Talk:Sexual suggestiveness

Notability?

Perhaps meets WP:GNG Pass a Method talk 07:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You created the article, so if you are aware of WP:GNG, presumably you made it in the belief that it meets the notability requirement. In any case, that discussion doesn't take place on the article talk page, it takes place at Articles for Deletion if someone nominates it for deletion. Here, discussions are held about how to improve the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Substantial edit

An editor made a substial edit adding to the article, however, many of the statements made were unsourced. I started off attempting to simply remove those statements, until I realized that much of the material was also unrelated to the article's subject. Further, the fact that the sourced material was, in each case, attributed to a single source, raised the distinct possibility that the editor was cherry-picking sources that agreed with their POV. For these reasons, I deleted the entire edit.

According to WP:BRD, once a Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, a Discussion needs to take place, and the article stays in the status quo ante during the discussion. This means that the editor should now defend their edit here on the talk page, explaining why it (or parts of it) should be restored to the article, and the editor should not restore the edit until there is a consensus to do so. Any restoration without a consensus would be a step towards edit warring, which is a blockable offense.

I await the editor's justification for their edit. BMK (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Evolutionary Perspective

It may be beneficial to add a section specifying types of suggestive behaviour and why this behaviour might occur from a evolutionary perspective. For example women have been shown to appear more attractive to men whilst ovulating by altering their behaviour and appearance either consciously or unconsciously. This behaviour would be advantageous for increasing the chances of reproduction. NicoleKPascoulis (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicoleKPascoulis (talk • contribs) 19:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Substantial Edit

• As part of a university coursework assignment, myself and two friends are looking to substantially edit a page on the topic of Human Sexuality and think that Sexual Suggestiveness would be both interesting and useful to update. We aim to update the page from an evolutionary psychology perspective and will make notes on this talk page of any relevant articles that we will use to inform our edit.

Possible articles include: EBL 10:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• Further to the above, these are some more articles which may do well to further enhance the information regarding sexual suggestiveness Ahhthewitch (talk) 11:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)AhhtheWitch 11:29 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• Further to the two points above, below I suggest some more articles that may be of some use to further improve this Wiki Page: Lupet123 (talk) 12:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

References

• I do not think you are going to get much of a response here simply by posting a number of potential sources: to ask other editors to track down and read these sources is really asking quite of bit, since we're all volunteers here. No, I think you've got two ways to proceed. One is to actually edit the article, adding the information you've gleaned from these sources and citing them to support the material. This would be the normal method. The disadvantage is that you don't know who's going to object to the material and revert it, and why. The second method is to use this talk page as a sounding board for what you plan to do, giving the editors who monitor this page a chance to comment on your potential additions before it goes live. Given that "sexual suggestiveness" can be a difficult subject to approach, I would recommend the second method -- but the choice is up to you folks to either edit the article directly, or discuss your planned edits ahead of time. BMK (talk) 04:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• We are aware that we have merely posted suggested research. We are not asking the volunteers to read these sources - one of our assignments was to research our chosen area and post potential sources to the talk page. We will of course be continuing our assignment and adding our information to the page when due. Thank you for your advice. Lupet123 (talk) 12:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• That's fine, but please bear in mind that, regardless of your assignment, your responsibility when editing Wikipedia is to the encyclopedia and its readers, which should never be overridden by any concern about getting a good grade. This is something you should make your instructor aware of, if they are not already.
  I look forward to your contributions. BMK (talk) 13:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Addition

I've added a short paragraph on the cultural differences of sexual suggestiveness, providing some examples from anthropological studies. I have briefly mentioned Sexual Strategies Theory, as I think it is an important theory to implement when discussing sexual strategies from an evolutionary perspective, and I intend to talk in much more more detail about it's relevance at a later date. EBL 18:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellie bl (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:ENGVAR and do not change the current American spellings of words to British spellings. I've copyedited, and removed a paragraph (about Australian Aboriginal food) which seems to me to have only an extremely tenuous connection to the subject. BMK (talk) 21:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Beyond My Ken (BMK). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that that way. I'm trying to approach the subject from a more scientific, evidence based perspective and it was my understanding that describing the displays of sexual suggestiveness in the Mik-Wungen tribe would be a very good way of illustrating the vastly different ways in which different cultures express sexual suggestiveness. I apologise for the corrections of spellings, my laptop autocorrects to the British spellings. EBL 12:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellie bl (talk • contribs)

