From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Psychology (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Sexuality (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Medicine (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Marquis de Sade[edit]

I have removed the following paragraph from the article and placed it on the talk page:

The Marquis de Sade's writings on sex and similar subjects are still considered to be perverse and shocking, even after over a century and a half. He surpassed the Kama Sutra, which he makes look like a child's Dick-in-Jane book. His name is also the root of the word 'sadism', which features throughout his works. He was imprisoned for most of his adult life because he was one of the few philosophers who practiced everything he preached...Remember, when he was alive, sodomy was an offence punishable by death.

Mainly I think this does not belong in the article because sexology is the scientific, not literary, study of sex. If someone wants to draw a connection and put the information back in, I'm fine with that, but even then the POV needs to be removed. --Allen 03:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, -ology usually refers to the study. Does de Sade do any science, or are his grimoires more a collection of personal fetishes? Tyciol 19:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


This needs to be locked down.

Agreed, seems like some April Fools vandalism. Joy. Tyciol 19:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone please[edit]

Someone please take out the "Fag~~" Thing

Notable Sexologists[edit]

I am very surprised that Sue Johanson is not listed here. She is probably the most well known practising sexologist today. SJM 1 March 2007

  • I don't know if she is so much a sexologist as she is a pop culture sex educator. Jvbishop 13:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe she is a nurse by training. Dr. Ruth Westheimer is another well known sex educator but her doctorate is in education--Eloil 17:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Although they have both made important contributions through their clinical and educational efforts, they are not sexologists. That is, they are not researchers who have uncovered or documented information about sex. If there is interest, perhaps a page on notable sex educators might be created?
MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the most well known public figure in the realm of sexology would have to be Robin Milhausen, due to the fact she is constantly seen on T.V. for her host position of Sex Toys and Chocolate. And also let's not forget Kinsey — STemp


I have just added to the main page two EL's to reading lists in sexology. Because I am the compiler/author of one of them, I felt it appropriate to indicate such here.— James Cantor (talk) 12:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

3 EL's removed due to poster's undisclosed COI[edit]

Three external links to have been removed. They were posted by James Cantor, who is a consulting editor of and did not disclose his conflict of interest before posting the links. (The above disclosure applied to one previous EL, not these three.)BitterGrey (talk) 23:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

