Talk:Sexual norm

	Human sexuality portal This article 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

Wow

"There is much hypocrisy about sexual behavior in all directions." "...far more common than these societies are willing to acknowledge." "A large part of present social unrest in both Eastern and Western cultures is due to this conflict between these two trends, and views upon acceptability and control of social and sexual norms."

Almost none of this article is sourced at all and it's heavily POV. Someone who knows something about this, please fix it quickly. Vesperal 07:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll delete some of the more egregious examples - and also the implication that religious objections to changes in the norm are inextricably linked to people trying to "keep their wives in the kitchen"... Thomas Ash 10:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues

As in everyday usage, the article consistantly confuses the two primary meanings of the words "norm" and "normal." "Normal" means following a norm or a standard. "Normal" can also mean average. They are not the same thing. We can imagine a society where some chemical mutagen causes everyone to be born with one or more deformities. Even if such a people had no access to another society, thinkers among them could develop an idea of what normal, healthy people should look like by creating an ideal chimera based on the best examples available to them, a chimera based on simmetry and made up, for example, of the best working hands and legs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.29.203 (talk) 12:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an example, societies which aggresively regulate sexual behavior tend to have high levels of child sexual abuse, the discussion of which is taboo.

A statement like this needs to be backed up with some solid facts. If the discussion of child sex abuse is taboo, how is the level assesed? Theresa knott 10:54 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

See

alas. -- The Anome

Could someone with time and inclination clean up the crossover between this and sexual morality? The latter formerly referenced this as its secular equivalent; I've changed that (sexual morality is a subset of sexual norms, and also a method by which norms are promoted), but a lot of stuff could now be partitioned out to one or the other. -- Perey 06:12, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"...normal sexuality to consist only of heterosexual sex acts between married couples." Khm... "between couples"? Someone should really correct this. I would do it myself, but since I'm not native English speaker, I wouldn't want to mess it up again. Arny

I have several problems with this sentence: "These are often associated with people and societies having strong religious feelings, and are prevalent in much of Christianity in America, as well as Islam in the Middle East and Asia, and other devout religious groups such as Hasidic Jews in Israel. In such countries, social roles are often strictly delineated, with the wife in a marriage often (but not always) playing a secondary role as home-maker, or obliged to be socially retiring."

1. Societies do not have religious feelings, people do. In fact, they usually have religious beliefs, which I think is a more precise word. 2. "In such countries"? - no, maybe in such regions or societies. 3. The meaning of "secondary" is ambiguous. The wife may well play a secondary role in the marriage, but as a home-maker she plays a primary role (usually, in such traditional structures). In any case, this has little to do with sexual norms, unless cleaning and cooking have a sexual connotation. :)

If no-one objects, I will try to rewrite this in a few days.

Gsandi 11:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to rewrite it. Thomas Ash 10:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biological and procreation

I have added a section about the relation of "normal sex" to procreation. I realize that it may be inadequate and hopefully someone will edit it better. Still, it is ridiculous to have an article about normal sex without any reference to procreation at all. Tpellman 13:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken out that section. What you describe isn't an interpretation I've ever heard of--I've never heard of sexual norms which prohibit sex between infertile people, or the elderly, or even oral sex between a heterosexual couple, while I've seen plenty of the "biological function" argument applied as a figleaf over an "icky icky" reaction to, for instance, homosexuality. If you have evidence that the "biological function" argument is the former as opposed to the latter, I'd be quite happy to see it. For now, I've removed what you've written, because it seems like the same disingenuous weasel-wording around "but it's gross!" that I've seen elsewhere. (For an example of what I'm talking about, here's Bishop Paul Morton: "You don't try to put 2 plugs or 2 sockets together. I want some folk to get deliverance. You ain't got no socket rubbing up against another socket talkin' 'bout 'come on light my fire!' It ain't gon light! We need to break the curse 'cause even some of these older women are attacking some of these younger women and placing them in this lifestyle. That’s why you can't even walk right when you doin' that stuff. You hurtin' 'cause it ain't natural.") grendel|khan 18:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying that cultural sexual norms and taboos generally have nothing to do with procreation? That's what you're saying? See this article for clarification. On second thought, after rereading your comments I realize you are saying that cultural norms shouldn't have anything to do with procreation. Hole in sand, insert head.

But I am leaving the deletion though for a different reason. My edit did not have to do with "sexual norms". But the phrase "Normal sex" address redirects to this page and I was addressing a different use of the phrase "normal sex" than cultural norm, to whit, in analogy with normal digestion or normal use of the legs. I am only leaving it out because it doesn't really fit with this article and does not warrant its own article, since it is about as obvious as can be. We no more should need such an article than we need to have one that states that noses are for smelling. It is still ridiculous that a discussion of cultural norms does not mention procreation though, as if that has just been some minor factor in the shaping of norms and isn't worth mentioning.

Tpellman 12:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My edit

Hello, I made an edit that some people might be confused by, so I thought to document the reason here (I do not know of a more appropriate place to do so, if one exists, please inform me of such). You can find the edit here [1].

I removed "homosexual and bisexual" from this list of so-called behaviors that are suppose to be fairly hidden from society, and doesn't fit in the "norm", as the title of this article properly suggests. First, we must take the up-most care when we start to label people by relations that vary by gender. Is a male having relations with a woman any different then having relations with another male on the grand scheme of things? Are they both behaviors? If we label homosexuality a particular behavior, then does heterosexuality include itself as a behavior? Does a preference in genitals define what is and isn't a behavior? I think not. Homosexuality is not a behavior. If it individual has sexual relations with a member of their own gender, must we practice social ostrication by labeling it as some sort of behavioral characteristic?

The article goes on to say that certain "behaviors" are hidden from the public forums. It states that masturbation, pre-marital sex, etc are quite frequent behaviors. With that said, homosexuality is not quite as common (we've already dis-proven it as a "odd" behavior) as the others. The Department of Health and Human Services estimates the gay and lesbian population to make up about 9 million people [2]. That comes out to about 3% of the entire population. I would consider the other behaviors to be much better placed, such as the so called behavior of pre-marital sex, with 75% of individuals under the age of 20 having had sex before they are formally married [3].

All in all, I believe that the inclusion of homosexuality and bisexuality in the list to be misplaced, seeing as it is neither a so called behavior nor that frequent of an occurrence. I would also advise that the article be re-worded to not place certain activities in a bad light, as it seems to do with pre-marital sex.

If you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you, Will 00:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual norms and sexual practice is loaded with opinions and not based up in facts. Please either modify/remove this section or back up your opinions with cited facts.

68.4.167.194 (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading redirect from Sexual freedom

It's misleading to reditect Sexual freedom to Sexual norm. See talk.--Sum (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just encountered that same curveball. Does anyone object if I redirect to Sexual revolution instead?
Weeb Dingle (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on Sexual norm

Cyberbot II has detected links on Sexual norm which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.sexherald.com/sexual-investigation/sexual-suppresion.html
Triggered by \bsexherald\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]