Talk:Sexology

message: This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 June 2020 and 21 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gmackey18, M.Ocampo, Future UCSF Pharm.D., Ekocharyan, Alansfeld.
:https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%BE,_%D0%93%D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%A1%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87 Цйфыву (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

message: I have removed the following paragraph from the article and placed it on the talk page:
:The Marquis de Sade's writings on sex and similar subjects are still considered to be perverse and shocking, even after over a century and a half. He surpassed the Kama Sutra, which he makes look like a child's Dick-in-Jane book. His name is also the root of the word 'sadism', which features throughout his works. He was imprisoned for most of his adult life because he was one of the few philosophers who practiced everything he preached...Remember, when he was alive, sodomy was an offence punishable by death.
Mainly I think this does not belong in the article because sexology is the scientific, not literary, study of sex.  If someone wants to draw a connection and put the information back in, I'm fine with that, but even then the POV needs to be removed.  --Allen 03:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, -ology usually refers to the study. Does de Sade do any science, or are his grimoires more a collection of personal fetishes? Tyciol 19:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Marquis de Sade

message: This needs to be locked down. 68.209.95.147
:Agreed, seems like some April Fools vandalism. Joy. Tyciol 19:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lockdown

message: I am very surprised that Sue Johanson is not listed here.  She is probably the most well known practising sexologist today.  SJM 1 March 2007
*I don't know if she is so much a sexologist as she is a pop culture sex educator.  Jvbishop 13:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable Sexologists

message: I have just added to the main page two EL's to reading lists in sexology.  Because I am the compiler/author of one of them, I felt it appropriate to indicate such here.— James Cantor (talk) 12:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disclosure 

message: I have reverted the recent good faith edits by user:0XQ.  First, I do not believe it is established that Legman is a sexologist.  I can't say that I have heard of him before reading this edit, and I have no reason to distrust that he is notable in his field.  But there is no RS indicating that he is a sex researcher rather than a social critic commenting on sexual issues.  Second, even if it becomes established that Legman is appropriately called a sexologist, it is not clear that he sufficiently notable in the field of sexology so as to be named an exemplar of that field.  I am open to such evidence, but it's not apparent yet.
— James Cantor (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though I know the plural of anecdote is not data, I can't resist throwing in my two cents. Legman is, in my experience, known as a 'folklorist' rather than a 'sexologist' per se. Yet his work in folklorics is largely centered on sex and sexuality - Rationale of the Dirty Joke is probably his best known book. He was also an early research assistant, and the self-described biographer, of Alfred Kinsey. That seems to qualify him as a sexologist under the definition given here ("the scientific study of sexual interests, behavior, and function"). I could not speak to the question of whether he is 'exemplary' in that respect, however. Cnilep (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%BE,_%D0%93%D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%A1%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87 Цйфыву (talk) 23:08, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of [[Gershon Legman]] an an exemplar of sexology? 

message: This discussion I've started over here applies to Sexology and it would certainly be a good thing for those professionally-editing this page to chime in to that discussion. Thanks. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 18:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template discussion involving sexology-related proposal 

message: I have removed :Category:History of human sexuality, :Category:Science, :Category:Research and :Category:Analysis since they are redundant, not needed or cause "category clutter". -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: The British explorer and scholar Sir Richard Francis Burton (1821-1890) did a fine job at documenting the sexual lives of the inhabitants of the exotic areas he travelled through. Should we consider including him to the “Notable contributors” section, or would it be inappropriate to mention him as a sexologist? or, moreover, do you not think that the size of his contribution meets the contextual requirements? In other words, is he eligible for that section? 213.109.230.96 (talk) 04:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richarch Francis Burton 

