Talk:Sexual ethics

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2020 and 17 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mackenzie maybury. Peer reviewers: Christina Albanesius.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 February 2021 and 17 March 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Thomasgraziadio. Peer reviewers: Benberg11.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

Currently, this article follows the Manual of Style and uses the American English spelling system.

NEW LEAD SECTION

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)

I removed the second paragraph from the lead--it might be more appropriately included in the consent section. wandajjune 08:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Start

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)

Seriously, this page is nothing but my POV on the topic, and I don't really know anything about it (aside from what I consider common sense). None of this is sourced, it's poorly written, etc. This page has been up for two weeks now...am I the only one who's interested in this topic? Lynden Price 21:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to take a stab.JFQ 03:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

First copyedit after re-write by user:Lynden Price

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)

Extensive revision

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)

The section on homosexuality presents no arguments, modern or ancient, against same-sex sex acts, in spite of the fact that many were put forward in both eras. The above suggests that such topics may be a "can of worms that no one wishes to open," but such issues and others like them regarding other sex acts are the core questions in sexual ethics. As presented, the article seems to assume or tacitly assert that no arguments against private choices of consenting sexual are conceivable, or that they should be suppressed, i.e., that ethics requires that this embarrassing area of ethics or pseudo-ethics should not be discussed or considered.

Ideas

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) I would like to add more content such as things that pertain to sexual ethics like sexually transmitted diseases, unintended pregnancies, sexual relations, and sexual orientation. I think the topics such as Christianity and feminist are not as important to discuss when explaining sexual ethics. I agree with the above editor that this article needs more references in order to make it more of a reliable source. I look forward to working with other editors on helping this article. Mackenzie maybury (talk) 03:43, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Needs maintainance

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)

References

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) Maxpierro99

A line reads as: "...while other cultures might view any sexual intercourse outside of marriage as unethical, with or without consent."

while the word immoral should have been used. I consider that it is critical to draw the distinction clearly to keep the objectivity of teh article and, well, just to not use wrong terms and avoid misconceptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.151.73.65 (talk) 10:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

Biased article

There is no citation at all about how homosexuality can be considered unethical . This is a shame. 87.219.84.77 (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a shame you prefer using these talk pages as your anti-gay soapbox rather than contributing to the articles.—Ash (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

part of sexual morality is the belief that some sex acts are immoral. the belief that homosexual acts are immoral has a long history, one that traverses many cultures, including many non-Abrahamic cultures. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were products of one of the most gay-friendly societies that ever existed, yet they each believed that same-sex sex acts were somohow immoral or unwise. Tibetan Buddhism also forbids it.

Perhaps you can illuminate us by providing the citations you speak of? In your comment, you clearly make a distinction between homosexuality and immoral acts. We are lucky that someone as well read as you is here, so please give us the citations from Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and Tibetan Buddhism that says that homosexuality is unethical. As I am Buddhist (although not Tibetan) it is curious to hear you say that, as that is not what Buddhism believes. Also, do you feel that "sinful" and "unethical" are the same thing? What about religions that have no concept of sin? Atom (talk) 03:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

i'd be willing to give a complete rewrite a go, one that would greatly expand the current article, but i'm reluctant to do the work knowing that because the subject is so controversial that any serious article that outlined the arguments against homosexuality or same-sex sex acts would be quickly vandalized.

A homosexual can be disorded without being immoral. We commonly think of acts and actors as immoral. but clearly the overwhelming desire to commit immoral acts is problematic, even morally problematic. i differentiate between vice and immorality, and think that vices are self-injurious. But that of course vices very often lead directly to immorality.

My overall point is that a wiki article on sexual ethics should present an outline of all areas of controversy in regard to sexual behavior and the arguments pro and con in an unbiased and dispassionate way.

There are many kinds of sexual behavior that are controversial, of course. Some seem settled --- pedophilia, zoorasty, and necrorasty, for example --- while others that previously seemed settled have become controversial, such as homosexuality, adultery and premarital sex. Others that were once nearly universally condemned are now widely accepted, such as oral sex and masturbation. Age of concent laws have moved steadily upward in the US, while much of the world still seems shockingly backward on the subject. Poe and Jerry Lee Lewis both famously married 13 year olds. In spite of this, it also seems that pederasty is impatiently waiting in the wings as the next big subject for controversy.