First, I do not have a COI regarding those ELs. The sexological articles on WP are littered with disclosures from me indicating wherever there could be any perception of a conflict,[1][2][3] in addition to this very talkpage (as you pointed out). Anyone bothering to read my userpage will very quickly see that I take COI issues very seriously. The the publisher of the ELs in question, the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality, is a professional, scientific society; it is one of the oldest such societies for sexologists. I (and other members of SSSS) review manuscripts (for free) for the SSSS journal, the Journal of Sex Research; that journal is one of the most established scientific journals in its field. Still other people in SSSS have assembled resource lists for sexologists and for the public, and that information for the public are in the ELs I added here. (None of the links mentions me or my own work in the field.) There are no interests to conflict. Clearly, you continue to believe that my writing something is cause enough to opposite it.
If all you want is for me to say that I belong to SSSS or review manuscripts for their journal, I am happy to (after all, it's true, and has nothing to do with the EL's in question). Playing "gotcha" instead of working to improve mainpages, however, is tenacious.
If, however, you somehow believe that something in the ELs is objectionable, the WP thing to do is to bring the issue to WP:COI/N. You will have trouble, however, finding any editor agreeing that any of the links is anything but NPOV...well, editors other than more activsts who, like yourself, continue to attempt to use WP to replace science with those consistent with their own political tastes. Although I happen to agree with many of the goals of your off-wiki activism (at least, those that you put on your infantilism site), WP is not the battleground for it.
— James Cantor (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
"Clearly, you continue to believe that my writing something is cause enough to opposite it.[4]" This personal attack is unfounded. Were it true, I would have removed the first link. Then we would be discussing one link to the website that you are involved with, not three. In contrast, I initially left the first link in place[5]. It was the later quantity that made me look into why you were posting so many links. An objective scientist would confirm this observation for him or her self, and then reject your conclusion and the accusation based upon it. The observables simply don't match your conclusion. Your attack is the result of faulty science. This is notable, since in a later paragraph you assert that I'm the one being unscientific. BitterGrey (talk) 01:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I did say that I saw no reason why, as an expert in the area, a link to one of Cantor's papers shouldn't be used (in a previous discussion about him posting an EL to his academic page), if it was relevant, as giving readers access to such material would benefit the encyclopedia (my concern was about neutrality and balance in the papers that were included as the bibliography in question). In this case, I just can't be bothered going all through these convoluted links again. Sorry. All I will say is that just because he edits this journal, given its prominence, should not rule him out from citing authors who publish in it. I would hope that both he and other involved editors here keep an eye on ensuring that the way this is done does not compromise NPOV in the article concerned (i.e., do the sources present one POV without another, how is that best balanced if it does - are there other perspectives not being addressed, etc.). Given he has declared himself re COI, I don't see that it is particularly relevant - what is relevant is whether there is empirical evidence that such a COI has compromised the neutrality of the article. From the sound of it not. The only question that leaves is what the value of such links would be to a lay reader who does not have access to these papers via an academic institution, and who isn't going to pay to read them? This is why I suggested the link to a different article on his academic site. I am assuming that like so many of these specialist papers these three are not available without payment or institutional access. I can see the concern, that as a free on-line encyclopedia we do not allow ourselves to be used to drive readers to commercial sites, but I don't believe this was the intention. It is a problem that cannot be avoided with academic papers that are not released under a creative commons or other free license arrangement - and as has been seen on another page covered in this section, that arrangement can cause its own problems when such material is abused. Mish (talk) 02:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Well argued - I agree compeletely. --Simon Speed (talk) 12:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I concur, from what I've seen, there has been no COI problem with James Cantor's editing or the use of links to articles that include him or his colleagues as authors. If a source is reliable and valuable, it doesn't matter who adds it. If there were a COI that diverted an article from NPOV, that would be an issue to address, but that does not appear to be happening in this situation. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
This discussion was initially about three external links, directed to the same website. A website James Cantor had an undisclosed relationship with. 75% of the ELs in the article pointed to that website. Those web pages neither list an author nor give any indication of review or non-self publication: There were no articles, reliable sources, etc. linked to. (One web page was a list of articles, but not an article itself.) That multiple editors are persistently treating it as if it were about articles, not webpages, suggests that the topic has shifted to something else. That, or the support for these links was never about these links. BitterGrey (talk) 05:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
As you say, multiple editors don't see this as a problem. You've posted on multiple two pages and your campaign is not making any progress. I can't even tell what it is you're trying to accomplish with this. I suggest you let it go and move on to more productive forms of editing. If any COI links or non-reliable sources get posted in articles, they should be directly addressed as they occur. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Regarding these ELs, I have made one post to the relevant project page only. That post was to draw attention to this discussion. I suppose two pages could be considered a "campaign" if one really wanted to consider it that. Just as a webpage with no listed author could be promoted to peer-reviewed article in the mind of someone who wished to consider this debate to be about something more than three external links. Of course, these would come from someone who has already concluded and won't be swayed by the actual situation. My intention was to limit the self-promotional use of Wikipedia. You are probably right that I will not succeed. BitterGrey (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I had also seen your comments about a somewhat similar issue on a third page, but that's a different discussion so I struck out that part of my comment above. I agree with your concerns about self-promotion in general, but in this situation, in my view, those links did not appear promotional; the articles they linked are scholarly and useful, a reasonable use of an external link. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, we might not all agree, but at least now we are closer to discussing the same issue, which is progress.BitterGrey (talk) 01:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Another disclosure (excessive maybe, but nonetheless...)[edit]

