Talk:Sexual obsessions

The intro needs work. The opening sentence is hardly an earth-shattering realisation, and does OCD need mentioning immediately?--MartinUK 18:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The page contains many bare assertions, such as that anxiety and sexual arousal cannot occupy the same space - whatever that means. Moreover, whoever wrote this article has a very poor command of English. But then, that is not an unusual shortcoming in wikipedia articles.

24.150.10.209 (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sexual obsessions and sexual acts

I fixed a large amount of grammatical errors, mainly consisting of word choice and improper capitalization. Some sentences were rephrased, and others were modified to be more accurate. (Keep in mind that this section cited no sources before my edit, and nor does it now. Improvement is required, as is always.) 96.234.235.106 (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Recently added material

With this edit, I reverted content by OdysseyToOrion (talk · contribs) as poorly sourced. OdysseyToOrion re-added the material, stating that the sourcing should be excellent. OdysseyToOrion, read WP:MEDRS. I'll alert WP:Med to this matter for opinions. I'm not hard-pressed on it. If they want to help, good. If they don't, oh well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree. None of the three websites cited in the text meet WP:MEDRS at all. The journal review, which is not cited directly in the text, would probably be okay under WP:MEDRS. However, it only mentions sexuality once ("Obsessional thought content generally focuses on themes such as [...] sexuality"), so its use here might still be WP:SYNTH. It would be better to have a source that specifically says medications can cause sexual obsessions... although I don't care much about that, so long as the material from the websites is removed. KateWishing (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

AI Generated content

while reading this article, it appeared to me that some of the mannerisms and writing styles in the article seemed very much like ai writing. Some of the ways that the article had certain words under italic emphasis, the ways that bullet points were used, and just the general way that the words and writing were produced reminded me a lot of the way that ai writes. At the very least, this article has watered down a lot of the information in a sort of fluff of imagery and illustrations, and it seems to less efficiently educate and more to try to be a compelling work of writing, seem smart and hold people's interest. ~2025-43285-75 (talk) 05:57, 27 December 2025 (UTC)