All of these subjects should be covered in outline, of course, as well as homosexuality.

Attempts should be made, in outline, at discussing various overall ethics that transcend these discrete subjects. to give an example, it's often said that consenting adults should be free in some way --- from societial interference? from moral approbation? --- to do what they want in private. but the examples of necrorasty and consentual adult incest seems to completely undermine that claim.

As well, some subjects covered in the current wiki article do not seem apt, such as the question of having children. It is an ethical question, but it's not a question of sexual ethics.

As for citations, I'm not good at remembering where I've read things, but I am sure about this:

As for Buddhism, of course not all sects of Buddhism believe the same things ---- otherwise they wouldn't be separate sects.

The Wiki article on Buddhism and homosexuality, on Tibetan Buddhism. I've read that the Dalai Lama left out a condemnation of homosexuality from the American version of one of his books because his American friends warned him that it would cause great controversy in the US.

Xenophon's "Symposium" and Plato's "Phaedrus" both present Socrates as advising against sex between males, even though they both present Socrates as being attracted to young men. As well, Xenophon says in his own name that he finds young men very attractive, and of course Plato's own writing gives numerous strong hints that he himself is homosexual. The entire point of Xenophon's "Symposium" seems to be both a tract against same-sex sex acts as well as a recommendation of redirecting one's erotic desires toward women, specifically toward one's wife. And of course, famously, the climax of Plato's own "Symposium" is Alcibiades' story about his own failed attempt to seduce Socrates, that Socrates treated him like his own father or brothers would have.

Plato's “Phaedrus” even goes so far as saying that the highest type of men --- of course Plato was an nearly entirely un-self-reflexive sexist --- would be men who lived with other men in a loving relationship but who wouldn't ever have sex. They'd kiss and caress each other, but that would be all, since sex with another man is so “slavishly” addictive --- a line of reasoning for which Aristotle takes his friend and former teacher to task. Of course Aristotle had his own reasons for thinking homosexuality wrong.

Like Plato, Xenophon wrote, in his “Symposium,” that one should avoid sex with other men or boys because it will render one "slavish," what I take to mean an addict and a compulsive regarding homosexuality.

As for Aristotle, i don't remember where he says it. but here's a quote from "The myths of Eros" by Keith Windschuttle (Partisan Review, Fall, 4, 1997) "Aristotle saw homosexuality as a deformed condition brought about either by natural disorder or by habit, but something that was decidedly 'abnormal.'"

The famously gay-friendly Greeks, and Aristotle in particular, are the origin of the belief that homosexuality is "unnatural." the issue has become confused, perhaps intentionally so, by claims about what nonhuman animals do. Aristotle mistakenly believed that animals did not engage in homosexual acts, but he said that animals didn't do because it was unnatural rather than claimed that it was unnatural because animals didn't do it.

"Nature" has many meanings. We tend to think of wild nature, the world of plants and animals. but that's not the original meaning of the term. Aristotle appealed to innate nature, and not the nature of individuals but rather to the nature of different classes things, including specifically to the shared fundamental nature of human beings. certainly it's in the nature of liars to lie and theives to steal, but that wouldn't justify theft or lying, even by theives or liars.

Aristotle was a teleologist. he said that nature was "purposeful activity." the purpose of sex is procreation, and sexual acts that are not guided by that purpose are, for teleologists, unnatural. there's a clear parallel in Tibetan Buddhism, where all non-penis-in-the-vagina sex is condemned, including masturbation and oral sex (wiki article on Buddhism and homosexuality).

The body has structures and these structures have clear purposes. A well ordered body works a particular was, in accord with those purposes, and our reason can reveal those forms and functions to us and so should act as a guide for us. Our psyches are sometimes disordered, of course, and cause us to do things that are self-injurious. Aristotle says that we should take our guide from healthy examples rather than unhealthy or disordered ones.

