User talk:Jerry Cornelius

Jerry Cornelius (talk · contribs · block log)

Welcome!

Hello, Jerry Cornelius, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Metal Thunder 16:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STDs and swingers

Hi. Some of the stuff you have added to the swinging article (on the "Objections" section) seems to me like it would be better placed on the page about STDs or safer sex. I'm not sure that getting into a detailed list of what may or may not be the risks of safe or safer sex is appropriate, as they are not exclusively related to swinging. In fact, some of the risks you mention are not valid to many swingers, but they are valid to those having simple casual sex, for example. If they are important, why only mention them on the swinging page?

How would you feel about taking some of the material to another page and linking there instead? Inkwell 00:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having talked to some members of the sweingers lifestyle, they were the ones who pointed out the risks associated with swinging. Granted they are similr to the risks axxociated with casual sex, However, the risks are significantly greater within the swinging lifestyle. This is primarliy due to the sheer statistical numbers of people invlolved. People having casual sex often have sex with peole who themselves have had a limited number of partners. Where in the swinging lifestyle, you could be having sex with somoene who has had dozens if not hundreds of sex partners, each of whom may also have had a like number of partners. J.C. Feb 27 2006

I have to disagree with your generalisations. There has never been a statistical study that showed that swingers are more at risk than the general population and statistics show that they do not have higher rates of STIs.

A lot of swinging is safer than single casual sex. Not all swingers go in for "full swap": many keep penetration or even all fluid-swapping activity to their partner, so the risks are quite low. "Full swap" is actually quite rare, and that is where the majority of the risks are.

You've probably guessed by now that I am one of those swingers, and I take issue with your implications of the "sheer statistical numbers of people involved". Not all swingers have group sex every week, or even very often at all. For some it is very often, and for some it's more of an annual holiday, and for others, the activities they indulge in are extremely low risk (kissing, massage, watching, dancing etc). The number of sexual partners I have had over the last five years is much lower than most of my single friends!

In any case, numbers isn't the only factor that contributes to infection - the types of activity and what precautions are taken are much larger factors. Most swingers are risk aware, which makes them safer.

I hold that detailed information about STIs does not really have a place on the Swinging article. A brief note about the risks of STIs and how condoms do not prevent them all is sufficient. There is so much that could be argued on both sides that it would become an article about safe sex, and there already is one elsewhere. Inkwell 17:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ihave no objection to it not being part of the Swinging lifestyle article.

As for the swinging lifestyle, my partner has been a part of that scene, and although I have not been, I have had several times the number of partners she has had without so much as catching a cold. However, she acquired Hep-B, Chlamydia and HPV through her swinging. THe regulartests for cervical cancer leave her quite upset. Her ex is HIV + also acquired through the lifestyle.

Have a nice day.... J. Cornelius Feb 27 2006

I'm sorry for your wife's bad experiences. It sounds awful. It's not exclusive to swinging, though: one study suggested that 80% of women get HPV by the time they are 50, and Chlamydia is one of the most common STIs in the under 25s (and they are rarely swingers). You don't catch anything through the lifestyle, you catch it through sex, nearly always unprotected.

It's important to realise that when you say "the lifestyle" there really isn't one, but lots of different kinds. There isn't one kind of swinging any more than there is one kind of monogamy. I've always had regular checkups and have never caught any STIs, though I know several (so called) monogomous friends who have. Anecdotal evidence isn't worth much - the overal statistics show that swingers are not a high risk group for STIs.

Your other comments about the psychological effects of swinging I found offensive and sexist, which is why I'm a little riled now, I'm afraid. I'm sure you didn't mean to be offensive, and were just writing from your own perspective, but I was a little wound up. Sorry if I ranted. Inkwell 23:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to be offensive. I also thank you for your sympathy regarding my wife. In her case, she was coerced into swinging by her ex husband (a very dominant and persuasive speaker). They later found out that one of the couples they were swinging regularly with, the male was bi, and he had lied, deliberately to them about his safe sex approach.Her and husband practiced safe sex, and were tested regularly. She was lucky in that she stopped when she did. As it is, she still worries because her doctor has told her that she still must have several negative tests 3 months apart to confirm she is safe. As for psychological effects, she's got them... Counseling is helping.

By the way, just so I may understand better, are you M or F? I will understand if you choose not to answer.... Finally, have a nice day, I'm off out for a beer.... J.Cornelius Feb 27 2006

It's difficult to comment in the face of anecdotal evidence, but your wife's story sounds very unusual. Bad things happen to good people all the time, of course. Condoms do protect you from STDs but in the same way that avoiding driving when drunk protects you from crashes. Even the safest drivers can still crash.

I recognise that swinging would be upsetting and psychologically harmful to most people - I'm lucky enough to be in an incredibly stable and loving relationship free from jealousy with a very high level of sexual compatibility. I know most people couldn't handle it, including many of those who fantasise about it.

As to my gender, at the moment, I am female. My partner and I use this username interchangeably, but it is mostly me.Inkwell 17:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

I understand that you clearly have strong feelings regarding Harley Reagan and his Chuluaqui Quodoushka workshops. However, your edits are problematic, because they don't adhere to a very important principle of Wikipedia called NPOV. You may view it as an obvious conclusion, given the facts, that Reagan is a fraud and his workshops a scam; the problem is that Wikipedia needs the facts on which you based that conclusion -- not the conclusion itself.

