Template talk:Sex and the law

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles

Sexology and sexuality

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

Picture

This template is being used, with it's picture of a gay man hanged for having sex with his consenting adult lover, on pages that include sexual assault, sexual abuse and peadophilia. The picture is grossly inappropriate and should not be used on those pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.227.195 (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the picture gives a rather negative view of relation between sex and the law. Navigation templates should not be overly decorative, so a picture is not required. But if there is a picture it should be more neutral. Zodon (talk) 10:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Zodon's comment and the removal of the picture. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

I created this template after a split involving a problematic "sexual violence and victimization" template that looked like a moral imposition on some pages. I encourage you all to add pages to "Sex and the Law" and add the template to those pages where possible.

Template:Rape should now be considered a separate topic, with its own template. forestPIG ^(grunt) 22:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

pedophilia and pederasty

Recently pedophilia and pederasty were added to the template. Neither one of these articles nor the concepts involved is clearly sex and the law. (As compared to child grooming or child sexual abuse, which clearly are related to sex and the law.)

Pedophilia is about an internal state - being attracted to or excited by certain things. For the most part law deals with observables (acts, statements, etc.) rather than feelings/thoughts. So although I would not be amazed if this set of feelings was outlawed someplace, the relation to law seems tangential. (Certainly the current article doesn't deal much with legal issues, and unclear whether one viewing it would be likely to want to navigate to the other articles on this template.)

The pederasty article deals a little more with law, although mostly about history. But again the legal or illegal issues seem to have been mostly factored out into the articles noted above. Again, not so clear that this concept closely links this article with the others on the template.

(As I see it the question for the template is are those viewing the article in question likely to want to view other articles on this template - not is this term also used to describe a crime, ...)

A somewhat related problem is the template currently titles this section as "Specific Offences", even with the notation that whether these are offences or not varies with jurisdiction, this is hardly a neutral presentation. Zodon (talk) 07:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

212.84.121.75 (talk) 03:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Horizontal bar at the bottom

This would be best as a horizontal bar at the bottom. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 94.110.70.177, 25 April 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Follwing the successful appeal of Mr Jeremy Clifford in the UK High Court on 1st April 2011, I wish to add a category "Miscarriage Of Justice" -- End request --> 94.110.70.177 (talk) 07:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a little too broad for this template. You'll find it on {{Criminal procedure (trial)}} though. — Bility (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-related links

This template contains several links to articles completely unrelated to sex laws, such as homophobia and striptease. The template is also very unorganized with related topics on opposite ends of the template, for example cicumcision and fmale genital cutting, and it seems very muddled up. The social issues section could possibly be deleted too. Can someone address this? Pass a Method talk 13:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Homophobia is related to sex and the law. Stop being dense. And every listing is a social issue. 50.19.178.57 (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to agree with the IP, with the exception of calling you dense. IP, try your best to refrain from personal attacks, per WP:personal attacks. Flyer22 (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about arranging related links near one another, e.g. female genital cutting near circumcision, or rape near sexual assault etc. Pass a Method talk 11:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should try and get more opinions before making those changes, if you want to make them. RfC, posting a link to this discussion to a related project, whichever. Flyer22 (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Survival sex

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add Survival sex under "Social issues". Thank you. 85.230.127.113 (talk) 06:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I'm not sure about this one, can we get a consensus before it's added. Prostitution's already there, but I agree this is a more social matter. andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 23:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: add more material on how survival sex is handled under the law and then add the page to this template.--Carwil (talk) 02:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I added a Survival sex#Outreach and law enforcement section, so I am renewing this request. Weltoners (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is this a social issue? It's a form of prostitution which is already on the template. I think it's too specific for this template. — Bility (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's at the nexus of prostitution and law enforcement because children are involved so much more often than ordinary prostitution, as the sources in that section I just added say. (Presumably because it is easier for adults to get regular jobs?) Weltoners (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've deactivated the request for now. There doesn't seem to have been much improvement in consensus and you will be able to edit it yourself tomorrow. I'd still recommend reaching a consensus first, to avoid having someone take it right back out. Cheers and welcome, Celestra (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added a third paragraph explaining the trends, recent Congressional and administrative law enforcement action (and the lack thereof), and the position of the Center for Community Oriented Policing (which is absurd) so I am going ahead and going to add this to the social issues section. Weltoners (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Essentialism"

It took me some time looking through the Essentialism article to figure out what it had to do with sex alone. Does it really have anything to do with sex and the law? Weltoners (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took it out. There were no other sources on Google that I could find linking essentialism to any legal matters. Weltoners (talk) 10:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

couple issues

None of these is really pressing, but:

