Talk:Lesbian bed death/Archive 1

Inadequate references
The article associates the term lesbian bed death with Pepper Schwartz, but the only citation is to a book co-authored with Philip Blumstein. Did Schwartz carry out additional, independent work? If so, it should be cited here. SisDivComp (talk) 11:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. I have cleaned up and expanded the article, as seen below, but I am also wondering which of the two coined the term or if they both share that credit. I have made mention of Philip Blumstein in the beginning of the Research and societal impact section, though. He likely wasn't mentioned previously because he doesn't yet have a Wikipedia article and thus was not considered notable enough for a mention. I may later mention him in the lead and attribute the book as theirs, instead of just hers. Flyer22 (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation
There is a band by this name also. see Myspace: http://myspace.com/lesbianbeddeath and their website: http://www.lesbianbeddeath.net/. Could some one do some jiggery pokery to get a DAB page for this and gt the two articles? Cheers 160.5.235.81 16:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't appear to me, based on a google search, that this band is notable enough to warrant a disambiguation page. --Xyzzyplugh 19:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a cut & paste
While this is a valid topic --- BUT this little blurb used to create a new topic page truly sounds like a cut and paste. There HAS to be more to keep this topic from being nominated for deletion. Things like - Your signature with timestampd? peer-reviewed journal? book? conference paper?
 * WHERE was this term coinehttp://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.png
 * NEED ISBN number & publisher, date published if it is from a book
 * NEED article name, author(s), pub date, name of journal, vol & number
 * NEED name & date of conference, name of paper & anything else you can find
 * WHEN was this term first used? Give me a date, people!
 * WHO has critiqued Schwart's study construct? When?  Where? What are their qualifications to critique?
 * citations citations citation

This is an encyclopedia, and few articles are capable of being written by only one person. But it takes a lot of teamwork to make things happen. No one person has to do everything, but if each capable person who drops by does even one tiny thing, then this article will be one tiny better.
 * For my part, I have done things that are designed to get this article more inter-connected with topics and categories that will get this article more hits.
 * I have also have created sub-topics, breaking up that tiny blurb into areas that need to be developed.

A plea to people -- don't just add a link to YOUR site when you visit other topics -- add THEIR link to your topic's "See Also". That is only polite and will make it more likely that you, as an editor, will be seen as a co-editor. If you are visiting a topic with no categories or few categories, do an assessment and add at least one. Thanks --A green Kiwi in learning mode 18:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Master Johnson??
The article notes that she's been critiqued by "Master Johnson". I think whoever wrote that meant Masters AND Johnson, but there's still no citation.--Jkbug 23:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Contemporary?
There is absolutely no hint of a time stamp for this study, and since the whole article is unsourced, it's very hard to check it. Was that in the 1960's or in the 1990's? 76.65.178.57 20:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Play on words?
Is this a play on 'Lesbian death bed'? a phrase I first heard in 1988 when a gay (male) friend of mine described his white painted and partly gilded iron-framed double bed as a 'Lesbian death bed'. I always assumed it was a phrase he knew from elsewhere, not one he had made up. 86.134.92.87 (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Explanation...
It doesn't appear to be defined in this article. That's a ... big problem? - 142.167.73.239 (talk) 22:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism?
I reverted the recent changes by user 75.45.124.184 who deleted the reference to Symons' book ("Other studies: OR. Has nothing to do with long-term relationships. Furthermore, the citation is an *entire book* entitled "The Evolution of Human Sexuality". Not specific enough."). I don't understand his/her objection. SisDivComp (talk) 10:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it's not vandalism:
 * "OR"
 * Original research.
 * "Has nothing to do with long-term relationships."
 * The text I removed read: "From an evolutionary psychological point of view, lesbian couples are expected to seek sex less frequently than heterosexual or gay couples. This follows from the observation that lesbians, like heterosexual females, are more discriminating and selective than males with regard to sex and sexual partners."
 * The observation doesn't follow. The article is about lesbian couples, who are past the "discrimination and selection" phrase.
