Misplaced Pages

Project talk page

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Sexology and sexuality and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcut WT:SEX

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Sexology and sexuality Project‑class This page is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

A new related Wikiproject

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Hentai is a new project that will be sharing interest in topics related to the Japanese anime and manga sections. You will see numerous taggings have been done by works covered under your scope. Everyone is welcome to interact or join in for discussion and dealing with the mature subject matter typically avoided by other Wikiprojects. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC on WikiProject Hentai

NOTE, At WT:WikiProject Anime and manga, there is an RFC concerning the fate of WP:WikiProject Hentai -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 07:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

"The Politics of Human Sexuality"

The Politics of Human Sexuality is a TV episode article. Do we have a general article on the topic of the politics of human sexuality? -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 01:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

"Romantic Expressionism"

Romantic Expressionism is a TV episode article. Do we have a general article on romantic expressionism? -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 01:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Does not seem to exist. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Nude photography

Does nude photography fall under the purview of this project? -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I replaced the tag and assessed it. Thanks again. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should the section title for Academic freedom controversy be changed?

There is an RfC here Talk:Hans-Hermann_Hoppe#RfC:_Should_the_section_title_for_Academic_freedom_controversy_be_changed.3F concerning the article on Hans-Hermann Hoppe. There is extensive background discussion elsewhere on the talk page there. SPECIFICO talk 02:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: I have revised the section heading here to reflect what the RfC title is and modified the link to create a Wikilink. – S. Rich (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Fuck peer review

1. Fuck (film)
2. Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Fuck (film)/archive1

I've listed the article Fuck (film) for peer review.

Help with furthering along the quality improvement process would be appreciated, at Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Fuck (film)/archive1.

— Cirt (talk) 00:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

LOL, when seeing the "Fuck peer review" title pop up on my watchlist, I thought this section was some type of rant against peer preview, specifically WP:Peer review. Flyer22 (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Rape during the liberation of France

Talk:Rape_during_the_liberation_of_France#Until the article meets basic quality standards… CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Boot fetishism

Why can't boot fetishism have its own page? The page used to be redirected, because the previous information there was unreferenced. When I restarted the page and wrote information with reliable sources, one person couldn't stand this and kept reverting the page, regardless of the sources.

If this subject should nog have its own page, why should it be redirected to shoe fetishism, to which it is only vaguely related? It would be better to redirect it to fetish fashion, clothing fetish, uniform fetishism, or perhaps dominance and submission, if it shouldn't have its own page. Please give your thoughts at Talk:Boot fetishism. -- Harold O'Brian (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Biased article - doesn't reflect the world we live in

Masturbation

selected quote:

" it is considered a normal part of healthy life today" with no reference. Opinion, and they will not remove it.

-- No it is not. I do not believe it is entirely socially acceptable in any society, (apart from a few microcultural examples e.g. certain indigenous tribes) and in many conservative/religious societies (e.g. Islamic countries, many rural areas across the world) it is not acceptable at all. They are confusing the views of science and medicine (which does not 100% say it is fine, hence the use of terms like "excessive masturbation", "compulsive masturbation" in medical and psychological publications) with the views of society. I proposed then to split these views, but it was again opposed. They will not even allow mention that masturbation is illegal in public in most countries, apparently that is "not on topic".

-- The requests I made to change the article and make it less biased were opposed by quoting some Misplaced Pages rules. I studied these rules in detail and in every case they are falsely applied to this scenario. I also found out that according to these rules, many, many issues involving content of the page which supports the overall biased view. The rules are being selectively applied by a minority to maintain a biased page which does not, I believe represent the views of all.

-- I am very disillusioned by this experience. I used to read Misplaced Pages with interest and admiration, but now everything I see will be suspect in my eyes. How do I know it is not the same scenario-- biased opinion rather than reality? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.140.25 (talk) 12:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I have the same experience as you do. I think articles on sex here at Misplaced Pages is very biased. Information based on clear references are being removed for being unserious according to one single user, and not enough people are interested enough in discussing these subjects. I suppose many people find the articles on sex to be less important and don't want to end up in some dispute about a sexual subject, and this gives the opinions of some single active users more importance than they should be given. And articles of sex often raise opinions! BTW, who are "they"? I haven't read the discussion you are talking about, there's no link to it in your message. Harold O'Brian (talk) 22:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly the problem. Generally, only people who hold certain opinions and beliefs will be motivated to edit such articles, whilst conversely "normal" people tend not to want to edit them. The result is the article is twisted to reflect their own world views, views which are nonrepresentive of the majority view on the topic. The discussions are here http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Masturbation#Edit_request_#_1 . "They" that I referred to are a series of people who are opposing any moderate change in the wording of the article, including removing unrefereced biased content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.140.26 (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Based on that link, I don't think you have much of a case. I suggest that you spend some time looking into their arguments and policies related to the claims the other editors made before deciding that you are unilaterally right and they are incontrovertibly wrong. The idea is to build consensus, which means that any one person's ideas aren't accepted wholesale but adapted (or completely excluded, if fringe) to meet that of the others. It would also be easier for others to sense your background in WP's policies and work with you if you registered instead of editing from multiple IPs (though not required). czar · · 15:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It took me some time to understand that the IP wants to improve the article instead of just quarreling against the medical consensus. Anyway, he/she was invited to create an account so that he/she may edit the article, but declined the request. Also, the IP has misread some applicable policies, which led me to believe that he/she wasn't serious, but argued for the sake of arguing. When I realized that some requests were reasonable, I have edited the article accordingly. Another user has replied to his/her edit requests and performed some of them. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

These aside, not even drinking tap water is 100% safe, see hyponatremia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

No, the IP editor is challenging it. The burden is on the other editors to provide sources otherwise, in many areas of the world it is unacceptable still. The claim must be sourced and expanded upon because the concern is not purely emotional, but is of an inherently divisive nature. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hefemale

The title Hefemale which currently redirects to the trans man article has been nominated at RfD. The nomination originally received no comments and so has been relisted at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 July 10#Hefemale where your contribution is invited. Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

whose business is it?

I want to know how EVERYONE seems to know your business, all over the WORLD, when you have a baby, and HOW OLD YOU ARE, as if it's anyone's business, but yours and the doctor's for his care to you!!!! Do you have to report your age or weight when you buy some bread or get a car, or anything else? BIRTH AND YOUR AGE ARE PRIVATE MATTERS AND SHOULD NOT BE THE PUBLIC DOMAIN OF EVERYONE IN THE WORLD!!! WHAT COMES OUT OF YOUR PRIVATE PARTS IS NO ONE'S BUSINESS BUT YOURS, YOUR HUSBAND'S, AND YOUR DOCTOR FOR CARE!! if the doctor decides to "out" you and put your public pubic information out there for all the world, and all the invasive media to see, he should be punished! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.186.104.65 (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

When God Writes Your Love Story

The article about the sexuality book When God Writes Your Love Story is a current featured article candidate. Any constructive comments you would be willing to provide at the discussion would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

RfC on Gary North

Question: Regarding two of the subsections in Gary North (economist) -- which describe his views (in part regarding his alleged hatred of, and alleged desire to stone to death, homosexuals, but contain original rather than secondary sources – are they proper? Please see the discussion here. Steeletrap (talk) 05:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)