Talk:Sex and the law

message: Why is only same-sex marriage listed in the subjects box?  Obviously marriage laws affect sex regardless of the genders involved.  I'll change this to just "Marriage" unless someone has a good reason to keep the more limited term.
75.73.18.0 (talk) 02:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Marriage

message: There are numerous generalizations here.  Statistics would help but might be an enormous job to maintain and might put folks to sleep if carried to extremes.  Still, it could be done and statements like "Overt puritanism implies covert abuse" seem to need more support; if these "puritan" societies are also leaders in prosecuting abuse, it could be that the same abuse is just not publically visible in other societies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.199.110.120 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 22 January 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ditto 

message: Prostitution and Sex between juveniles may or may not be "Victimless". Whether or not they are is POV. The spread of sexually transmitted diseases can be attributed to protitution, and sex between juvenile (depending on how you define "juvenile"- i.e. is 16-17 juvenile? or can it be less?) can be harmful to the psyche. Therefore I am removing "victimless", as being POV unless someone can convince me otherwise. Angrynight 21:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Victimless?

message: I am taking out necrophilia from common sex crimes.  It is amazingly rare, and most area's don't have law's against it because it almost never comes up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.103.9 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely it's not amazing that it's rare .... <g> --19:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: necrophilia

message: in norway. if a 14 year old boy/girl, has sex with a Boy/girl who is 15. the 15 year old has comited a crime. 
that is wrong. what if they can both prove that they both wanted to have sex with each other?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demothones (talk • contribs) 09:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Statutory rape is a crime in a number of jurisdictions, some have irregular scenarios like you described, others don't.  It belongs and is thoroughly discussed in the article on Statutory_Rape#Romeo_and_Juliet_laws laws.  The moral value of statutory rape laws is discussed in Age_of_consent_reform#Close-in-age_exemptions -O76923 (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  sex as in love 

message: Should we mention homosexuality as a crime? It has up until recently been a crime in many western cultures and still carries the death penalty in 8 countries (if memory serves me correctly). It is worth mentioning that. Cryo921 (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Homosexuality

message: The article on Zina makes no reference to polygamy, it is instead details Islamic Law regarding extramarital sex.  I think its mention stems from confusion that Zina is related to the allowance to have 4 wives according to the beliefs by some Muslims.
O76923 (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Polygamy reference after Zina 

message: I've just seen the excellent documentary on Bill Clinton (from American Films Experience on PBS ()) where he was presented with a definition on having sex by law (I don't remember from where this came), and then asked (supposedly a semifamous question) whether he  had sex with Monica Lewinsky by that definition. I believe this article would benefit from describing the "definition of having sex" by law? I assume that there  will be different definitions as there are different laws (e.g. different states, countries etc.). So the article should describe these different definitions so that the reader can see them. From a legal point of view, I believe that a good definition should clearly define what is meant by "having sex" (by law) so that when one is asked "Did you have sex with X?" in court then you can answer clearly from the definition. Maybe a legislator or lawyer will be able to give the definition. I found a few places on the Internet where the definition is discussed, e.g. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=358663. It do indicate that it is not a simple question to answer in general, but what does the law(s) say? ~ Misuo (talk) 08:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of having sex (within the law)? 

message: I don't think Female Genital Mutilation should be covered in this article as it doesn't, in my opinion, fit into the category of "Sexual". Do you agree it should be removed? 178.103.133.251 (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It belongs in this article because, in addition to being about custom for some cultures, it has to do with affecting a girl or woman's sexuality (their enjoyment of sexual pleasure). Flyer22 (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I also added some information to more explicitly show how this topic relates to this article. Flyer22 (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Also tweaked it again. Flyer22 (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

text: I agree that Female Genital Mutilation is not sex, and the section should be moved to the main article, to the extent that it is not there already. Enjoyment of sexuality is well and good, but that does not, in my opinion, fall within sexual activity in itself. There seems to be general lack of distinction in several articles between sexual activity and sexuality. A better home for FGM may be in the sexual assault or similar article. Enthusiast (talk) 00:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Female genital mutilation being in this article is not about whether or not it is sex. I made clear above why female genital mutilation belongs in this article. As you know, I noted similar reasons here when I reverted you (and here in the followup note). This article is mostly about sex crimes, which is why sex crimes redirects here (and should redirect here), and female genital mutilation is a sex crime in parts of the world; various WP:Reliable sources state that. I can provide such sources if you would like. Many laws extend sex crimes to mutilation of the sex organs, such as a brutal assault that intentionally involved physical harm to the sex organs. Such brutal matters are about sex because the intention is, at least in part, to affect the person's ability to engage in sexual activity. Likewise, female genital mutilation is often about affecting a girl or woman's ability to engage in sexual activity, not just her sexuality. And that is why this edit by you is not entirely correct. Human sexuality is indeed an aspect of "sex and the law" or "sex crimes." I'm going by WP:Reliable sources on this matter, as I usually do when it comes to building content on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 01:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

