Talk:Sex and drugs

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2019 and 29 November 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lwm1715. Peer reviewers: Chintanpatel2634, AlisterMcG, KernelG9900.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 1 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aroddy1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

Now all we need is a corresponding article on drugs and rock'n'roll. -- 23:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• It's good to see somebody's paying attention to the essentials while all those pages about railway stations and forgotten provinces of tiny countries are being cranked out. Wareq 01:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, afterall it doesn't seem to me that too much attention is paid to this essential !

I think that we should get rid of the contraception and abortion section especially since we don't even talk about plan B. -- 9:26, 28 October 2019 [User:Lwm1715](talk)

Stuff to add

This page is missing a lot of good information, and I don't have enough time to add it all. Here's a partial list of substances that ought to be added to the page: 2-CB, Foxy (5-MeO-DiPT), pot (cannabis), maca (lipidium meyenii), tribulus terrestris, tongkat ali (eurycoma longifolia), butea superba, ho shou wu (fo ti, I forgot the Linnean name), yohimbe, yohimbine, the dopamine agonists/prolactin inhibitors cabergoline (Dostinex) and bromocriptine, and anabolic/androgenic steroids (including the proposed transdermal testosterone patch for women which the FDA rejected due to side effects). Also, while it's very sensual, MDMA really isn't that sexy, and many men find that it prevents them from getting an erection. Bremelanotide is definitely NOT the first scientifically accepted aphrodisiac, it's just the first (except the testosterone patch) that was developed by a drug company specifically with that purpose in mind. Want to help? Look some of these things up on Google Scholar or Erowid.org or Google and add what you find either here or to the aphrodisiac page. In particular, I know controlled studies have been done on maca and tribulus and their effects on libido (large effect) and sex hormones (no apparent effect, contrary to what most marketers say) in both sexes as well as sperm volume in men. Jtoomim (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree. GHB might be added as well. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 15:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I just made an edit

I just made an edit. Most of the stuff I changed was minor: adding comma, fixing grammar, stuff like that. But one change might be considered major.

For some reason , Special:Contributions/119.159.9.16 added the following sentence on 16 July 2012:

Many sexual activities have side effects on people's concentration and these activities include (hand practice and secretion of your sperm)the attraction towards people(male and female)happens because of the atmosphere you have around you and the environment.

For over a year now, this was the first sentence a person would read when coming to this article.

This sentence seems to make very little sense, and, insofar as it does make sense, it seems grammatically unsound. The reference to "hand practice and secretion of your sperm" sounds like male masturbation, and in no way does Special:Contributions/119.159.9.16 make it clear what connection between male masturbation and drugs she or he is drawing. It is also unclear why "hand practice and secretion of your sperm" is referenced parenthetically. Whether sexual activities have side effects on human concentration, or upon anything else, also seems unrelated to the subject of the article. The sentence goes on to reference "the attraction towards people" while providing no punctuation to indicate that a new thought is being expressed. This makes it seem like Special:Contributions/119.159.9.16 is saying that sexual activities that have side effects on concentration include "the attraction towards people," even thought attraction is a noun, not a verb. The writer follows that up by another unexplained and unnecessary parenthetical, and concludes by saying, "happens because of the atmosphere you have around you and the environment." Even if Special:Contributions/119.159.9.16 is trying to say that human sexual attraction is the result of atmosphere and environment (which she or he does not back up with any citations), the writer still makes no connection between sexual attraction and drugs.

All in all, I find this sentence to be nonsensical, poorly written, lacking in citation, and irrelevant to the subject of the article. So, I removed it.

There is only one reason why I am explaining my deletion. Namely, because this apparently nonsensical sentence has survived for over a year. Ten edits have been made to this article since Special:Contributions/119.159.9.16 added her or his sentence, and I was the only editor to take action to remove the sentence. Therefore, perhaps that means other Wikipedians see some sort of merit in retaining that sentence. If you believe that any such merit exists, feel free to offer an explanation below.

Cheers,

Allixpeeke (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Need for substantial expansion

This article needs to be greatly expanded, as this is potentially a very wide-ranging topic. Because all sexual behavior is ultimately founded on chemical processes, drugs can affect it in many different ways, and because sexual behavior is of great importance to society, these interactions often have great social implications (most notably, in present day society, in the case of abortion, contraception and date rape drugs).

