Talk:Child sexuality/Archive 1

message: Who the hell wrote the reference to them (utter rubbish) they might want to Get Their Facts Right.
* In NSW for example the age of consent is 16. It is simpily that.
* In Victoria there exists a bracket from ages 10 to 16 where it is legal with someone 2 years older or younger. The offical age of concent is 17 years old, in which you may only legally be with someone one year younger, and anyone of an age older then that.
* In Queensland the age of consent is 16.
* In the Northern Territory the age of consent is 16 for females and 18 for males.
* In South Australia sexual intercourse is allowed starting at age 12 if the other person was not more then three years older, starting at 15 it is legal if the person is not five years older, the legal age of consent is 17.
* In Western Australia the age of concent is 16 years of age.
Thank you, I have edited to false information, unless anybody has any better references to Australian Sex Laws. --Kintaro 18:52, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian Sex Laws 

message: The NPOV and accuracy of these sections need to be looked at.  Much of it seems to be more stereotype than informative.  Especially about guys always wanting sex, girls only wanting it in relationships, etc.  Where does all that come from.  Is it just the author's impression, or is there any comparative data from within the last 20 years or so to back that up???
--Blackcats 09:28, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all, IMHO. The section above, Cultural and historical variation needs to expand, perhaps. And, maybe some more sections like "Germany Today", "India Today" or smth. ---lulu- 11:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, agreed then. --Robert 11:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Removed from "Legal aspects"
:In other countries, for example, Australian children in some states are allowed to have sex starting from 10 to 12 years, as long as the age difference is less than two years.
This statement absolutely requires exact reference. No hearsay in legal issues, please. mikka (t) 07:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your exact reference is Victoria's Crimes Act 1958, ss. 45-46. DrKinsey 16:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early sex removed 

message: I qualified the intro a bit:
:"child sexuality is frequently a controversial subject, and sexual acts among children and/or juveniles are sometimes seen as wrongful and responded to with therapy or detention."
I added this:
:"Other views are that such therapy and punishment can itself cause harm."
Please don't remove the second without a solid reference for the first, preferably a reference that has opposing views taken into account, and please discuss politely before throwing any tantrums. --DanielCD 15:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: This page badly needs referencing! There are some links at the end, but virtually nothing is referenced in the text, even quotes. It needs referencing directly, as per WP:CITE 80.255.202.50 20:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. --DanielCD 21:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References? 

message: The article notes that the sections "Sexuality in different ages", "Sex play among siblings and older or younger children", "Cultural and historical variation," and "The United States today" are based on Geoff Birky's statements. However, those statements have not been published in a reliable source. They originate from his own Web site. Joey Q. McCartney 03:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should material that is copied here under public domain terms be re-attributed into a quotation, instead of being edited openly in the wiki way? Birky's text is a decent, well-sourced summary of the issue. By indenting it as a quote, you have made it essentially uneditable. I don't think that's a good idea at all.--Eloquence* 14:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You raise several issues. How is Birky's summary public domain? Joey Q. McCartney 18:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple: I contacted Birky back then and asked him, and he responded: "Certainly, I intend everything at my site to be in the public domain, to  be used freely by anyone else."--Eloquence* 20:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I reverted myself, but accidentally didn't leave an edit summary. Have Birky's sources been checked, as far as you know, that they say what he says they do? Joey Q. McCartney 00:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know; I am, however, familiar with other sources such as Spitz and Kinsey which amount to the same conclusions. As with any contribution with sources, I think the onus is upon those who dispute the claims to verify the sources.--Eloquence* 18:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geoff Birky 

message: I think in the course of editing this article has kind of lost its structure over time and needs to be restructured. Here are some issues I see with this article:
#There needs to be a separation between describing child sexuality and describing research on child sexuality. Right now they are kind of mixed together, leading among other things to repetition.
#Generally polemeic. I don't need to guess the politics of the main editors of this article. That's never good.
#Broader research, as noted above.
#Bunch of other stuff, but more specific.
Basically what I propose to do is, first, a complete cut-and-paste of moving sections around, but changing as little as possible, only enough to make sections fit together. Then we can all take a look at what needs to be added, subtracted, combineed, and referenced. I won't do that in the main article space, I'll make a draft area, and I'll note when its done. Herostratus 22:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General restructuring needed 

message: I noticed the existence of the Sexualization_of_children, and put the merge tags on both articles.  I'll leave it to you all to decide if these articles should be merged or not.  If not merged, this article should at least mention the existence of the other one, I think.  --Xyzzyplugh 23:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. I included that in the draft, and I think it should go in, although that article is a little loosey-goosey re sources. Herostratus 07:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly merging Sexualization_of_children into this article 