Aristotle is a virtue ethicist. Plato was too, in his own way. Virtue ethics aims at the perfection of the individual. A irredeemably disordered person may not be capable of perfection, of course.

It often seems as if the main argument that gay people and their supporters use to justify homosexuality is the simply existence of it. But of course many disordered and unhealthy things exist in the natural and the human worlds. Of course, as well, most of those things are not chosen. We don't chose to get sick, for example, and of course nonhuman animals get sick just as humans do.

Thank you for your comment and opinions. I don't want to sounds as if I am arguing with you or attacking you. In my opinion, your comments seem to show a good cross-section of why you feel the way you do. Certainly no one disputes your right to have your perspective or values.

As a heterosexual gay rights supporter I don't agree with most of your views. I could give a lengthy discussion of why I feel as I do and have those values and ethics. I am certain that numerous other people could chime in with their opinions on both sides. The article however, needs to stay on-topic, and it has to be devoid of our opinions. Facts stated need to be supported by citations from reliable sources.

There are a number of religious people that feel that certain acts are sinful. Anal sex would be one of those. Of course the incidence of anal sex and other types of sodomy are prevalent in our culture, and occur more frequently in number amongst heterosexuals than with homosexuals (as the proportion of heterosexuals to homosexuals is estimated to be larger by about 7 to 1). If you are trying to suggest that people who practice one or more forms of sodomy are acting unethically, then this affects a wider scope of people that just homosexuals. And then -- Is a sinful act an unethical act?

But sinful acts are not unethical by nature, or by default. There is a difference between the two. Something considered sinful by one group is not sinful by others. Some religious groups have no concept of sin at all. Some acts that are considered to be sinful when performed by a person, may not at the same time be unethical. (for instance, by your beliefs, if you were to choose to masturbate that may be a grave sin by your values, but is not generically unethical. Although it may violate your own personal ethics.) So there is no correlation between sinfulness and ethicality.

Homosexuals are people who love one another and want to spend their lives partnered together. The couples happen to be people of the same gender, rather than of opposite gender. There is nothing inherently unethical about that. There are a variety of interactions between couples that could be considered to be unethical (infidelity for instance) that effect both heterosexual and homosexual couples.

Your original premise was, as I recall, "There is no citation at all about how homosexuality can be considered unethical". Homosexuality is never unethical, just like heterosexuality is never unethical. Acts one performs could be considered to be unethical -- but that applies regardless of the preference one has for a life partner. The reason that no one has described that homosexuality is unethical, and cited it, is because it is not unethical, and there are no citations to support that.

Atom (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Atom,

you are disagreeing with me, but not about facts but instead about what you've inferred as my own opinions regarding one aspect of sexual ethics.

Wikipedia is not a proper forum for discussions about our own opinions but instead an encyclopedia that gives facts in outline, including reporting disputes about various opinions.

but my point is that some people --- many people --- and many cultures, religions and thinkers across human history and the world have thought it unethical. we can't simply dismiss the facts of ethical systems which condemned homosexuality and same-sex sex acts with an impatient wave of our hand by declaring that it's not unethical.

the wiki article should seek to discribe the various philosophical and religious arguments and claims made to support approvial or disapprovial of various sexual practices and desires. of course it should include citations to source the arguments. but an encycopedia article on ethics doesn't seek to prove one ethical point of view or another, but instead seeks to outline all the most important points of view. and as i've said, the belief that same-sex sex acts are immoral or unethical has a very long transcultural history.

ethics, as opposed to morals, is a system of believes about right behavior --- about morality ---- and obviously many ethical systems claim and have claimed that same-sex sex acts are unethical and immoral. different thinkers and ethical systems, including some religions, have given reasons and even rational arguments for their disapprobation of it. a wiki article on sexual ethics needs to cover the topic fully.

as well, frequency of a behavior or practice doesn't rationally justify behavior. many people lie or steal all the time and probably everyone steals or lies some of the time, but that can't, in and of itself, justify lying or theft.

and sin is a different matter than ethics, of course. but clearly some sins are immoral and unethical, such as murder and theft. the widespread belief among so many religions that one or another sexual behavior are sinful, and that same-sex sex acts are sinful in particular, points it as being morally problematic, just as many many religions condemn lying and adultery.