A basic principle of NPOV is that all articles should ideally be written so that everyone would agree (if reluctantly) that the basic facts in it are correct. Something like "The Chuluaqui Quodoushka is NOT a real sex therapy or workshop. It does not contain real Native American rituals or lessons" is not NPOV, because of course Reagan and his devotees would claim that it is a real sex therapy, a real sex workshop, and contains 100% real Native American rituals or lessons. On the other hand, it is perfectly NPOV to point out that the Cherokee Nation, which Reagan purports to be the source of the Chuluaqui Quodoushka, passed a resolution condemning Reagan and sued HBO for misrepresentation when they portrayed Reagan's workshops as real "Cherokee sex ritual". I hope you see the difference: you can present the evidence and present your case, but you can't jump into the jury box and declare "we find the defendant guilty as charged". It's up to the reader to decide what they believe on the subject; if it's true that anyone who looked at the facts would have to come to the same conclusion you did, then give the reader the clearest presentation possible of the facts. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is well noted, I will attempt to address your concerns and portray it in a more NPOV light. In fact the information I provided is actually quite mild compared to what is out there. I was trying to err on the side of caution too for reasons of not wanting to have too graphic information in case of younger readers. I would be curious to find a more positive view of the subject (other than the canned info available from pro "HR" and pro "Q" websites. In the meantime, I will se what can be done. -J.Cornelius - March 10 2006

Further, after the above reply. I noted, when I clicked your handle.... "I have been accused of being a "cult PR agent" by anti-cult activists and an anti-cult fanatic by cult supporters. I must be doing something right. Strange; one might conclude that I must enjoy working on cult articles, but such is not the case..."

I am curious as to why, your above comment is made. Just curious, that's all. - J.C.

First, thank you for your mature and thoughtful response. As for why that comment is on my user page... Well, it's traditional here to put stuff on your user page to help people understand who you are and where you're coming from, but I'm sure you're asking more of "why is that something you feel people should understand?" So, my best attempt to explain...

A lot of people, when they hear about Wikipedia, form pretty mistaken notions of its nature. "I can edit the pages to say anything I want?" they think. "Cool! I'll make pages to promote my self-published book/push my political party/play an awesome hoax/share my deep philosophical insights!" Sometimes, when they find out that Wikipedia isn't the place for those things, sometimes they accept it equably (with a bit of understandable disappointment, maybe). They may go off to find someplace else that is more receptive to what they want to do, or they may stay with Wikipedia a bit longer to find out what it is for, or maybe even both. That's ... what some people do.

Others just can't take the disappointment of learning that something that they assumed would be theirs for the taking, isn't. Or maybe they can't understand that it's possible to pursue a goal in a manner that is unacceptable even when the goal is a good one -- that the end does not always justify the means. So if they make an edit towards their goal and someone objects to that edit -- why, that person is an ENEMY. That person must be OPPOSED TO THE GOAL. They are clearly PAID AGENTS for THE OTHER SIDE. (I am sure you think I'm exaggerating , but...) The irony is that because there are extremists like this on both sides, both of them think that I'm an agent of the other side -- purely because I'm trying to stay in the middle and say "whoa, you can't just erase from the article everything that disagrees with your point of view. you can't just insert your own personal opinion of who's right and who's EVIL. We have rules here." And both sides hear the same thing -- "You can't get your way" -- but the filters in their head translate it to "Mwahahahaha! I, an evil agent for THE ENEMY, will FIGHT your heroic efforts! Bwahahahaha! I am an evil creature of lies and hate your noble quest to show everyone how wonderful/despicable <insert hobbyhorse here> is!"

Needless to say, this isn't much fun. I probably have an overdeveloped conscientious streak, though, which means that my first thought when I'm doing something depressing and thankless is "G*dd*mmit, this is depressing and thankless. I don't want to do this anymore." but my second thought, which comes almost immediately, is "So are you going to leave it undone? If it's important to do, are you going to do it, or are you going to pass the buck and leave it for somebody else to do?" Not everyone is like this; some people simply won't do a thing if they don't enjoy doing it. They don't understand that not everyone's like that; they assume that whatever a person is doing must be something they enjoy doing or they wouldn't do it. "I keep telling you to go away and leave me in peace to erase all the nasty, nasty words of all those critics who are telling all those jealous lies about my guru! But you won't go away! Therefore, you must enjoy your role as a perpetuator of lies! You must love the fact that you're oppressing the innocent and opposing freedom!" Meanwhile, I'm thinking "Man, you think that of all the things I could be doing, I'm doing this because I enjoy it?!" -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the "Q" talk page you wrote:

Sourced from numerous published articles, and also from the Manual of the subject in question. Tone has been adjusted to a degree sufficent to allow neutral perspectives from non-predisposed participants, but preponderence of information leads to a natural perception of non-neutral bias.

So, what we need to do to get the article up to Wikipedia standards is simply list those sources. We don't need to shy away from controversial information - as long as we can cite the source that said it. There are some issues about what is considered a "reliable" source for Wikipedia (see WP:RS), but as long as it's a reliable source that published it, the information can be used. I have added a few of the cites I know of, and will be glad to help put any links or printed matter citations into the appropriate format if you or other colleagues can provide them. I think it's very important to have this sort of information out there, so I thank you for your work on this. --Kathryn NicDhàna 23:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]