message: OK, I have pasted a new version into the article (per my proposal above). This edit -- which is referenced in the page history with the edit summary "RESTRUCTURING - SEE TALK" peforms these two (and only these two, unless I have erred) functions:
*Move text around without adding or deleting any text (except for necessary minor changes such as new section titles and bridging text), solely to improve the logical structure of the material.
*Remove matererial on adolescents, which is a whole nother topic (see my note in the talk page above). Per the article child - see also discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch/Nomenclature, we are using a working definition of "child" which extends through age 12, this of course being a general average.Herostratus 16:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major developmental edit (restructure + remove adolescents) 

message: I have removed these two passages, at least for the time being:
*From section "Sexuality in early childhood (Ages 0 - 5)", subsection "Peer groups":
**Occasionally, 5-year olds may attempt sexual intercourse if they have learned about it from parents or other children. This can go from anal sex or oral sex between two boys to vaginal sex between a boy and a girl.
*From section "Sexuality in middle childhood (ages 6 - 11)", subsection "Sexual activities":
**Sadistic and violent fantasies also occur: "The fantasy in connecting with masturbation, running from highly sadistic to just an ordinary sexual intercourse relationship, seemed to parallel the development of my sexual interest." A woman reported her fantasies as an 11-year-old girl about a quasi-rape by a number of men that she considered stimulating and masturbated while having these imaginations.
Here's my reasoning. For the first passage certainly, and probably the second (depending on age and how expressed), the behavior described would (I think) cause child welfare advocates to take an interest in what exactly is going in the child's environment. I'm certainly willing to be educated on this point, but I would like to see some very firm documentation on this. In the meantime, I'm not seeing that as material that should be included with the other activities described, recalling that this article is (at this time) primarily based on Western society. Herostratus 16:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problematic text 1 

message: *Moved the bulleted list to the top. It is general, while the original opening paras (begins "According to Alfred Kinsey's examinations...") is more specifically about masturbation and orgasamn. Moved, on the principle of going from the general to the specific.
*Removed an entire long passage taken directly from Kinsey. First of all, is this copyvio? Fair use does not, I think, cover the lifting of entire long passages in this manner. Secondly, This is too high a level of detail for a encyclopedia article, especially since we want to make room for more material on non-Western cultures and other material. The sentence which immediately precedes the Kinsey quote ("Children are not necessarily restricted to direct manipulation of their genitals to reach orgasm, but can actually achieve it via rhythmic movements or compression of the thighs.") is sufficient. Certainly a reference to the Kinsey material can and perhaps should be added. The removed material is:
**Kinsey described the behaviour that he observed on a three-year-old girl: [indent here, in original text] Lying face down on the bed, with her knees drawn up, she started rhythmic pelvic thrusts, about one second or less apart. The thrusts were primarily pelvic, with the legs tensed in a fixed position. The forward components of the thrust were in a smooth and perfect rhythm which was unbroken except for momentarily pauses during which the genitalia were readjusted against the doll on which they were pressed; the return from each thrust was convulsive, jerky. There were 44 thrusts in unbroken rhythm, a slight momentary pause, 87 thrusts followed by a slight momentary pause, then 10 thrusts, and then a cessation of all movement. There was marked concentration and intense breathing with abrupt jerks as orgasm approached. She was completely oblivious to everything during these later stages of the activity. Her eyes were glassy and fixed in a vacant stare. There was noticeable relief and relaxation after orgasm. A second series of reactions began two minutes later with series of 48, 18, and 57 thrusts, with slight momentary pauses between each series. With the mounting tensions there were audible gasps but immediately following the cessation of pelvic thrusts, there was complete relaxation and only desultory movements thereafter.
*From the "Peer groups" subsection, removed the two ending clauses from the final sentence. The original sentence read:
**Additionally about half of the observed sexual activities involve a partner of the same sex (In this context Freud speaks of the polymorph pervert nature of appetite of children) and thus do not have solely explorative motivations.
**The edited sentence reads:
***Additionally about half of the observed sexual activities involve a partner of the same sex.
**Reasoning: is Freud considered a vaild reference much nowadays? I'm a bit unsure of that. At any rate his work is about a century old and I'm a little leery of using him much... but in this case its just a general quote, so it would be OK. My main objection is that the phrase contains the word "pervert"... this is a highly loaded word which is likely to not be enlightening to the typical user; surely some other phrase can be found which uses terms of more understood precision. As to "...thus do not have solely explorative motivations.", this seems almost a non-sequiter. The editor seems to be saying that touching among same-sex children is not (solely) exploratory, while touuching among different-sex children is or might be? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me... again, willing to be educated on the matter, but would need good refernces there.
*Also put citation tags in a couple of places. Herostratus 17:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits to section "Sexuality in early childhood (Ages 0 - 5)" 

