Talk:Judaism and sexuality

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 23 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): 1221Bambino, Phthalate-esther22, StCharlesGilbert.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

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.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

Translated from Hebrew Wikipedia --Midrashah (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I would love to change around the structure of this article. Currently the structure states that some things are forbidden acts in Judaism, while others are okay. I think that if the titles were just the actions themselves then it would be possible for different denominations and sects of Judaism to express their views on the subjects. Tsg1998 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

This article is a mess, and it would probably be best to delete it and start over again. Hznhr (talk) 05:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The entire first paragraph (excepting the first sentence, that I fixed) on Homosexuality makes no sense. Of course the prohibition on lesbianism is not from the same source as the prohibition on male relations. Much of the article is unreferenced. The part of emission should start with the prohibition against arousing the libido, which is the source prohibition, then go to directly causing emission. Should this be RfD'd?

P.S. I disagree with the banner. There is no list of references, just some external links.Mzk1 (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

What Maimonides stated

We have a reliable source written by a professor from American Jewish University who stated what Maimonides has written. A direct reference to Maimonides' work is prohibited by WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

See salso WP:BURDEN. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

His work has been published by Jewish Publication Society. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

We have to distinguish an empiric-analytical claim about the texts written by Maimonides from a theological claim which would require assent from a community of faith. So, unless someone is prepared to affirm that this claim was made up (and prove it with reliable sources), Wikipedia defaults to keeping it per WP:VER. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Non-halakhic (non-Orthodox) Judaism

Thiss article reads like it was written by Shmuley Boteach (an Orthodox rabbi who has written on sexuality). It's all Orthodox. There are millions who call themselves Jews who reject halakha partially or totally. Our views deserve inclusion.

On the same topic, there are quite a few people who by religious law are unquestionably Jews, who reject Judaism as a personal religion and would probably answer "no" if asked "are you a Jew?". Yet they are unquestionably of Jewish descent and culture, and halakhicly Jews no matter what they said or did. Among them are many sexual innovators and radicals: among others, Sigmund Freud, Magnus Hirschfeld, Wilhelm Reich, Ruth Westheimer (a Haganah sharpshooter), even Annie Sprinkle, Nina Hartley, Susan Block, Al Goldstein, Harry Reems, Jamie Gillis, Ron Jeremy, Philip Roth, Erica Jong, and we shouldn't forget Emma Goldman. (Who could forget her?) See "The Jewish Masters of Porn", http://jewishfaces.com/porn.html and Category:Jewish American pornographers. This is a simcha (joy), not a shonda (disgrace), and needs treatment somewhere. deisenbe (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I can agree with your first point, but you are wrong on the second, for the simple reason that this article is not about Jews and sexuality, but about Judaism and sexuality. Debresser (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Lead-in I wrote deleted by user:Debresser as "personal opinion"

In general, in contrast with Christianity, Judaism views sexuality positively, a gift from God that is by no means limited to reproduction. Celibacy is no virtue; there is an informal but strong expectation that a man, and especially a community leader, should have a wife. Lovemaking on the Sabbath is appropriate and commendable.

In Jewish law [originally said "Judaism"], sexuality is viewed as having both positive and negative potential...

deisenbe (talk) 00:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Yep. And why did you decide to write about this here? By the way, I left that last sentence. Debresser (talk) 06:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Which sentence did you leave?

The talk page is the WP designated place for discussions of an article and how to improve it. deisenbe (talk) 11:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I left the sentence "...sexuality is viewed as having both positive and negative potential...", contrary to your post above that says I removed it.

So discuss! You just posted a statement. Debresser (talk) 08:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

You removed everything that I wrote. The words you quote are not by me and antedate my edit.

As far as discussion, I've said all I care to as of now. I'm not going to go over with you what I wrote sentence by sentence. The WP concept is that _others_ might add to the discussion. deisenbe (talk) 08:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Another reversion by user:debresser (he is imposing here his own view, Haredi Judaism; he identifies as Haredi on his user page)

The paragraph that begins "In Judaism" I changed to "In Jewish law", which is all the section goes on to talk about. Judaism and Jewish law are not the same thing. Rabbis from previous centuries, or millenia, do not have the sole authority to say what Judaism is or what Judaism's view of sexuality is. In my opinion, anyway. deisenbe (talk) 11:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, there you have it. Your opinion is correct, and mine is just religious POV. Thank you for clarifying that. I'd like to refer you to Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks in this regards. It is interesting how quick editors are to ascribe the fact that I disagree with them to me being religious. Actually, that fits well with the present anti-religion climate in America.

The truth is, your edit was plain wrong. Jewish law doesn't have a view of sexuality. It is precisely Judaism that has a view of sexuality. "Judaism" is a lot more than just "Jewish law". Debresser (talk) 08:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

So I'm influenced, I guess, by the alleged anti-religious climate in America. Touché.