text: That stated, and as you know, I moved the Female genital mutilation section down because it did not belong as the first section in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 01:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As a lawyer, let me say that FGM is a crime, but I have never seen it listed as a sex crime. Check the list of sex crimes in the article, irrespective of what your so-called reliable sources say. Besides that, it's nice to see you still double-checking me. Enthusiast (talk) 02:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You have not looked hard enough if you have never seen it listed as a sex crime, as it is with regard to the New York State Penal Law; yes, it is listed in that regard as a sexual offense...which also redirects to this article and is a synonym for sex crime. That is not a so-called reliable source; it is a reliable source, and, like I stated, there are various more in similar vein. I suggest you also check out some Google Books sources on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 02:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not have a particular care for the topic; the issue is of no consequence. However, I note that the New York law includes it in a list of sex offences, which is not the same as a sex crime as normally understood. This should be mentioned in the section. On the other hand, the UK Acts merely call it an offence. Perhaps they should be removed from the article. I leave it to you. Enthusiast (talk) 04:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I stated, sexual offense is a synonym for sex crime; they are not distinguished in law, as far as I have seen. I have only seen them used as synonyms for each other in law, and in general. And either way, this article is not titled Sex crime or Sexual offense; it is titled Sex and the law, and seeing as both sex crime and sexual offense redirect here, this article including sources that use either or both of those terms is further validated. Due to not having fully digested your "UK Acts" mention, I was going to state: "And what are you proposing be removed from the article? I don't see how inclusion of the term sex crime can be validly removed from the article; not only is its inclusion covered by WP:Reliable sources, it is a WP:Alternative title. And I cannot see how the section on, or any mention of, female genital mutilation, can be validly removed from the article, given my above posts on that matter." But now I see what you meant by removal. I don't believe that should be removed, but, for now, I'll leave it up to someone else to revert that. I will eventually do something with regard to your aforementioned "human sexuality" edit if you don't, however, because, like I've noted, the lead is less accurate because of it. Flyer22 (talk) 04:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  FGM 

message: Hello. "Sex and the law"... "Sex and the law"... Which law? Whose law?
In other words, might this article (and accompanying template) be better named "Sex and law" or the like..?
CsDix (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind either title. You can address the title of this article at WP:Requested moves. Flyer22 (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

text: * Thanks for the suggestion. I've just initiated a rename request in the next thread. CsDix (talk) 03:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I just saw that sexual offense redirects to this article (which I'm sure I'd seen before, and I'm about to redirect the plural form here as well; both of the British spellings already redirect here). Seems like that (the plural form) would be an okay title for it. Not sure about it being titled Sex crimes. Flyer22 (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
*Support. Like I stated in the #Article title section above, I don't mind either title. CsDix's suggestion is on-target. We don't need the word the in the title. Flyer22 (talk) 03:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I did, I just think this is a common way of phrasing a topic's relation to law as a discipline. See, for example, Populations, Public Health, and the Law, Language, Meaning and the Law, or A Guide to Oral History and the Law, just to cite a few more recent publications. I don't think the phrase "the law" necessarily has to refer to particular statute or system. Is this an WP:ENGVAR thing? --BDD (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: BDD also has a good point. The words "the law" can simply be taken by any reader to apply to the law in their jurisdiction or country, as well as to others mentioned in the article. The article is clear, after all, that we are not referring to any one particular law in any one particular jurisdiction or country. Flyer22 (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I guess I'm walking back toward the fence, i.e. I'm not sure either way now. I suspect the outcome here will be "no consensus", so no change – and so be it, if so. CsDix (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Sex and the law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130605002946/http://www.kopple-wolf.com/lawyer-attorney-1139001.html to http://www.kopple-wolf.com/lawyer-attorney-1139001.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130605002946/http://www.kopple-wolf.com/lawyer-attorney-1139001.html to http://www.kopple-wolf.com/lawyer-attorney-1139001.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130605002946/http://www.kopple-wolf.com/lawyer-attorney-1139001.html to http://www.kopple-wolf.com/lawyer-attorney-1139001.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130510180701/http://www.e-ariana.com/ariana/eariana.nsf/allArticles/807B10B75C9F425487257A740056F9CD?OpenDocument to http://www.e-ariana.com/ariana/eariana.nsf/allArticles/807B10B75C9F425487257A740056F9CD?OpenDocument
*Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20081026065259/http://www.aidsportal.org/news_details.aspx?ID=4236 to http://www.aidsportal.org/news_details.aspx?ID=4236
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130801084310/http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1142.html to http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1142.html
*Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20160516065620/http://www.interpol.com/Public/Children/SexualAbuse/NationalLaws/csaOman.pdf to http://www.interpol.com/Public/Children/SexualAbuse/NationalLaws/csaOman.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Here's a link to a NYT op-ed piece, When Junk Science About Sex Offenders Infects the Supreme Court:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/12/opinion/when-junk-science-about-sex-offenders-infects-the-supreme-court.html
--196.251.88.15 (talk) 03:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent, 2017-09-12, New York Times editorial 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sex and the law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/apr99/..%5Csyllabi99%5CApril%5C126545_syl.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/apr99/..%5Csyllabi99%5CApril%5C126545_syl.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012185027/http://www.lawskills.com/case/ga/id/41260/ to http://www.lawskills.com/case/ga/id/41260/
*Added  tag to http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/apr99/..%5Csyllabi99%5CApril%5C126545_syl.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I reverted this latest move of the article by Anthony Appleyard at the request of Mr Kalm. Per the 2018 move discussion above, this is not an uncontested move matter. It should be discussed per WP:Requested moves. Mr Kalm or someone else can start an official requested move discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, while anyone can edit Wikipedia and bold is great, moving a long-standing page should occur after inviting discussion on talk. Just "I'm planning to move this to X. Any thoughts?" would do, then wait 48 hours. Johnuniq (talk) 03:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest move 

message: Under Specific offences
(varies by jurisdiction)
please add
*Forcible touching
2603:7000:2101:AA00:79C8:18F2:59F9:859F (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add