Talk:Superfecundation

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 June 2020 and 21 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kkellohen, Amanukyan UCSF, Adjlopez, Mkardouh.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Necessary?

Is it really necessary to go into the details of just how heteropaternal superfecundation can occur in humans? I'm sure people can use their own imaginations, and it's in bad taste. --Mijokijo 20:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I dont know, twin step brothers are pretty funny --ElFroggo 16:47, 14 April 2003 (UTC)

From a purely scientific standpoint, yes, I do feel that it is necessary and useful to go into the details, as you call it. It is really a matter of where one draws the line I suppose. Now if we get into describing an actual course of events, in graphic detail, that then lead to HPSF (to coin an abbrev. for this term), I would then agree that would indeed be in bad taste. However, the article is still IMHO just as scientifically informative as it was before my recent edits.

Futhermore, as a scientist with an interest in the human reproductive system, I stumbled on this article from either the New Pages or Did You Know? sections of the main page and was amazed that such a process was possible. So it did matter to me that it can occur in humans. And it troubled me that the tone of the article seemed to want to avoid discussing the human element, or rather, to criminalize the human element of this process. In other words, before this portion of the main article on superfecundation (SF) was edited by myself, the article used orgies, prostitution and gang rape as the examples whereby this situation could occur in humans, to the extent that it does. But there is no reason that one need focus solely on these 3 events alone which are widely accepted as having negative connotations, and aren't the only options whereby HPSF can occur.

In order to balance out the presentation and be more thorough in the discussion of this process, I added (after some research in Pubmed, etc) group sex and polyamory as less definitively negative events and just as relevant, as the aforementioned three other events, in terms of discussing when this process can occur in humans.

Furthermore, it seemed necessary to me to include that it isn't these events alone which lead to HPSF, but one or more of these cultural processes in conjunction with the biological process of unprotected sexual intercourse. Yes, I do see this as necessary also because if we have already opened up the issue of SF/HPSF, then it is a perfect opportunity to further illuminate the confusion and lack of knowledge that is still quite prevalent amongst many, especially the young on the complexities of the human reproductive system. This statement is not strictly that of my opinion, but is well backed by the data on teen conceptions (pun very much intended, of course) of sexual intercourse, human biology, and human reproduction in particular.

But I welcome further discussion on this topic, as I still find it fascinating that the article is there at all, and am curious as to what others gain from it or find lacking in it.. Clearly this article contains topics that are rife with controversy - and I recognize this as I am sure the original writer(s) of this article did. And, in order to add our voices to that controversial milieu of debate in a productive fashion we need to understand where each of us is coming from. ElFroggo in April of 2003 clearly was coming from a place of seeking humor. I respect his (I am assuming gender based on what I know of the spanish language) opinion on the matter but I do not feel that it leaves much room for further discussion. It is Mijokijo's comments that I have responded to and feel warrant addressing and exploring.

In fact, I wonder what exactly the "it" is that is found to be "in bad taste" as the very nature of the article seems, to me, to necessitate discussing the purely biologically and socioculturally surroundings that we all live in which play a part in the process addressed by the article (again, as related to humans though I feel compelled to add that humans are just as much animals as any other). In other words, if there is bad taste to be found, I am surprised it is not the whole article which is found to be in it (bad taste, that is) rather than specific portions of it. Does this mean that the article is found to be useful in general but not specifically? Does that not contradict the very nature of Wikipedia?

I am new here as far as being a contributor so this is something one should know about where I am coming from, but I would like to think that I have, as a passive lurker, learned a thing or two about what the underlying goal of Wikipedia is and I want to make sure that we are on the same page as far as that is concerned. Providing just enough information so that people can "use their own imaginations" would seem to be the role of a form of fiction, or of bite-sized journalism, for lack of a better term. I was under the impression that, in general, more is better with a Wikipedia article, as long as it is NPOV and educational both to yourself and the reader. I am also leaning on the CWYKWTL(M)A (again, coining another abbreviation if I might) philosophy.

Having said all this - I am glad that someone has voiced an opinion on this page and welcome further discussion on the topic as it is one that fascinates me - both from a scientific standpoint relative to the topic the article addresses and also from the standpoint of becoming a part of the Wikipedia community as a contributor/listener, et cetera. Thanks!