often philosophy seeks rational justifications for our traditional prejudices, including those of religion, just as several rationals have been offered for Islam and Judaism's ban on eating pork. but that is not the same as merely seeking to "rationalize" our prejudices.

i happen to be a life-long atheist, so please, don't pigeonhole me as seeking to justify the dictates of my own faith.

my focus is on the things that i believe that the article should cover rather than attempting to present my own views --- although perhaps because i do think that homosexuality is immoral or rather a disorder, it's more obvious to me than someone like you that something is missing in the current wiki article.

i myself believe that masturbation is morally justifiable, among other reasons for health concerns for men, and that even oral and anal sex within a opposite-sex marriage are natural, in a teleological sense, because among humans sex doesn't only serve the direct purpose of procreation but also that of pair bonding that aims at procreation. i even think that good arguments can be made in support of same-sex sex acts between sister-wives in a polygynous marriage, since they could perhaps reduce tensions and help bond such sister-wives in a procreative polygynous marriage.

the article should cover areas of controversy and even areas of agreement because sexual ethics is, as I've said, about the attempt to rationally authorize both various sexual behavior as well as their approbation and disapprobation.

some ethical systems condemn homosexuality and same-sex sex acts. wiki in an article on sexual ethics should cover the reasons that they do so, as well as the arguments on the other side. the same for oral and anal sex, zoorasty and necrorasty, pedophilia and pederasty, sex outside marriage, monogamy and polygamy, and even rape, since there are so many types of sexual behavior and, obviously, sexual ethical systems and beliefs cover them all, either systematically or on an ad hoc basis.

Something not right in the consent text

"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)
----

i think that the problem of animals and consent is that animals can't give consent, and therefor some people think that that's why we shouldn't have sex with them. however, i don't think that that stands up to examination --- not that i think that sex with animals is ever justifable --- because we exploit animals in many ways in spite of the fact that they can't give consent. it seems very odd to claim that we can kill them for food or enslave them but not have sex with them because they can't consent to sex with us. i have other reasons for thinking sex with animals wrong, of course.

but these concerns point to other problems when it comes to having consent as our sole guide. we allow parents to consent for their children in every thing but sex. could a parent give consent for their 10 year old to have sex with a 40-year-old man? on the other hand, we could imagine that a guardian could consent for a retarded adult to have sex with that nice man next door. so i think that the problem with age difference is only in part related to informed consent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.29.203 (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Ethics

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)

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)

"Multiple issues"

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)

Stubify?

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)

I agree. The extensive original research in this article is a major concern. Teammm ^talk
_email 03:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Article seems extremely biased.

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)

Hello, Uhlexah (talk · contribs). 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)

Bias and Lack of Proper Citing

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)

Needs citations

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)

A Few Citation Links Broken & More Sources Needed

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)

Problems in "Sex Work"

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)

I agree with the above statement there needs to be more evidence on how sex work objectifies women and how it empowers women. There should also be text about how sex work applies to men, that would add a more comprehensive study of the subject. --Lstaben15 (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)Lauren Staben

Lack of Reliable Sources & Ignored Topics

I clicked on several links, specifically #5 and #6, that someone used and they aren't reliable sources because it is a blog. In addition, the author of the blog- Heather Corinna- used social media (via Twitter responses) to help define what "good sex" is. In addition, I noticed that an immense number of middle eastern countries are referenced, but are rarely mentioned. Shouldn't the citations be from around the world to help present multiple perspectives? This Sexual Ethics wikipedia page is very definition oriented and does not provide much perspective beyond that (e.g the topic of premarital sex). There is absolutely no mention of the topic of transgender, cisgender, intersex, etc, which is a gross underrepresentation. Every aspect of this article needs to expanded and improved upon.

JocelynSJ (talk) 06:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Should I Expand Upon Premarital Sex?

I want to expand premarital sex by comparing it across different countries/cultures. In addition, I want to trace the taboo of it throughout history and religion. However, I am also thinking about maybe adding to the lack of a transgender, cisgender, and intersexuality sections. Please take a look at my references. I am open to any suggestions and feedback.