user:Bittergrey believes I have a relationship with three of the EL's on the mainpage, one that merits mention. The nature of the relationship is that I review manuscripts for the Journal of Sex Research, the ELs on the mainpage, and the journal and website are both published by the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality. Neither I nor any of my work is mentioned on any of the sites. (All this is public knowledge already, but if another editor believes it should be made more explicit, I certainly have no reason not to.)
— James Cantor (talk) 00:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the claim that "Neither I nor any of my work is mentioned on any of the sites," it should be noted that a Googling for "James Cantor" gives 14 results. The site does mention him. Perhaps 'pages' was meant instead of "sites." BitterGrey (talk) 02:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I meant that anyone reading the content of the actual EL's in question will see that none so much as mentions me or any of my work, making baseless (even tenetious) accusations of COI.— James Cantor (talk) 02:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I had a look at the article, and noted Cantor's undoing his own revert, then decided to follow the links. These three items are publicly accessible, look quite useful, do not appear overly biased (although the amount of Bullough compared to Foucault I would question, although Foucault was not a sexologist, but critical of sexology and associated disciplines) for a list of sexology texts. Sexology is what sexology is - which is why I am not a sexologist. I have inserted the meterial, not because I have any brief for either editor, but because I can see no virtue in denying these links, which to be honest could be useful to anybody wishing to pursue the subject; my inserting them gets around objections about Cantor posting them himself (although does not answer the question raised. I think you people need to work out how you are going to work together effectively on these articles, because you ALL have so much you can (and I am sure do) contribute, and this interaction could allow for some very dynamic articles. Mish (talk) 09:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Cantor is an expert on the subjects of pages he edits should not be held against him. Quite the opposite. The only problems will come when he edits from the point of view of his theoretical grouping or tendency: Stephen Hawking would not be allowed to simply write the Big Bang article, though he would be most welcome to contribute!!! I think Cantor's critics should read Wikipedia:Verifiability noting particularly that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" and that "academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science". A neutral POV is neutral between conflicting well sourced scientific opinions, not between the conflicting beliefs of editors. --Simon Speed (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I wouldn't have a problem with Stephen Hawking writing the Big Bang article. At some time, someone had to write it, and at some future time, it might need to be rewritten. However, he would need to do it as a wikipedian, not as someone granted special rights because he is supposedly smarter than everyone else here.BitterGrey (talk) 02:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I used Hawking because everyone's heard of him and his POVs are disputed by other scientists; I could have used Freud but he's dead. I very much agree that no wikipedians should have special rights: articles should be based on reliable sources not on the say so of supposedly smart editors; but the fact that an editor is connected to a reliable source doesn't signal any conflict of interest and shouldn't cause any restrictions. --Simon Speed (talk) 10:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, there is one key difference between physicists and psychologists: The discoveries of theoretical physicists are tested by empirical physicists. If the object doesn't do what the theory says, we'll know. In contrast, psychiatrists are largely uncheckable. If one of Freud's theories were wrong, how would we know? To a large extent, Freud is Freud because he's Freud. To become a notable psychiatrist, one must get people to think you are a notable psychiatrist. Wikipedia is one vehicle for doing so. By the way, for my own information, how common is the knowledge that there are scientists on wikipedia who have written themselves directly into articles to claim notability without any disclosure? BitterGrey (talk) 13:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I just used famous examples because they're easy to think about: I'm not saying Cantor is or ought to be famous. If someone wants to write about Cantor those facts (even the fact that he's worth mentioning) will need to come from reliable sources. We treat people as famous if and only if the mainstream media say they are. If Cantor wants to write about himself that's a conflict of interest and needs to be handled, but there's no conflict of interest in him having subject knowledge. Articles in a conventional encyclopedia would all be written by people with subject knowledge. Experts who edit the Wikipedia benefit it and I doubt any further their careers by doing so. --Simon Speed (talk) 00:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I think your examples were well-chosen. They permitted both of us to illustrate our points. However, I'd like to be certain of two things: First, that you aren't aware of any scientists who have written themselves into wikipedia articles. (Normally this wouldn't be a big deal, but since this discussion started as an after-the-fact disclosure, it seems appropriate to ask.) Second, that if any had written themselves into the Wikipedia's article space - especially without properly disclosing it at the time - they would have edited under a conflict of interest, and some response would be necessary? Getting answers from both you and MishMich would be great. BitterGrey (talk) 01:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC) (Clarification BitterGrey (talk) 02:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC))
I had heard of Cantor before I started editing here earlier this year, and my first encounter here was with him, and I was made aware of a disclosure almost immediately. I respect that, and it was in part out of this initial interaction that I decided to hang around, but mostly edited articles that were not of direct personal or academic interest to me. This has started to change, as I am becoming more involved with pages where competing world-views intersect, and this draws me into other areas. It makes sense to edit pages you have some knowledge about. Because of the nature of the material included being discussed, I don't see the COI mentioned being particularly relevant, I have to say. Maybe he should not have disclosed it after-the-fact, but so what? I don't go round telling people every possible detail about me that might relate to every article. We may not always be aware ourselves of something that others might see as a conflict of interest, and at those times, it might be prudent just to apologise and say it was unintentional, and for that to be accepted, and move on. But, I am aware that some people may have a more complex history with some editors, and that makes that difficult - I can't comment on that. I'm not sure what more you are looking for. Cantor seems to have moved on, I have inserted the sources instead, I think we should just move on really. I see no reason why Cantor should not be included in articles about topics he has published on, but I don't think he is necessarily the best person to include them - I would suggest that one way to get round it would be to discuss with him which articles would be worthwhile citing, and for another editor to make the insertion, in the way I did. So, what I am suggesting is that if there is something relevant by him in an article you are also editing, somebody should make that insertion on his behalf, but only for articles by himself, and this should be done generously, not grudgingly. If this is not acceptable to him, then at the very least, a rationale for the insertion should be made on the talk page at the time of the edit. I say this not because I think he is untrustworthy, but as a way of minimising potential misunderstanding - because clearly his inserting any sources (including himself) would be subject to all the same criteria anybody inserting any source would be, and any editor would be at liberty to revise it if there are problems, in accordance with normal Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Mish (talk) 02:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I was kind of hoping for a yes or no, to get a better idea about where we were in terms of reaching a broader consensus. The description of a practice that of could be interpreted as meatpuppetry, person B making changes for person A after a private request, was a little disturbing. "One way to get round it would be to discuss with him which articles would be worthwhile citing, and for another editor to make the insertion, in the way I did"[6]. Editors should add external links based on resources they personally feel are valuable and collectively neutral, as opposed to making changes at the request of someone who would gain from those changes. BitterGrey (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
It's not meat-puppetry when collaborative editing is done through on-WIki communications visible for all to see. Meat-puppetry occurs when the communications are secret/off-wiki and the purpose is to make it appear that there is an independent consensus where none actually exists. In situations where there are concerns about COI, it is not unusual for non-COI editors to make edits on behalf of an editor with a perceived-COI, with all of the communications clearly disclosed for transparency. However, that said, COI does not seem to be a real issue in this case as has been discussed many times. This is simply a case of a published expert editing Wikipedia, and that is a positive benefit for the encyclopedia as long as the edits comply with NPOV & V. If the edits were unduly self-promoting and the information was biased because of that, then of course, there would be a COI issue. That does not appear to be the case in this situation. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Jack-A-Roe, this is precisely what I was talking about, and I am not happy with what I said being misrepresented in the way they were - and by discussion I meant on the talk page, so this would be transparent. That is not meatpuppetry, as by other involved editors I meant those who might have concerns - Bittergery, for example - which is why I said that such edits should be approached generously rather than grudgingly. I am sick of people requesting comment, then impugning the motives or twisting the words of those who do. Mish (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if I've misinterpreted. Would you mind pointing me to the conversation between Mish and James Cantor? If it was on-wiki and visible to all, then that would clearly be an argument against this being meatpuppetry. (Being easy to find is, understandably, not part of the policy.) Please note that I'm not arguing that meatpuppetry occurred. I merely pointed out that Mish's description of what happened could be interpreted that way. BitterGrey (talk) 01:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Sure, it starts here:
Talk:Intersexuality/Archive 4#EL for OII
Mish (talk) 02:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
So your position on the three ELs to posted to this article in July was determined by an April discussion about an external link to Organisation Internationale des Intersexués in the intersexuality article? For the sake of brevity won't list the numerous ways in which this can be interpreted, except to say that I'm not surprised. You weighed into this debate (the July one) at 02:36 13 July[7], some seven hours before checking the ELs yourself, at around 09:59, 13 July[8]. I have to accept that this debate is probably already decided. Many debates on wikipedia are decided before they begin. The ideal of individuals forming their own opinions regarding the situation at hand is superseded by politics, collusion, and distraction. This one might differ only in that it was decided months before. BitterGrey (talk) 04:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
You obviously have not understood. I have never said I had a conversation with Cantor about this. You asked where a discussion with Cantor took place. I showed you where the discussion I had with Cantor that i mentioned took place. I did not ask Cantor about putting those links in. I decided upon WP:BOLD when I realised that your complaint was frivolous in the context of the material being linked to. I do not want to waste my time discussing material that has no issues of WP:COI - I would rather reserve criticism of an editor for times when there is good reason to. Bringing trivial complaints like this risks damaging the chances of making valid criticisms should serious instances of WP:COI ever arise. For all I know that may be your intention. I do not like bullying and intimidation - and I do not discriminate in that sensitivity. Mish (talk) 09:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
"Quit[ing] while [I am] ahead"[9] isn't an option, however, the three ELs aren't my main concern now. As for future COI issues, if there are wikipedians who have already decided to support their friend no matter what the issue is, then their friend has already won, and Wikipedia has already lost. You weighed in seven hours before checking the ELs, and when asked to refer us to the conversation in which you and James Cantor discussed those ELs, referred us to a conversation in April. Additionally, your posts in this discussion may have confused others: Most of the comments appear to be about published articles, as opposed to unattributed ELs. Perhaps others assumed you were discussing the July issue instead of something prior.
There are a few things I'd like to add regarding my impression of the other editors. I respect Jack-A-Roe for reconsidering and modifying his position.[10] We still don't agree, but he showed independent thought specific to the issue at hand. In turn, Simon Speed was engaged in a discussion about our positions, which is how consensus is built. And then April came up...BitterGrey (talk) 13:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I did not check the ELs, because I assumed that you had some point to make - and to be honest the way you detail this is tortuous - and simply stated what my neutral position was on papers. However, when I realised that they were publicly available, and that there were no COI issues whatseover, and were a waste of time, I began to regret having become in involved in any discussion that you had requested comment on. I decided to insert them myself - which, as I have no association with Cantor outside of Wikipedia, raises no COI issues. In fact the exact opposite - Cantor and I are not allies. What I said was "I had heard of Cantor before I started editing here earlier this year, and my first encounter here was with him, and I was made aware of a disclosure almost immediately." The clue is in what I said - a few months ago it was not July. It was giving my impression of Cantor in his declaring COI - he has never been clandestine about his situation. Then you started talking about hypothetical discussions between me and Cantor relating to this article, demanding to know whether they were here or on wikipedia. There have been none, but I regard comments like those a bit like 'how did you murder your wife?', which purports to ask a question, but is actually making out something without stating it as an accusation. Why you need to quit this is simply because it will not get you anywhere. You say this is no longer about the COI and ELs - OK, so what is your point? Because I can't see one. Mish (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Having had some chill time today, I find the insinuation that I might be Cantor's meatpuppet hysterical, with hindsight. I've been accused of a lot of things, but never being a meatpuppet before. I suspect one person who would find that as daft as I do is Cantor himself. I cannot take you seriously anymore, Bittergrey. I won't be responding to this thread again. There's no point, this bizarre twist is just too surreal. At least you have raised a smile though. Mish (talk) 00:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Just for the record: Neither user:MishMich nor any other editor has ever been my meatpuppet.— James Cantor (talk) 02:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Regarding meatpuppetry, I merely pointed out that your description of events could be interpreted in that way[11]. I couldn't have foreseen that you would then volunteer so many details that are ambiguous at best. BitterGrey (talk) 01:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Never mind, at least we have that all straight now, and at least I had a chuckle when I saw the funny side of it. I don't think suggesting that other editors involved in an article, such as those who take an oppositional view to the editor in question, could possibly be described as meatpuppetry, and from what Jack-a-Roe said, it sounds like this is a compromise that is sometimes arrived at. So, I am not sure what I would have been expected to make of your injecting meatpuppetry into the discussion. Mish (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Notability of the Klein Sexual Orientation Grid[edit]