--Exmachina 04:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I guess I didn't communicate correctly what I meant. The following line is what I found in bad taste:

"It still does occur, however, with group sex, orgies, prostitution, gang rape and polyamory as potential sources of increased risk when there is unprotected vaginal sex, and/or failed protection."

The article itself is fine, but why describe the above actions as the possible ways that this occurs? Why not leave it to the imagination?--Mijokijo 12:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Because the imagination isn't always accurate! They are mentioned mainly because they help to illustrate the most likely causes. It's not very nice to think of gang rape and such things, I know, but that really is a possible way for it to happen which I, personally, would not have thought about had I just come along to the article. I think it's best to inform where possible, and I wouldn't like people to read through the article and think "but does it really happen, and how?". violet/riga (t) 12:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

That's rediculous. I can imagine it now:

"Murder can be caused by a multitude of things, such as bullet wounds, decapitation, impaling, poison that causes one's brain to rupture and blood to ooz out of all open cavities in one's body, having plastic explosives inserted into one's anus and then being set off..."

By your reasoning, we need to "inform" people about all the myriad ways a person can be murdered. I see this as unnecessary and distasteful. I certainly wouldn't expect to see this in any respectable encyclopedia. --Mijokijo 13:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid we must disagree on this. Your analogy is not quite right, as this article does not go into detail about exactly what happens. The murder article could, to my mind, mention the most common forms of murder, and that is basically what this article is doing re: superfecundation. violet/riga (t) 13:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

You're right, my analogy was flawed. Here is the corrected version:

"Murder can be caused by a multitude of things, such as bullet wounds, decapitation, impaling, poisoning, strangulation, drowning, burning, exploding, blunt trama, unprotected sword-fighting..."

Instead of describing the different ways in which this phenomenon can occur, why not modify it to say:

"Heteropaternal superfecundation is very rare in humans, though more common in other animals. This is primarily due to the predominance of 1:1 heterosexual partner pairings among humans. Any woman that has sexual relations with two or more men, one soon after the other, has a chance of being impregnated by both men."

I think this is a much more tasteful way of communicating how this can occur.--Mijokijo 13:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I made the change. --Mijokijo 12:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

While I would still like to work in some of the methods, I believe what is now present (after a slight addition I just made) is perhaps the best compromise and does read well. violet/riga (t) 12:44, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Although I find the change you made unnecessary, I agree that it is a good compromise. --Mijokijo 12:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

The latest change (part of which seems to still be in dispute to some degree, though without an associated debate) leaves much to be desired IMHO, but I too feel that it is an acceptable compromise considering that there must be others who do, or would, feel similarly about this. I do wonder, however, from a purely sociologically perspective, what it is about discussing methods of a biological phenomenon such as this that seems to rankle you? To address your example(s) of a murder entry - please see the entry associated with murder as you will find that it indeed does go into quite a lot of detail as to different forms of murder, in different countries, etc etc and is not a simple "Murder is when one human being kills another." type of definition. I would even go so far as to say that the murder article is far more gruesome, and for good reason considering the topic, than anything that was ever written/proposed for this article on superfecundation. To clarify, I am willing to go with the latest compromise, but I am curious as to the reasons behind why we need the compromise as I feel it is unfortunate.

--Exmachina 15:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The comparison of this article to the murder article is now balanced with the changes. That is to say, in the murder article they don't tell you how people can be murdered, they just define what makes an act of killing a person a murder. They don't tell us all the possible ways this can come about (see my comments above for an example), it is left to the imagination. They only define different kinds of murder (stabbing, shooting, beatings) when categorizing for statistics, not to just 'inform' us about how a person can be killed. I'm not sure why this is hard to understand. --Mijokijo 17:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

To respond to the last sentence of your previous comment, I can only say that the simple fact of the matter is that I do not share your viewpoint, nor understand it... And since you have raised your concerns and subsequently pushed for, and gotten, changes made that I find to be problematic in some regard, it would be helpful for you to see this as an opportunity for dialogue and teaching/learning, rather than expressing frustration or annoyance with my desire to understand our disconnect.