Some tips

• You are not writing a thesis here, Wikipedia is a popular encyclopedia, meant to be read by people of very many levels of education and understanding. Please write in a much less formally acaeneic manner.
• You must follow WP:ENGVAR. The article was begun using American English, and American English spellings must therefore be used throughout. Stop writing "behaviour" and get used to writing "behavior".
• Don't refer to the article as if it is your work entirely or is intended to advance a specific theory, as in "this article will show", etc/ Again, we are an encyclopedia, and not an academic paper.
• Please review WP:NPOV - Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. Present the facts, cite the sources which support those facts, and do not comment on them. Do not, as they say in the legal biz, "assume facts not in evidence" - if there's no source, then what you're writing could be considered to be original research, which is not allowed.

Thanks for your contributions, they are appreciated, but your really must follow our policies if you're going to continue to participate here. BMK (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. As Wikipedia novices we are still getting to grips with the writing style as it is very different to the academic literature which we're used to. We will endeavour to adhere to the American English but our laptops autocorrect to the British spellings so please bare with us! Thanks again. EBL 08:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellie bl (talk • contribs)

Here's another tip: when a consensus of editors on the talk page say that something shouldn't be in the article do not restore it to the article. That is editing against consensus, and it's not the way we do things here. If you have a case to make for.

My opinion remains that this article is about human behavior, not about what qualities a culture may assign to non-human-related objects, which has no more relevance then whether a word is denoted "masculine" or "feminine" in languages that make that distinction. BMK (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

BTW, please "sign" your comments by adding 4 tildes (i.e. ~~~~) at the end. The system will automatically add your user name and a time stamp. BMK (talk) 18:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

PS364 Peer review

First, the section on cultural differences in sexual suggestiveness could be expanded to include greater detail on why cultural differences may exist. When you say "What may be a culturally appropriate display of 'sexiness' in one culture may be considered inappropriate in another", what exactly do you mean? Define 'sexiness', for example. Second, you could include more external links to the papers in your reference list - I found several of your reference papers on Google Scholar that you have not included links for. Emily.marie94 (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

What "you" are you referring to? You are aware that Wikipedia articles are written not by one or two people - not to mention a trio of students -- but by many (sometimes hundreds) of volunteer editors? Please in the future address your comments to any editor who happens to come by and read it, since the purpose of this page is not to criticize the work of your fellow students, it is to discuss improvements to the article, which involves all interested editors. Working on this article may be just part of an assignment for you, but it's much more than that for us. BMK (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

BTW, "firstly" is not a word, at least not one that educated people use, except when being ironically colloquial. BMK (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

In regards to my use of the word "you", I will bear what you have said in mind next time I write on a talk page. My intention was not to criticize the editors, but rather to inform them and others of how the page could be improved - I apologize if my comments appear to be too critical. I have also changed "firstly" to "first" in my entry - thank you for making me aware of this. Also, we may primarily be editing Wikipedia articles for an assignment, but do still care about making good quality edits and some of us may even continue to contribute to Wikipedia beyond the assignment. Emily.marie94 (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

That would be great -- although I have to warn you that it can be addictive! BMK (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review: Flirting

The topic you have covered is very interesting and you have made a good contribution to this section of the article. I have listed some possible suggested improvements and expansion ideas for the section below:

1) You could include some more references to support the information provided in this section as this will improve the credibility and reliability of that statements made here.

