Talk:Sexual ethics

message: Hello All!
I was thinking about changing the lead section for this article to something more concise. Before I make the edit, I want to comply with wikipedia guidelines and see if anyone has any feedback on the new lead section I have written below. Any constructive criticism and feedback is welcome!
NEW LEAD SECTION:
Sexual ethics (also called sexual morality) is the study of human sexuality and the expression of sexual behavior. Sexual ethics seeks to understand and evaluate the moral conduct of interpersonal relationships and sexual activities from social, cultural, and philosophical perspectives. Historically, the prevailing notions of what was deemed as sexually ethical has been tied to religious values. Sexual ethics involve issues, such as gender identification, sexual orientation, the imbalance of power in relationships, consent, sexual relations, and procreation.
Sexual behavior is impermissible if the individual is: under the age of majority, mentally handicapped, mentally ill, under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or there is a distinct imbalance of power in the relationship. Therefore, the individual is unable to consent and it would be considered unethical to partake in sexual activity if he or she meets any of the above qualifications.
JocelynSJ (talk) 01:47, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: NEW LEAD SECTION

message: Well, here is a really crappy start page for sexual ethics. This used to redirect to sexual norm but that didn't really make any sense. Just because something is a norm doesn't mean it's ethical and vice versa. Basically I'd like to see each bullet expanded on with references to essays by ethicist. I haven't studied this at all, but I hope someone who has can fill in the blanks here. If not, I'm taking ethics next semester and I'll work on it some then.[[User:Lynden Price|Lynden Price] 09:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to take a stab.JFQ 03:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Start

message: Cleaned it up a bit, it still needs more work.  Nice start for a rewrite.
The article needs external references, citations, etc.  Atom 22:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First copyedit after re-write by [[user:Lynden Price]] 

message: I've tried to rewrite the article and structure it with some categories that seem logical while at the same time eliminate some POV stuff. I think the article should avoid saying some act is or is not ethical as that's likely to be a can of worms no one wants opened, but rather, lay out various issues and then try to give a broad sampling of different views of that specific issue. I think my categories here are good, but they could maybe use some tweaking. I also think it's worth noting that it seems that issues that seem separate in fact have a lot of over lap. Issues of power and and issues of consent have a lot of overlap, as do certain religious issues and public health issues, even if they might come to different conclusions. Ideally the article should reflect the debate rather than being partisan. at the same time i don't think it's necessary to be unnecessarily relativistic. I see no reason to go digging for obscure cultures wherein rape wasn't considered unethical, for example. Giving various reasons why various groups have justified anti-rape principles i think is sufficient. Pedophilia, however, might be a little bit more sticky. Particularly once the child-lovin' pro NAMBLA editors start showing up here.JFQ 04:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Extensive revision

message: Rather than try to just write/rewrite this article, I think we really need to add references.  It's ok to represent different points of view, but we must be open about doing that.  There is a lot that has been written on this topic so it shouldn't be too hard to find good references.  I added the needsref template because (a) only online sources are currently listed, (b) there is no inline citation.  Cazort (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ideas

message: The following link in the Public Decency section is dead
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section12/chapter_d.html
Unfortunately the section in which it is cited does not mention the target document and I have not been able to track down any support for the claim, however I have reason to believe that '[the UK has laws] concerning what dress codes and forms of wear constitute indecent codes of dress', so I have not edited the article.
91.104.191.126 (talk) 09:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs maintainance 

message: In the terminology and philosophical context portion, "in philosophic terminology..." there needs to be a quote here. This entire paragraph is filled with information that isn't common knowledge and needs multiple sources. The section about flirting is very opinionated and seems user driven rather than source based. Section about homosexuality has almost no references. All the ancient Greek ideas need to be referenced and come off as user driven. Maxpierro99 (talk) 03:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a section that explains the terminology with reference to dictionary usage.  At some point I'll hopefully get around to checking the rest of the article to see if any terms are used in dubious ways. -- Beland (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: "In western countries, the legal concept of "informed consent" often sets the public standards on this issue. Children, the mentally handicapped, the mentally ill, animals, and sometimes people under the influence of drugs or alcohol are typically considered in certain situations as lacking an ability to give an informed consent."
Informed consent is only for humans, animals should not be listed there and should be removed. Only humans can give informed consent and informed consent laws only applies to humans. Or there are animals that can give informed consent for sex?205.211.230.73 (talk) 01:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something not right in the consent text 

