Wikipedia entry

Skip to: New Posts  Last Post
Posted by walkbymyself
July 19, 2018 5:51 pm
#1

I didn't know where to post this ... but I have for the very first time edited a wikipedia entry!  There's a first time for everything.

It's the listing for Mixed Orientation Marriage.  The piece as originally written, quoted "a study on mixed orientation marriage" as finding that women in mixed-orientation marriages may be attracted to homosexual men and proceed to marry them.  It went on to quote the study's author as saying that "straight individuals rarely marry gay people accidentally".  I clicked the link to the source, which was a NY Times article that went on to dispute this claim (all of which was omitted from the Wikipedia entry).  Also, according to the NY Times, it was actually not a "study" that "concluded" this -- it was a case study of a single mixed-orientation marriage.  So there was no "conclusion" or cumulative data that could possibly have supported the guy's claim; it was his own speculation.  The wikipedia entry made it sound as though there really was hard data backing that noxious stereotype up, and believe me I went ballistic when I read it.

So anyhow, I've never in my life edited a Wikipedia entry, but now if you go back you can see, I've changed it to:

"One case study of a single mixed-orientation marriage led to speculation that heterosexual women in mixed-orientation marriages may be attracted to homosexual men and proceed to marry them.[9] Kort said that "straight individuals rarely marry gay people accidentally". [13] He theorized that some heterosexual women find homosexual men less judgmental and more flexible, while others unconsciously seek partnerships that are not sexually passionate. This claim, however, is widely disputed. [10]"


Relinquere fraudator, vitam lucrari.
 
Posted by OutofHisCloset
July 19, 2018 6:06 pm
#2

I'd say you were remarkably restrained in your editing of that entry!  As if it's not bad enough to discover oneself in a MOM, to be blamed for it is adding insult to injury.  

 
Posted by Ellexoh_nz
July 19, 2018 6:08 pm
#3

walkbymyself wrote:

I've got to read this...then reread it....but...
"straight individuals rarely marry gay people accidentally".....wtf..!!!

And I've never heard the term Lavender Marriage before

 


KIA KAHA                       
 
Posted by walkbymyself
July 19, 2018 7:26 pm
#4

My head did explode at that preposterous claim.


Relinquere fraudator, vitam lucrari.
 
Posted by Lake Breeze
July 19, 2018 9:07 pm
#5

Hello Walks - Great post, thanks for doing the Wikipedia editing - a real plus for all of us!  (You know I have wondered sometimes if some women, myself included, aren't possibly more attracted to gay men than straight.  I think they can be easier to talk to, etc., but if it is known they are gay I for one would immediately relegate them to "friend" status and not consider them as potential marriage partners.  While I find some gay men easier to initially strike up a conversation with than straight men, there is no way that I would wittingly or willingly "go on to marry" one.  I was duped straight out of the bag and he continued to  deceive me and others for almost 30 years.  Never has come clean.  Sounds like what you read was someone's pet theory with no real evidence to back it up. Frightening how that sort of thing can sit there on Wikipedia, or some other source, and look "scholarly" when it is just a bunch of BS.)  Good for you!


"Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!" - Sir Walter Scott
 
Posted by phoenix
July 20, 2018 8:43 am
#6

Wow!  I'm speechless.   How could some author think that garbage to be true and actually publish is. 

Good job walk..  If I had happened upon that article I would have written something quite difference and most certainly had it deleted by their editors later.  lol


-Formerly "Lostdad" - I now embrace the username "phoenix" because my former life ended in flames, but my new life will be spectacular. 

 
 
Posted by walkbymyself
July 20, 2018 11:23 am
#7

phoenix wrote:

Wow!  I'm speechless.   How could some author think that garbage to be true and actually publish is. 

Good job walk..  If I had happened upon that article I would have written something quite difference and most certainly had it deleted by their editors later.  lol

Hah!  You should have seen the versions I wrote out and deleted first!  I don't even think this forum would have allowed my language!


Relinquere fraudator, vitam lucrari.
 
Posted by Estella Oculus
July 22, 2018 7:25 am
#8

< deleted >

Last edited by Estella Oculus (February 11, 2019 4:35 pm)

 


 
Main page
Login
Desktop format