 * "Furthermore, the citation is an entire book entitled "The Evolution of Human Sexuality". Not specific enough."
 * You can't expect someone to read an entire book to attempt to verify the claim, which, as I describe above, is already invalid.
 * Assuming good faith, now that I've explained my objections at length, I'm again removing the text. 75.45.115.243 (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Expansion
I expanded this article with more detail, and will likely continue to do so as time goes on...but more so with scholarly sources. It's surprising that more isn't already in this article. It looks like there is a lot to say on the matter, though mostly criticism. I can see how "mostly criticism" could be considered WP:UNDUE, or rather a violation of WP:NEUTRAL, but it seems to me that there are more researchers and doctors disputing "lesbian bed death" than they are supporting it. Thus, this may be a case of Round Earth vs. Flat Earth. Flyer22 (talk) 05:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Update. The article now looks like this: . Flyer22 (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The resulting article suffers massively from imbalance. You are presenting two sides of the issue - and the main problem is not overweight on the criticism side, it's the quality of references.  The section on the pro-lesbian bed death cites the original work and that "many... books and articles were written... by well-known clinicians".  The criticism section then cites tons of non-clinical comment.  I respect Frye's input on the topic, with the slight caveat that having a non-clinical feminist theorist weigh in on the issue is a bit like a Joyce scholar commenting on the biology of the male erection.  Frye aside, the rest of the criticism section is complete horsesht - input on a scientific issue from a bunch of media columnists, even if one has a PhD.  Cut out everything after thr Frye stuff and at least the article ceases to be a joke. To significantly improve it add a lot more content from the "many...books and articles... by well-known clinicians".  The suggestion of that is that weight of evidence supports lbd, even if weight of media commentary dislikes the concept.  64.197.175.130 (talk) 12:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The "many... books and articles were written... by well-known clinicians" line you are talking about has to do with them basically supporting lesbian bed death. Why should that be expanded upon when the concept of lesbian bed death is now so thoroughly disputed, and half of the criticism cut, if you feel that there is no overweight on the criticism side? Further, your feeling that there is no overweight on the criticism side makes me wonder why you have regarded the article as "suffering massively from imbalance" in the first place. You say to cut everything after Frye. But that would mean cutting Alfred Kinsey and Masters and Johnson too. The article would also cease to show that all types of couples are subject to the "sex is intense at first and is then less intense as the relationship goes on" factor. As for the rest of the criticism, I don't feel that it's horseshit or a joke to have media personalities weighing in. Lesbian bed death is not just a clinical/psychological topic, but a popular culture topic too. And it's not often regarded as "scientific." The impact section is about research, as well as the impact the term has had on society. This is why I titled it Research and societal impact. Including discussion on the term's impact on popular culture is completely relevant. These women are stating the damage this term has done to lesbian society, and a few are experts in the field of human sexuality. I suppose I could divide the media commentary, but then that would just be a needless and messy split. You seem to suggest that most well-known clinicians support lesbian bed death and that it's just the media that doesn't, even though these clinicians stated this back in the 1980s and media sources (the ones you want out of the article) cite that this is not generally supported by clinicians today.


 * That said, I will bring other editors in on this and see if they, too, view anything wrong with the current state of the article, or even share your view. Flyer22 (talk) 07:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * On a side note: I never stated that I was done fixing up this article. In fact, above I stated that I "will likely continue to [fix up this article] as time goes on...but more so with scholarly sources." Two months ago, my main goal was to simply fix up this article and get some references (reliable references of course) in here about the research and societal impact. Flyer22 (talk) 08:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Flyer22, what is your goal with this expansion? Simply to add more info to the article? Do you think you might want to take it to GA? Your response will frame how I assess the quality of the article.


