Talk:Situational sexual behavior

NPOV issue with Pseudo-homosexuality section

The Pseudo-homosexuality section says "Pseudo-homosexuality refers to homosexual anxieties, fantasies, or behavior exhibited by a person who self-identifies as heterosexual or who is generally attracted or sexually oriented to members of the opposite sex." but does not state who coined this term or discuss what are certain to be the objections raised by it's definition given that it seems to erase bisexuals. Given that any individual who "self-identifies as heterosexual", at least if were talking public self-identity, may simply be hiding in the gay or bisexual closet then said person is not really a "pseudo-homosexual". Neither would someone who is simply in denial about their homo/bi-sexuality. Since we currently have no way to objectively determine through science a person's true biological sexual orientation, we can't really ever determine how their public statements or their internal self-identification on the sexual orientation truly match to their biological sexual orientation. The part of the opening sentence that reads "...who is generally attracted or sexually oriented to members of the opposite sex." would include bisexuals who are equally attracted to both male and female sexes since it doesn't include the word exclusively and bisexuals are not "pseudo-homosexual" unless the term as currently define assumes that the absence of closeted or in-denial bisexuals. We could fix the sentence somewhat by the word only as in "...who is generally attracted or sexually oriented to ONLY members of the opposite sex." which would exclude bisexuals from that part of the sentence and thus be more accurate at least in part. There is also the issue of people who think they are 100% straight yet have gay fantasies possibly just being in denial and maybe the existence of sexual fantasies would be proof of this but without an objective scientific test for determine one's sexual orientation we can never truly know, if we take the terms straight, gay, and bisexual to be objective labels not merely self-selected labels reflecting how we wish to present ourselves in the world irrespective of our sexual orientation brain wiring. This stills ignore the problem that homophobia and biphobia and stigmas around homo/bi-sexuality will prevent some individual from feeling they have a free choice to label themselves as they would like. In summery, the term "pseudo-homosexual" is problematic when it can't be truly determined if the so-called pseudo-homosexual is really just a closed or in-denial gay/bisexual. So as to how to best fix this NPOV issue, I not sure the best way to address it since but it seems as if the issue is really one where for those individuals 100% wired in the brain to be heterosexual who engage in situation sexuality with the same sex partners then they are "pseudo-homosexual" or maybe more accurately "pseudo-bisexual" but given how that it's impossible to determine who truly is 100% heterosexual we are left with making assumptions based on self-identity. We should probably clarify that we are talking about a presumption that those engaged in presumably situation homosexuality and thus labelled "pseudo-homosexual" are not simply closeted or in-denial gays or bisexuals. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 11:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

This is pretty much moot, since that section was basically original research and has been cut. But, again, for men, it is not correct that there is no way to objectively measure sexual orientation. Read the Bailey paper. -Crossroads- (talk) 06:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Seminar in Human Sexuality

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 4 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ammarah1020 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Zy175311460 (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Heavy ChatGPT editing and unsourced assertions by one editor.

This problem is most prevalent in the last paragraph of each subtitle of Modern Examples section however the entire article is rife

[Military] "Addressing situational sexual behavior in the military is a multifaceted challenge, requiring a combination of preventive measures, education, and robust policies. Military organizations globally strive to create a culture that promotes respect, consent, and professionalism while addressing issues of sexual misconduct through training programs, reporting mechanisms, and support services for affected individuals."

Not only is this totally unsourced and is totally devoid of any content it also breaks the NPOV rules by claiming it is a "challenge" saying it is bad. this kind of paragraph is repeated again and again throughout this section and article for example: Ethical Considerations: Power dynamics: "Addressing and mitigating power imbalances is essential for promoting a safe and respectful environment, free from coercion or exploitation, and fostering relationships based on mutual respect and understanding". it seems that almost the entire article is written by the same editor User:Ammarah1020 in the same poor fashion, here is the edit DuxLoKi (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)