Talk:Relationships/Sex

Utterly prejudiced
Deletion should really be advised... avoid promiscuous partners, buy this book or pay child support, follow these rules or get AIDs... whoever wrote this should really consider deleting it before they get warned for vandilism. Wikisquared 12:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The chapter has 36 references, mostly to scientific studies, including some highly authoritative studies (which is rare in this field). Perhaps you don't like advice such as "avoid promiscuous partners" if you don't want STDs, or you don't want to follow the rules of safe(r) sex to avoid AIDS. Whether you follow this advice is your choice, but the facts are established. More important, these facts are little-known among the general public. The Wikibooks mandate is to present authoratative factual materials, regardless of how unpopular or politically incorrect the facts may be.--Thomas David Kehoe 04:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Helpful, but sexist
I think it's a real helpful book, but it focuses to solely on how; men like to blabber about their sex-life, whilst women don't, women tend to get hurt easily, even how boys have much more interest in sex compared to girls. Now, I don't think it should be deleted, since it has certain usefulness- but alot of material has to be fixed. BiT 12:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe... it really depends on whether or not it won't be vandilised by the same person who placed spam inside it. I still say it should be deleted. I put it on the page for deletion :) Wikisquared 13:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The phrase "it focuses to solely on" is difficult to square with the wide range of material in this chapter. The entire book, and especially this chapter, establishes over and over that men and women are different. Of course that's sexist. An earlier chapter says that some women think and act more like men, and some men think and act more like women. When this book says "men do this, women do that," the intended meaning is "persons who think and act in masculine patterns, which are mostly but not always men, so this, and persons who act in feminine patterns..." Perhaps that disclaimer should be put at the top of every chapter.--Thomas David Kehoe 04:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Or simply reword it more clearly. --Swift 08:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

This material will always be controversial
Sexually transmitted diseases, consent issues, how parents should guide their teenagers&#151;these are extremely controversial issues in our society. If you find scientific studies not included in this chapter, please add material, or correct outdated material. But please don't delete materials just because you're offended by it.--Thomas David Kehoe 04:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In similar vain, please strive for NPOV, mentioning existing differences on issues and referring to expert consensus with readily available (possibly internet available) sources. Also keep in mind that uncontested POV isn't NPOV. --Swift 08:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

"The Twenty-Four-Hour Rule" and "Men's Talk and Women's Reputations" removed
I removed these two sections because the former was a very specific rule that cannot be applied to the general, and the second as it completely failed to mention cultural backgrounds, cultural differences and was therefore not helpful. I think the book is better without these sections than with them in that state. --Swift 08:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the last two sections ("Five Tips for Better Kissing," "What Women Want in Bed") should be removed, or moved to a new chapter. The rest of the chapter is about why you should avoid sex (outside of committed monogamous relationships) and then the last two, short sections are about how to please a partner in bed. On the other hand, it's nice to end on a positive note, after so much negative material. IMHO, "The Twenty-Four-Hour Rule" and Men's Talk and Women's Reputations" goes with "What Women Want in Bed," I don't see any reason to delete those sections. Maybe move the deleted sections and the remaining two sections to a new chapter.--Thomas David Kehoe 15:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No. Those two shouldn't stay unless elaborated on in a way that adresses the comments I made.
 * The rest of the chapter is about why you should avoid sex. This is a bad approach to NPOV. Wikibooks is supposed to be informative, not advocative. The scope should be "how" to have sex. Now, emotional issues and desease prevention may warrant mentioning what are considered good practices (here it is important to present multiple views) and expert opinion on those so that the reader can make up his/her own educated mind. This is an official policy here at Wikibooks. --Swift 02:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Correlation doesn't mean causation
Re the lead section: Maybe people are more likely to stay monogamous if they have a good sex life, rather than vice-versa as this section claims. And maybe the reason so relatively few are happy with their secondary partners is that they have to spend so little time together to keep the primary partner from getting suspicious. (AFAIK, with most bigamists, the primary partner is unaware of the secondary partner's existence.) Seahen 03:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous
This module is probably the most harming POV article I've ever seen on a WMF-project (believe me, I've seen a few). I would strongly recommend deleting it and start over. Unfortunately I don't write articles in English, otherwise I would love to rewrite the article. Regards, .Koen 21:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This book is outrageous! It reads like some US religious or political propoganda and the time has come for it to be deleted. Wikibooks is not the place for books like this which pick and choose the information that they see fit to push a particular religious or political viewpoint. It also focuses too much on the USA and current "trends" in that country like celibacy and "drug wars". Xania talk 18:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)