Talk:Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex* (*But Were Afraid to Ask) (book)

Fair use rationale for Image:Everythingsex.jpg
Image:Everythingsex.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Needs more
The article, as is, makes it sound like the book is reputable, when it was actually a piece of crap and just about everyone who has read it knows that. I question whether it really contributed to the liberalization of any attitudes, as the author is obviously uncomfortable with any sexual expression outside a monogamous, heterosexual marriage. Of course, this is my POV, but there should be plenty out there to document the book's reception and people's attitudes toward it. (And I know it's not admissible evidence in the article, but if you doubt me, look at the reviews on Amazon.) 108.93.144.242 (talk) 12:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely right. --Ben Culture (talk) 10:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who grew up in that era: considering when the book was initially published, when anything discussing sex openly & factually was hard to obtain, and conservative attitudes still very much held sway in the media and law -- yes, this book did contribute to the liberalization of attitudes. In the late '60s/early '70s, you had a huge clash between highly conservative morals vs. the free love movement; sex education in school was primarily limited to "this is what happens when girls get their period" (if you were lucky) and that was IT. This book got people talking. It was one of the first books that at least tried to answer questions openly and honestly -- even if Dr. Reuben's research was shoddy and the book relied too much on hearsay and anecdotal evidence than actual fact. Yes, it's since been discredited. But at the time, it was ground-breaking. You just didn't TALK about such things in the open manner that Dr. Reuben did, and up to that point, there was NO book or sex manual in common, everyday language -- Joy of Sex didn't come out until 1972. Zenfrodo (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * We'd have been better off without it. It's quackery from an era in which the title "Doctor" still meant reliable authority to the general public. --Ben Culture (talk) 10:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Oblique "Peanuts" reference
http://www.gocomics.com/peanuts/1971/08/30 A2Kafir (and...?) 03:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Not really helpful to the article, but that was nice, made me smile. Snoopy being a aspiring (but terrible) novelist was one of the better, weirder concepts Schulz latched onto. People who don't read the actual strips and only know the cartoons don't realize how daring Charles M. Schulz was. But we're not supposed to get into this kind of discussion here on Wikipedia. Still, thanks.
 * --Ben Culture (talk) 09:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex* (*But Were Afraid to Ask) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The result of the move request was: pages moved, dab page created. Apparently uncontroversial. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Criticism section
There really ought to be a criticism section for this article as there certainly was a substantial reaction to it for its numerous inaccuracies and biases, for example the assertion that homosexuals typically engage in murder or disfigurement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.119.204.117 (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Absolutely agreed. This book ruined a lot of lives among LGBTQ's who read it. The book first teaches us that homosexuals are horrible, loveless criminals, and then goes on to inform us that transsexuals are pathetic, disfigured homosexuals. So, naturally, nobody who read this book wanted to be any of those things. It reinforced the self-loathing that society was already imposing upon young queer people.
 * Oh, and did you know that all prostitutes hate sex and are also incapable of love?
 * --Ben Culture (talk) 04:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, it's still me, but seriously. If this Wikipedia article does not address the bigotry and misinformation of this book, it seems like we're missing the whole point of Wikipedia. If Wikipedia can't or won't tell the truth, it's fucking worthless. I'm going to remember this article the next time donation requests start showing up, like they did last month (and I did donate). I'm starting to think I'm in denial about how BAD Wikipedia has become.
 * Wikipedia is one of several sites that exposed the ugly truth of The Church of Scientology, yet we can't even get a proper critical section on this one book? The book is notable for several reasons, but I think its most lasting impact was how absolutely damaging it was to young readers who weren't heterosexual cisgenders. And even some who WERE.
 * I was eleven when I read it; I wish to god I had just hurled it out the window.
 * --Ben Culture (talk) 10:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ben Culture I found this book on a shelf in my grandparents' home. As a shy adolescent in the pre-internet 80s, obviously I absconded with it. As I think back to some of what I "learned", it amazes me how reactionary it was, as you point out. My question is, did you ever try introducing a criticism section such as you describe on the main page? If so, what was the result? I am surprised at the stub nature of this culturally impactful book (impactful for better or worse... and that should be addressed), as well as its "low importance" rating on sexology. I don't really feel like researching this topic, books and culture is not my forte', but you seemed passionate...Keithramone33 (talk) 10:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems that existing published criticism is mild. I guess I am done with this. I don't have the book anymore, but here's a weird thing I remember. It said that if a hetero guy gets a BJ, and if it's not foreplay, but instead he wants it to continue until climax, then he has "deep emotional problems" or something, lol. Oh well. I think writers have given it a pass over the years b/c it was progressive for its time inasmuch as it was explicitly discussing this stuff. Reuben wrote an update in '99, so I added some content from articles from that year, mentioning at least some criticism. If there is more probing published criticism anywhere, I didn't find it using Google this morning.Keithramone33 (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Low Importance Rating on Sexology/Human Sexuality?
It was the #1 non fiction book for 55 weeks during the "Love Generation", and reportedly was read by like 100 million people. How can this rating be accurate? What actions can be undertaken if you disagree with a rating?Keithramone33 (talk) 11:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)