Talk:Child sexuality/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive This page is an archive. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. Please direct comments to its talk page.

Contents

Old talk

In the article in general, but most in the blatantly "sexuality in different ages" section, homosexuality and bisexuality are almost completely ignored. The article says things like "Many boys are interested in having sex with girls at 13... A few actively seek sex with girls", "some [boys] have regular sex with girls" and ignores that some boys also are interested in, seek, and/or have regular sex with other boys (and likewise for girls with other girls). Perhaps terms in these and other sentences should be replaced with more gender-neutral terms such as "partner", or maybe instead a note should be added at the end saying something about how these trends are same and how they differ for non-heterosexuals? --SecretAgent 01:25, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)



This page ought to include information on the development pattern of sexual orientation in children and adolescents. - Montréalais 04:29 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

"This does not mean that such behavior is acceptable. Some of the behaviors mentioned above are clearly harmful and abusive. Others would be classified as immoral by many."

This does not feel NPOV.

  • I'd say toss the first sentence, if not all of it.
  • I'd change second sentence to something like "Some of the behaviours mentioned above are considered harnful and abusive by most people."
  • I'm not sure about last sentence, especially with regard to prepubescent sexual activity. Considering that it appears to be normal among prepubescent children, I suspect that future generations will tend towards permitting such behaviour, at least in private.

Scott McNay 07:38, 2004 Feb 16 (UTC)

I disagree about tossing the first sentence, as it is factual, but I have rephrased it slightly. As for the harmfulness, let's not get into this too deeply -- as the intro notes, the subject is highly controversial, and we'll only end up explaining in detail the positions of advocates and opponents, which is probably better done in the article sexual morality. This article should be strictly about the facts of child sexuality.—Eloquence 16:50, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
I meant the first sentence that I quoted. If you think such issues should be in sexual morality, then perhaps the entire paragraph should be tossed, and add a link to sexual morality, which probably should be there anyway. Scott McNay 03:10, 2004 Feb 17 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't notice that indented quote. You're right, that's not really a very useful paragraph. I've replaced it with a link to sexual morality.—Eloquence 03:50, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)
The conclusions look strange. Why do we have to conclude? In this article, we want to list up sexual activites of children and nothing more, right? The article never says "such behavior is acceptable." then we don't need disclaimers. I would like to simply get rid of the conclusions section, which sounds like advising kids. -- Taku 05:00, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)
Couldn't it be phrased that "such behavior is not condidered acceptable" "such behaviours are considered harmful or abusive" and "immoral"? Although that seems to be too much repetition.

I tend to agree; toss the Conclusions section and move the morality link to the See Also section (which needs to be promoted a notch or two). Scott McNay 05:07, 2004 Feb 17 (UTC)

Is "pollutarche" a real word (under "Sexuality in Early Childhood")? Neither google nor dictionary.com have ever heard of it. -- Asbestos 16:32, June 9, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I translated the text without knowing the word :-)
Now I have found out that "pollutarche" is composed of pollution (=ejaculation) and "arche". The suffix seems to mean "the first time something happends". --Moon light shadow 18:42, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Well, since I can't find it in any dictionary, perhaps it might be better to rephrase "Boys until pollutarche only experience dry orgasms" to something like: "Until they start producing semen (around puberty), boys can only experience dry orgasms". Sound ok? --Asbestos 12:36, 14 June 2004 (UTC)
I realise the article is translated from German and this makes it difficult but it really would be better able to stand if each of the claims was referenced. Being a psychiatrist who has read some of the literature, nothing in the article jars except perhaps the claim "Sexology agrees that a person longs for sexual satisfaction from birth to ripe old age. Male fetuses are even known to have erections." This seems to be a non sequitur and the first sentence needs to be justified by references. As long as the article contains credible research backed statements presented in a NPOV manner then I think it's OK. At the moment it still reads as somewhat of an apology for paedophilia due to the lack of peer reviewed references to back up what it says. --CloudSurfer 20:11, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sexology agrees ...

Section of article removed:

Sexology agrees that a person longs for sexual satisfaction from birth to ripe old age. Male fetuses are even known to have erections.

I have removed this section for the following reasons:

  • The first sentence is inherently POV and unsubstantiated. It is arguable that it would be very difficult to know if an infant "longs for sexual satisfaction". If there is peer-reviewed evidence to substantiate this claim then reference it and reinsert it.
  • The second sentence while I think is true is a non sequitur in this context. If it belongs in the article then reference it and find an appropriate place.