To try to objectively gauge the notability of the Klein Sexual Orientation Grid, I ran a Google Scholar search, which came up with 2,510 results. As a baseline, I ran a search on the Kurt Freund Paraphilia Scale, which came up with only 60 results. This baseline was selected because James Cantor, who took out the reference to the Klein Sexual Orientation Grid [12] due to a lack of notability added an external link to a web page about the Kurt Freund Paraphilia Scale[13]. It should be noted that the external link is to his institution, and the page was written by a colleague. (In contrast to the ELs discussed above, a disclaimer stating the relationship was placed at the same time as the EL.) Comments? BitterGrey (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no illusions that BitterGrey can be convinced by any argument that comes from me, but for the record: His argument above makes little, if any, sense. The history section of Sexology should contain only the most impactful (notable) developments in the history of sexology; the development of any given assessment instrument (either the Klein or the Freund) that is not appropriate in an historical overview is perfectly appropriate on a page that is specific to assessment instruments. BitterGrey 's comment above is clearly and simply a personal attack in retaliation of my edits of Paraphilic infantilism, over which he has substantial WP:OWNership issues, likely related to his off-wiki activism on that topic.
— James Cantor (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I commented about the scales today since the reference to the Klein Sexual Orientation Grid removed today[14]. (Well, now barely yesterday given Wikipedia's timezone.) Commenting about Cantor's actions before he made them would have been physically impossible. However, I would like readers to note his argument that coincidence demonstrates ill will. He claims that some dormant topic was dug up just to cause trouble. This did happen, and he is the one that did it. Some of the text in the paraphilic infantilism article that James Cantor suddenly has a problem with date back over three years. Why is he so desperate to delete them now? The observables of what he is accusing me of doing are present only in his own actions. By his own reasoning, the edits made against the paraphilic infantilism article were simply a personal attack against me.
He would like to associate the two issues as a way to justify his violation of 3RR[15][16][17][18]. ] right after threatening me with the policy[19]. BitterGrey (talk) 00:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it would help if editors started assuming each other's good faith. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. To be honest, I would find it easier to be faithful if Wikipedia's content was not being driven by the editor most willing to violate 3RR.[20][21][22][23]. Since no one else has stepped in, the live current version of the article was selected by his willingness to violate 3RR, contrasted with my respect for Wikipedia's policies. BitterGrey (talk) 00:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I can't even begin to imagine what removing unrelated and unsourced text at some other article has to do with the question that you're supposedly discussing here. And this is what, the fourth page you've complained about that edit war on? Or have I missed some?
Please focus on the content. Please don't say a single word about the contributor -- and especially not what the contributor may have done in some other article about some other content. That doesn't help us make any decisions about the Klein grid. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
It was James Cantor who brought the edit war up here[24], not me. He considered the discussion here as "clearly and simply a personal attack in retaliation of my edits of paraphilic infantilism ..." BitterGrey (talk) 05:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