 * I quit WP:LGBT a couple years back. Not a lot goes on there anymore. That is not a cause and effect relationship, btw. --Moni3 (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for weighing in, Moni. Your help on this article would be much appreciated. It seems like you have a lot of lesbian resources. See? If I had posted a message about this expansion at WikiProject LGBT studies, then I would not have received your offer for help (though it might still be a good idea to leave a message there). As for my intentions at this article.... Well, first and foremost, as stated above, my goal with the expansion was to take it away from the pitiful state it was in before. With any additional edits, it would simply be about improving the article further. After some time of editing an article, I might seek to make it GA or feel that it has become GA (or close to it) without my setting out to do so. But GA is never my immediate goal, no (not usually). It's the level I'm often aspiring to/aware of, but am not necessarily always trying to get to. It's the same as with my editing/building on an article that has already reached GA status; I'm not necessarily looking to make it FA...unless I specifically have that in mind.


 * Right now... I am looking for opinions on, or help with, the way I have the article structured right now, the information, sources, etc., and whether it is felt that the IP's criticism of media in the article is spot-on. As I stated above, lesbian bed death is not just a clinical/psychological topic, but a popular culture topic too. The impact section is about research, as well as the impact the term has had on society. And because I titled the section Research and societal impact, I feel that it is more than clear that opinions on what the term has done to society is going to be included in the article. It is not as though only researchers' opinions should be included. And discussing the term's impact on society is completely relevant. If the article is expanded further, then we could divide the cultural aspects of the term away from the research. But right now, I don't see anything wrong with having them combined. One thing that concerns me is having too much criticism of the term, as the article is mostly criticism right now. More balance would be ideal, such as including more information on researchers who have supported lesbian bed death or still do, as the IP suggested above. Flyer22 (talk) 22:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok. The first and most important suggestion I have for you is to broaden your search for sources. This is a great article to work on. It incorporates some scientific information in the realms of sexology and psychology, which will give you some experience finding the best sources. It's kind of small, so there won't be a lot of other editors constantly making edits to it while you work on it. While the sources you have now summarize the info (probably effectively), they are not the best sources to use. They are second or third-hand sources. Much more insight and detail can be found in better sources. Not only will they give you more to put in the article, but they will also pretty much indicate how the article should be laid out.
 * You're going to want to search Google Scholar for "lesbian bed death". You might have to pay for the articles to read them online/download the pdf or find them at a public or college library.
 * I'd also suggest the books of Susie Bright, JoAnn Loulan, and The Whole Lesbian Sex Book for additional details. When you use books, be sure to cite the page numbers or the span of pages you got the information from.


 * Hope this helps. I'm watching the page, so let me know if you have questions. --Moni3 (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've included two scholarly sources already (there were four sources in the article, and then I added five). I usually work on sexology and psychology topics these days, and am usually about scholarly sources for such topics. Tribadism is the other lesbian-related article I significantly expanded; and I did so mostly using scholarly sources there as well. My approach for the Lesbian bed death article, however, was to quickly take it from a state that could be seen as non notable-ness (and it actually was, with this tag), clear up some things, and make it more informative. I added a mixture of scholarly sources and media sources, with more of a lean toward the latter, but made a note earlier (above) to include more scholarly sources. So, yes, I know/understand what you mean. I'm not sure such sources will touch on what the term has done to lesbian society as thoroughly as the media sources, though. For example, fridae.com goes all out on that aspect (that source was already in the article; I just cleaned it up, and added detail from it). So I'll likely need to keep the media sources already present in the article. You do feel that the media sources are okay, right? As long as this article isn't mostly composed of such sources? Also, how do you feel I can keep the article more balanced -- make sure it doesn't lean even more negatively toward the term than it already does? Should I be concerned with that, or is this term so disputed now that it cannot be helped that most of the information about it will be negative? Flyer22 (talk) 23:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I arrived at this article from human sexuality, then branching off at random, then, out of bare interest, seeking this term, one that I've before, been unacquainted with. Within seconds, I found, other than a few scholarly sources, life in humans in long term relationships. As an example, my wife and I have been married for over 29 years. In our early years, we had relations at rates ranging from a handful per day in our early years to daily for a decade. After that, the rate became less frequent, even IF our jokes suggested otherwise. That is also well reflected in multiple respected sources around the globe. So, I humbly suggest, at risk of being accused of OR, that this is really a non-issue for one particular sexual orientation and more along the general lines of HUMAN SEXUALITY, MATURING AND AGING. I'm moderately certain that there is plenty of research that will support that, which is not reflected in some reporters personal bias.