message: *Removed the entire subsection "Sexual fantasies". The text was:
**Sexual fantasies were observed starting at the age of three. It is unclear in how many children sexual fantasies occur. Fantasies often play a role in masturbation of children. They widely vary.
*Reasoning: Sexual fantasies can (I would think) only be "observed" in three ways that I can think of: 1) Interviews with children, 2) Interviews with adults  remembering childhood, or 3) Inference from observation of behavior, e.g. if a person masturbating is observed to be murmering "Fuck me Pikachu, fuck me hard" or whatever. (Also, brain activity can be monitored with EKGs etc., but not to level of detail of determining of the person is having a sexual fantasy, I don't think.) Interviews with children would be problematic as to veracity, I guess. Interviews with adults could also be problematic as to veracity, depending on how far back you are asking the person to remember and other factors. Inference from observation would be best, providing proper controls etc. are in place. Anyway, willing to instructed on the matter, but would need good references describing in more detail how sexual fantasies are observed. 
*Renamed subsection "Sexual development" to "Childhood sexual environment and violenc", since it is one para and addresses only that issue, not sexual development in general. Although that's not a great name, but just what I can think of for now.Also moved it to the bottom of the section as it is more specific than the other material. I think this material needs to be somewhere else, perhaps a seperate section, but its OK here for now.
*Added some citation tags.Herostratus 17:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits to section "Sexual issues and activities throughout childhood (ages 0 - 11)" 

message: *I think we want to make a strong a clear distinction between intra-Western differences (e.g., differences between the USA and Sweden etc) and global differences (e.g., differences between the West and (say) East Asia, or the Middle East, etc.; and/or differences between the West and more traditional societies; and/or differences between the developed world in general and more traditional societies.  We need to be clear when we are talking about cultural differences which kind we are talking about. Also, I think that intra-West differences need to be sorted out from differences between the West and more traditional societies.
*In general, at this time article is based on research, observations, and practices in the West. There are reasons for this - as far as I know, available research is mostly on Western societies, and so forth. Anyway - as has been alread tagged in at least one place - we need to continue to ensure that readers understand that we are talking (basically) about the modern West except when we aren't.
*This is kind of an opinion, but it seems fairly unexceptionalbe to me. The West -- really the developed world in general -- has undergone some fairly major sea changes in sexual attitudes and mores over the last half-century. This has been termed the "Sexual Revolution". Perhaps you noticed it? Anyway, some of the material in this section seems to kind of take the slant that the West is this horrible place where children are unconscionably repressed -- the beginning of the section intro, for instance ends During the Victorian era, the cultural belief that childhood was free of sexual knowledge, interest, and behavior coexisted with constant adult surveillance of children's sexuality. This produced a pervasive negative preoccupation with sexuality and a category of emotional disorders labeled "psychosexual." and leaves us there, basically in the Victorian era -- when to my mind there has been considerable change over the last decades. 
*Anyway, the whole section needs to be cleaned up of some kind of loose language, and tagged where necessary. Herostratus 18:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some notes on the "Cultural issues" section 

message: I added this section, merged in from the article "Sexualizattion of children" (fairly severely redacted, though). I'm not nuts about this section for several reasons, but it can be cleaned up. Herostratus 19:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added "Sexualization of children" subsection to "Culural Issues" section 

message: It is apparent that large numbers of children at almost all ages may engage in more extensive behaviors with each other than many adults realize, including adult-like behaviors such as genital and oral contact, and sometimes even intercourse.
**Removed, we already said that, and needs citation anyway (although earlier it was said to be true in permissive societies, here it is a blanket statement.) The rest of the sections seems OK.Herostratus 01:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits to section "Cultural Issues", subsection "conclusions" 

message: The contents of the sections was this:
*There is a dependency between intensive physical affection during childhood and violent behaviour as grown-ups. James W. Prescott showed in a study on 400 primitive peoples that in those peoples who give children only little physical affection or who were sexually restrictive, acts of violence were much more prevalent than in peoples who showed physical affection to children. Surveys in western cultures show that a high percentage of violent criminals and sexual murderers grew up in a sexually repressive environment.
Problems with this section: first, I read Prescott's seminal paper and the other material in the external links section of James W. Prescott, and his stuff is not directly about child sexuality. He writes about child pain and pleasure (punishment, cuddling) and about about adult sexuality (sexually frustrated person=violent). I mean sure you could stretch it to say he's writing about childhood sexuality, but that's really pushing it IMO. There's a huge difference between the child sexuality that the rest of this article is about and the non-sexual cuddling and stuff that Prescott is talking about. Second, Prescott is just one guy, he wrote decades ago, I'm not saying he's not right (he probably is) but enh I don't want to pick and choose individual researchers and highlight them.Herostratus 01:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems like valuable material. I hope you will not take it as my volunteering you if I ask you to find room for it in an appropriate article. Haiduc 03:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Yes, Haiduc, I read the material (a bit) and found it very interesting and worthwhile. I did not want to delete it, because I agree with the thesis, and (in my brief review) did not see any reason to suspect the rigor of the analysis. It is unfortunate that it's just off-topic for this article. I do promise to try to find one (or more) articles in which to replace it (that is one reason I saved the text here on this talk page). Any suggestions would be welcome. Herostratus 04:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subsection "Development of violence" removed 

