Talk:Sexual fantasy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Sexuality (Rated Start-class, High-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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Psychology (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Peer Review III[edit]

Overall, I commend you on the spectrum of knowledge you contributed to this page. From the methodology, gender differences and fantasies and sexual crime. In the methodology section, I was impressed firstly the depth you went into. I was wondering how they actually measured sexual arousal and you answered this question perfectly. Including the 3 techniques as 1. 2. 3. helped separate what might have been a huge chunk of text.

Suggestions for change

  • I would try and cut down a little on the links to other pages. Stick to the necessary words that people might not understand. Words like 'coerced' people already know and so probably don't need a link.
  • I would put Origins of Gender Differences in Sexual fantasy first because then the reader can link the origin to the gender differences to the whole section.
  • Under Sexual Orientation, the first study mentioned (Masters & Johnson, 1979) does not have a footnote. The same with Moreault and Follingstad (1978) under Force. They sound like interesting studies and I am sure people would appreciate a footnote so they can read further into these topics.
  • When inserting footnotes if they apply to the whole sentence then they need to be at the end of the sentence not just after the experimenters name. For instance, Singer (1966) under Purposes. DaisyParker1995 (talk) 10:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Daisy,

Thank you for your comments. I have re-arranged the gender differences section as you suggested. It does seem to read more logically now. Catherine Turvey (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Daisy,

Thanks for your feedback! I have now re-arranged that citation so that it sits at the end of the sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verity345 (talkcontribs) 19:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


Please remove the disturbing picture you have in this article. A human and a non-human is disturbing, show something sexually normal. -- 17:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

"Sexually normal" is pretty subjective, and as it says in the article, people may not actually want to do what they fantasize. Wikipedia isn't censored, and this is one of the best artistic depictions of the general idea of a sexual fantasy.-Wafulz 19:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that very many people fantasize about having sex with non-human creatures show a human-human sexual fantasy please. -- (talk) 03:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the disturbing picture and recommend it be replaced with a human-human sexual fantasy. -- (talk) 21:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I put it back in. Can you think of an alternative depiction of a sexual dream? THe point of the image is that it depicts the concept of a fantasy in general, as opposed to a specific fantasy.-Wafulz (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Opening sentence -- Deliberate?[edit]

Since when is sexual fantasy necessarily or even usually deliberate? Daydreaming is not something you set your mind to doing; it either happens or it doesn't. Vranak (talk) 06:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Bias in images[edit]

The images throughout the article predominantly depict women as the objects of sexual fantasy - a great many people fantasise about men, so shouldn't there be some images with sexualised men as the focus?

I agree. If you can find some that fit with the material feel free to add them.-Wafulz (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Disagree - the images are depictions of a sexual fantasy - they aren't a sexual fantasy in itself (or at least they aren't in this context): The Fishermans Wife depicts the sexual fantasy of a woman, Avril 22 shows a group sex scene, being enjoyed by a man, and Avril 24 is an oral lesbian display, which whilst possibly enjoyed by men in a 3rd party, is directly enjoyed - ie carried out - by women. However, oral sex carried out on a man is displayed in the background of the Avril 22 image.
That seems like a reasonable spread of male/female ratio - one for the woman, one for the man, and one for both sexes.
It's an invalid argument to say that any of the depicted fantasies are either unrealistic or biased, because you don't know that. JNMK, but bestiality is carried out all over the world as are both oral sex and masturbation.
While Dream of a Fisherman's Wife ostensibly depicts the sexual fantasy of a woman, it's rendered by a male artist (Hokusai) and is clearly intended to titillate the viewer by creating a sense of voyeurism. The viewer is invited to fantasise about the woman fantasising as though she were an actual person rather than an artistic creation, and as if it were her own private fantasy and not one attributed to her by the artist.
Notice that Avril 22 also shows an individual fantasising, but in this case the man himself and the content of his fantasy are depicted as literally separate. If Dream of A Fisherman's Wife is indeed depicting a woman's fantasy, then it includes the woman's own body as part of that fantasy. I don't see Avril 22 offering up the man's body as fantasy material in the same way.
However, I will concede that Dream of a Fisherman's Wife and Avril 22 are both relevant images for this article because they depict people fantasising. But I'm puzzled by the relevance of Avril 24. Little radiolarian (talk) 09:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Avril 24 may not being fully relevant to the article since it has more to do with the act than the fantasy.-Wafulz (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Oral sex is a sexual fantasy, the image depicts oral sex, so image depicts a sexual fantasy, ergo relevant to the article. a_man_alone (talk) 09:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Problems with Sexual Orientation §[edit]

Two odd things: says homosexual men fantasize about sex 'with' women. I doubt M&J has such a finding, maybe sex 'as' women. The other is the sentence that is supposed to be showing an essential contrast between homosexual and heterosexual women but doesn't (except for the object gender). (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Peer review[edit]


I really liked your contribution! I thought it was well balanced and you've included things that were definitely missing from the page such as gender and deviance. I have some comments on how you can improve your article, but none of them are major criticisms.