• Drugs that can affect sexuality can be legal, or illegal. They can be socially sanctioned, or disapproved of.
• Some can have far-reaching social consequences (oral contraceptives, the availability of penicillin treatment post-WWII)
• Drugs with sexual effects can be ancient, such as in the case of alcohol, or novel.
• Their effects can be desirable or undesirable, harmless or harmful.
• They can benefit sexual function, or they can prevent it.
• Some drugs with alleged sexual effects are actually completely ineffective. (For example, most purported aphrodisiacs and "male performance enhancers" throughout history.)
• Their effects can be intentional, or unintentional.
• Drugs can facilitate the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases, but also treat them.
• They can have effects on reproduction, both positive (contraceptive drugs, or fertility enhancement drugs) or undesirable (abortifacients, teratogens), or, in cases such as abortion drugs and contraceptives, both, depending on your point of view.
• Drugs that are legal in one jurisdiction can be illegal in another; or even, in some circumstances, a drug that is legal can be illegal when used for a specific purpose, such as abortion
• Effects that are generally regarded as harmful, such as elimination of libido, may be viewed as beneficial in others, or even in some cases enforced by law, for example in the case of chemical castration.

And so on. This is an enormously complex topic, and it's a shame to have only such a very small article on it at the moment.

But how to structure this? The above list gives at the very least the following conceptual dimensions:

• Legality
• Social acceptance
• Desirability of effects
• Medical vs. recreational
• What aspect affected? (Desire, self-control, sexual performance, sexual pleasure, reproduction [which itself has several stages], disease...?)
• Effectiveness
• Novel vs. ancient
• Natural origin vs. synthetic
• Intentional vs unintentional effects
• Voluntary vs. involuntary use
• Use vs. misuse (which is almost the same as the social acceptance dimension)
• Variation of all the above across cultures and eras
• Controversy within cultures ditto

Should this possibly be a series of articles, eg. drugs and sexual desire, drugs and sexual consent, drugs and sexual performance, drugs and fertility, drugs and gestation, medical abortion, drugs and sexually transmitted diseases...?

Or we can try other dimensions, eg. sexual side-effects of drugs?

-- The Anome (talk) 01:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and of course the inevitable sex and drugs in popular culture... -- The Anome (talk) 02:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:Student editing

Lwm1715, I reverted this because we need to stick to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources for biomedical material. For example, we should typically avoid primary sources. See WP:Primary sources and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn Most of my sources were journals or medical research. I did have a few primary sources that I can take out. Do you have any specific advice or recommendations on which sources I should not use? Lwm1715 (talk) 10:03, 3 November 2019

Lwm1715, you also added sources like melmagazine.com and testcountry.com. Those are definitely a no.

As for "journals or medical research," that is not automatically the same thing as "WP:MEDRS-compliant." Peer review is not the same thing as literature review. Please read and study WP:MEDRS. It is clear about the type of sourcing you should be using, and this begins with its introduction: "Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies. Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content – as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information, for example early in vitro results which don't hold in later clinical trials." You should be looking for secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, tertiary sources. You can look on Google Books if that will help. It often helps me. If you haven't looked on PubMed, look on there as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn I took out any resources that may not have been fully reliable. I kept most of my journal sources because I am not trying to give medical advice here. I simply am using this to inform people of research that has been done about this subject. The previous edits that took place before me were not all medical either. I can remove other sources that the community deems unreliable. I re added some of the content but reorganized it and double checked the sources. Lwm1715 (talk) 23:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Lwm1715, regardless of whether or not you are trying to give medical advice here and that you are simply "using this to inform people of research that has been done about this subject", your material on how types of drugs affect people should be WP:MEDRS-compliant. You did better with your addition this time, but there is material you've added with this latest entry that should also be removed or supported by different sources because of the sources you added to support the material. I will eventually remove that material or replace it with better sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn Which sources or contents do you think should be changed or removed? I can go back and edit it and find better sources for the material or take it out and put new information. Just let me know which parts you are talking about. Thank you.Lwm1715 (talk) 17:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Much of it is based on primary sources... Have trimmed a bunch. The one secondary source is not pubmed indexed which raises concern. Still needs work. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Doc James, what do you think of this 2019 "Sexual Dysfunction in Persons With Substance Use Disorders" narrative review source that Lwm1715 used? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Sage is a respected publisher. It is a review. But not pubmed indexed. I think it depends on what the source is being used to support. Looks okayish. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Meth and masturbating

Someone explain to me how much you want dope and sex 174.247.240.187 (talk) 01:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Sources

More modern articles could be used to bulk up the content of the article. Most of the links appear to work. I think the quality of the journals is fine, mostly scientific and peer-reviewed, just a little out of date especially with the amount of research available on drugs GracieLemon (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)GracieLemon (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)GracieLemon (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)GracieLemon (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Fun things to do with pnp

What is something fun harmless cool to do during pnp 2600:1700:9EF0:18C0:F4A5:B603:A324:9EDC (talk) 01:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)