Talk:Women who have sex with women/Archive 1

Archive 1

stylistic clash with MSM article

This page should be brought in line with the tone and style of the men who have sex with men article. There are many sections would could be copied verbatim after simply swapping a few gender terms and would greatly improve the quality of both articles.Rootneg2 (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

actually that article is a mess but I've pulled from Moni3's excellent work to rewrite this article. -- Banjeboi 20:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

There are some pretty substantial differences in disease risk for MSM vs. WSW, and most of what's on the MSM page would be inappropriate here except as a clarification that they aren't considered to be as high. The pages should look different, since MSM are a hot point for public health research and WSW really don't have the established health risks of MSM. As a side point, this article has a "how to" section which should probably be deleted. SDY (talk) 00:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Study not super reliable

"A 1990 U.S. study showed that women who had had female sexual partners in the last 5 years had an average of 10.1 partners (a low of 1.0 and a high of 19.2) in those 5 years, while women with only male partners had an average of 2.2 partners." this study only had 30 women max in their study, though they hinted at having less. If possible find a better study.--Avalik (talk) 10:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Article rewritten. -- Banjeboi 20:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality undergoing revision

The article Homosexuality is undergoing revision. The revised version is available in the sandbox and the project documentation and coordination is taking place in the Sandbox's talk page.

I would appreciate if people joined in. I'm currently looking towards forming a team for the revision and future maintenance of this article.

Thank you, Pdorion (talk) 08:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Strange

What a strange article this is. This isn't about lesbians, yet there is a "Physical" section which lists some odd facts like "Heart disease is listed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as the number one cause of death for all women. Factors that add to risk of heart disease include obesity and smoking, both of which are more prevalent in lesbians. Studies show that lesbians have a higher body mass and are generally less concerned about weight issues than heterosexual women, although they are more likely to exercise regularly". Huh? how is any of that relevant, even if this were about lesbians? Drmies (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Drmies. I had seen your comment on this talk page the day, or soon after the time, you posted it. I was either too busy to comment at that time or just didn't feel like commenting. I haven't contributed to this article much (yet, if at all much in the future), but to answer your concerns about it, I state the following: Regarding the Physical section, keep in mind that "lesbian" is a word used differently not only by a lot of women who use the term to identify themselves as lesbians, but also by many researchers. Like this source (page 22) shows, some women who occasionally have sex with men identify as lesbian and "lesbian" is sometimes used as an umbrella term to cover all women who have sex with women. Not to mention, that a same-sex sexual relationship between women is classified as a lesbian relationship even when one of the women identifies as bisexual or by no sexual identity at all (similar is true for a same-sex sexual relationship between men). Additionally, it makes sense that an article that is about women having sex with women would mostly focus on lesbians...unless one were to state that most women who have sex with women are not lesbian (but rather represent bisexuality and/or those who are experimenting with their sexuality). As for the heart disease and body mass aspects, it seems that they were included because they concern women who have sex with women, lesbians in this case...though a woman being a lesbian doesn't mean that she is having sex or that she is having sex with women. Flyer22 (talk) 02:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

this page is offensive

Someone keeps undoing the things I write on this. Lesbian, straight, and bisexual are not the only other sexual identities a woman can have. Also I feel that listing hpv, genital warts, lgsil under stds is odd and redundant. Hpv is an std. Genital warts and lgsil are not. HPV is a blanket term for 80+ types of viruses, some of which CAN cause warts, however most don't. More importantly, the warts themselves are not the STD, the HPV is. Similarly hith lgsil, lgsil is something that happens to your cells when you have HPV and is not an STD itself. HPV is an std. lgsil and warts therefore are not appropriate to mention here. They are sub issues of HPV. Please stop deleting my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.88.103 (talk) 07:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, 71.198.88.103. I moved your section down to the bottom, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout. Now on to your comments: Of course there are other sexual identities; that doesn't mean that we should list all of them, or, in this case, lesser known ones. I kept reverting you on the matter because there is no need to mention pansexuality, when it is a subset of bisexuality, or, to a lot of people familiar with the term, an alternative name for bisexuality (sometimes because they don't define bisexuality as strictly as some people); it is not a common term/concept to many people and is not distinct from bisexuality by any authoritative scientific organization. However, as seen in that diff-link, I did add "or dispense with sexual identification altogether" to the lead, with the WP:Pipelink to the Sexual identity article, to explain the sexual identity matter. I also reverted you because you were removing material about sexually transmitted infections without providing a valid reason for doing so. The reasons you gave above are not valid for removing the specific symptoms of HPV that the text was speaking of, though what you stated above is a valid reason for rewording the text about that. Genital warts are symptoms of HPV and, despite your assertion, are often categorized by medical sources as sexually transmitted infections. At Wikipedia, we typically shouldn't remove material solely because we don't like its inclusion. Take some time to read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. You have restored your edits, of course, while keeping most of the sexual identification bit I added, but I am not interested in continuing to revert you on this matter. There is also WP:Edit warring (which is a policy) to consider. I did, however, fix your grammar; you shouldn't restore the grammar you used. Flyer22 (talk) 08:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Regional bias again!

Nearly all from a First World/Anglophone contemporary perspective, nothing about people from other areas of the world. Instead, this article quotes a number of Western (and ANZ) sexologists and studies. To state the obvious, the west is a very promiscuous society, and has quite different attitudes from other societies. Also nothing about this activity in tribal societies.

Also no mention of voyeurism - this is more the case with the women article than the men article- but certainly some people engage in this activity for a third party, but will not identify as LGBT. It's practically encouraged by the mass media, and seems to be a major part of the sex industry.-193.39.159.73 (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

This is not a protected article. You are free to add content even without creating an account if you accompany it with sources that fit Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Complaining about systemic bias, which is of course a very real phenomenon and a genuine problem on Wikipedia, does absolutely nothing to solve it. You have the power, just like the rest of us. 72.200.151.13 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Women who have sex with women. 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/20090129175054/http://www.womenshealth.gov/faq/lesbian-health.cfm to http://womenshealth.gov/faq/lesbian-health.cfm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 05:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)