Talk:Sexualization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 I request re-definition 1.1 A response 1.2 Reference to definition of sexualization without negative connotations 2 “Moral panic”

[edit] I request re-definition

Please percieve this as an serious and determined request that does not whish to accuse the actual contributor of the article that I dislike. Rather I seek to convince him/her of my correctness and I begg you to se the value of changes I ask of you.

The defintion is irrational because it presumes as premise that sexualition is negative and only applied to the negative contest but nothing in the actual description contains something that is better than a subjective explaination of why it is negative. The only logical out come is that sexualisation is defined so that it is nothing but an argument for why all healthy sexual activity is negative.

I want a version of positive sexualition to be added to the negative becouse objective the following can be equally applied to a positive effect for the person being sexualized.

The article about Sexualism refers both to negative usage and to positive sexuality. Also I believe that such an re-defintion would suit the mindset of everyday persons and in a broader perspective suit reality better.

Are there nothing about positive forms of hetrosexuality or positive sexuality that includes hetrosexuality. Are there no terms or descriptions of positive

This is a prof that society and all moral is antisexualistic and anti-pleasure. Not becouse it is harmfull but becouse it is sex.

A, “a person’s value comes only from his or her sexual appeal or sexual behavior, to the exclusion of other characteristics; Motivation, just becouse other characteristics are limited to the sexual doesn't mean they doesn't exist. All behaviours in life can be seen as extension of sexual beheaviour. As an example; children and parents have a form of sexuality according to Freud. Several persons declair that all abilites are means to impress the opposite gender.

“a person is held to a standard that equates physical attractiveness (narrowly defined) with being sexy; People who see any meaning with sex other than a simple drug without substance usually agree that physical beauty is what sexy. That even leads partially outside actual sexual orientation.

“a person is sexually objectified—that is, made into a thing for others’ sexual use, rather than seen as a person with the capacity for independent action and decision making; and/or

All people are objects in ones mind and all people see other people as extensions of their own expectaions and opinions. Society is based on the idea that people cannot make independ decision making, the same applies in all forms of friendship or families. This is a healthy requirement. Without this we would not be able to feel the impulse to convince other individuals and without it we would not be able to imagine other people to do what we desire that they do even in our minds. Also it would be impossible to fall in love or connect through sex if we did not see sexually attractive persons as an extension of ourself. There fore this logic is corrupted by a fear for relationships. The end. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.211.245.152 (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] A response

This article is not about sexuality in general. The term “sexualization” is not the same as “sexualism” or “sexuality”. The use of the term “sexualization” in the literature cited in this article is specifically about negative imposition of sexuality. This is in no way saying that sexuality is negative, just that there are ways in which the imposition of sexuality is harmful and that the term “sexualization” is used to refer to those negative ways.

In a related example, rape is a negative forcing or coercion of participation in sexual intercourse. To cite rape as being negative does not mean that “sexual intercourse” is negative, it means that the term “rape” refers specifically to a negative application of sexual intercourse.

If you have citations for non-negative uses of the term “sexualization”, please identify them and expand the article appropriately. Having never seen any use of the term outside of the negative contexts described in the article, I am doubtful that you will find such citations.

Too clarify my own position—I am in no way anti-sex. I am opposed to the harmful application of sex and sexuality, but I support the embracing of healthy, consensual, sexuality for anyone who chooses it.

—GrantNeufeld 04:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference to definition of sexualization without negative connotations

Apparently, "sexualization" can also mean: To make sexual in character or quality. This definition came from "The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition" copyright 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. I found it at http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sexualized.

This definition carries no negative connotations.

Those who compile dictionaries do not create the definitions arbitrarily; they compile different uses of a word in books, magazines, and other available writings that reflect how people are speaking and using the word at that time. Then they write the definition(s) based on how people are using the word.

There is nothing wrong with the APA definition given, if that is how they use the word. It might be worth recognizing that they are not the only ones using the word, and that their definition is not gospel. They do not control how the populace at large uses words. Colloquially the word is being used to mean something slightly different, without negative connotation.

It is quite common for a word to be used to mean something very specific to a profession, but to have a somewhat different meaning in colloquial usage. Usually, such a word is called a "term of art".

As an example, the word "infant" is colloquially used to refer to a very young child who has not learned to walk or talk -- under 1 year old. In legal terminology in the U.S., an "infant" is someone under 18 years of age.

I would recommend that someone edit the entry to reflect this definition. I don't think that the APA definition should be removed, though, unless it does not accurately reflect how the APA uses the word.

I am in no way affiliated with original poster of the objection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.75.225 (talk) 01:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] “Moral panic”

On May 16, 2007, Peter G Werner added a link to Moral panic in the See also section of this article. This appears to me to contradict WP:NPOV. I suggest that either an appropriate citation(s) be provided that provide some sort of link between the subject of the article and “Moral panic”, and that it be placed in a “Controversies” section of the article, or that the link be removed if its relationship to the subject cannot be substantiated. —GrantNeufeld 06:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Exaggerated fear of what is seen as premature sexualization of girls has been criticized as a kind of moral panic. Its true, however, that this criticism needs to be fleshed out, cited and clearly stated who's making this critique, and worked into the text of the article. Iamcuriousblue 04:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)