· Some explanation of sadomasochism could be included, since you've explained the other categories of sexual fantasy. Alternatively you can include a link to a a page on Wikipedia associated with sadomasochism.

· The text on gender differences is quite bulky. To make it a bit easier to read you might want to consider dividing that section into more subheadings such as 'origin of gender differences', 'violence', 'paraphilia' etc.

· There's a lot of concepts that you have mentioned, but have not included links for. These include deviance, sadism, sadomasochism, etc.

· Some of your sentences are too long which makes it a bit harder to read, breaking them up into 2 or using commas will make it easier. Actually, some sentences are missing commas anyway: for example 'While DSM-5 recognizes that paraphilias don’t have to be pathological, psychiatrists still find it difficult to differentiate between paraphilic interests and paraphilic disorders because the concept of normal of sexual fantasies is subjective' needs a comma in front of the word 'because'. That's the case in a few of your sentences.

· 'fifty shades trilogy' should be changed to 'Fifty Shades of Grey trilogy' as some people might not be aware of that you're talking about and might be confused. Also, since it's a name it requires capitalisation of the first letters.

· You could potentially include some information on gender differences in sexual crimes. It's not necessary as I think your page is informative enough, but I feel like you're eluding to them without explicitly talking about them.

Overall, I think you've done well on the topic and your contribution definitely improved the quality of this page!

Joanna Stankiewicz (talk) 18:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

@Joanna Stankiewicz: to whose contributions are you referring? Wikishovel (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
@Wikishovel:As part of our university assessment we need to review contributions of students who take the same module. I was referring to the section on gender differences and sexual crimes my peers made.

Hi Joanna,

Thank you very much for your feedback. Your comments are really useful. I was working on the gender differences section myself, and will take your comments into mind when I edit it further, and keep you updated on what I have changed.

Thanks again! Catherine Turvey (talk) 11:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Joanna Stankiewiczthank you so much for your feedback!!! I did the bit on deviance and crime. unfortunately theres no wikipedia page for sadism and sadomasochism is basically the S&M in BDSM but I will add it to the text. i will also add a comma before the word because as suggested. Unfortunately, i can not change the fifty shades trilogy to fifty shades of grey because fifty shades of grey is just the first book in the trilogy but i will capitalise it. Also, we have not found studies that investigate gender differences in sexual crime as most studies are carried out on male participants. however, I will mention the gender bias in participantsthank you so much for your feed back though, it has been really helpful and insightful. QuuenChris (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review[edit]

Here are some suggestions and questions(hope they help):

• Maybe take out extra links you didn’t need (WP:OVERLINKING ), such as “thought” and “genre” in the introduction.

• lots of the claims in the introduction are not backed up with evidence. (e.g. can you find evidence that “Sexual fantasies are nearly universal.” Or that “In some cases, even a discussion by a person of sexual fantasies is subject to social taboos and inhibitions.”)

• You could name some of the questions or checklists that are used under Methodology, if there are standard ones, or say that they are not standardised.

• Can you explain what the following means? “During sexual contact, some people can use their fantasies to "turn off" undesirable aspects of an act.“

• Why would BDSM help to avoid HIV contraction?

• Where is the data in the table under common fantasies from?

• “…although both sexes have been found to prefer intimate fantasies over the other three types outlined…” – Which three? There are a lot listed.

• Under Gender differences, there seems to be common themes that are repeated but not together. For example, you mention “Male fantasies tend to focus more on visual imagery” and then say “men are consistently found to be more interested in visual sexual stimulation”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sara Jane Sutty (talkcontribs) 20:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

@Sara Jane Sutty: to whose contributions are you referring? Wikishovel (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi SJ,

Thank you for your feedback. The sections our group are editing include: gender differences, purposes, and fantasies and sexual crimes. However, I think some of the points you have made are valid, and will take a look at the leading paragraph and see if I can improve this based upon your suggestions. With regard to your comments on methodology and BDSM and HIV, and clarification regarding the sentence “During sexual contact, some people can use their fantasies to "turn off" undesirable aspects of an act", these were previously on the page and I am not entirely certain what these are referring to. However, we will look into these and hopefully provide some clarification.

Thanks again for your suggestions. Catherine Turvey (talk) 11:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review 3[edit]

Hello, Overall, you have made a great contribution to this wiki page. The page is well-written and the tables used make it really easy to find and compare information. It's a very interesting read. I have a few suggestions to improve further.

  • It would be great if you could add some links to the gender difference's section e.g. the different categories of sexual fantasies such as 'sadomasochism'.
  • Furthermore, it would be a lot clearer if you broke the gender difference's section into different sub-headings as there is a lot of text. These could be 'age', 'origin' etc...
  • In the deviant sexual fantasies section, it would be helpful to readers if 'paraphilia' was further explained.
  • In addition, the deviant fantasies section has a lot of very long and complicated sentences. I believe the page would be improved if these were shortened and perhaps removing some of the more complex language would make this page more accessible to readers.
  • You have said that 'sadistic sexual fantasy is one of the key factors for understanding serial killers'. Is this really the case, are all serial killers sexually motivated? I believe this could be better explained.
  • I don't fully understand why the limitations of sexual crime investigations have been italicised. This is a very long sentence that could be broken up into smaller parts.

