Sexology and sexuality Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Philosophy: Ethics Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Associated task forces: /  Ethics

There seems to be a dispute over the organization of this template. An anonmyous user has argued "prostitution and pornography, under child sexuality? Sounds wrong" but I disagree. This hierarchy makes sense from an organizational standpoint, saying it "sounds wrong" is merely a POV argument which seems a little thin. This organization makes no statements about the sexuality of children and whether or not children should be sexual, it is simply presenting the information in the most efficient way possible. Which means all the child sex issues should be grouped together... this by no means is an endorsement of child prostitution which seems to be implied by Anon. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While I agree that grouping child prostitution and child pornography under abuse was questionable on neutrality grounds, I don't think that grouping all child items under child makes for good organization. Specifically child sexual abuse and child on child sexual abuse seem to make more sense under sexual abuse than under child sexuality. (While it may be situational or matter of opinion whether the former are child abuse, by definition the latter are.)

The template has some basic organizational problems in that several of the main categories overlap. e.g.

Division by age (child, teen);

law - which interacts with/defines many of the other items (e.g. statutory rape, marriage).

The mater of age is particularly a problem, since many of the links in several sections deal with matters of age and consent. (Statutory rape, Age of consent reform, pro/anti pedophile activism).

While I don't have an overall solution for the organizational difficulties, I favor keeping items that relate to a specific kind of behavior together, rather than separating them based on law vs. other distinction (e.g.) For instance, child sexual abuse and child sexual abuse law should be kept together.

Thought should also be given in organizing this template to how it interacts with the templates ((Sexual Violence)) and ((Sex and the law)). There seems to be significant overlap. Zodon (talk) 10:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your approach seems to be sensible. There is considerable overlap between the templates.

Also, do you have any opinion on the listing of pedophilia as a form of sexual violence (and the transclusion of the SV template to pedophilia/other articles)? This is something that is currently being discussed on AN/I. forestPIG^(grunt) 10:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that there is some overlap, but I don't think there needs to be any merges made. The ethics is sort of a middle ground between the two, and is more of a generalized view of sexual issues presented in the other two templates (violence and law). I would not be opposed to a merge of all three... however such a template would be bloated and pretty much useless as a navigation tool. But thats just my opinion. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 16:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, it couldn't be bloated and useless, because that wouldn't work ;) Any idea on what titles would be used and what topics covered? My personal preference would be to merge the two newer templates and keep it all at the bottom of the article. I have serious problems with the SV template as its use often comes off as a negative moral imposition on the articles to which it is copied. forestPIG^(grunt) 18:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose merge of sidebars into footer. Footers provide a useful overall organization tool for wide interconnected topic areas with many articles. But they are only seen by readers exploring the bottom of the page, digging in to the references and actively seeking more resources. Infoboxes Sidebars fill a different purpose; they are visibile in the body of the articles, offering a more focused perspective on how a particular topic fits into a range of related pages. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are no infoboxes at question here, all the templates mentioned are navigation templates (whether they are formatted as ((sidebar))s or as ((tl:navbox))es). (i.e. they do not provide summary information, as in a taxobox, but are navigational only). Certainly the range of topics covered by the various templates puts them more in the widely ranging category, rather than a list of closely related articles.

I did not intend a merge necessarily. There is considerable overlap between these templates, and it might help clarify the navigation in the area to make them more consistent in style and to reduce the overlap (e.g. by coordination so that specific templates handle specific, minimally overlapping areas).

I haven't looked at what a merged template would be like, so don't have an opinion as yet about whether that would be a workable approach. Zodon (talk) 07:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're right, I used the wrong term and have updated my comment accordingly. To clarify, I don't oppose modifying the sidebars to improve them or reduce overlap, or even to merge them if it can be done without losing any of the important items. What I oppose is the idea of merging the sidebars into the footer, as suggested by ForesticPig in his comment above. I can't say I understand why he's now suggesting they be merged, since he created the split-off ((Sex and the law)) template himself in November. I'm not sure if separate templates are needed or not, but there are topics included in the ((Sexual Violence)) template that are not specifically about the legal aspects so that needs to be considered in making the decision. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I think I understand better. As it happens I don't agree, but the clarification helped.

After looking at the various related templates I was just thinking that converting both of those templates to navboxes would probably help. But that is a matter more germane to discussion on those templates. (e.g. Template talk:Sexual Violence#Suggest convert to navbox template) Zodon (talk) 10:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The child sexuality section of the navbox is not an appropriate place to list child pornography, child prostitution, child sex tourism because those topics are forms of abuse, actions of adults that the child has no choice about, and are therefore not related to the sexuality of the child. As forms of abuse, the sexual abuse section of the template is where they belong.

The topic of child marriage also does not relate to child sexuality. It's not as clear where to place that topic. Often it is an abusive practice, but in some forms it might not be abusive (arranged marriages between children, based on cultural traditions, perhaps). Either way though, it is unrelated to child sexuality, as it is again, actions of adults and not according to the free will of the children involved. Also, often the child in a child marriage is acutally a young teenager and not a prepubescent child.

Based on the above, I've moved the abuse topics to the abuse section, and merged the child and adolescent sexuality sections into one area of the navbox.