message: I think the article should be blanked and started over from scratch. 
:Reasons
::#Too much unsourced material. Looking for sources after the fact for material is not the best way to write an article.
::#Need to have a clear idea about topics to be included before the article is started.
::#This article needs to be based on mainstream reliable sources.
::#For controversial topics, it is better to have no article than one with unverified material and few mainstream reliable sources.
This article still needs a signifcant amount of work despite the effort of a large number of experienced editors. The problem can't be the editors, so it must be the material. : ) FloNight talk 12:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that blanking is a good sugestion for any article. I'd recommend to try to start smth. new at Child sexuality/temp. Later we could compare and may be replace an old version. Some of those citation needed tags seem to me excesive. material cannot be problem anyway ;) --tasc 13:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: btw, there is some work going Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch/Child sexuality (draft) --tasc 13:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, that was the reason for my comment. I'm part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch and seeing that draft spurred my suggestion to do something more drastic. FloNight talk 13:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you could smth. drastic with the draft first ;) --tasc 13:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bold suggestion 

message: Quite frankly, this article wanted to make me puke. I didn't even know what sex was at 5, nor did I know what masturbation was. I also don't believe that all 2-year-olds fondle themselves, nor do I believe that mutual masturbation and fondling is as common as this article seems to portray. TheRaven7 20:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scientific evidence does appear to support the idea that most 2-year olds fondle themselves to some degree and that mutual masturbation and fondling are more common then you seem to think. Obviously proving that EVERY 2-year old fondles themselves would be difficult if not impossible. Individual experiences can be different then the average experience. Also, knowing what masturbation is and doing it do not need to go hand in hand. One can engage in masturbation without knowing that what they are doing is called masturbation.  --Cab88 21:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, but I don't know of any 5-year-olds that have sex as often as this article states, regardless of whether they know what it's called. TheRaven7 20:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Err, I have a half-finished draft which presents this material with more citations an in a better way and all... I promise to finish is this week. Herostratus 02:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be excellent.  It looks like a  bomb exploded on this article.  -kotra 10:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem is most of the research has been done in the U.S. Everything here has to be backed up with published sources, and if the research hasn't been done in other parts of the world, there's nothing we can do about it. Pais 20:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or most recent you know about has been done in the U.S.? I've come across much research outside the U.S., but most of it was poorly translated :-/ 68.184.85.78 02:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Does anyone know what is available on other language Wikipedias? Sadly, I don't read any language but English well enough to find this out myself. :-{  FloNight talk 21:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs reviewing 

message: "Ohio_girl_lover" transcribed this from Human Sexuality in a World of Diversity (by Spencer A. Rathus, Jeffrey S. Nevid, and Lois Fichner-Rathus), in case anyone is looking for sources. (I don't want to touch this mess.) It does not completely match up with our article. JayW 19:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human Sexuality in a World of Diversity 

message: Ok, I'm going thru another significant edit of this article (as promised weeks ago). Anything that needs to be discarded I'll try to post here for historical purposes. Basically, anything that has been ((fact))-tagged for several weeks and hasn't gotten a citation is up for possible deletion. Herostratus 08:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another significant edit underway 

message: An editor moved the Globalization tag from the talk page to the article page, which I guess is fair enough, although I think its probably going to sit there for an indefinite time, given the lack of research outside of the West. But it does give fair warning. But I would like to suggest to editors working on globalizing the article that:
*Data on non-Western cultures such as China, India, etc. would be welcome but IMO should be in separate sections for those cultures, to avoid a mishmash of data from different cultures being all mushed together, given that cultural normalization is the main yardstick used for what is and is not normal.
*I would be leery of including much info on non-Major or past cultures. Info on child sexuality among Baffin Islanders is kind of tangential to what we are doing here, ditto info on inhabitants of the Twelvth Century. Info in that area should perhaps go into the articles on those subject. Herostratus 13:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  re: Globablization tag 

message: I changed the section titled "The United States today" to "Loretta Haroian", pending a further review of the section and investigation of  Haroian's writings, since the section is based entirely on her work. 
Removed first sentence "There is little agreement in US society about what is age-appropriate sexual behavior for children, except that it must not be abusive." as uncited and overly vague. The rest of the section seems OK and I will try to find precise cites. Herostratus 23:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Loretta Haroian]] 

