User:DaisyParker1995/sandbox

The Sister Effect is an exception to Male Overperception Bias. Haselton and Buss (2000) found that Sexual Overperception Bias would not occur when the target the men had to perceive sexual intent from was their sister. They found that the men’s perception of their sister’s sexual intent was lower than their perception of sexual intent from other females. Haselton and Buss (2000) believed that this perception of female sexual interest was most accurate as it fell between women’s perception of women and women’s perception of their own sexual interest. This could be a product of incest-avoidance mechanisms.
 * The Sister Effect

=Peer Review for Sexual Fantasy= Overall, I commend you on the spectrum of knowledge you contributed to this page. From the methodology, gender differences and fantasies and sexual crime. In the methodology section, I was impressed firstly the depth you went into. I was wondering how they actually measured sexual arousal and you answered this question perfectly. Including the 3 techniques as 1. 2. 3. helped separate what might have been a huge chunk of text. Suggestions for change: - I would try and cut down a little on the links to other pages. Stick to the necessary words that people might not understand. Words like 'coerced' people already know and so probably don't need a link. - I would put Origins of Gender Differences in Sexual fantasy first because then the reader can link the origin to the gender differences to the whole section. - Under Sexual Orientation, the first study mentioned (Masters & Johnson, 1979) does not have a footnote. The same with Moreault and Follingstad (1978) under Force. They sound like interesting studies and I am sure people would appreciate a footnote so they can read further into these topics. - When inserting footnotes if they apply to the whole sentence then they need to be at the end of the sentence not just after the experimenters name. For instance, Singer (1966) under Purposes. DaisyParker1995 (talk) 10:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

= Peer Review of Male Sexuality = I found your additions extremely insightful and you had loads of good links to other pages. The footnotes you added were relevant and I especially liked the descriptionat the beginning of Sexual Coercion. I felt it explained it without being too wordy.

1. Rape as a 'By-Product' Explain.. 2. Rape as an 'Adaptation' Explain...
 * I would suggest, to cut up the text, you could put the two hypotheses about rape under 1 and 2. For example:
 * Furthermore, I would put rejected hypotheses under a subheading to cut up the text further and to let people know if they are just skimming through that they have been rejected.
 * If a footnote applies to an entire sentence, such as Barabo & Shackelford, then it should be at the end of the sentence
 * Can you further define Influences on male sexual behaviour and male sexual strategies because at the moment I see the two as being very closely related, especially with Influences of Sociosexuality on male sexual strategies.