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that decrease in sexual activity is normal for couples of all sexual orientations is mentioned in the article. But "lesbian bed death" is still a notable topic, given its prevalence in literature and media sources, whether it's discussing those who believe the effect is exclusive to or predominantly found in lesbian romances or those dismissing it. I should have this article fixed up a lot better than it is later this year. Flyer22 (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Marilyn Frye's quibbles
Marilyn Frye claim that lesbian couples engage in sexual activity longer than heterosexual penile penetration seems rather silly. She seems to say basically that lesbian couples do more while implicitly pretending that heterosexual couples only do one thing, as if only lesbian couples kiss, cuddle and fondle each other, while straight couples only screw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.224.120 (talk) 03:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:Unbalanced section
With this edit, Buddy23Lee added Template:Unbalanced section to the "Other findings and criticism" section, seemingly pointing to the complaint by an IP in the section from years ago...and/or the  section. I reverted, stating, "Unless you can find sources stating that 'lesbian bed death' is generally supported, 'unbalanced' does not apply to the criticism aspect." Balance on Wikipedia is based on the WP:Due weight policy, and I have not seen the sexological or psychological literature generally support the concept of "lesbian bead death"...except for sex therapists endorsing the idea for profit; I've seen the exact opposite. Buddy23Lee should clarify his concern here in this section. And, yes, I know that this article is poor. I was a different editor back in 2011, and never got around to further significantly improving this article. I did make these tweaks to the article a few minutes ago for a start. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Side note: While the literature on "lesbian bed death" generally relays or indicates that it is a myth or based on heterosexist views of sexual activity, studies on the frequency of sexual activity among women in same-sex relationships are more so divided. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Flyer22 Reborn, it's nice (and a bit surprising!) to see that someone has taken such watch and ownership of a seemingly obscure article like "Lesbian bed death". Your long standing contributions here should be admired. That said, and in all due respect to your stance (and I know you mean well), I don't feel there is any obligation or requirement for I of any other editor to need to cite sources or jump through any other hoops in order to place a template message that they in good faith think will lead to improvements to the article (at least would in a perfect world). Just as I cannot issue some standards or any other wishes that you much achieve in order to remove one. We can both add and remove templates as desired. I don't want any other editors reading this to feel in any way pressured or coerced into not using the templates. I do respect your underlying position Flyer, appreciate the edit you made which appears to be in the spirit of the template, and I have no interest in getting into anything close to an edit war in trying to put it back up. Ultimately, we are both working toward the same end, what's best for this article and its readers. Cheers. Buddy23Lee (talk) 07:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello Buddy23Lee (this is my last time WP:Pinging you to this section because I assume you will check back here if you want to read replies). Reverting your "Unbalanced section" template is not WP:OWNING the article (I'm not sure if you meant "ownership" in a positive or negative sense). And as for the article being obscure, well, the term is well-known in the media (well-known enough anyway), and I watch over a lot of sexuality articles. If an editor is going to add such a tag to an article, the tag should be justified and the editor should explain why the tag is justified. This is especially the case for templates like Template:POV, which notes that WP:Drive-by tagging is discouraged and that the editor should explain his or her concerns on the article talk page. I was not stating that you need to source anything; I was stating that you need to justify your tag. I am open to hearing your concerns. And, like I noted, this article is currently poor. