Talk:The History of Sexuality

Guidelines for terminology

In this article, the inclusive terms "different-sex" and "same-sex" are used throughout. Where necessary for clarity, the terms "straight", "gay", "lesbian", "bisexual", "transgender", "queer" or other more specific terms, such as "romantic", are used. "Different-sex" and "same-sex" do not carry negative nor positive connotations, are not in most cases the prefered term of any group or groups, do not imply self-identification, are not historically specific. However, care should be taken to avoid simply replacing the terms used in discussions of modern conceptions and identities with "different-sex" and "same-sex" in cases where this places aspects of these modern conceptions onto the ideally neutral terms. Examples of prefered usage include:

• Same-sex sexuality prefered over general use of homosexuality
• Different-sex sexuality prefered over general use of heterosexuality
• Person predominately sexually and romantically attracted to people of the same-sex prefered over the noun homosexual
• Person predominately sexually and romantically attracted to people of a different-sex preferred over the noun heterosexual

These are, of course, often overspecific and may often be shortened.

Hyacinth

Shortened, oh yes. How about PPSARATPOTSS and PPSARATPOADS ? Mikkalai 22:38, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And by the way, since you write "the same sex" but "a different sex", I presume that you distinguish more than two sexes (genders). Do you have in mind hermaphrodites or do you plan to extend the article by sexuality of aliens? Mikkalai 22:38, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think it would be great if the article discussed the sexuality of intersex people (hermaphrodites) and how that sexuality challenges or confirms other concepts about sexuality. I would prefer the use of gay, but this has not proved acceptable to other wikipedians. I realize some of these terms are unweildy, see User:Hyacinth/Style guide for alternatives. The shortest term isn't always the best.Hyacinth 00:53, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad that my silly joke gave you a good idea. Mikkalai 01:29, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Just a note, the APA recommends using "gender" instead of "sex" when you mean "gender". Just to avoid confusion. I think that's a good idea. That implies that the "preferred" terms above should be modified a bit. Thoughts? -- Beland 03:27, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

Old talk from merger (completed)

Woah

Um, what happened to the history of homosexuality page :) ? This seems a little over-broad to me, but I need to re-read it. Exploding Boy 22:24, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Please reincorporate information from the original articles now located on their respective talk pages.Hyacinth 22:36, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What? I mean what happened to the article? Why has it become History of Sexuality, a topic far broader and rather different than History of Homosexuality? Exploding Boy

There was a move some time back to incorporate "causes of homosexuality" into a larger and more exclusive "causes of sexuality" article (I can't remember the exact names, which is why there's no link). I'm guessing that has become a trend. There's talk below about how spin-off articles will be managed. I'm guessing History of homosexuality will eventually return as a spin-off linked to this article. -Seth Mahoney 21:49, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

See

• Talk:History of homosexuality, to be merged into this article

AIDS

So the previous version of the AIDS section sounded a little bit like "and let's not forget the role of gay people in that whole AIDS thing". Also, the AIDS article had apparently changed a lot and the specific section this article was linking to has disappeared. I re-wrote the section based on the introduction of the AIDS article, and I think it comes across as more neutral now. I moved the reference to "Gay plague" (now "Gay disease") to the AIDS article itself, because "Gay plague" actually has good info about the days before it was called AIDS. I hope you like the changes. --Beland 03:32, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Todo list

The todo list I've just created is huge, and I'm not sure all of the content envisioned there will fit in a single article. Given the recent decision to merge homosexual aspects of sexuality with heterosexuality (which is, of course, a huge topic), I guess splitting the latter off now is out of the question. And there are other vast topics perhaps too large to fit here in their entirety, too. I guess this article can just grow organically, and spawn subarticles on whatever topics it needs to? -- Beland 04:22, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe the intention in creating this article was to do "Sexual orientation in history" piece, not a bold, sweeping "History of sexuality"? I guess both are necessary. What to do? -- Beland 04:27, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe we should just get to work on the to-do list and spin off articles as sections get really big? We can then, if necessary, create a subcategory of Category:Sexuality like Category:History of sexuality or something to put all the articles in. -Seth Mahoney 21:45, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Collaboration of the week

This page has been nominated to be the Collaboration of the Week. Add your vote to the History of Sex nomination! -- Beland 03:02, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Given that the collaboration is happening on History of sex, I'm merging this content there. We can move it back to this title later, if necessary. -- Beland 13:59, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fourth volume

The German WP entry on Foucault explicitly provides the title of the fourth volume of the The history of sex as being Les aveux de la chair, that it was largely edited by the time of his death in 1984 and almost ready to get published, however Foucault's family allegedly is still holding back the book by referring to a supposed last will of Michel Foucault that no works of his ought to be published post mortem. --TlatoSMD 10:05, 23 June 2006 (CEST)

Recent addition

Michtrich, thank you for your recent addition about the publication of the fourth volume of The History of Sexuality. Unfortunately, I have to note that your addition means that the article now contradicts itself. The publication history section states that, "The fourth volume was to be entitled Confessions of the Flesh (Les aveux de la chair). The volume was almost complete before Foucault's death and a copy of it is privately held in the Foucault archive. It cannot be published under the restrictions of Foucault's estate", which is flatly contradicted by the information you added, which states, "The fourth volume (Les aveux de la chair) was published posthumously in 2018." What do you suggest should be done about this? Since the article cannot be allowed to contradict itself, perhaps the new information should be left out until a way can be found to make the existing information in the article consistent with it? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, but I don't know how this change came about. However, I would rather opt to get rid of the part you have quoted from the publication history, because this is the part that is no longer reflecting reality as the book does now exist. I guess it is also possible to find the reason for this change. Apparently his editor Frederic Gros said in the light of the #metoo movement "the moment has come for the publication of this major and original work." Michtrich (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I think the appropriate thing to do would be to carefully reword the older information to make it consistent with the new information. Unfortunately, I do not happen to have the source used - the book Religion and culture by Foucault - available. I can perhaps find a library copy. Failing that, I can buy the book and use it to update the information, but it will be some time before I can do this. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

References