These topics do not have clear lines; maybe there is a better way to organize this template. But child sexuality has nothing to do with actions imposed on children by adults so those actions should not be included in a section with that title. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Child pornography may include abuse, but not necessarily, so as above, putting it in abuse is a NPOV problem. Not so clear about the other ones - e.g. sex tourism does not appear to be abuse per-se (rather like conspiracy to do something is not the same as doing it). Since this is a touchy subject I am inclined to err on the side of caution with POV problems. (Only put under abuse things that are unquestionably abuse.) So don't favor moving child prostitution and child sex tourism to abuse, but left it for now. (See what develops).

Tried a different approach to the problem - renaming the section to Children and Adolescents - so it can include things that involve children without necessarily being child sexuality. (Also makes the titles portion shorter, and removes the duplication of adolescent sexuality - which was duplicated to consistently handle the USA article). Does that help?

I also introduced partial subdivision of the section into child and adolescent (line break between them). Yes they are connected, but adolescent sexuality is often treated differently from child sexuality, even if there isn't clear-cut demarcation. Zodon (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, the heading of "Children and Adolescents" and removing the duplicated links is an improvement.

But we should be clear about this: there is no NPOV problem with listing child pornography under abuse - that's exactly what it is, a photographic recording of a child being sexually abused. That is the mainstream definition of child pornography. There are at least 9 references in that article supporting that definition. Likewise for child prostitution and child sex tourism - those terms also both refer to adults using children for sexual purposes; that is precisely the definition of child sexual abuse.

This template is about ethics. The best organization scheme would be to have a section for child sexual abuse, to include those various forms, because the sexual abuse of children is a topic area of major importance within the ethics of sexuality. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it was fine the way it was. Strictly speaking from an organizational standpoint its easier to just split the topics based on age. I think it makes the articles easier to navigate. The categories were small and efficient, the new changes have totally ruined the asthetics of the template. Child porn is abuse but that doesn't mean it has to be listed under the broad banner of sexual abuse. Combining children and adolescents serves no purpose other than to make the statement that they are technically the same (which they are). But regardless, there are separate articles for the two and clearly are considered separate topics so they should remain separate. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jack-A-Roe While that definition of child pornography might be common, there are many, referring to the lead of the current article "... refers to material depicting children being in a state of undress, engaged in erotic poses or sexual activity." One culture may regard simple nudity as pornography, where another regards it as everyday. The article goes on to say that sexual abuse may occur in the production of photographic pornography. But not all pornography is photographically generated (pornography did not start with the Daguerotype). From the article on pornography, "Pornography may use any of a variety of media—printed literature, photos, sculpture, drawing, painting, animation, sound recording, film, video, or video game." Is Agatha Christie a murderer because she wrote about murder? So, like so many things, it depends. Under some definitions of pornography and sexual abuse it is sexual abuse, under others not - a matter of definition and point of view.

Since this is about ethics it is important to consider from a philosophical viewpoint - take in all the angles and permutations (historical, etc.), not just a populist, law enforcement, or commercial view.

ErgoSum88, what did you find problematic about the change of titling the sections from Child sexuality to children, and likewise for adolescents? Zodon (talk) 04:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why was statutory rape moved from sex and the law back to sexual abuse? Since it is more a legal construct than a matter of abuse seems to be more appropriate where it had recently been moved to sex and the law. Zodon (talk) 04:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that statutory rape should be listed under sex and the law, I just couldn't keep up with all the recent changes so I reverted them all to a previous version. I also think that all of the law articles should be listed under sex and the law, and not listed in parentheses next to its parent article.

To answer your previous question, I think if the article is called "Child sexuality" then perhaps the heading should be the same as the article it links to. Look, the bottom line is, we could throw everything under the banner of "sexual abuse" and be done with it. If we combine children and adolescents (because technically they are the same), and we classify child porn, child marriage, teenage pregnancy and everything else as "sexual abuse" then all we have is a "sexual abuse" navbox. This is "sexual ethics" and there is nothing wrong with splitting up these articles into groups that make sense for this type of navbox, and also to keep things in more manageable groups so we don't have categories that are too large. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since the other editor who has recently contributed here is the one who made the change initially, I moved statutory rape back to sex and the law.

I don't think that separating the items on incest law and child sexual abuse law from their main articles (and putting them in sex and the law) makes navigation easier.

The matter of retitling the children and adolescents section - was not suggesting that the section title be different from the linked article. The change was to make the section title not be linked, and just say "Children" (or "Adolescents", respectively). I did the change again purely to help make it clear what was proposed. If still problems with it, revert and/or discuss as see fit. Thanks. Zodon (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like it. In fact I think it has improved. I don't mean to argue over details but I just didn't think it looked right with the old changes. It looks much better now. I still think all the law should be together but I'm willing to concede. Thanks for being civilized. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recently somebody added abortion and abortion law to the template. I removed because so far this template has just focussed on sex, not reproduction. There are already several navigation boxes covering abortion related topics.

If start adding abortion topics, what criteria do we use to stop adding such topics?

If extend to cover reproduction, what other topics would logically also be included? (Seems like template size could easily get out of hand.)

Anyway, I think it merits discussion before extending into that area. Zodon (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree, this template should focus on sexual habits, not reproductive habits. As you stated, there are plenty of navboxes devoted to abortion and this navbox should remain focused on sexual ethics. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear 120.127.93.243, please stop changing the titles of the links. It seems you are trying to censor this template. Wikipedia is not censored. Please leave the titles as they are, no piped "|" links are necessary in this situation. Thank you. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 20:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]