Feminism Mid‑importance

	Feminism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism 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.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sexology and sexuality Mid‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discussion

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ronswansong.

Above undated message substituted from

talk) 21:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Lead Section

It seems that the lead section is okay. It would be beneficial to summarize the important points that are outlined in the article in addition to just the brief overview. It would also be beneficial to add why this topic is notable. --CyanCaribou (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Changes were made to the page as it was missing many key details and did not use language that was entirely neutral. Information was expanded upon. as in all cases, it can be expanded even further, but this is a start. --Jynxedphoenix 19:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article has a severe lack of citations and a variety of sources. Bulk of article (Themes section) relies on ideas from only a few sources and seems to use a lot of biased and non-neutral language. Article would benefit greatly from better citation use, inclusion of more sources and ideas, and better formatting as currently the article appears a bit messy and difficult to follow. -- Caretcake (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Caretcake.

Above undated message substituted from

talk) 21:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Main points

I assume this section is meant to present the views of feminist sexologists without a lot of needless repetition of "according to X"; nonetheless, some

in-text attribution would be helpful so the text doesn't come across as arguments being presented in Wikipedia's voice. Thoughts? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

NPOV issues with article

This article has some NPOV issues including:

Gayle Rubin is quoted a lot but surely others in this field have expressed views that can be included alongside her views.
The article at times mentions the views of Feminist Sexology professors and thinkers and such in a way that could mislead readers into thinking there views represent a consensus in the scientific community when in fact when it comes to feminist studies i general, many feminist theories currently lack a general consensus among psychological and sociological researchers as to the degree of their validity, if any.
We need to make sure that when discussing feminist sexology viewpoints that we don't use the Wikipedia voice to give credence to viewpoints still under debate. We should state who holds these views but not imply they are valid or invalid so long as no consensus exists regarding them in the larger sexology or other relevant scientific communities.
I noticed that this article talks about sexology in a way that fails to mention the debates that formed the basis of the sex wars in the late 70's and 80's and which still continue today between 2nd wave radical feminists and 3rd wave sex-positive and other 3rd wave non-radical feminists. Surely, debates over porn, consensual sex work participation, sexual liberation, etc touch on sexology as a field of study and thus feminist sexology specifically. How does feminist sexology deal with issues like woman enjoying or freely participating in porn by choice? What about issues of whether women freely engaging in sex with lots of men is problematic from a patriarchy standpoint as radical feminists like Catharine MacKinnin and the late Andrea Dworkin have argued?

Notcharliechaplin (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments

It could also be beneficial to add some media or images to provide visuals to the readers, as this article is mostly just text. --CyanCaribou (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I plan on contributing a section dedicated to Black women and their injustice regarding sexology. This would include their exclusion from feminism at large and the sexualization of Black women. --(Oxtmilk)(talk

Wiki Education assignment: African American Studies

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2024 and 24 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Oxtmilk (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Oxtmilk (talk) 02:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]