I hope this was helpful! User:Hollybrazier123 (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:Hollybrazier123 thank you so much for your feed back. I did the sexual fantasy and crime bit. unfortunately, paraphilia is not a sexual fantasy so i did not feel it was appropriate to explain it. however i included a link to its wikipedia page. As, for the one sentences. I would really appreciate it if you could draw my attention to those sentences. According to the study I cited apparently sexual fantasies are a key part of understanding serial killers and i go on to build on it in the rest of the section.
I will also expand on the italicised issues on with investigations. thank you so much once again for you feed back xxQuuenChris (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review 4 of Sexual Fantasy[edit]

• This is a really great piece, which I found interesting and enjoyed. I have added a number of comments, which I hope you find helpful.

• I like the use of the picture graphics. They are classical and therefore tasteful, but do represent the content of the article well.

• The tabulated graphs are interesting and informative. They meet Wiki guidelines well.

• I think that the introduction is nice and broad and links historical and modern media approaches to fantasy.

• I wonder as you mention sexual fantasies are universal, what does that say about the evolutionary benefit of them? Do male/female differences in fantasy link to evolutionary theory about mate choices and reproductive success?

• Could you add the graph from the research on the positive correlation between sexual fantasising and increased orgasm?

• Really comprehensive use of headings - (I had to look up paraphilia in the online dictionary).

• The first sentence of the sexual crimes section could have all the references at the end, since they all have the same meaning in the sentence i.e. fantasies involving crime. In the sadistic sexual fantasy and crime section, in the second paragraph “They start trying the replicate…. the citation can go at the end of the paragraph.

Well done. Very good contribution.

FlowerPower46 (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

FlowerPower46 thank you so much for your comments they have been helpful. I was responsible for the contributions in the sexual fantasies and crime section and would like to clarify the structure of my citations. the three studies I cited were sources for the three points I mentioned in the sentence. I felt it wasn't appropriate to have all the citations as the end as they are not 3 different studies making the same point of the sentence. once again, thank you so much for your feedbackQuuenChris (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Peer review for the University of Warwick Human Sexuality course[edit]


I am very impressed by the sheer amount and variety of information that your group has been able to find and sorted into the existing article, and in very professional style too! There are a lot of credible sources that you cited, which all served to make your article very credible and persuasive. There are many links present, which would be very helpful. All the information provided were presented in a completely neutral manner. As for areas that could be improved: • I noticed that for the areas that your group have worked on, when the citation note is hovered on, you could see the full reference, however it isn’t linked. Providing a link would be tremendously useful for other students finding the site publishing the article. I highly recommend switching to visual editing, then cite using the “cite” button. You only need to copy and paste the article site link to the little box that appears, then it does the citing automatically and with a link to the journal article page.

• The subsections “Age”, “Paraphilic sexual fantasies” and “Execution of sexual fantasies” seem like they could be further expanded in more detail. For example, could there be a list of paraphilic sexual fantasies, perhaps presented in a table, along with statistics about their prevalence among men and women, and maybe a short section on the possibility of an increased stigma surrounding paraphilic sexual fantasies?

• The grammar of the sections is largely perfect although I would recommend proofreading them. For example, I detected an incorrect spelling of “fantasies” (spelt “fantasise”) once in the “Execution of sexual fantasies” section.

• I am uncertain about the referencing style used in the “Purpose” section. Although it is accurate academic style referencing, I rarely see the names of the researchers reference directly in the body of the article outside of the citation notes, therefore I suspect that it is not the norm on Wikipedia. You could probably take out the names referenced at the end of the sentences, and change the parts where you refer to the researchers in the active voice into the passive voice.

I think those little changes could improve the already great article sections you guys made. Congrats! Oli1023 (talk) 22:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)Oli1023

Oli1023 (talk thank you so much for your feedback. Our citations are linked to the references when you click on them. I believe they are only highlighted when you're on the edit page. we did use the visual editing page. Please check again and let us know if you're still finding this to be an issue. thank you so much QuuenChris (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Oli,

Thank you for your comments. I found your suggestion really useful and have since extended the section 'paraphilic sexual fantasies' under gender differences to include some examples of paraphilias and a table to highlight their age of occurrence. However, I could not find much more research involving the execution of sexual fantasies, but have mentioned in this paragraph the link between sexual fantasies involving dominance and crime, but have not extended this point further as my project partner talks about this in much more detail in her section on 'fantasies and sexual crimes.' Catherine Turvey (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Oli,

I had written the "Purposes" section and have since removed the names of researchers used at the beginning and end of sentences to better to conform to Wikipedia's guidelines. Thank you for your feedback! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verity345 (talkcontribs) 18:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)