message: I ((fact)-tagged the entire section, but didn't remove much material. But I'm wondering if some later childhood material got misplaced into the later childhood section? Middle childhood is about ages 6 through 9. There is a lot of material on mutal masturbation, and it seems to be (just off the top of my head) that this would be more typical of older children and even early adolescence than 6-to-9 year olds. I don't know, but would like to some citations on that. If I or somebody can't come up with proper citations, eventually this section will have to be severe;y redacted, I'm afraid. Herostratus 17:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sexual activity" subsection in "Middle childhood" section 

message: 20 through 26 don't seem to lead anywhere. --Phoenix Hacker 06:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References Need Fixing 

message: :"---About non-stereotyped gender roles, and that sexual identity includes sexual orientation (lesbian, gay, straight, or bisexual)---
Taught nowhere (or one school in a thousand) in this age group (Early childhood) in the US, and you WILL be on the sidewalk looking for a job if you phrase it the way it is above. (If you want to move this to later childhood, junior high or high school, make d.... sure you check even then with you district superintendent (me) first.)
*Uh, that's from Planned Parenthood USA; I'd say that's a pretty good source. None of the material in this article describes what schools should or should not do. I guess the assumption is that parents mostly do this kind of education. However, it's not even true that diversity education for elementary school children doesn't include diverse families, at least in some school districts. That's for USA, and the article states that it refers to the USA only. Herostratus 20:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted 

message: I'm inclined to cut the art and here's why: depiction of kids having sex in fine art by and for adults is not an example of child sexuality: it's an example of the adult aestheticization of child sexuality--pretty much the furthest thing possible from a child's experience. So, I'm'a cut it.
DanB DanD 17:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fine Art illustration as "child sexuality"? 

message: What is the definitive difference between "sex" and "sex play"? Is it the assumption that one is to be taken more seriously than the other? Social class? Is it the lack of informed knowledge given to children? I believe that term needs to be defined with clear citations as to why when children engage in sexual activity, it is not simply called "sex". --Rookiee Revolyob 01:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sex vs. Sex Play 

message: This article has had way too many unreferenced statements and sections hanging around for way too long. I'm confident that the great majority of the statements are true, but that's not the issue here. This article has to be heavily referenced with verifiable, neutral, scholarly, notable, and ideally peer-reviewed citations, preferably from respected academic sources when possible. Better to have blank space then unreferenced material. So, time to scorch the earth and begin again. It's much easier to make new statements when you have the references handy then finding a reference for a particular statement. So I'm going to go through here and delete all or almost all the unreferenced statements. If that leaves the section empty, I'll delete that too. It can all be rebuilt from scratch, with good references. K? Herostratus 05:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scorched earth 

message: I moved the sentence on Tahiti into its own subsection under Culture Issues. I'm not saying that this is necessarily the best thing to do, but it seems reasonable. It seems better in its own section then mixed in with the main body. I called the subsection "Historical and tribal societies"; perhaps there's a better name. Perusing the reference a bit (not studying it in real detail) I note that some of the material goes back to Captain Cook, while one of Oliver's works cited is named "Ancient Tahitian Society", thus the use of "Historical". I think that this subsection could be expanded considerably - I know there's a lot more historical and anthropological material out there, it just isn't my particular interest. If this expansion occurs, it might be possible to eventually divide the article into two grand divisions, Modern Developed Societies and Other, or something like that. Herostratus 04:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good idea. The link about Tahiti is to a site that treats many cultures and seems pretty well sourced, so we could probably steal a whole bunch of information. My only doubt is that designating some contemporary cultures as "modern" and others not may be a bit ethnocentric. Why not just divide it up by region and then by country (basically copying the structure of the source site)? DanB†DanD 00:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random editing break 

message: How do you avoid bias in an article like this when most "mainstream" research in the Western world has come from the bias of Western Christian thought (like the WTF above)? For something to be accepted, it has to pass through the scrutiny of colleagues, many of which are also biased. I propose that, for instance, research showing the harmful results of child sexuality will far outnumber those to the contrary simply due to our social bias. My question is shouldn't we work to find a balance even if there's more "accepted research" for one thing than another, considering the controversial nature of this topic will give one point of view a much easier time in getting results accepted? e.g. 1 research paper that met a lot of social resistance carrying one POV should balance against four of another if the others come from a POV that meets less resistance? Research is rarely unbiased with subjects like these because the bias of the researcher carries through into their work, no matter how good they are.
An additional question is why this article focuses on sexuality (see beginning paragraph of article) as a "social construct" and not as "innate behavior" that's either encouraged or repressed by society? Why does it favor one line of research? 68.184.85.78 03:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avoiding bias? 