When there's a disagreement of some sort we can all get angry and then it starts to get personal. I would like to say, as something of an outsider, that everyone seems to be acting in good faith and actual POV differences seem mild compared to the "culture war" disputes that have plagued other pages. Lets just stick to the subject:- how about including Kurt Freund's introduction of the Penile plethysmograph, which has even made it into popular culture and for which the 2 obits on Freund's are good sources. --Simon Speed (talk) 10:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

My point seems to have been missed: It was that Klein Sexual Orientation Grid was notable, much more so than the Kurt Freund Paraphilia Scale. That one would consider Klein's contribution insignificant while promoting Freund's suggests a bias, someone advocating a colleague while downplaying non-colleagues. BitterGrey (talk) 13:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I have added Freund and phallometry, which I think is notable. I have also added a photo: please discuss and/or improve upon it. --Simon Speed (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The picture is highly appropriate, given that most of what has been discussed involves the use of wikipedia as an advertisement, as opposed to Sexology. We should keep the picture.
Could you find a more objective second reference? I doubt that organization would write anything bad about their featured mentor[25]. For example, they mention "his earliest work easily differentiated homo- from heterosexual men (which he was doing to help identify straight men falsely claiming homosexuality in order to exempt themselves from military service)" but doesn't touch on upon how he handled bisexuals. It would be a shame to grow up branded as a "queer" only to get rebranded as "straight" just in time to get shot at. BitterGrey (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Notability redux[edit]

