half and rewrite for conciseness), but I’m confined to editing on my iPhone for the next 24 hrs or so due to a dead laptop AC adapter. Everything in this article about pheromones, reward, the reward system, and the olfactory system is 100% off topic provided the material from the article which I quoted above is accurate (it probably is, but I don’t want to check on my phone). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Seppi333, for handling this stuff again. I enjoyed your comment above too. All this further confirms my suspicions that the Wunsch promo accounts' material is nonsensical garbage. If this person comes back - as is plausible, since they tend to return after long breaks - I will be sure to let you know. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)