Talk:Sexual norm

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 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 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]