message: The introduction to this article is way too short. Usually with articles that suffer this problem the intro can be combined with the part or all of the first section. In this case I think the introduction needs to be more prosey than the first section (which works well as a first section). Thryduulf 01:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro too short 

message: One user edited some history notes regarding "child sexuality" out of the Marquesas article (which is a good example of censorship), which I reverted because (A) That user had later been banned for something else and (B) There was no talk discussion added as to why it was removed. However, then I moved the content to the "Historical and tribal societies" section this article, since it's better to centralize it, and because it's extra fluff for the Marquesas article. 68.184.84.146 00:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marquesas Islands history and child sexuality 

message: :However, the concept of child sexuality is fundamentally different from goal-driven adult sexual behavior, and imitation of adult behaviors such as bodily penetration and oral-genital contact are very uncommon,Larsson & Svedin, 1999, op. cit.; Larsson & Svedin, publication data unavailable; cited in Larsson, 2000, op. cit.
The passage needs to make clear that child sexuality is a concept. Unless the source has shown that "child sexuality" (preteen or pre-18) is discontinuous with "adult sexuality" (post-teen or post-18), and that this is widely accepted in the medical community, the words "the concept of" must remain. Given that there are differing takes on this matter (including soc. constructionist), it is in no way weasly to firmly attribute such an opinion (be it one of discontinuum or even naturally grounded difference) to the source. The opening section of the article should point out so much. ●Farenhorst 13:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification for editor 

message: This article is pretty atrocious; taking single sources, usually from victimologists and other prime outlets of the child abuse industry, and stating them as fact. Any help in the NPOV department would be appreciated. ●Farenhorst 13:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Come to think of it 

message: The feelings must be sourced otr it is merely the OR of wikipedia editoprs which is unacceptable, see WP:RS and donmt tell me "how do I know that?" I dont, which is why unosurced the edit cannot remain, SqueakBox 16:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant how do you know that children are too young to have sexual feelings. What an insult! Children have feelings all right—I know that because I was legally one until just two years ago. They love and hate, feel exuberant and depressed, and have preferences…perhaps these emotions are not as well developed or felt as in adults, but you cannot convince me that sexual feelings are not felt by children. And if you have something to say to me, say it on my talk page; I rarely watch talk pages for responses to my edit summaries and as such may not see you comment(s), and go on my way. If you can't say it on my talk page to me, don't say it here. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  20:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The study of sexual feeling and the development of sexual feeling in children is an integral part of scholarly work in child sexuality, dating way back to Freud. This does not require a citation because it's common knowledge and because it's in the lead. You say you're deleting it because it's uncited. Well, "development" is also uncited and so is "behavior" and I don't see you removing these. This is classical POV editing for which you are desperately scrambling to find a policy-based justification. Pascal.Tesson 17:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Commonn knowledge? I bet you dont have a source for that either, Pascal, and your own OR is not valid here at wikipedia. It is not common knowledge, that sounds like a get out clause to promote your own agenda., If it is so easy to source you can do so, I have fact tagged right now but if a practical solution is not found policy demands we remove it, ie it "says that any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source" and I have challenged this. I am not challengin behaviour or development and if anyone were to they would also need sourcing, RS says nothing about the lead and indeed if any material is diputed it shouldnt go in the opening full stop. But I am open to the solution Springer has suggested elsewhere as an alternative, see my talk page, SqueakBox 20:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah come on, stop being so stubborn. You can pick up your favorite book on the Oedipus complex, or any book on child sexuality for that matter. How does "Human Sexuality: An Encyclopedia " sound as a good reference?  Or maybe the Journal of Pediatric Nursing?  Or maybe the journal of the Institute for Psychological Therapies?  The only reason you're challenging this is that you're freaked out by the very possibility that children may in fact have sexual feelings. That of course is entirely your prerogrative but don't force it upon the article. Pascal.Tesson 21:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please dont assume what I think because based on your past comments you would be very wrong, you seem to have someidea of me that doesnt correalte to any reality. Thanks for the sources, I have now added them whicvh is allt hat was needed. And BTW I dont have mopre than a dozen books nor are there any for sale where I live other than catholic literature where I live so I'm limited to the internet for my own RS's, and the ones you gave seem fine to me, which is why I added them. As I said to Springer children clealry have sexual sensations but they dont clearly have the emotional maturity to have sexual relationships and the primary meaning of feelings relatesd to emotional content,  SqueakBox 21:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding these as citations is still completely silly. I'm sorry you don't have a library that you can consult but every single book on child sexuality explores its emotional aspect and this doesn't require a citation, in the same way that you don't need a citation for "behavior" (and that would remain true even if someone came on the talk page and said "I challenge the idea that children can have sexual behavior"). Pascal.Tesson 22:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm removing the sources because they are not primarily about the sexual feelings of children. I just cited them from the simplest of Google searches to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the study of the sexual feelings of children is part of scholarly work on child sexuality. Besides, the use of the term "feelings" is perfectly coherent with the rest of the article which is thoroughly cited, as well as with other articles on Wikipedia such as Psychosexual development. Pascal.Tesson 22:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Why are you being so stubborn? This is subject-specific common knowledge, it's in the lead which usually does not contain citations (in fact, these are often remove during the featured article process), it's supported by the rest of the article and by the articles that are linked to. Pascal.Tesson 23:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Give me a source that it is the subject of common knowledge, and amongst thirsd world children not merely educated westerners. I have offered several alternatives but you ignore 3rr to revert bacjk to the same unsourcded piece. If you can source please do so. I ma aware that FA status is policy, iof it is please let me know but challeneged unsourced opinion must be removed till it is sourced. I coyuld equally ask why are you being so stubborn? SqueakBox 23:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I provided sources above that clearly demonstrate that "sexual feelings" is part of the corpus of child sexuality. Open up any reference used in the article and you'll see that the emotional aspect of child sexuality is part of scholarly work on the subject. Pascal.Tesson 23:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All I want is refs in the beginning so our readers can see them. Our readers may not even read the whole article and we should certainly not expect them to open up references later on in the article to confirm this contested statement in the opening. If you can reference it, go for it. Here Jimmy Wales is an example of a good article with 7 refs in its opening sentence/statement so this references in the opening is hardly prohibited by policy, SqueakBox 00:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The idea is to cite facts. This is not a fact, it's a word. It's a word that explains what child sexuality is and nobody disputes the fact that emotions are part of child sexuality. This is what the article clearly demonstrates and the article is fairly soundly sourced. This is what the article about psychosexual development explains (though this one is not so good with references). What does the current  tag accomplish? It's just confusing and seemingly points to a question mark about whether there is anything about child sexuality that relates to feelings. SqueakBox is worried about third-world children being confused when reading the article. Wait until they get to the sentence "Freud's basic thesis was that children's early sexuality is polymorphous and that strong incestual drives develop, and the child must harness or sublimate these to develop a healthy adult sexuality", they'll be really confused once they get there. The word is obviously not intended to be understood in Janet Jackson fashion. There's as much need for a citation of "feeling" than there is for the word "behavior". What if I came in and said "children don't have the maturity to exhibit sexual behavior"? We wouldn't start writing a footnote about the meaning of the word behavior in this context. This is what the article is supposed to do. Same is true of "feelings". Pascal.Tesson 23:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, I did not ask for seven (no exaggeration) reasons why it should or should not be there. By the way I am more confused after reading your post than I ever was after reading the article; I'm sorry but your post made no sense—to me at least. Please be reasonable about this; we can't get a solution when everyone is putting a concrete wall up about why it can't be done. We are trying to achieve a result that makes as many people happy as possible, and I would appreciate it if you could try and help instead of hinder that, OK? :) —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  05:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feelings 