The problem is this - murder was your example, but murder really isn't a comparable topic. The reasons being that murder is fairly commonly understood by even the youngest of children all around the world. I suppose this is, in a way, an unfortunate fact - but I can guarantee you that, without taking any form of scientific poll, very few people have heard of heteropaternity superfecundation either with or without knowing that this is the scientific term for it. As such, it would be helpful for those people to understand, by way of examples, how such a thing can come to be. Simply explaining the basics, as we have done now, is sufficient... I agree there.

But it is not necessarily the _best_ way to inform. After all, it is the duty of an encyclopedia to do just that, inform. I use this word partly because I mean it and partly because you have used it in a manner to imply that you feel it is unnecessary to "inform" about the manner in which this process can occur. What does it matter if we explain that to people that come across this article? I might even agree with you that there were _too many_ examples in the prior versions - but to remove them altogether seems a disservice to me. Anyway - I do get a sense that this may be the point to just agree to disagree and I'd be happy to do that - just say the word. Otherwise, if you find any value at all in continuing this discussion, I am more than happy to do so and would welcome the opportunity to learn more about where you are coming from...Cheers. --Exmachina 20:04 3 August, 2005 (UTC)

I think your additions of the "nicer ways" of this occuring are very much a positive contribution, so thank you for that. It is something that can happen in humans and I think it needs an explanation of how it is possible, even though it (what I originally wrote) isn't really that pleasant. violet/riga (t) 11:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment! Though it seems we still have some work to do in order to accomodate a wider array of opinions on how to discuss this topic...

Exmachina 15:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Necessary? CONTINUED

Made a new header to talk under, was tired of all the colons.

I thought of that and I came to the conclusion that most adults understand how woman become pregnant, and that explaining how a woman can get pregnant with twins from two different fathers is unnecessary.

Imagine a conversation like this:

Person 1: "Hey, do you know how woman become pregnant?"
Person 2: "Yea, they have sex with a man."
Person 1: "Did you know that a woman can have twins from two different fathers?"
Person 2: "Really? How?"
Person 1: "By having sex with one guy, get impregnated, and then having sex with another guy and get impregnated by him."
Person 2: "So what you mean is, to have twins with two different fathers, a woman needs to have sex with more than one guy?"
Person 1: "Yea, basically."
Person 2: "Well no friggin' duh."

This disregards completely the explaination of the lower-level physical ways (under the header 'Conception' in the article) in which this can occur. You see why I think it is unnecessary to say

Person 1: "By having group sex with dozens of guys, getting raped by dozens of guys, threesomes, etc."

now? --Mijokijo 16:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

But they may say "Yeah, but how often does that happen?". I'm sure that there are plenty of scenarios that are not immediately thought of even with the way it is currently written – prostition, for example. However, I 'm aware that we also need to ensure that this article is not just about humans, as it is far more common in animals. violet/riga (t) 16:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. Is the person saying, "Yea, but how often does a woman have sex with two men, one soon after the other?", or is the person asking, "Yea, but how often does a woman actually get pregnant two twins from two different fathers?" The latter question is already answered in the article, 'very rarely'. The former question doesn't make any sense, how am I suppose to know how many women have sex with multiple men? Or maybe the question is, "Yea, but in what situation would a woman have sex with two or more men, one soon after the other, and become impregnated?" If this is the question, then I don't think it is an important question to answer. Let people use their imagination. In articles for programming languages, the admins don't allow them to become references on the languages. There IS such a thing as too much information for the sake of having lots of information.--Mijokijo 17:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Hercules

In the epic Hercules, Alcmene is raped by Zeus when she had already conceived with another man. Because of this, she had fraternal twins, each child from a different father. Perhaps mention of this should be included in the article as a popular example? Dionyseus 07:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Dragon Boy Suede

The above musician (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Boy_Suede) has a song about Superfecundation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YJrHYJQMeo .

Necessary #3

"When the parents of fraternal twins are involved in a paternity suit, the odds are about 1 in 40 that the children are actually half-siblings.[1]"

This is a random obscure fact that has almost no relevance or meaning to the definition and overview of HS. I do not think warrants being the introduction. This should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.109.199 (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Foundations II 2020 Group 28 proposed edits

Increased research Kkellohen (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)