References

Anonymous. "CORRELATES of SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE in INDIA." International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health37.3 (2011): 112. Print.

Chilisa, Bagele, et al. "Why Wait €˜til Marriage? The Determinants of Premarital Sex among Adolescents in a Country in Sub-Saharan Africa: Botswana."

Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment23.8 (2013): 972-979. Print.

Editors, The New Strategist. American Generations: Who They Are and How They Live.8th ed. Amityville: New Strategist Press, LLC, 2013. Web. Consumer

Series; Public affairs pamphlet (Public Affairs Committee), Consumer series.7960484.

Gibbs, Susannah E., et al. "Peer and Community Influences on the Acceptance of Premarital Sex among Vietnamese Adolescents." Journal of Paediatrics

and Child Health 50.6 2014): 438-443. Print.

Zheng, Weijun, et al. "Detraditionalisation and Attitudes to Sex Outside Marriage in China." Culture, Health & Sexuality 13.5 (2011): 497-511.

Print.

JocelynSJ (talk) 06:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Subjective with Poor Citations

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)

In the section about individuals and societies the first sentence "Most societies disapprove of a person in a position of power to engage in sexual activity with a subordinate" needs to have a source. What societies? Which societies do approve and which don't? Also when it talks about the laws that exist against the abuse it should have what the laws are and source of where they were listed. Another issue is in the sex work section it mentions that "Traditionally, in many societies, the legal and ethical burden of guilt has been placed largely on the sex worker rather than consumers." what societies? Where is it ever listed that the guilt is placed on the sex worker? I also think that is needs a source for the "In recent decades, in some countries, such as Sweden, Norway and Iceland, the legal burden of prostitution has been moved solely to the consumer." Where is the source that it was switched?

The biggest issue is that most of this is not cited or linked to anything that has any credibility. There is no way to trust the information because it seems as though its hearsay rather than actual facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdd18 (talk • contribs) 05:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Revisions needed

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)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

This article should be rewritten

I teach this subject at the college level, and I think this article should be rewritten almost entirely. Would anyone object if I did a rewrite? Are there any parts of this article that should absolutely be kept?

Wandajjune (talk) 23:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Wandajjune, judging your very first edits, it's clear to me that you are not a WP:Newbie. A lot of what is in the article should be kept but worded better and sourced, or sourced better. For example, you removed this from the lead, but, per WP:Lead, material addressing that should be in the lead since it is addressed lower in the article via a section. And since it is content that concerns sexual ethics, that information should be in the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

And just so we are clear, yes, I am opposed to you rewriting the article from the ground up. I would prefer to see what I would be getting. Surely you know how to use your WP:Sandbox, craft a version there and then propose that your version be added. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, yes, I'm a newbie (you said it's clear that I'm not a newbie, but I suspect that's not what you meant). I didn't know about the Sandbox yet. I'll check that out. Thanks! Wandajjune (talk) 19:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Wandajjune, no, I meant that you are NOT a newbie. True newbies do not join a WikiProject for their very first edit. This is because they do not know what a WikiProject is, unless they are a WP:Student editor, or the teacher of WP:Student editors, and have been told what a WikiProject is. Unless they are a student editor, or a teacher of student editors, they almost never create their user page for their very first or second edit. You did so. They almost never continuously sign their username when replying; they usually forget to do so the first few days to a month, especially when it comes to their very first talk page post. They almost never WP:Indent (although a few catch on to copying the indent style without being told of it). And yet you have. So, no, I am not convinced that you are a newbie.

As long you edit properly, there is not much I can do about your non-new status. Some returning editors are returning under a WP:Clean start account. Some are WP:Socking. Some are using an alternate account per WP:SOCKLEGIT. It is what it is. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, I was confused about what you were getting at. I actually am new to Wikipedia, believe it or not, and you're the first person I've interacted with here. I joined Wikipedia precisely because I'm interested in helping those WikiProjects. I've always thought Wikipedia was a great resource, but many of the ethics and philosophy articles are of disappointing quality. I want to help improve the quality of those articles. I also tried my best to learn about the technology and the norms here before making my first edits because I didn't want to rub anybody the wrong way. I guess you can't win here. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Wandajjune (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Slut

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

Christian Ethics

hej Edit5001 (talk · contribs) I reverted one change to the lead, it didn't seem to be an improvment over the existing lead - also, don't you agree that the bit about China should go into the body?

