Talk:Sexual obsessions

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The intro needs work. The opening sentence is hardly an earth-shattering realisation, and does OCD need mentioning immediately?--MartinUK 18:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page contains many bare assertions, such as that anxiety and sexual arousal cannot occupy the same space - whatever that means. Moreover, whoever wrote this article has a very poor command of English. But then, that is not an unusual shortcoming in wikipedia articles.

24.150.10.209 (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual obsessions and sexual acts

I fixed a large amount of grammatical errors, mainly consisting of word choice and improper capitalization. Some sentences were rephrased, and others were modified to be more accurate. (Keep in mind that this section cited no sources before my edit, and nor does it now. Improvement is required, as is always.) 96.234.235.106 (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recently added material

With this edit, I reverted content by OdysseyToOrion (talk · contribs) as poorly sourced. OdysseyToOrion re-added the material, stating that the sourcing should be excellent. OdysseyToOrion, read WP:MEDRS. I'll alert WP:Med to this matter for opinions. I'm not hard-pressed on it. If they want to help, good. If they don't, oh well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. None of the three websites cited in the text meet WP:MEDRS at all. The journal review, which is not cited directly in the text, would probably be okay under WP:MEDRS. However, it only mentions sexuality once ("Obsessional thought content generally focuses on themes such as [...] sexuality"), so its use here might still be WP:SYNTH. It would be better to have a source that specifically says medications can cause sexual obsessions... although I don't care much about that, so long as the material from the websites is removed. KateWishing (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]