--CloudSurfer 20:46, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I doubt that erections in fetuses are even remotedly sexual. :)
Indeed that is what I meant by saying it was a non sequitur. While I have little doubt that male (and probably female) foetuses have erections it is a big stretch to link that to sexuality without other evidence. Children have erections at all sorts of times and anyone with spinal cord damage will have reflex erections without an accompanying "longing". This is not to say that foetuses and infants are incapable of sexual longing. We just don't know if they are and probably never could know. With older children it is easier to observe goal directed behaviour and infer such longing. For that reason much of the rest of the article appears superficially reasonable. --CloudSurfer 18:52, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Unfortunately the author of the German article is no longer active on Wikipedia. Once I asked him for references for the translation, and he pointed me to "Floyd M. Martinson, The Sexual Life of Children, Bergin & Garvey, 1994". Floyd mentions erections in fetuses, but without drawing further conclusions. So I agree with the removal. --Moonlight shadow 20:18, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Unsupervised children

If children are left unsupervised, sex play is predictable.

Can we really predict that the result of leaving children unsupervised will be sex play? Mtreinik 13:17, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's not my recollection of unsupervised play at that age! At least not with the strength that the sentence above shows. I have changed it to:
If children are left unsupervised, sex play will occasionally occur.
That accords with my recollections that it was an occasional form of play but not a common one. I think the original sentence is true that one can predict that sex play will occur but as written it seemed like it would occur every time. --CloudSurfer 17:44, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
More like "may occassionally occur". I think "will" is still too strong (and needlessly alarming to some). --Ashmodai 14:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Australian Sex Laws

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)

Hmmm... The Site Quoted is Slightly out of date with certain laws, but they do not apply to this article. e.g Western Australias Homosexuality Laws were Reverted to 16yrs of Age from 21yrs of age by the Gallop State Government in 2003. Just thought I'd note it if there is any future questions. I would also do a double check with various state government websites (Victoria Acknowledges its laws in a PDF File) in case there has being any changes as that site is Circa 1998 with some laws.

--User:Boochan 13:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

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)

After two weeks or so of no response, I went ahead and did the section-NPOV fixes. Hopefully everyone's cool with them. If not, then I guess we'll talk some more here... --Blackcats 09:18, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


The article seems to be very much USA-centered. I think we need to make it more global. Right now it looks that it's only about children in USA with some exceptions... look at the header alone "The United States Today".. it says enough. Robert 02:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

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)
OK, agreed then. --Robert 11:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Why the taboo

"This is a highly controversial subject in western society."

A casual reader or anyone interested and coming here to learn about the subject may be thinking: "why?"

I myself represnt both of the above, and I'm left wanting to understand an apparent disparity between the reality and social views of child sexuality. Shouldn't there be a section discussing possible reasons why the reality of children as sexual beings is so denied in western culture and charged with emotion/hysteria? This is a fascinating area for discussion, the possibility that the widespread values and laws of western society (and the cultural view of children) may be so out of synch with the reality. Opinions welcome.

Great article, btw...

Might have socio-religious origins. The ancient Greece (or Athens?) was pretty liberal when it came to sexuality, so it must have happened after that. I'd assume Christian/Biblic reasons, but from what I know the Romans were already less liberal by the time Christianism took over, so I have no idea. --Ashmodai 08:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
We maybe need to look at what made the Romans increasingly conservative and authoritarian, then. Perhaps there is a link to imperialism itself. Powerful groups of men like to stamp their authority on anything, including sexuality. Parallels to today? However, it would be tricky speculating on the origins of this and remaining NPOV. It would start to look like liberal propaganda. However, if any objective and relevant info on this can be included, I'm all for it.User:Neural

"Child sexuality is a complex topic that raises much controversy and a pragmatic way of viewing it in any society is to refer to the legal situation as being a consensus view of public attitudes."

I'm not sure why this sentence is needed. It has been stated elsewhere in the article that the subject is controversial. I don't know why the pragmatism of accepting legal situations needs to be pointed out. It may be pragmatic to accept Sharia law on the face of things if living in an Islamic theocracy, for example, but this would be pretty obvious to anyone in that situation.

If the sentence is meant to refer to scientists or psychologists, I don't think it's too helpful to imply they shouldn't try to get any research done in case it upsets a taboo someone holds. If science is never allowed to study this area of human sexuality objectively, opinions will never change and nobody will ever get any closer to the truth.

In any case, if anyone really wants to understand child sexuality, all they need do is look back at their own horny childhoods. Kids aren't an alien species. They're us.

Silly humans. Here's to another 100,000 years of evolution. We need it. :)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/i/Talk%7EChild_sexuality_Archive1_fc10.html"