message: Actually technically it is six, SqueakBox; the first is in the infobox. But that is still as good model. Here is a quote from User talk:SqueakBox which is my proposed solution to the problem.
Any questions or comments? I would welcome them. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  01:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea is to cite facts. This is not a fact, it's a word. It's a word that explains what child sexuality is and nobody disputes the fact that emotions are part of child sexuality. This is what the article clearly demonstrates and the article is fairly soundly sourced. This is what the article about psychosexual development explains (though this one is not so good with references). What does the current  tag accomplish? It's just confusing and seemingly points to a question mark about whether there is anything about child sexuality that relates to feelings. SqueakBox is worried about third-world children being confused when reading the article. Wait until they get to the sentence "Freud's basic thesis was that children's early sexuality is polymorphous and that strong incestual drives develop, and the child must harness or sublimate these to develop a healthy adult sexuality", they'll be really confused once they get there. The word is obviously not intended to be understood in Janet Jackson fashion. There's as much need for a citation of "feeling" than there is for the word "behavior". What if I came in and said "children don't have the maturity to exhibit sexual behavior"? We wouldn't start writing a footnote about the meaning of the word behavior in this context. This is what the article is supposed to do. Same is true of "feelings". Pascal.Tesson 23:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, I did not ask for seven (no exaggeration) reasons why it should or should not be there. By the way I am more confused after reading your post than I ever was after reading the article; I'm sorry but your post made no sense—to me at least. Please be reasonable about this; we can't get a solution when everyone is putting a concrete wall up about why it can't be done. We are trying to achieve a result that makes as many people happy as possible, and I would appreciate it if you could try and help instead of hinder that, OK? :) —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  05:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A suggestion