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Flyer22 Reborn, please don't get upset and/or take my opinions the wrong way. Like I acknowledged before, you have clearly worked on this page for a long time, and it's easy for any of us to become invested in its appearance and how we feel it should best present its material. Before we go any further, I think you should consider taking a moment to look once more at Assume Good Faith. I'm not sure why you seem defensive about the issues raised with WP:OWNING, and further make clear allusion to the idea that I might be "drive-by tagging", both of which seem to be in less-than good faith about my position and actions here. If you have a moment to look, I have made past edits to this article as well, and I felt that by initially adding a template to the section, I may have been able to draw out some of the editors such as yourself to take a look at the potential problems before I made any substantive attempt to actually edit the page in regard to the issues I was attempting to tag it for in the first place. I did not intend for it to become a protracted debate as to the merits of my particular template, risk wikilawyering or WP:BASH. We need to stay mindful that these conversations are public and often read by newer and inexperienced editors. Going back to what I said before, I personally believe that some of what you said before might create a chilling effect among such users who need to know that any editor can (and should!) add and remove Wikipedia templates as they feel might be constructive. As you've stated a number of times on this talk page, the quality of this article is in many ways poor, and while I had oringially intended taking a slow and methodical approach to trying to improve it, your response and approach to a single, unobtrusive template (not the first one I've used in this article) has been discouraging, and I fear wasting any more of either of our time or energy in prompting similar exchanges. Hopefully, in the future, we can focus more on addressing the underlying concerns that were supposed to be highlighted by the template, rather than focus so greatly on the merits of the template itself. I wish you nothing but the best Flyer, and I sincerely hope this article doesn't languish for another 5 years of status quo. It may well take a greater editor than I to approach these issues in a way that is seen as more agreeable to you and members of the LGBT community. Buddy23Lee (talk) 03:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Buddy23Lee, on second thought, I'm pinging you again because I want to make sure you see this reply: You stated "please don't get upset and/or take my opinions the wrong way." I feel similarly when it comes my initial comment and my initial reply in this section. You seemed to become defensive from the start. My only issue with you adding the tag is that you did not justify it. You pointed to commentary on this talk page for the tag, and, as seen above, it's not completely clear to me which section you were referring to. And out of those two sections, I made it clear to an IP that the concept of lesbian bed death is very much disputed; there is much criticism for it, but not as much support for it it. So I wanted to understand why you tagged the section. Asking you to explain why is a part of editing here. I did not call your edit a drive-by tagging matter. I noted that Template:POV discourages drive-by tagging because it is important for fellow editors to understand why the tag was added. I made a comparison, yes. You stated your concern in an edit summary, but that concern was (and still is) not clear. Wondering why you tagged the section is not a violation of WP:Assume good faith. I have not attacked you in this section. You stated, "I'm not sure why you seem defensive about the issues raised with WP:OWNING." WP:OWNING is a Wikipedia violation. Of course I would not take kindly to an "You are owning this article" accusation. That is, if you indeed meant "ownership" as a reference to the WP:OWNING policy. Yes, I saw you make this and this edit on February 25. Clearly, I did not revert you. I do not own articles. I revert when I think it is correct to do so; it is never about owning an article for me. I did not mean to offend you. I reverted you, brought the matter here to the talk page for clarification, and was very clear that I was open to hearing what you have to state about improving this article. You did not comment on what you think needs improving, and now you are withdrawing. As for working on this article, I have not consistently worked on it. If I had, it would be much different than it is now. It's on my to-do list (a number of articles are), but it won't take another five years for me to thoroughly fix it up. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn - again, this is getting way too intense and invested for me. I wanted to try and address much of your last reply in my last reply as a means of possibly bringing our positions together, with any luck. It would appear they are no closer, and worryingly, perhaps even further apart. Look, you win. I lose. Whatever needs to be said to end this. I apologize for putting up the template message and causing such an incident. I am sure your energy could be better spent on actually editing this and many other articles, and in all respect, I hope that you will cease finding the need to respond and ping me further. This article is all yours now (said in an explicitly non-WP:OWNING sense). Buddy23Lee (talk) 07:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lesbian bed death. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131021062010/http://www.klbresearch.com/KLB_Research/Research_files/Holmberg%20%26%20Blair%20JSR%20Vol%2046%20Iss%201%202009.pdf to http://www.klbresearch.com/KLB_Research/Research_files/Holmberg%20%26%20Blair%20JSR%20Vol%2046%20Iss%201%202009.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)