message: Comments on the EL to sexual-medicine.org, placed by its apparent president?  Note that this is the second EL placed by the account.  I'm leaning towards removing it due to the COI, as well as apparent lack of establishment, the officers listed by city (not country), and Google ads on the web page.  However, to be fair, it isn't wasn't the only EL on that list that was added under a COI. BitterGrey (talk) 07:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed all but the international page, added DMOZ.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow.  I give a reason we might want to consider not keeping the sexual-medicine.org EL, and now all other ELs are gone - even the Magnus Hirschfeld Archive for Sexology, the one with the WHO reports and online library that really is international (or at least multilingual).  Sexual-medicine.org alone was kept. Could it be that WLU is determined to do the exact opposite of my wishes?  If so, the joke would be on him: Maybe I could use reverse psychology to play him like a puppet:) BitterGrey (talk) 03:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  sexual-medicine.org? 

message: This article needs more info in how Victorian sexual moors in the UK and US prevented much sexology research from being conducted in those countries prior to the 19th and early 20th centuries. We also need to mention that Victorian sexual views led many mainstream doctors to hold unproven views about female and male sexuality such the use of doctor induced orgasms top cure "female hysteria"  while claiming self-induce orgasm where against dangerous and bad. There is also the fact that anti-obscenity laws  such as the Comstock laws prevented publication of sexual research. Kinsey himself faced a backlash and loss of funding after the publication of his first report due to lingering conservative sexual views of the 50's. From my understanding, it was the U.S. Supreme Court providing greater protecting for sexual literature that had a education/scientific purpose such as scientific works like the Kinsey report that was one factor that led to sexology becoming  a recognized field in the U.S. Also, changing sexual moors and increased awareness that sexual moors of the 1950's where quit as previously though due the Kinsey report shedding light on truth about 1950's sexual practices, led to greater willingness to fund sexology research. One thing we do also need to mention is that sexology research has also sparked a backlash from social conservatives especially Christian conservatives who believe we need to return to pre-sexual revolution views on sexual morality.  Thus there currently exists an significant anti-sexology element among the right and this should be addressed. Like the science of evolution, the science of sexology is also controversial on certain circles if not  quit to the same degree. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 02:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victorian influenced restrictions on sexology research prior to WWII in the U.S. and U.K. 

message: The article states that, "Wilhelm Reich and Otto Gross, were disciples of Freud, but rejected by his theories because of their emphasis on the role of sexuality in the revolutionary struggle for the emancipation of mankind." The sentence does not make sense as written, and needs clarification. I would guess that "his theories" should be replaced with "him", as it appears to be a reference to Freud as a person, but I'm not sure. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not clear on what that passage is trying to say either.  How about changing it to "...disciplines of Freud, but broke from him in favour of their view of the role of sexuality in the revolutionary struggle for the emancipation of mankind"?— James Cantor (talk) 02:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a source for that? I'm not sure either version is sourced. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification needed 

message: Why is it called a science then? Or is it only when it studies sexuality that it is not scientific?
~~---- PeterTrompeter (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political science doesn't study sexuality in a scientific way? 

message: To crossroads-in the definition of sexology is adolescent development. This section is currently being developed for brain development and MRI studies of sexual development and the impact of hormones. I'm going to undo this edit for now. Can you tell me specifically why sexology doesn't encompass development or change the definition? Thank you!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alansfeld (talk • contribs) 17:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adolescent development 

message: Reevaluating the current state of the article I see some Sexology study areas that need expanding or inclusion in the article include:
* How puritanical/anti-sex attitudes in America impacted the field of Sexology in the 19th and early 20th Century century.
* Info on current topics of research among Sexologists such as sexual disfunction, sexual practices, improving sexual satisfaction, sexual fetishes, pornography (and it's impact in society), sexual orientation (as it relates to sexology), and whatever other area of study Sexology currently includes.
* Relationship between sexology, general medicine, general psychological, and maybe even sociology as fields of study. At least some overlap exists between these fields of study as sex plays a role in all of them to some degree.
* Areas of study in sexology that have their own sub-fields should be kinked to, wherever a separate article exists on Wikipedia. 
- Notcharliechaplin (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs expanding to better explain what the field of Sexology looks like in the 21st Century.