Jump to content

Talk:Female promiscuity/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Improper synthesis

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

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

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 (talk • contribs) 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?

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

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)

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.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 19:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

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.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 21:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be merged? (round two)

Someone suggested this article be merged with the "promiscuity" article, and then they got a response from someone else who argued against the proposed merge. No replies were added after that, and that was all posted over four years ago. I now want to open back up the possibility of either (1) merging this article into the "promiscuity" article, or (2) creating a "male promiscuity" article to exist alongside this article. I do not see why there is a need to have a page specifically for female promiscuity if there is not a page specific to male promiscuity as well. Thoughts? Iamextremelygayokay (talk) 00:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Iamextremelygayokay, yeah, I was one of the editors to comment in that previous short discussion (seen above). I didn't technically argue against a merge. I was rather pointing out that we don't create articles to present a false balance. Like I noted before, we also have a Female bodybuilding article, but not a Male bodybuilding article; this is because the bodybuilding literature is overwhelmingly about men. So why should we create an unnecessary Male bodybuilding article simply because a Female bodybuilding article exists? To look neutral on the matter? Nah, that's false balance. There are other examples where one gender has a Wikipedia and the other doesn't, and it's usually due to what the literature mainly focuses on and, in some cases, it being a good course of action to create a sub-article for further discussion of the minority aspect and so that the minority aspect does not have WP:Undue weight in the main article. Before, I stated that "promiscuity is far more associated with males than females," but given how prostitution has mainly been associated with women and that there are all sorts of derogatory terms for women to shame and control them sexually, I maybe should not have stated that. That we have a Female promiscuity article is indicative of, like the article notes, society being far more critical of women's sexuality than of men's (except for when it comes to homosexuality).
The current state of the Female promiscuity article is too big to be merged with the current state of the Promiscuity article without overwhelming it. So unless it's significantly cut, I say no to merging. I'm not opposed to someone creating a Male promiscuity article if it's done right. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
And just to give one more example of how the gendered aspect for articles can go per the literature, we have Condom and Female condom, not Male condom and Female condom. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Hey Flyer22 Reborn, sorry for taking so long to reply! I could've sworn I wrote a response, smh. Anyways - while I still feel that the question of whether or not promiscuity & female promiscuity should be merged (or turned into female promiscuity and male promiscuity) is a bit less clear cut than a lot of those examples, I still see what you are saying wrt false balance and WP:Undue weight. Overall I think you raise some very valid points, and I agree now that the most sensible and practical course is probably to leave the pages as is (as are?). Thank you for taking the time to further explain your points, I appreciate it! :)
Iamextremelygayokay (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Iamextremelygayokay, no need to apologize. I'm not sure if the best thing is to not create a Male promiscuity article. I was simply noting an issue with merging. After merging this article into the Promiscuity article as is, we'd get a lot of people complaining about that article lending undue weight to women. Whether it actually would be lending undue weight to women is something we'd need to asses by examining the literature. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Female_promiscuity/Archive_1&oldid=1065413314"