Talk:Sexual ethics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. | ||
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
Currently, this article follows the Manual of Style and uses the American English spelling system.
Contents |
[edit] 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.Vesperal 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? Vesperal 21:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm going to take a stab.JFQ 03:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 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) i think that pamela anderson needs bigger tits!!
[edit] 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 unecessarily 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)
[edit] 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)
