Talk:Extended female sexuality

Tweaks

Shannonf94, I made some tweaks to the article; they were bolding the title per MOS:BOLD, changing headings to lowercase per MOS:HEAD, fixing reference placement per WP:REFPUNCT, and reducing repeated links per WP:Overlinking. There is more WP:Overlinking reduction needed. Keep these Wikipedia rules in mind when editing articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback and editing, much appreciated! We will be sure to be more conscientious of these Wikipedia rules in the future. Shannonf94 (talk) 09:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Shannonf94, and thank you for this and this edit after my feedback above. Good work on the article. And good luck with your future edits to Wikipedia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Peer review

Hi!

I have copy-edited the section on "Explanations". See the history for details, but I just changed the headings to sentence case form to conform with Wiki's guidelines.

Here are my peer-review comments for your heading "Hrdy's hypothesis":

• Overall, this is a very very good section. It is very easy to read and the text is broken up into meaningful paragraphs. The use of images is also relevant and makes the page easier to look at.
• This section is very comprehensive, meeting Wiki's guidelines. It is also very balanced too.
• At the end of the first paragraph for the subheading "paternity confusion in primates", your sentence "This paternity confusion ultimately ensures that the woman has access to the resources, and protection, of a number of different males, at her, and, her offspring’s, disposal." is a little broken up with commas. Perhaps rephrase this?
• It is hard to suggest how you could improve!! You meet Wiki's guidelines very well. If anything, perhaps add some more links to other pages? You do this anyway, but if you could possibly add more, then do. Other than this, I cannot possibly suggest any other ways as I think your contribution is exceptional.

nicolehyare (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Nicole, we really appreciate the feedback! Shannonf94 (talk) 18:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Peer review II

You have made a great deal of progress with developing this new page, and it's coming along really well!

I have copy-edited the entire article just to improve grammar and some sentence phrasing, although this didn't take much! You can see the edit history for details.

Here are some feedback comments:

• Overall, the lead is a really good introduction to the topic, and definitely conform's to the Wiki guidelines. However, I would suggest including citationss to support your statements - specifically, the second sentence, the sentence suggesting costs to females (i.e. a reference suggesting these costs), and a citation for each of the hypotheses. Although these citations are included later in the article, I think it would be beneficial if they were there right from the moment you introduce the hypotheses!
• In terms of the "Occurrence" section, this reads really well and is nicely balanced, as guidelines suggest. The only thing I would perhaps change would again be citations - moving the musk shrew citation to the corresponding sentence to make it link better, and also including citations each for the first two "In humans" sentences. The "Impact of concealed ovulation" paragraph is really great, and I can't think of anything to change here at all!
• The "Male assistance hypothesis" section is a large one, but you have certainly done it justice! I would suggest expanding the "Male provision of non-genetic resources" sub-section, perhaps by providing examples of such resources as well as more detailed examples of this occurring in animals. I would also suggest adding more citations in the "Shifting mate preferences" sub-section, just to ensure that all of your great statements are supported!
• Your Hrdy section has been peer reviewed by another person, and I would agree with everything they have said! Not many changes to make here at all, except again possibly adding more citations.
• The "Male-driven hypothesis" section would perhaps benefit from the hypothesis being explicitly stated before the explanation, and the same goes for the "Training hypothesis" sub-section. Otherwise, this section reads really well, and is very balanced and comprehensive, so I wouldn't change anything else!
• The "Spuhler" paragraph is really great, with every statement backed up with a citation, and a balanced view throughout.

I hope this has been helpful - it's all minor changes really, and I think your article is exceptional otherwise. Well done, and keep pushing on with it! Psundr (talk) 18:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the useful feedback- will definitely be adding the citations in the places you've suggested! SarahH04 (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review

I have done a few copyediting changes, but overall the article was really good, with barely anything to edit. I thought maybe you could extend a bit more on the human female extended sexuality? And also talk about the use of hormonal contraceptive and condoms? Those two things have most probably promoted women's extended sexuality more than anything, considerably decreasing the cost of becoming pregnant. And also maybe how does the contraceptive pill can affect women's sexuality in general, as when they are on the pill, they are constantly on "extended sexuality". Talking about the male assistance hypothesis, maybe as well, it is not the case as much anymore (in human females) as it was before, because women nowadays work, are more independent etc? Those are just some ideas for potential improvements, but really good contribution already! Hope this help :) Drey02 (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Drey02, thanks for the review, much appreciated! Can you just clarify what you mean by this statement though, please? You said "And also maybe how does the contraceptive pill can affect women's sexuality in general, as when they are on the pill, they are constantly on 'extended sexuality'" But all women, regardless of being on or off the pill, constantly have extended sexuality in that they will have intercourse at any stage of the ovarian cycle. So I'm not sure what you mean? :) Shannonf94 (talk) 11:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Cleanup Needed: Remove Inaccuracies and Agenda

This article contains a lot of agenda-driven inaccuracies and cherry-picked claims from incel/red pill groups trying to push their rhetoric that women have sex with many men and then trick one man into raising the children. This is not supported by science and is blatantly misogynistic; it cannot be allowed on Wikipedia. I am removing some of the worst parts, particularly those statements that misleadingly present opinion as fact and do not offer sources. There are also several large portions that do nothing but repeat their favorite talking points from other sections of the article that I'll remove. I will also glance over some of the articles in the sources to determine the extent of the cherry-picking of theories, since most of the ones they have used are from the 1970s-1990s and not current.

I'll try my best to maintain cohesion but someone will need to come and smooth things out at some point, as well as add research from the last decade as there doesn't seem to be much beyond 2010 here. If this problem of brigading/agenda editing persists, this article and a few others that are affected should be locked/protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MinervaELS (talk • contribs) 00:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)