Talk:Sex-negativity

message: "There is allegedly an acknowledged link between the use of pornography, and the subsequent commission of sexual crimes, in a vast majority of cases by men." 
This HUGE allegation is not referenced. Until It can be, it should remain removed. If you reinsert it without a reference, please comment on the discussion page explaining why.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.15.40 (talk) 11:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, on the internet, there are many references that Elvis is alive. - DHooke1973 (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've actually never seen someone who was seriously arguing that. Everything I've been able to find that said as much was doing so sarcastically 24.252.141.175 (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Pornography rape link

message: I'm sorry to say it, but that's an understatement.  The very first sentence in the article isn't even a sentence.  I'm afraid I could glean no information from reading this article. Erik Carson 00:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Needs to be wikified"

message: Anyone else notice that the "External Links" aren't actually links? Seems like a thing to fix, just maybe... --M.C. ArZeCh (talk) 13:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: Removed the citation to
Morality in Media: "When porn defenders challenge obscenity law enforcement, here's how to answer them", Section 11
as this refernce is not a suitable source for the claim; in fact it does not even mention the sex-positive movement. Soobrickay (talk) 23:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Morality in Media 

message: This article is terribly written, poorly sourced, and clearly is not neutral.  It's pro "sex-positivity," whatever that means, all the way.  I am recommending it for deletion because it seems to be redundant information, conjecture, and hearsay.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuapinmon (talk • contribs) 05:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: TRAINWRECK

message: In order to verfiy whether sex-negativity is the traditional Western view of sex, a good idea would be to find appropriate quotes from the Church Fathers on the issue of sex, and compare them to contemporary views expressed by radical feminists like Andrea Dworkin. I would argue that there is a case to be made that the two are similar, and that in a some ways, the Church has always been radically feminist in her opposition to the illicit sexual exploitation of women. This could in fact be helpful for eventual attempts to reconcile the Church with the modern feminist movement. ADM (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Church Fathers

message: I am going to merge this article back into Sex-positive movement. Most of it is rehashing the Overview from that article (but with the context removed). - DHooke1973 (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted the merge because the merge was done without proper procedure. --SupernovaExplosion  Talk 06:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: This article seems to lump too much into a single group.  There's a big difference between believing sex to be inherently bad or evil and believing it to be inappropriate outside of marriage or some other form of major commitment.  Much of what I've seen among those that oppose extramarital intercourse suggests little to no disapproval of sex in and of itself.  While this is a broad generalization, there seem to be three major groups, those that believe consensual sex is good and appropriate under any or most situations, those that believe it's a good thing but only appropriate within certain relationships, and those that consider it inherently bad (including those who see it as a necessary evil when attempting to procreate only).  The distinction between all three general groups should be made clear.  It seems like the middle group is lumped in with the last group simply because they oppose the first, a common fallacy at times.  Separate terms should exist to distinguish those who consider sex positive but inappropriate in some cases from those who consider sex to be truly negative.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.32.145.62 (talk) 03:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overgeneralized 

message: Ip I have read the source that you used. And the Gloss article never uses the term derogatory it uses the word misnomer in the title for example. But never a strong word as derogatory and that means wikipedia should not either to avoid WP:Weasel Words. You would need a better source for that. For the second part the gloss article that you quoted does not say anything about anything that is mentioned in the second paragraph? So that would fall under [[WP:OR}}. Or is there are part of this post you can quote that shows what is in the second paragraph? Then the whole lead probably need to be  put in the main body of the article and a new lead being written that summaries it. But that at the moment is not here and there.  Now for the second part Your New York Time source talks about how polygamy is bad, Mostly because of how it works in reality where the woman has no choice and only has one man, etc. Because indeed its mostly practices in countries where only men get to choose and it most of the time is arranged.  So you would have to change that to observed negative effect of polygamy the first part. Or you can scrap that and use source 7 what you use for source 5 now. As source 7 is the non-reliable religious source correct, that you use an example. ((still do not know if its notable)). So derogatory should be removed unless you can show where it states that. And if it states it in another way then that term should be used. In the second paragraph the word probably would be changed to negatively. NathanWubs (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Addendum. I have gone through your sources again. Thanks for your edit warning on similar pages today. The sources you site are all opinion based sources. while the gloss can be RS. The problem is that what you wrote was [[WP:OR}} please come with reliable sources. That actually say what you wrote. Furthermore the polygamy business that you keep trying to insert everywhere is not the point here either. It does not add to the scope of the article. as said on the polyamory page, it belongs to the polygamy page. Not to mention you changed the wording of a reliable source. Because you did not like that it was talking about christians and the sinfulness. If you have other reasons, you can write that down in a new paragraph with the appropriate sources.   NathanWubs (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems I have with recent edits