message: It is difficult to see what this page has to do with ethics, as opposed to a description of sexual behaviours. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's very light on the ethics and even lighter on reliable sources. It almost is filled with The Unbearable Lightness of Being Unreferenced on Wikipedia! How this ever got to "B" grade is far beyond me, as it doesn't meet any of the criteria - its sheer length at first confused me in to thinking, "this must be at least C, right?", but it's more of a stub, with lots of essay-writing and pontificating. St John Chrysostom view/my bias 01:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethics 

message: It is clearly a big project to provide sources for all statements here, though I suppose most are listed under the many sub-topics.  The other issues seem to represent that people are uncomfortable with the subject rather than anything about the article itself.  David R. Ingham (talk) 05:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Multiple issues" 

message: Except for three sentences, this article is almost entirely unreferenced. It is mostly original research. What is not clearly original research does not pertain to the topic of sexual ethics. The links in the "further reading" section (Russel, Smith) deal with the topic of sexual ethics and would make good sources, but they cannot source the present article. I propose we WP:STUBIFY the article by removing everything except portions of the current lead that can be referenced. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The extensive original research in this article is a major concern. Teammm  03:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stubify? 

message: This article seems to have issues being objective, and there are several instances of the implication of a certain act or subject being unethical, when in reality that is an opinion. There should be a broader discussion of issues involving sexuality. I also feel like "morality" is being used to define "ethics" in this article and some heavy revision may be helpful to avoid offending others. Uhlexah (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, . I see that you are with Education Program talk:California State University, Channel Islands/Ethics for a Free World (Spring 2015). Your statement about the article, as it currently is, is not specific enough. For example, while the article needs a lot of fixing up, I don't see where it makes opinions out to be facts. What I see is the article reporting on how different societies and religions view what is sexually ethical. I also see that almost all of it can be WP:Reliably sourced. Flyer22 (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article seems extremely biased. 

message: The article has some biases about sexuality based on personal ideas about the concepts rather than objective fact. For example, in the section for flirting, the author writes "flirting undertaken for amusement, with no intention of developing any further relationship, poses ethical dilemmas..." The author than lists what people may think or believe without any credible source to back it up. While some of the author's claims I agree with on a personal level, what is presented is an opinion or a more subjective statement rather than a voice of neutrality. 
Many of the sentences do not have any evidence, citation, or link to make the statements valid or believable. In the section on homosexuality, the author writes "In ancient Athens, sexual attraction between men was the norm..." but does not have any evidence if this was so or not. Most of the article could potentially be fabricated or made up for all the reader knows. Most of the "facts" the page presents are supported by other wikipedia sites which are not in themselves, reliable sources. There is a lot of work the page needs but I think that there is at least a foundation to create from. 
Delvine101 (talk) 04:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias and Lack of Proper Citing

message: Under the section for "Age of Consent" there aren't any sources cited for the information provided. For instance, the article says "In many places in the world, people are not legally allowed to have sex until they reach a set age." While this information is useful, there isn't a citation available for it so it is hard to verify its accuracy. 
Furthermore, even though there is general information provided about the age of consent, there isn't any substantial information provided. This paragraph could be significantly improved by providing specific information concerning the age of consent. For instance, the article does not define age of consent. By simply adding the definition for the term, "age of consent," it would make the entire paragraph more cohesive. Some questions this section of the article could address are: 
What is the age of consent?
Is the age of consent the same for every state?
Does every country have an age of consent? 
Are there laws concerning the age of consent? CitlaliE (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs citations  

message: I tried source number 17 & 25 and found that those pages do not exist.
For # 25 referening Yemen. I believe this is the correct source http://www.refworld.org/docid/47387b712f.html
For # 17 the UNHR Treaty bodies database has several summary records for Kuwait.  Would the most current one be the correct citation?
Also a good amount of information does not have a direct source.
For example, in the Marriage section there is a lot of info on Foucault but not source for where that info came from.
Maybe we should also add marriage info from a different viewpoint, not just Foucault.
Various cultures is said quite often and no info on what specific ones they are.  --Bridgetclu (talk) 02:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Few Citation Links Broken & More Sources Needed 

