Talk:Masters and Johnson

Wikipedia's Article on Orgasm

User:Nectarflowed contribution "The researchers stated that the fact that it is heritable suggests that evolution has a role. They suggested this difficulty in achieving orgasm might have evolved because it helped females select males who were the most powerful and thoughtful, who would be the most likely to hang around as a long-term partner and be a better bet for bringing up offspring" strongly resembles that of a theory found in one of several college level textbooks written by Masters & Johnson -- especially the topic of "psychology of marriage". In summary, the idea goes as this: a female will choose her mate (i.e. future husband) by measuring up a few things such as his earning potential and his ability to support both her and her future offspring(s). The point is, I am wondering if the Masters & Johnson's research on the topic of marriage has been convulated with personal opinions on orgasm?

The idea that women select mates partly based on their resources and their likelihood of making a long-term contribution is very widespread in evolutionary psychology. A number of researchers have suggested that female orgasm may be adapted for assessing a mate's devotion. I know that Geoffrey Miller has said this, though I don't have references in front of me. Inhumandecency 19:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious why this article doesn't touch on Masters & Johnsons work in curing homosexuals. They reported a 65% success rate (as measured five years after treatment) at helping these men. - O^O

The fact that they were able to modify perceived sexual orientation to a large extent, and how that was perceived by those involved, is notable (if so) since it would be factual. The opinioning of it as "curing" people and "helping" them is not useful, insofar as it conveys a point of view about homosexuality (that it is something needing a "cure" and "help") which many would strongly dispute. Just to clarify an important distinction. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Point taken that my comment in the talk space was not phrased in a NPOV way, as a contribution to article space would need to be. I remain curious if this research and publication should be worked into the article. Obviously, since this is a wiki, I can do it myself. I guess my real curiousity is as to whether this has already been hashed out, and it doesn't look like it has been. - O^O

It appears that it has been, but I certainly hope that editors take the time and care to develop this section of the article. As it reads it is deeply offensive to homo and bisexual people, as it does suggest that Masters and Johnson actually had a POV that the problem did not lie in a homophobic culture rather in the homosexual himself. This comes as a shock to me, given the reputatable nature of their work, but if these articles are in fact reliable, greater context needs to be given this section as to the highly judgmental perspective of the "program" and the subjective nature of these findings which cannot possibly be accurate. EyePhoenix (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

October 27, 2007 edits

Changed citations from external links to cite journal where appropriate. Removed link to http://www.newdirection.ca/ as it no longer exists. I would replace it with a proper citation to their research, but I'm not conversant, so I put a reference to one of their books and sort of hoped for the best. I removed link to the 1973 APA statement on homosexuality as it is irrelevant to the subject at hand, though I did replace it with a wikilink to Homosexuality and psychology#Declassification. JFlav 01:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced the link to Homosexuality and psychology#Declassification with a proper source. Wikipedia cannot use itself as a source. BG 03:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Timemastersjohnson.jpg

Image:Timemastersjohnson.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The New Guy in Town

Hello, I am a student Clemson University currently enrolled in a class where we critically evaluate wiki articles. My teacher really likes wikipedia articles and i'm at her mercy when it comes to editing these articles. So just realize, i will do what I must to survive. Thank you, come again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjacob44 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Cjacob44 (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I uploaded information on Impotence, The squeeze technique, and information on masters and johnson early life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjacob44 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

And I explained why I reverted you. Take the time to make sure that your additions to this article satisfy WP:Manual of Style, and that your reference style actually works (see WP:Citing sources and WP:Citation templates). Copying and pasting an article without actually copying the internal version of the references leaves those references in the following non-working format: [1][2]. If you do not make sure that your additions to this article satisfy WP:Manual of Style, and that your reference style actually works, your additions will continue to be reverted (at least if added back in a way that requires substantial cleanup). I'll give you a Welcome template; it already comes with some guidelines, but I'll add some guidelines to it. Flyer22 (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Historical Footnote Only

Sexual mores have changed so much in the last 60 years as to render their work inconsequential, and mostly irrelevant, today. 122.151.210.84 (talk) 07:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

They did pioneering science. They understood they could be superseded by future research. Anyway, their work wasn't about mores/ethics, it was about empirical science. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)