User talk:Cguy1/sandbox

I have noticed that you have not had the chance to add any content to your chosen page. So, in order to help you, here are some things I noticed that should be added/modified: – Change the title of section 1.1 from "Physical Attractiveness" to "Physical factors" in order to be symmetrical with the title of section 1.2. - In the "Sexual attraction section", add/expand on the idea that there is a great deal of cross cultural similarity in men's preferences in women. Also, add/expand on on the notion that there exist also notable differences cross-culturally between men. - In the "Sexual attraction section", specifically the "Physical attractiveness" section, more information needs to be added regarding why "clear, smooth skin" and other signs of youth, are universally regarded as attractive. Also, have any research studies been conducted that discuss why "facial symmetry, femininity, and averageness" are linked to attractiveness? To be more precise, why do men find these qualities appealing? Are there any biological factors that contribute to this reasoning? Or is it mostly due to social constructs? - In the "Homosexuality" section, specifically the "Sexual Orientation section", the definition provided for sexual orientation needs to me modified in order to be more inclusive of non-binary sexual orientations. A person who identifies as anything other than male of female would get offended while reading "Aside from being heterosexual or homosexual, individuals can be any of varying degrees of bisexual." - I recommend changing the sub-title "Causes" to "Influences", or another title that does not make it seem that being homosexual is not normal, that it has to be caused by something. - Finally, in the "Homosexuality" section, specifically the "Sexual Identity" sub-section, add some examples of how different cultures conceptualized homosexual desire and behavior.

Final wiki contribution comments: You made some good points in your sandbox, but none appeared to have stuck to the main page, and they did not look well-researched. Would have liked you to add much more, including some of the points addressed by your peer reviewer, above. Nlegate (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)