2) There is a very long sentence in this section which is difficult to read 'Research has identified different motivations for engaging in flirting behaviors, such as sexual motivation, which is done with a view to engaging in sexual behaviour; fun motivation, in which the interaction itself is the pleasurable part; and instrumental motivation, which is performed to accomplish an instrumental goal, such as getting someone to buy you a drink.' I have provided an alternative to this as part of my copy-edit which I believe is easier to understand as a reader.

3) You could mention different types of flirting which include the use of social media, for example how do dating apps like Tinder play a part in flirting behaviour?

4) You could perhaps include some information on how flirting in friendship can lead to a relationship on certain occasions.

I have also copy-edited the section -I rearranged the wording to make the paragraph flow more smoothly and corrected a few spelling mistakes such as 'behavior' to 'behaviour' and 'nor' to 'not'.

I hope this is useful! TashK (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

TashK Thank you for your suggestions! But please read the rest of the comments on the Talk Page as we have been told to keep the spelling of the word 'behaviour' to the American English Spelling as 'behavior' (with out the 'u'). I hope you won't mind that I have changed it back! Lupet123 (talk) 18:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Substantial Edit

I have added two more sections to the page, the first a brief outline of sexual suggestiveness in the 21st century and the second a brief description of misinterpretations of sexual suggestiveness. I have cited relevant and notable sources to support my claims and I hope this is up to an acceptable standard. I tried hard to remain objective and factual rather than presenting an argument. I'd appreciate any advice that can be offered on how I could improve on these objectives and make the sections better. Thanks. EBL 16:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellie bl (talk • contribs)

Ellie bl - I have made some Copy Edits to your paragraphs and have removed some spelling mistakes and typos. I hope this is all okay and let me know if not. Lupet123 (talk) 18:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Substantial Edit

I have added another section to the page on Gender Differences, within which are two paragraphs: one on the gender differences in the perception of SS and the other on the gender differences in the display of SS. I have cited sources which are relevant to this topic and are well respected in their field. I would appreciate any comments on how to improve my paragraphs. I am also of the opinion that I have remained neutral throughout. Lupet123 (talk) 10:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Large lead Edit

I have significantly edited the lead to this page. I have kept the majority if the content the same but have changed to structure and the wording. I removed the information about sexually suggestive humour as well as the colloquial names for SS. I also removed the information about the watershed as I do not feel that this is particularly relevant to the topic at hand, the same goes with the information about 'foot fetishes'. I included information from an evolutionary perspective and information about the potential misinterpretation of SS in order to allow for the lead to flow effectively onto the article content. I hope that all users are happy with my edits and if anyone should have a problem please let me know and we will discuss the restoration of the said information. My intentions were graceful and I hope that users are happy with the edits I have made in favour of scientific relevance and prowess. Lupet123 (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Substantial Edit

I have added a section on sexual suggestiveness in the media; I have taken on board the tips offered here, including trying to keep all my spellings in American English, and remaining unbiased. I have sourced all my work, and have tried to present it in a manner which is in line with the current work, and not as a thesis as it has been suggested. If you have any suggestions, please put them here and I'll change them! Ahhthewitch (talk) 10:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Substantial Edit

Further to my previous contribution, I have now added a section a section on the effects of sexually suggestive content in the media. Again I have tried to write this with Wikipedia policies in mind, and I hope that it is up to the same standard as everything else that has been put on this page.I have cited all of my work, and hopefully have kept to using the American spelling of various words. If anyone has any suggestions, please do say and I'll endeavour to change them immediately. Ahhthewitch (talk) 10:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation of "liking"

@Beyond My Ken: Liking is a DAB page. Direct links to DAB pages are against WP:INTDAB, and are routinely flagged as errors by User:DPL bot. In this case, some of the entries on the DAB page are clearly irrelevant (e.g. the one about taxation in China), and I was unsure if any of them was actually relevant to this article. A link to it is confusing to readers. Regards, Narky Blert (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

In that case, even if a link is required, which i suspect it isn't (see this), the better action would have been to disambiguate it yourself, which i now have done. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 15:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)