Under "Specific offenses" is listed "pedophilia". Pedophilia is an internal state and isn't really exactly an offense per se. I can kinda sorta see the value of including in this template, but maybe it should be under "Social issues" instead.
"Zoophilia" should be replaced by "bestiality" in the specific offenses section, the former being an internal state and the latter being the actual offense. The link would stay the same.
Should not "homosexuality" be included under specific offenses? To some extent homosexuality is also an internal state I suppose, so maybe "homosexual acts" with the link devolving to Homosexuality laws of the world (which in turn devolves to LGBT rights by country or territory. Distasteful as it is, homosexual acts are offenses in several jurisdictions. (We have "buggery" but that is not the same thing.) Herostratus (talk) 04:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pedophilia is an illness. Child sexual abuse is an offense.

Zoophilia is an illness. Bestiality is a human committing a sexual act with a non-human animal. In many jurisdictions it is an offense. I am unaware of a term to limit this to unlawful sexual acts by humans on non-human animals.

Homosexuality is not an "act", so it cannot be an offense. It was previously mischaracterized as an illness. In some jurisdictions, various forms of sodomy are illegal. However the term is not specific to legally prohibited "non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act". Sometimes the term includes bestiality, sometimes not. Sometimes it includes oral sex, sometimes not. Etc. You get the idea. I am unaware of a term to appropriately limit this. Additionally, we have several different types of laws being covered here: laws specifically prohibiting same-sex/gender sexual acts, laws prohibiting various non-penile/vaginal acts (without regard to sex/gender), laws that do either of the first two along with prohibiting bestiality. Whatever term we use should probably link to Sodomy law (which seems to discuss this (I haven't reviewed the article and intend to drop out of this discussion entirely)). - SummerPhD (talk) 04:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you agree with me on the first two points, so no objection being stated I've made those changes. On the "homosexuality" thing, I agree that it's complicated, but it's a template, it's going to be broad, and we ought to have "Homosexual acts" linking to Homosexuality laws of the world. However, you don't agree on that, and it'd probably raise a shitstorm, so I'm not gonna do it. Herostratus (talk) 06:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Intersex

Given that both circumcision and female genital mutilation both appear, as well as sexual ethics the article on intersex should probably be added. It could appear in the Social issues section. The article presents a range of human rights issues around intersex bodies. Trankuility (talk) 04:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, given the listings on the template, including homophobia, I'm fine with the topic of intersex being added to the template. Flyer22 (talk) 01:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Done. Trankuility (talk) 02:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contraception and masturbation

I inserted "contraception", which user:flyer22 took out because she claimed it was already covered under "reproductive rights" (a much vaguer, "legalistic" term), and "masturbation", which she clains is covered undet "public indecency". I disagree. Masturbation, for example, was at times illegal even in private. But she never gives in and cannot be reasoned with. If I put them in again she'll take them right out again. This is her fiefdom, and what she says goes. Next thing she'll say, as she has in the past, that she has more editorial experience than I do, which is true.

Her specialty is reverting others' edits. Look at her Contributions. deisenbe (talk) 10:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I reverted Deisenbe, as seen here, here and here. And, in that first edit, I stated, "Contraception is covered by Reproductive rights, and Masturbation is covered by Public indecency, etc. Do not bloat the template." Deisenbe reverted me, stating, "Masturbation is bigger than 'public indecency' (there were times when it was a crime even in private) and contraception is bigger than reproductive rights."

As for Deisenbe's claims against me, I can be reasoned with, but Deisenbe often makes unreasonable edits. And, of course, no one wants to discuss anything with an editor who starts out with insults; his commentary above is one such example. If by "fiefdom," Deisenbe means my knowledge of sexual topics and people often listening to me on them, well, yes, people do know me as being well-informed on sexual topics. If he means reverting people, many here also know that I am a WP:Patroller and commonly use WP:STiki and WP:Huggle. But as for "fiefdom" meaning "the estate or domain of a feudal lord. 2. Informal. anything, as an organization or real estate, owned or controlled by one dominant person or group," I don't violate the WP:Own policy, and Deisenbe sounds like others who have used the word fiefdom to describe me. Anyone wanting to know the backstory regarding my interaction with Deisenbe can read User talk:Flyer22/Archive 18#Your treatment of me, but this talk page is not the place for that. Flyer22 (talk) 10:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By all means read the backstory. And I note here that I'm not the first to accuse user:flyer22 of acting like she "owns" areas. deisenbe (talk) 10:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, Deisenbe should point to examples if he is going to make such accusations, even though, like I stated above, this talk page is not the place for that. Flyer22 (talk) 10:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]