Both Bullough and Klein have pretty good obituaries, though neither seems as notable as Freud or Kinsey. Is it possible that their importance or otherwise could be sourced from a modern scholarly history or popular science discussion of sexology? This would be better than tit for tat editing. And please nobody argue "It's not me it's them". --Simon Speed (talk) 13:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that neither Bullough nor Klein are as notable in sexololgy as Freud or Kinsey. Personally, I would allow Bullough in anyway: not on the bases of his notability in sexology, but on the basis of his notability in the history of sexology, the topic of that section. Relative to that smaller pond, Bullough is a much bigger fish, if not one of the only fish. Nonetheless, Simonxag's point is well-taken, and I would not object to including only the biggest and most direct contributors to the field.
— James Cantor (talk) 13:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps we should discuss how long we would like the section to be. A longer section would permit a lower bar for inclusion, and permit people to insert one or two of their favorites while still holding to WP:NPOV. A shorter section would require more critical selection. Also, a separate section for historians is an option.
BitterGrey (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Bullough should go in for a number of reasons. His role in publishing the translations of Hirschfeld's work on homosexuality is a very significant contribution to Sexology, and for many years he was THE historian, not A historian. I have no brief for Bullough - only met him the once and didn't like him one bit - but that does not detract from his importance. His works featured among key texts on sexology courses in Universities in the UK for many years. I have no issues with including people who have contributed and are associated with sexology. I could not see why Fausto-Sterling would be in there, as she is a biologist who has written about issues relevant to LGBT studies, and is not associated with sexology. Mish (talk) 14:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm fine with that.— James Cantor (talk) 02:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I was hoping for a word count, number of names, or some other metric of length. Something slightly more objective. Should we be thinking about the five most important sexologists, or the fifty most important? If fifty, there would be more room for someone who's main contribution was to translate and document the other forty nine, more room for non-sexologists.
Additionally, I'm displeased that the section has reverted to a my-guy-then-everybody-else structure. It makes it look like a soapbox.
BitterGrey (talk) 01:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I take you mean Bullough? I tend to agree, which is why I moved him down to the second half of the intro on history - perhaps it would be better if he is shifted into the main section, towards the end, after Kinsey? I don't really care, but he has to get a mention somewhere. Mish (talk) 02:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I shifted the Bullough text down to the end of 1950-2000, and got a bit carried away with the excitement. I pushed Freund up because that seems to reflect the sequentiality a bit better. I also edited to start with the name, so the entries are consistent, edited the text on Krafft-Ebbing to be a little bit less subjective and more encyclopedic. I added Havelock-Ellis, because he was by far the most important sexologist that ever lived (joke) as significant as all/any of the others in that section. I was tempted to insert Carl Westphal, but while Foucault finds him significant, and I do for slightly different reasons, I doubt it is justifiable here. I note that the entry on him lacks any reference to his work in this area. There isn't much in the Malinowski article either - he was a speaker at one of Hirschfeld's congresses, and his ethnology of Melanesian society showed that Freud's conception of an Oedipus complex was not universally applicable. Mish (talk) 03:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Structure of history section(s)[edit]