message: I was considering adding some information about how thumb sucking relates to child sexuality.  Perhaps similar to the information here though that stands to be more thoroughly developed.  I was thinking that could be added under Normative Behavior-Early Childhood.
As far as anxiety, Freud says "anxiety among children is originally nothing but a manifestation of the fact that they miss a beloved person" and that they "behave as though their affection for their carers were the same as sexual love".  Further, he says that in the case of infantile anxiety, the child behaves "like an adult in turning its libido into anxiety because it is unable to satisfy it".  I think these are interesting points to bring up and somewhere in this article might be an appropriate place.
Finally, I'm confused about the organization of the "Behavior" section.  Within that section it has a subsection called "normative and non-normative behaviors" but then the next section after "Behavior" is "Normative behavior".  I think this should be restructured to have two sections(or more) under "Behavior", two being ""normative" and "non-normative behaviors".
What do you all think?  I may wait a few days for feedback, then start making some changes.  Breakyunit (talk) 06:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thumb sucking, anxiety and behavior section 

message: I am curious why the introduction to this article uses this term. Sexuality is never referenced as a phenomena in the human sexuality article. I am used to this term describing inexplicable things, it seems a bit extravagant to use here. While I can't think of a proper subsitute, I want to know if anyone else recognizes the need for a less packed term to be used and if there are any ideas on what it might be. Tyciol (talk) 03:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Squeakbox and Springeragh were insisting on a  tag after the opening phrase "Child sexuality refers to sexual feelings...". Why they did this I don't know, unless they were disputing that children have sexual feelings. Anyway seems silly to me. So fix it. Herostratus (talk) 03:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Phenomena]] 

message: They've already been used as citation in the article. The content from the article ought to be checked too then. Lihaas (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, the article needs work.  I don't see those sources in the footnotes, but so far, I've only done a quick scan.  If they are there, they should be removed. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

text: That was Martinson - a sexuality researcher who was not unreliable or self-pub. forestPIG(grunt) 20:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  'unreliable sources' 

message: Definitely needs Neutrality Disputed box. I notice that the "Normative Behavior" section is particularly biased. The perceived norms as listed are highly debatable, and a citation of Planned Parenthood, a largely liberal organization, doesn't help the case.
EDIT: Oh, I should be a bit more specific. Bias is probably most evident in the Early Childhood category that basically says you should say to 4-6 year olds that it's cool to mess with their junk and "where babies come from." Things like that. The entire section follows one school of parenting, but there are obviously alternative views held by (probably) just as many parents. --Gaming King (talk) 07:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  BIAS!!!1 

message: Explorers and researchers discovered that the Marquesas, had unique sexual customs, considered deviant to Westerners. Contact with Western societies has changed many of these customs, so research into their pre-Western social history has to be done by reading antique writings.
Yuri Lisyansky in his memoirsVoyage round the world in the Ship "Neva", Lisiansky, London 1814, p67 reports that "age was no test of innocence [...] practised all the arts of lewd expression and gesture to get aboard.... Among them were some not more than ten years of age. These infants rivaled their mothers in wantonness of their motions and the arts of allurement." Adam Johann von Krusenstern in his bookReise um die Welt in den Jahren 1803, 1804, 1805 und 1806 auf Befehl Seiner Kaiserliche Majestät Alexanders des Ersten auf den Schiffen Nadeschda und Newa (Journey around the World in the Years 1803, 1804, 1805, and 1806 at the Command of his Imperial Majesty Alexander I in the Ships Nadezhda and Neva) published in Saint Petersburg in 1810. volume I,p116 about the same expedition as Yuri's, reports that a father, brought a 10-12 year old girl on his ship, and she had sex whith the crew.
Theodor Waitz reportsDie Anthropologie der Naturvölker (1872) volume6 p124 that an 8 year old girl, "offered her self" to the ethnographers.
According to the bookVoyage autour du monde par Étienne Marchand, précédé d'une introduction historique ; auquel on a joint des recherches sur les terres australes de Drake, et un examen critique de voyage de Roggeween, avec cartes et figures, Paris, years VI-VIII, 4 vol. p109 of Charles Pierre Claret de Fleurieu and Étienne Marchand, 8 year old girls had sex and other unnatural acts, in public.
According to Ralph LintonMarquesan Culture, p168 
According to Robert Carl Suggshe is used as a source in the International Encyclopedia of Sexuality and http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=Robert+Carl+Suggs+The+Hidden+Worlds++of+Polynesia&btnG=Search in two of his booksThe Hidden Worlds  of Polynesia, (p118-121)Marquesan Sexual Behavior, 1966 :
In the International Encyclopedia of Sexualityin volume 1,French Polynesia(Anne Bolin, Ph.D.),5. Interpersonal Heterosexual Behaviors,A. Children, edited by Robert T. Francoeur publish by Continuum International Publishing Group
:The quotations above are merely cut-and-paste from an online source of dubious reliability, wherein several of the primary sources used by that source have been shown to be misquoted, contain no such material, or are fabricated (see below).Legitimus (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with this comment by Legitimus. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All the quotations, have there source stated in footnotes.By misquoted he means, mispelled.Suggs, deals with marquesan culture, not a specific part of it.There is no fabrication. What happened with asume good faith?--217.112.186.45 (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Marquesa]]s sexual customs