This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 September 2021 and 23 October 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CriminalGoat894.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 06:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
sexual ethics was redirected to sexual norms which I didn't feel was appropriate, so I was bold and made a new page. Perhaps someone here would be interested in editing that page since currently it's wildly POV(mine)? I really don't know much about the topic and need some help. User:Lynden Price 21:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
It seems we could delete this page; it contains nothing useful, and should just be redirected to Sexology. Ja? -- ScottMorrison 08:06, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. There should be more that can be said here, but not my area - perhaps someone in the philosophy project can help? Banno 08:25, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
I'm glad someone brought up the point: HOW do I help delete this? There is no such discipline that is not already covered in general ethics or theology. I can only think this is a sad subcategory of philosophy of biology, but not so. Sex in the manner suggested is the realm of sociology and biology, the special sciences. Not philosophy. This is an invented topic, please delete. Amicuspublilius 04:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
I wrote to my old friend Alan Soble (whom I hadn't chatted with for years, so this was a good excuse) about using his excellent article over at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy as a source text for the WP article. He was tentatively positive about that idea, but thought he might have something else more recent to use instead; I'll know in a few days. Obviously, if we use anything of Soble's, we'll need him to release it as PD or GFDL, but I've mentioned that to him. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
A statement in the intro paragraph originally claimed that "contemporary philosophy of sex is rooted in western feminism". This is woefully ill-informed, and I have edited it accordingly. Consider, for instance, Thomas Nagel's 1979 essay "Sexual perversion", which is so far from being "rooted" in feminism that Nagel doesn't even see fit to reference it. Alan Soble (in Pornography, Sex, and Feminism and in the essay "Bad apples") has taken issue with alleged feminist scholarly exaggerations. There's also Soble's essay on masturbation and Alan Goldman's "Plain sex", which are rooted not in feminism but in classical conceptual analysis. John Finnis's natural law philosophy of sex (e.g. his essay "Natural law and unnatural acts") has nothing to do with feminism and everything to do with Aquinas. Paralipsis ( talk) 05:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
The pulse/orgasm is needed to break up particle bonds and return to freedom source. Sex pulses the body from the outside, involution. Meditation pulses the body from the inside, evolution. Pulse/orgasm is needed for life. If you skip meditation. Sex is required for life. The emotions require a pulse/orgasm to stay alive. The mind requires emotions to stay gounded. ERCrawbeing ( talk) 07:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Raw Yogi
The further reading list is much too long. I propose to cut it back only to the most useful items, overviews of the subject, etc. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 09:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 September 2021 and 23 October 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CriminalGoat894.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 06:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
sexual ethics was redirected to sexual norms which I didn't feel was appropriate, so I was bold and made a new page. Perhaps someone here would be interested in editing that page since currently it's wildly POV(mine)? I really don't know much about the topic and need some help. User:Lynden Price 21:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
It seems we could delete this page; it contains nothing useful, and should just be redirected to Sexology. Ja? -- ScottMorrison 08:06, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. There should be more that can be said here, but not my area - perhaps someone in the philosophy project can help? Banno 08:25, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
I'm glad someone brought up the point: HOW do I help delete this? There is no such discipline that is not already covered in general ethics or theology. I can only think this is a sad subcategory of philosophy of biology, but not so. Sex in the manner suggested is the realm of sociology and biology, the special sciences. Not philosophy. This is an invented topic, please delete. Amicuspublilius 04:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
I wrote to my old friend Alan Soble (whom I hadn't chatted with for years, so this was a good excuse) about using his excellent article over at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy as a source text for the WP article. He was tentatively positive about that idea, but thought he might have something else more recent to use instead; I'll know in a few days. Obviously, if we use anything of Soble's, we'll need him to release it as PD or GFDL, but I've mentioned that to him. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
A statement in the intro paragraph originally claimed that "contemporary philosophy of sex is rooted in western feminism". This is woefully ill-informed, and I have edited it accordingly. Consider, for instance, Thomas Nagel's 1979 essay "Sexual perversion", which is so far from being "rooted" in feminism that Nagel doesn't even see fit to reference it. Alan Soble (in Pornography, Sex, and Feminism and in the essay "Bad apples") has taken issue with alleged feminist scholarly exaggerations. There's also Soble's essay on masturbation and Alan Goldman's "Plain sex", which are rooted not in feminism but in classical conceptual analysis. John Finnis's natural law philosophy of sex (e.g. his essay "Natural law and unnatural acts") has nothing to do with feminism and everything to do with Aquinas. Paralipsis ( talk) 05:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
The pulse/orgasm is needed to break up particle bonds and return to freedom source. Sex pulses the body from the outside, involution. Meditation pulses the body from the inside, evolution. Pulse/orgasm is needed for life. If you skip meditation. Sex is required for life. The emotions require a pulse/orgasm to stay alive. The mind requires emotions to stay gounded. ERCrawbeing ( talk) 07:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Raw Yogi
The further reading list is much too long. I propose to cut it back only to the most useful items, overviews of the subject, etc. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 09:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)