Thank you for the additons on christian ethics, it is definitely missing in the article. One thing though: there is really no shortage of reliable/academic sources on christian ethics, the two sources you added are not RS. I'm sure you/we find way better sources e.g. on JSTOR or a library. --Mvbaron (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the Asia addition is good for the lead because the lead currently only mentions two different views of sexual ethics; religious and feminist. However, countries like China are neither religious (at least in the Western sense of the word) nor feminist, and still maintain strict sexual standards. That's a pretty important viewpoint that I think is worthy of the lead rather than just the body.

In regards to the sources for the Christianity section, I had a tough time finding superior ones, but if you could help find more it'd be appreciated. Edit5001 (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I didn't reply sooner. Regarding your second question about sources, the problem is rather that there are too many reliable sources on Christianity and sexual ethics so that it is difficult to summarize. The best starting point here would be to look through JSTOR or a library for handbooks or summary articles. I'll have a look as well. In the meantime I'll move the whole Viewpoints and historical development section here to improve - the esxisting link list is of no encyclopaedic value either.

Viewpoints and historical development Religion See also: Religion and sexuality The Woman Taken in Adultery by Rembrandt depicts Jesus and the woman taken in adultery. Religion affects views on issues in sexual ethics, including adultery.

Many cultures consider ethics and morality to be intertwined with religion. Some acts that might be considered ethical or unethical from a religious standpoint include:

Adultery Contraception Religious views on birth control Christian views on contraception Islamic views on contraception Jewish views on contraception Homosexuality Masturbation Promiscuity Various paraphilias Prostitution Rape Paraphilia Main article: Paraphilia Christianity

Christian denominations generally hold that sexual morality is defined by natural law and God's commandments. Morality for Christians is thus the application of God’s laws regarding private and public behavior. In many cases, the Bible has direct statements on the acceptability of certain sexual acts. Natural law is also heavily emphasized in Christian sexual ethics.

Marriage and reproduction are key factors in Christian sexual morality, particularly in the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Mvbaron (talk) 07:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

(additionally) I changed some edits back: there was another paragraph sourced to a blog, and some mistakes. (ethics is not concerned with the success of civilizations; and some ungrammatical bits) Mvbaron (talk) 07:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I've added some improved references, mainly those that focus on Christian ethical views. I also disagree with some of the minor changes you made to what I wrote - for some examples, the words "sometimes" and "many" are preferable to the previous version before I made my edits. Edit5001 (talk) 07:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit5001, yes these are fine. But I think the list of links should definitely go - and turned into prose. It looks horrible. Also ethics doesn't really have anything to do with promoting prosperity or the sucess of civilizations. (but that's minor)

But, most of all you simply replaced the non-RS sources with RS sources but did not change anything in the content, this makes me a bit suspicous, but I am assuming good faith (and will check the JSTOR-article you used now) Mvbaron (talk) 07:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit5001, thanks for adding the correct citation template! it looks very good now! Btw, do you have access to the whole paper by Cahill? It has a lot of good content in it, and it (plus maybe some more sources like it) would provide enough material for a really good section on christian ethics! Mvbaron (talk) 07:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I believe a JSTOR account is needed to view all of the pages which is what I've been using. Edit5001 (talk) 08:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

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)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5885289/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4449999/ Mackenzie maybury (talk) 03:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Maintanence Templates

Gender Roamer You asked: Since the page is being worked on, do you know when the tags can be removed from the top of the sexual ethics page. 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)

Yeah, I asked that at an editor's talk.[1]. Should have asked it here, I guess. Thanks for your reply. Gender Roamer (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Moral implications of having sex

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

How to receive most from the male partner by the male bottom?

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