Does anybody else think that maybe this page is too politically correct?
Hide / Show Replies
YES. The article needs to take a neutral stance. In particular, it seems to be used as an attack on anyone who holds traditional values, in terms of sexuality, not an article informing people of the trope.
I'm assuming that the traditional attitude under discussion is NOT that everyone who doesn't have heterosexual sex in the missionary position will permanently burn in Hell, and that this needs to be stated at least once per section. It would, I suppose, be that "vanilla" het sex, perhaps but not necessarily with the usual "strawberry" variation to oral, is preferable to all other variations.
IF so, my skimming suggests that either somebody already has edited the article to take a neutral, factual stance—or else I'm missing how it's an attack on anyone except the intolerant. (See, esp., the "Asexuals", "Ex-Gay", and "Virgins" sections, for swipes at the smug left.) If somebody can convince me otherwise, I'd very much like to see what I could do to improve the piece.
Final thought: SURELY you aren't reading the statements in those three sections—which, as in all the other cases, represent the uninformed ideas of those using those groups as targets—as statement of fact, are you?
Attitudes in atheist countries
I'm going to revise "because they considered it a product of capitalism" to "[semicolon] they considered it a product of capitalism". I'd bet a small amount of real money that the causality was the other way, but I can't prove it.
Re cut: It was decided here
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman