Sexosophy: Difference between revisions
Created page with "'''Sexosophy''', according to the famed sexologist John Money, must be distinguished from sexology, as he states in the following: <blockquote>The practitioners of sex res..." |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Sexosophy''', according to the famed sexologist [[John Money]], must be distinguished from sexology, as he states in the following: | '''Sexosophy''', according to the famed sexologist [[John Money]], must be distinguished from sexology, as he states in the following: | ||
<blockquote>The practitioners of sex research do not, in general, differentiate between sexology and sexosophy. Most of them, in fact, ride the ideological bandwagon of whatever is currently being funded as the "in-thing" in sexosophy. Current funding is predominantly in support of the opponents of what has become known as the sexual revolution of the 1960s and '70s, but which is more accurately named as a sexual reformation.<ref>John Money PhD (1988) Commentary, Journal of Psychology & Human | <blockquote> | ||
Prominantly displayed at every sex-research meeting and on the cover of every sex-research publication, there should be a great flag emblazoned with the declaration that there is a difference between sexology and sexosophy. Sexology is the science of sex. It is impartial, empirical, and, in the manner of all science, nonjudgmental. | |||
Sexosophy is the philosophy of sex. It is not impartial but value-laden, ideological, and judgmental. A great deal of what passes for sexology today has absolutely nothing to do with science, but everything to do with either the secular or religious ideology of sex--in other words, with sexosophy. | |||
The practitioners of sex research do not, in general, differentiate between sexology and sexosophy. Most of them, in fact, ride the ideological bandwagon of whatever is currently being funded as the "in-thing" in sexosophy. Current funding is predominantly in support of the opponents of what has become known as the sexual revolution of the 1960s and '70s, but which is more accurately named as a sexual reformation.<ref>John Money PhD (1988) Commentary, Journal of Psychology & Human | |||
Sexuality, 1:1, 5-16, DOI: 10.1300/J056v01n01_02</ref></blockquote> | Sexuality, 1:1, 5-16, DOI: 10.1300/J056v01n01_02</ref></blockquote> | ||
Revision as of 11:16, 13 April 2016
Sexosophy, according to the famed sexologist John Money, must be distinguished from sexology, as he states in the following:
Prominantly displayed at every sex-research meeting and on the cover of every sex-research publication, there should be a great flag emblazoned with the declaration that there is a difference between sexology and sexosophy. Sexology is the science of sex. It is impartial, empirical, and, in the manner of all science, nonjudgmental.
Sexosophy is the philosophy of sex. It is not impartial but value-laden, ideological, and judgmental. A great deal of what passes for sexology today has absolutely nothing to do with science, but everything to do with either the secular or religious ideology of sex--in other words, with sexosophy.
The practitioners of sex research do not, in general, differentiate between sexology and sexosophy. Most of them, in fact, ride the ideological bandwagon of whatever is currently being funded as the "in-thing" in sexosophy. Current funding is predominantly in support of the opponents of what has become known as the sexual revolution of the 1960s and '70s, but which is more accurately named as a sexual reformation.[1]
Sexology tells us, from carefully and correctly done scientific research, that sexual relationships between male adults and minors of any age, do not usually cause any physical or psychological harm to the minors.
"Sexosophy," on the other hand, promotes a litany of "serious harms" to minors engaging in sexual activity with adults. These claims are not based on carefully and correctly done scientific research--they are merely the moral and "religious" rantings of sexophobes and antisexuals
Reference
- ↑ John Money PhD (1988) Commentary, Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 1:1, 5-16, DOI: 10.1300/J056v01n01_02
