Talk:Sexual network

Formating
Regarding emphasis in areas of this article: DO NOT UNDO! Important statistical information is relevant to sex education, and the prevention of VD’s such as HIV AIDS! Please keep formating for the sake of International sexual health information.

Please discuss proposed minor changes to formating here.

--Techrontech 12:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Horizontal rules are not used for emphasis, they're used to differentiate between distinct parts of a discussion or article. The way in which they were used here — to separate paragraphs in a subtopic — is incorrect. I have removed them. I've also removed a hidden comment that was distorting the space between paragraphs, and a  tag that was broken anyway. If you are quoting something, indent the block using or the standard wiki formatting character ":", and use quotation marks, or italics. Don't center the block. --Canonblack 12:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Other Edits, Touchups & Corrections
"There has been a decrease in the number of people having sex with animals outside of marriage." Seems like a pretty clear case of graffiti to me, so I deleted "with animals". JFS24.49.191.211 20:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for keeping up with the spell checks. When one uses a wordprocessor(sic!), not every spelling and grammar mistake is caught. Techrontech 18:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Deleted
I removed "for example, it is impossible to catch a disease from someone who caught it after you have ceased to have sex with them, or after they have been completely and effectively treated in such a way as to entirely remove the causative agent of the disease." because it wasn't true. lysdexia 08:35, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Why is it not true? -- The Anome 09:46, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I see Anome's point actually. While rhetoricly the statement may seem in need of a slight alteration, Lysdexia is seemingly missing the whole point of this article (all though this conjecture, is, possibly and hopefully, untrue)!

While you cannot catch a disease from someone who caught it after you stopped having sex with that person, the disease can still be spread from that individual, to a new sexual partner of that individual, and through that person's sexual partner, or sexual partner's partner and so on, you may easily become exposed to that same strain and strand of VD. So, yes, you can a former partner's desease after the fact.

Further complicating things, and hightening your risk ractor beyond your control, (and don't bother making an accusation of homophobophobia or pull any other heterophobic antics) would be the existance of bi or homosexualism in your sexual network, simply because it would allow the network to easily skip a step at least once (and that is only if there is once instance of bisexualism). Think about it, because it's completely true.

--Techrontech 14:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

To be added
This article could possibly include a reference to the diagram which figures throughout the series The L Word. examples here: via

Great example. There are already many charts available that describe this same concept. The basic idea is if you have more than once sexual partner, you're exposing each one after your first partner with however many sexual partners your previous partners have been exposed to, and the only way to avoid this is to have only one sexual partner. The quick-fix straight solution: marriage.

To obtain a free copy of one of these charts (which I can't publish due to copyright laws), just call the Option Line at 1-800-395-HELP and ask about it. They can also give you info about sex and sexuality.

Techrontech 13:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Do I detect a bit of politically conservative moralizing in this article? Let me offer a quick suggestion: Marriage is the legal (and possibly spiritual) union of two people. Sex often occurs in marriage, but often it does not and often there is more than one sexual partner involved. A better word for the quick-fix straight solution is not marriage but Monogamy: the idea of having one exclusive sexual partner. To defer the effects of sexual networking, the monogamist couple can review their sexual history and get STD/STI tested before having intercourse.

Marriage is not an option for all people. Monogamy is an option for all people as it is a personal choice by two individuals.

Wiseguy 12:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've now deleted at least the most blatent politically conservative moralising. It's been tagged since January with no sources been cited in response to that - for the fairly obvious reason that's its just point of view. 80.229.220.14 04:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Rules
It is not necessary to make personal comments or conversation anywhere, principally those deemed unnecessary or uncouth. This can be done elsewhere in Wikipedia (such as in the User Talk pages, or areas in the Community Portal). Failure to follow these rules will result in immediate erasure of the text in question.

Sign your posts. Failure to follow this rule is annoying to your fellow Wikipedians, and makes it difficult if not impossible to follow a discussion or distinguish visitors from established Wikipedians (and by inference, how much value should be given to anything they say). And ((some would say that)) there is no place in Wikipedia for "...personal comments...deemed unnecessary or uncouth." --Canonblack 13:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

unwanted child
Where is the source that a monogomous sexual relationship cannot result in an unwanted child?Obina 23:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point. This is clearly an absurd statement. We can all think of monogomous relationships - even marriages - into which unwanted children have been born. I've deleted this sentence along with some other unsourced conservative moralising. 80.229.220.14 04:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Newer material
It seems that there must be resources from the past few years that the article can use.--John Bessa (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sexual network. 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/20050130034753/http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/chains.htm to http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/chains.htm

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) 08:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)