Talk:The History of Sexuality

message: In this article, the inclusive terms "different-sex" and "same-sex" are used throughout.  Where necessary for clarity, the terms "straight", "gay", "lesbian", "bisexual", "transgender", "queer" or other more specific terms, such as "romantic", are used.
"Different-sex" and "same-sex" do not carry negative nor positive connotations, are not in most cases the prefered term of any group or groups,  do not imply self-identification, are not historically specific.
However, care should be taken to avoid simply replacing the terms used in discussions of modern conceptions and identities with "different-sex" and "same-sex" in cases where this places aspects of these modern conceptions onto the ideally neutral terms.
Examples of prefered usage include:
*Same-sex sexuality prefered over general use of homosexuality
*Different-sex sexuality prefered over general use of heterosexuality
*Person predominately sexually and romantically attracted to people of the same-sex prefered over the noun homosexual
*Person predominately sexually and romantically attracted to people of a different-sex preferred over the noun heterosexual
These are, of course, often overspecific and may often be shortened.
Hyacinth
: Shortened, oh yes. How about PPSARATPOTSS and PPSARATPOADS ? Mikkalai 22:38, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  And by the way, since you write "the same sex" but "a different sex", I presume that you distinguish more than two sexes (genders). Do you have in mind hermaphrodites or do you plan to extend the article by sexuality of aliens? Mikkalai 22:38, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be great if the article discussed the sexuality of intersex people (hermaphrodites) and how that sexuality challenges or confirms other concepts about sexuality. I would prefer the use of gay, but this has not proved acceptable to other wikipedians. I realize some of these terms are unweildy, see User:Hyacinth/Style guide for alternatives. The shortest term isn't always the best.Hyacinth 00:53, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm glad that my silly joke gave you a good idea. Mikkalai 01:29, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Guidelines for terminology

message: So the previous version of the AIDS section sounded a little bit like "and let's not forget the role of gay people in that whole AIDS thing".  Also, the AIDS article had apparently changed a lot and the specific section this article was linking to has disappeared.  I re-wrote the section based on the introduction of the AIDS article, and I think it comes across as more neutral now.  I moved the reference to "Gay plague" (now "Gay disease") to the AIDS article itself, because "Gay plague" actually has good info about the days before it was called AIDS.  I hope you like the changes.  --Beland 03:32, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  AIDS 

message: This page has been nominated to be the Collaboration of the Week.  Add your vote to the History of Sex nomination! -- Beland 03:02, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaboration of the week 

message: Michtrich, thank you for your recent addition about the publication of the fourth volume of The History of Sexuality. Unfortunately, I have to note that your addition means that the article now contradicts itself. The publication history section states that, "The fourth volume was to be entitled Confessions of the Flesh (Les aveux de la chair). The volume was almost complete before Foucault's death and a copy of it is privately held in the Foucault archive. It cannot be published under the restrictions of Foucault's estate", which is flatly contradicted by the information you added, which states, "The fourth volume (Les aveux de la chair) was published posthumously in 2018." What do you suggest should be done about this? Since the article cannot be allowed to contradict itself, perhaps the new information should be left out until a way can be found to make the existing information in the article consistent with it? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your concerns, but I don't know how this change came about. However, I would rather opt to get rid of the part you have quoted from the publication history, because this is the part that is no longer reflecting reality as the book does now exist. I guess it is also possible to find the reason for this change. Apparently his editor Frederic Gros said in the light of the #metoo movement "the moment has come for the publication of this major and original work."https://www.thelocal.fr/20180206/confessions-of-the-flesh-french-philosophers-book-to-finally-be-published-in-france Michtrich (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the appropriate thing to do would be to carefully reword the older information to make it consistent with the new information. Unfortunately, I do not happen to have the source used - the book Religion and culture by Foucault - available. I can perhaps find a library copy. Failing that, I can buy the book and use it to update the information, but it will be some time before I can do this. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent addition