message: The section titled "Sex Work" in this article has multiple issues concerning proper citations. It is comprised of blanket statements such as, "Various sexual acts are traded for money or other goods across the world" with no citation to prove this as fact. I would like to see this section broken into smaller sections where sex work is researched by location, with descriptions of what the term means across cultures. This section does consider multiple viewpoints of sex work, on one side it is described as objectifying women, and on the other it is described as a means of empowering women. The objectifying side is lacking a source, while the empowering side cites Wendy McElroy. This one citation to Wendy McElroy is itself troubling as it, "relies too much on references to primary sources". This section needs to be expanded, and removed of any blanket statements lacking proof. Abigailgillmore (talk) 02:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems in "Sex Work" 

message: At the beginning I thought the article was going to be good because it appeared to have a lot of good references, a lot from BBC and so forth. Even though it may appear there are a lot of good references, many of them are outdated and irrelevant or their links don't work. As I continued I began to see the bias that was present. The author talks about how people flirt with the intention of never getting together. However that statement is extremely false. They were stating their opinion/ perspective as opposed to the facts and events that take place. There are a lot of normative statements instead of positive statements. Then when it talked about people in marriages committing adultery and being sentenced to the death penalty- a lot of those links didn't work or they no longer existed. Furthermore, when I went to the sex work and homosexuality section, those were incredibly subjective. There weren't any examples of countries that particularly thought homosexuality was unethical and wrong but rather the author stating that. Plus, the author talked about sex work and feminism. Although feminists may have separate views on sex work I don't believe, as a feminist, that it is divisive. Regarding the homosexuality section I think there should be more recent examples rather than only talking about Plato, Socrates, and then Bernard Williams who was born in 1929. There definitely needs to be an update regarding the information and citations. There also needs to be a much more objective perspective rather than bias statements. 
Parniav (talk) 02:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subjective with Poor Citations 

message: This article does need some extensive changes in terms of organization and content. A majority of the sections lack content and depth about the topic mentioned. For the section titled "Terminology and Philosophical Context," the last sentence in third paragraph needs a citation as well as the last paragraph in the section about homosexuality.
The sections also should be organized better by matter of importance and intensity. The section titled "Consent" would be a main issue that should go first among the other sections, especially the section titled "Flirting." 
The "Premarital Sex" section only focuses on the Western culture, but I would like to see more cultural viewpoints on the matter.
And lastly sections like "Bisexuality" and "Religion" lack content and should be explained further with more recent sources. 
The topics are pretty much relevant and remain neutral consistently enough throughout the article yet more citations and a variety of sources can make significant progress with this article.
Kcueva (talk) 07:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisions needed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Sexual ethics. 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 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
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) 04:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Perhaps this page should link to slut, perhaps in the see also section? Benjamin (talk) 12:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slut  

message: Subject to the recent discussion, for my convenience here are some good & reliable sources on the subject:
Internet
* (general) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sex-sexuality/#NormIssu
* (general) google books: companion to applied ethics, chapter 14: sexual ethics
Books
* (general) Grabowski, John S. (2003) Sex and virtue : an introduction to sexual ethics
* (on christian ethics) Gudorf, Christine E. (1994): Body, sex, and pleasure : reconstructing Christian sexual ethics.
* (on christian ethics) Rudy, Kathy. (1997) Sex and the church : gender, homosexuality and the transformation of christian ethics.
Mvbaron (talk) 08:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable Sources 

message: You asked: . The first template (This article needs additional citations for verification) imo can be removed when all sections after and incuding "Marriage" use proper references (there are basically no references in these sections). I'm a bit less clear about "This article is written like a personal reflection", but I assume it has to do with the same point? I mean in general this article isn't in great shape tbh... --Mvbaron (talk) 06:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I asked that at an editor's talk.. Should have asked it here, I guess. Thanks for your reply. Gender Roamer (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maintanence Templates 

message: moral implications of having sex 41.223.73.186 (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moral implications of having sex 

message: How to receive most from the male partner by the male bottom? 142.198.112.71 (talk) 19:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to receive most from the male partner by the male bottom?