I think a simply chronological structure with maybe a brief overview, in the one history section, would be the most intuitive for readers. Do you agree, or do you think a regional, topical, or other structure would be better? I'd be fine with any one of many possible structures, just as long as we chose one and held to it. BitterGrey (talk) 01:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the structure that has developed is fine for a history of sexology. The researchers each worked over extended and overlapping periods, so a simple timeline wouldn't work so well. I think there's room for more discussion on the subject as it is now, after all it is about "sexology", not just "the history of sexology". But those who have been editing the article should all give themselves a pat on the back as it is vastly improved. --Simon Speed (talk) 11:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I believe the current structure will be the most effective for a pragmatic reason: It allows for the inclusion of the two major types of RS's on the topic. RS's written by historians contain overarching descriptions that would not fit into a timeline, as Simon noted; but the mention of the many "firsts" and other individual events would not fit into an overarching narrative. The current structure allows for the inclusion and expansion of both kinds of information, each without hampering the other.
— James Cantor (talk) 13:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree, that as it stands this works, and gives an international overview. If the section expands in the future, we could look at breaking it down regionally, but that has its own problems - because of the cross-fertilisation of ideas, and migration of key figures, it is not so easy to delineate rigidly. Ditto with themes - people contributed to more than one area of focus. Mish (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I suppose I'm in the minority here, not only in that I would prefer that the article only have one history section, but that it not have a special section with references only to works by SSSS fellows[26]. For contrast, the other history section references works by mostly by those who didn't make the team: Second-stringers like Freud, Ellis, and Hirschfeld. (There are two exceptions: Bullough is in both history sections, and ref #9 in the second history section was co-written by three authors, one of whom was a SSSS fellow. Kinsey, not an SSSS fellow, is mentioned in the first history section, but only referenced in the second.) BitterGrey (talk) 02:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't have an issue with the overview being incorporated into the timeline as the introductory paragraph. Do you have other notable contributors who ought to be included? By ref 9, are you referring to the work on 'Kinsey'? If you need another reference, Jennifer Terry is a good source. If there is more to say on Kinsey, what is it? I am not sure what the issue with people being members of a sexology society is - would you try to limit references to members of the APAs, in articles on psychology or psychiatry, or members of the BPS, BAS, BMA, in relevant articles, of members of WPATH on trans issues? People who specialise in an area tend to join professional associations and societies, so you would expect members of such to be well represented in the sources. The list provides a range of names that represent some diverse opinions who work in a range of areas - John Money, Milton Diamond, Tom Mazur, for example. Mish (talk) 10:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
speaking of which, Money ought to have a mention in the overview, given his contribution to our understanding of sex and gender development. Mish (talk) 10:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Incorporating the two sections, and reducing the overview to a non-detailed overview would be great. To be clear, I'm not calling for the removal of the references to works by SSSS fellows, just that they not get a special section or special treatment. A general (non-detailed) overview, then details in chronological order. Almost any other order would be fine too, excluding the current "my-guy[s]-then-everybody-else structure." BitterGrey (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

POV edits by IP editor[edit]

The IP editor has twice removed the word "scientific" from the RS'ed statement describing sexology. Although the editor is entitled to believe whatever s/he chooses, s/he is not entitled to put words in the mouths of RS's.— James Cantor (talk) 14:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

While I wouldn't have taken the initiative to remove the word myself, I think is being reasonable in removing unsupported, contested material. I don't see any references cited in that sentence, paragraph, or section. ( Thus there is no "putting words in the mouths of RS's." Please, let's at least be reasonable, if not scientific. ) It might be interesting to note that the articles on physics, epidemiology, etc. don't seem to feel the need to claim to be sciences in their first sentences. BitterGrey (talk) 02:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether you, or I, or the IP editor believes that sexology is scientific is irrelevant. The only relevant matter is accurately conveying in the article what the RS's say. I must recommend that you read the relevant WP pages on style and formatting: The lede does not repeat the RS's given in the body of the article, and the RS's in the body of the article describe sexology as a scientific endeavour.— James Cantor (talk) 13:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

"...there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads..." Although editors are entitled to believe whatever they choose, they are not entitled to put words in the mouths of Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Do you have a reference evaluating the scientific basis of sexology as a whole or not?
By the way, you may have noticed that most Wikipedia editors indent their comments by using colons, to avoid looking smug and self-important. BitterGrey (talk) 14:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Personal comments don't add anything to an argument. --Simon Speed (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I do have such references (Haeberle, 1983; Bullough, 1989), and I added them to the page some time ago. The passage you quote from WP:LEADCITE confirms my point about repeating the cite in the lede: References already available in the article do not need to be repeated in the lede. — James Cantor (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The quotation clearly states that the lead section is not except from Wikipedia's general policy on citations: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Simply add a citation (or two), or remove the challenged text. BitterGrey (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, the lede is fine as is; I need not do anything. If you (or anyone else) want(s) to repeat the existing cites to appear in the lede as well as in the main article, it is certainly in your purview to do so. My concern was the deletion of the word scientific, not the number or location of cites to the RS's.— James Cantor (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and it isn't rare for opinions to differ. This is why Wikipedia has policies, in particular, policies on verifiability. Per your invitation to act, I will now edit according to Wikipedia's stated policy.BitterGrey (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

People are indeed entitled to their opinions, but editors are not entitled to disrupt WP to express them.— James Cantor (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the one who is willing to edit war with multiple individuals to enforce his own, unreferenced viewpoint here, in violation of the Wikipedia policies quoted above.BitterGrey (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The word scientific is used in both the references, which now appear with the very sentence that uses them. Indeed, one is published by the Society for the Scientific Study of Sex. That's about as strong a support an RS can provide. user:Simon Speed, perhaps you might add an otherwise uninvolved opinion?— James Cantor (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is my stop. Unlike some, I respect Wikipedia's policies, including WP:3RR. BitterGrey (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Notability of Gershon Legman an an exemplar of sexology?[edit]

I have reverted the recent good faith edits by user:0XQ. First, I do not believe it is established that Legman is a sexologist. I can't say that I have heard of him before reading this edit, and I have no reason to distrust that he is notable in his field. But there is no RS indicating that he is a sex researcher rather than a social critic commenting on sexual issues. Second, even if it becomes established that Legman is appropriately called a sexologist, it is not clear that he sufficiently notable in the field of sexology so as to be named an exemplar of that field. I am open to such evidence, but it's not apparent yet.
— James Cantor (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Here are some internet references :

“sexologist ... Gershon Legman.” 

