Talk:Female promiscuity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Sexuality (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Gender Studies (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Gender Studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Improper synthesis[edit]

A few hours ago the “Biology and etiology” section was tagged by Wlmg with an improper synthesis template. Now, I'm sure that it would not have been difficult at all to correct the fault had I known where the improper synthesis exactly was. For this purpose, an inline template or several, would have been more useful. Hopefully, the fellow will show up to elaborate and point out what I have missed. EIN (talk) 02:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Fortunately, I reached Wlmg on his talk page last Monday (December 20); unfortunately, a single response was all I was able to attain, after which contact with him was lost and has not been restored. He named one worrying sentence—the last sentence of the 5th paragraph of the section concerned—“The potential implication is that androphilia is inheritable.” I pointed out to him that the same speculation, as the one in the quoted sentence, was made in the study cited. That's where the conversation broke off. In the light of this, seeing that no other obstacle has been recognized, I'll do the following: reproduce the same inline reference template as the one after the penultimate sentence in the paragraph, to the problematic sentence, so as to make clear in the article that which I've pointed out to Wlmg, and proceed to remove the improper synthesis template, until and unless a further doubt will be brought to attention. EIN (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Lead section[edit]

If you can think up a better one, rewrite the current one. The opening sentence, though, should probably be kept. EIN (talk) 14:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


I don't know where I should write this but the following excerpt needs reviewing:

"Contrary to popular belief, body esteem in women showed a significant positive correlation with sociosexual unrestrictedness.[9] So did hip-to-waist ratio and two measures of virilization.[9] Finally, still in the same study, alcohol consumption correlated, too, but it is unclear whether the latter promoted the former or vice versa, or if a third variable was at play.[9]"

The link dose not work for the source and the text is ambiguous to my mind, Does it mean that Women with higher body esteem and higher hip-to-waist ratio are positively correlated to infidelity?

Also why is their a large section relating to testicle size, this article is about women's infidelity? The section about testosterone levels during the menstral cycle is interesting and relevant but testicle size not so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.66.73 (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Extremely Biased[edit]

This article seems to want to prove that women have equal or nearly equal libidos to men, which has been scientifically disproven several times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny 42 (talkcontribs) 22:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Links to peer reviewed studies that conclusively prove this claim please. And an explanation of how you overcome the issue of culturally biased sampling would be nice too! Ultan42 (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be merged?[edit]

It seems odd to have a separate article on female promiscuity. It implies that promiscuity in women is a completely separate phenomenon. That has worrying connotations. To put it another way there is no separate article on male promiscuity, just a subsection of the more general Promiscuity article. It would seem that if one topic is distinct enough to require a separate article, so should the other one. Tennekis(rant) 18:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Tennekis, it seems to me that the reason there is a Female promiscuity article, but not a Male promiscuity article, is because promiscuity is far more associated with males than females (which also makes it odd that there is currently a Male promiscuity section in the Promiscuity article). Similarly, like I stated in this section at the Male rape article. "I think the justification for having a Male rape article, as touched on at Talk:Rape by gender, is that the topic of rape usually focuses on the rape of females and a lot of definitions of rape still define it as penile-vaginal penetration only or as only rape against females. As a comparison, I noted the Bodybuilding article at Talk:Rape by gender; see how the Bodybuilding article mostly focuses on men? That's because bodybuilding is usually male-dominated. So a spin-off article was created to address female bodybuilding in particular." Another similar comparison is the Bikini article; there is no Female bikini article because the term bikini usually refers to a girl or woman's swimsuit instead of a boy or man's swimsuit, so we have the Swim briefs article, Mankini subsection, and a subsection in the Bikini article about male bikinis, for material specifically about the male versions. Flyer22 (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Satoshi Kanazawa[edit]

Noting here for anyone interested: Martijn Hoekstra removed Satoshi Kanazawa material from this article, as seen here and here. Martijn Hoekstra's reasoning for the removals is that Satoshi Kanazawa is an unreliable source. I don't care much that Satoshi Kanazawa has been removed from this article, but unless Satoshi Kanazawa's work is WP:Fringe, it passes as a WP:Reliable source. And as WP:Fringe notes, even fringe views may be given some WP:Due weight, depending on the context. Flyer22 (talk) 05:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Flyer, as long a we agree about the removal of the material, let's not argue about under which policy the removal of material is warranted. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 06:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Martijn Hoekstra. I started this discussion so that you might elaborate on why you removed the material, whether based on the WP:Fringe guideline or not, and so that others are aware that Satoshi Kanazawa material was in this article and may therefore choose to discuss whether or not they believe your removals were justified. Flyer22 (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Sure, as soon as others propose including it again, I'll be happy to engage in that discussion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Martijn Hoekstra, if you don't want to clarify why you removed the material, that is of course your right. But if ever Satoshi Kanazawa material is added to this article, not necessarily the material you removed, no one will be able to point to this discussion and justify the removal as valid. This discussion currently tells us nothing about whether or not Satoshi Kanazawa qualifies as a WP:Reliable source on female promiscuity. My having mentioned/linked WP:Fringe above tells us nothing about whether or not Satoshi Kanazawa is WP:Fringe and should be excluded from the article or given minimal WP:Due weight in the article. That's my point. When editors are vague about their reasoning for having performed an action, it's often that it is less likely that the action will be seen as valid/something that should be upheld. Flyer22 (talk) 10:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
That stated, it doesn't seem that the Satoshi Kanazawa material is specifically about female promiscuity. Someone added it, tying it to the topic themselves. And that is an argument for excluding the material. Flyer22 (talk) 11:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
How can someone remove it without justification? This is outrageous. - 207.102.213.73 (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Female promiscuity. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Female promiscuity. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)