Talk:Alternative sexuality

Revert
The version was changed to  by User:Long Tall Texan. I have reverted this edit. The complaint, as I understand it, is that the introductory text was not NPOV. While that's a legitimate criticism, I don't understand how that should result in all links to alternative sexuality articles to be removed from Alternative sexuality and replaced with links to Sexual norm and Sexual morality. If anything, it seems like this edit replaced a POV with one 180° opposed (or perhaps just 160° opposed ;-), rather than with an NPOV. --TreyHarris 05:22, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * If both are incorrect and POV, then perhaps you could work this into a 90°? Fear of own personal bias was the reason I requested peer review on this article intially. I knew 1 was posted by an anon who then left, and 2 by a biased user, but could still muster the foresight to know it shouldn't be VfD fodder or was at least salvagable. Long, Tall Texan 06:21, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * Replaced text "limited notion of one biological man and one biological woman in a marriage sanctified by church and state having sex in the missionary position in the bedroom with the lights off, the door locked, and the blinds drawn for the sole purpose of procreation" with sexual norm. I believe this fairly approximates the original authors intent with a little less bias. Long, Tall Texan 06:24, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * Agreed, better. I made some more wording changes.  It's still not quite there yet.  --TreyHarris 06:27, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Would a second line approximating "Naturally, those who strongly hold to the sexual norms of a society sometimes view Alternative sexuality as a farce or a euphemism." be out of the question? This sentence, of course, is open for suggestion. I'd like to see this article as a counter balance for the article sexual norm and not just a catalogue of "Kinky wiki 101." Long, Tall Texan 06:35, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)