“Gershon Legman (11/02/1917 – 02/23/1999) US sexologist”

“Gershon Legman, exiled author, publisher, and sexologist, Alfred Kinsey's first bibliographer”

“Legman started as a library research assistant, but he quickly impressed Dickinson with his bibliographic skills and persuaded him to fund a major ... project ... of sexology”

“sexologist Gershon Legman”

“sexologist Gershon Legman”

“sexologist Gershon Legman” 0XQ (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Even though I know the plural of anecdote is not data, I can't resist throwing in my two cents. Legman is, in my experience, known as a 'folklorist' rather than a 'sexologist' per se. Yet his work in folklorics is largely centered on sex and sexuality - Rationale of the Dirty Joke is probably his best known book. He was also an early research assistant, and the self-described biographer, of Alfred Kinsey. That seems to qualify him as a sexologist under the definition given here ("the scientific study of sexual interests, behavior, and function"). I could not speak to the question of whether he is 'exemplary' in that respect, however. Cnilep (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Template discussion involving sexology-related proposal[edit]

This discussion I've started over here applies to Sexology and it would certainly be a good thing for those professionally-editing this page to chime in to that discussion. Thanks. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 18:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


I have removed Category:History of human sexuality, Category:Science, Category:Research and Category:Analysis since they are redundant, not needed or cause "category clutter". -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Richarch Francis Burton[edit]

The British explorer and scholar Sir Richard Francis Burton (1821-1890) did a fine job at documenting the sexual lives of the inhabitants of the exotic areas he travelled through. Should we consider including him to the “Notable contributors” section, or would it be inappropriate to mention him as a sexologist? or, moreover, do you not think that the size of his contribution meets the contextual requirements? In other words, is he eligible for that section? (talk) 04:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[edit]

Comments on the EL to[27], placed by its apparent president[28]? Note that this is the second EL placed by the account[29]. I'm leaning towards removing it due to the COI, as well as apparent lack of establishment, the officers listed by city (not country), and Google ads on the web page. However, to be fair, it isn't wasn't the only EL on that list that was added under a COI. BitterGrey (talk) 07:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed all but the international page, added DMOZ. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Wow. I give a reason we might want to consider not keeping the EL, and now all other ELs are gone - even the Magnus Hirschfeld Archive for Sexology, the one with the WHO reports and online library that really is international (or at least multilingual). alone was kept. Could it be that WLU is determined to do the exact opposite of my wishes? If so, the joke would be on him: Maybe I could use reverse psychology to play him like a puppet:) BitterGrey (talk) 03:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Victorian influenced restrictions on sexology research prior to WWII in the U.S. and U.K.[edit]

This article needs more info in how Victorian sexual moors in the UK and US prevented much sexology research from being conducted in those countries prior to the 19th and early 20th centuries. We also need to mention that Victorian sexual views led many mainstream doctors to hold unproven views about female and male sexuality such the use of doctor induced orgasms top cure "female hysteria" while claiming self-induce orgasm where against dangerous and bad. There is also the fact that anti-obscenity laws such as the Comstock laws prevented publication of sexual research. Kinsey himself faced a backlash and loss of funding after the publication of his first report due to lingering conservative sexual views of the 50's. From my understanding, it was the U.S. Supreme Court providing greater protecting for sexual literature that had a education/scientific purpose such as scientific works like the Kinsey report that was one factor that led to sexology becoming a recognized field in the U.S. Also, changing sexual moors and increased awareness that sexual moors of the 1950's where quit as previously though due the Kinsey report shedding light on truth about 1950's sexual practices, led to greater willingness to fund sexology research. One thing we do also need to mention is that sexology research has also sparked a backlash from social conservatives especially Christian conservatives who believe we need to return to pre-sexual revolution views on sexual morality. Thus there currently exists an significant anti-sexology element among the right and this should be addressed. Like the science of evolution, the science of sexology is also controversial on certain circles if not quit to the same degree. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 02:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Clarification needed[edit]

The article states that, "Wilhelm Reich and Otto Gross, were disciples of Freud, but rejected by his theories because of their emphasis on the role of sexuality in the revolutionary struggle for the emancipation of mankind." The sentence does not make sense as written, and needs clarification. I would guess that "his theories" should be replaced with "him", as it appears to be a reference to Freud as a person, but I'm not sure. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what that passage is trying to say either. How about changing it to "...disciplines of Freud, but broke from him in favour of their view of the role of sexuality in the revolutionary struggle for the emancipation of mankind"?— James Cantor (talk) 02:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Is there a source for that? I'm not sure either version is sourced. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)