I couldn't agree more that Judaism is more than Jewish law. I'm not sure we mean the same thing by Jewish law. I would say the Shulchan Aruch contains Jewish law. deisenbe (talk) 08:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree. By the way, I had a look at your userpage, and your website (now on the Wayback machine). It seems you could also be accused of having a strong personal POV that shall remain unnamed. So let's do without all that and just try to edit, applying the Wikipedia pillar of WP:CONSENSUS. Debresser (talk) 08:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

It's fine with me if you name my alleged personal POV. You already referred to it. I _want_ my Web site on the Wayback machine. Are you trying to frighten or humiliate me? You might follow your own advice about Avoiding personal remarks. deisenbe (talk) 09:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The opposite. I am saying that we should not pay attention to perceived personal points of view, and just discuss the matter at hand as objectively as we can. Debresser (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Examples of lack of neutral POV

As long as this article goes on to talk about the view of Judaism and ONLY quotes Jewish law as the sum total of Judaism, it does not have neutral POV. This is not a neutral POV sentence, from the intro:

Sexuality is the subject of many narratives and laws in the Tanakh and rabbinic literature.

It implies that Judaism's views on the topic are known by looking at the Tanakh and rabbinic literature, AND NOTHING MORE. I call that not neutral. deisenbe (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Here's another example of lack of neutral POV:

The traditional view is that the Torah forbids all anal intercourse between two males, and this is the view of Orthodoxy; there are other modern views that disagree. The source of this prohibition is a verse from the Book of Leviticus: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination." (Leviticus, 18:22). However, Rashi interpreted the matter as only prohibiting anal sexual acts between two men (and not other sexual acts between them), as he stated: "As one would penetrate a blue-brush into a receiver." But other authoritative commentators of the Torah see all sexual acts between two males to be included within the ban on "sperm in vain".[citation needed] The Jewish sages added additional barriers to this ban, and forbid males to put themselves in any situation that might lead to such an offense. For example: Chazal prohibited two single males from sleeping under the same blanket.[citation needed]

Seven words, "there are other modern views that disagree", are all the space that is given to non-Orthodox views. Who holds these views, and what they are, is ignored, with a reference to another article. And information is found there. But the rest of the paragraph - 150 words - is all about the Orthodox view. And it isn't true that 150 words for the Orthodox and 7 words for everybody else fairly represents the interests of Jews. That isn't the proportions of Orthodox versus non-Orthodox people within the Jewish community. deisenbe (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

What modern views are you referring to that are part of Judaism? There are a few references and external links to non-Orthodox views as well. What more do you want? Please note that Judaism has been what you call Orthodox about ten times longer than that non-Orthodoxy exists. I mean, you must give the various opinions their rightful do. Debresser (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you look at the article Homosexuality and Judaism, non-Orthodox views (including Conservative) are given 2700 words, and Orthodox is given 2500. I counted them using WordPerfect. That's a better balance.

You're correct that Judaism has been "what I call Orthodox" (what do you call it?) much longer than non-Orthodoxy. I'm not sure if it's ten times, but it's a big discrepancy. But that's talking about the PAST. This article is, or should be, as I see it, about Judaism in the PRESENT, not as it was centuries ago.

The article is not "The History of Judaism and Sexuality".

FYI, although you may know this already, the term "Orthodoxy" was not applied to Judaism until the nineteenth century (though what is called Orthodoxy of course existed before). In the United States in the nineteenth century, Reform Judaism was far and away the predominant form of Judaism. I don't know about other countries. In the United States, Orthodoxy did not have a significant presence until the arrival of the Ashkenazi from central Europe toward the end of the nineteenth century. deisenbe (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

In view of the fact that Judaism is the sum-total of its history and present, I think that even without the title of this article being "History of Judaism and sexuality" this article should not overly stress modern points of view. You seem to want to turn this article into into "Jews and sexuality", and that is also wrong: this article is about the point of view of Judaism as a religion, not about the points of view of Jews. Debresser (talk) 18:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Judaism and sexuality. But what is Judaism?

Debresser, you're absolutely right I strongly believe there should be an article on Jews and sexuality. The fascinating topic definitely merits an article (and this one isn't it, as you correctly pointed out). I do not have the knowledge to write it. I could perhaps write (assemble reliable sources) for "Jews and sexuality in the United States", but don't think that would be a valid stand-alone article (and it would be a lot of work, and I've got plenty of other things, arguably more important things, to work on).

But THIS article is about Judaism and sexuality. I think there's pretty much a consensus about what "sexuality" is. Not about how people should ideally behave sexually, but about what human sexuality is.

My concern is "what Judaism is this article discussing"? Jews by anyone's definition disagree about what Judaism is. It could perhaps be:

• The Judaism of King David, who is the greatest hero of Jewish history, whose star is the icon of Jews/Judaism and is on the Israeli flag. The Tanach supplies the names of eight wives of David, and if memory serves also says he had as many other wives/female sexual partners as he wanted. Some Jews argue that in addition, David's love for Jonathan was sexual, which the Tanach does not say, at least not openly. Other Jews argue that it wasn't and the Tanakh doesn't even imply it was. A topic for debate by those more learned than I. But the question is "what was the Judaism of King David, or of his day?" Or are we to argue that King David did not practice Judaism, or that his version of Judaism has been declared passé, invalid. But by who? (Maimonides? Because the Atemple was destroyed?)
• Judaism as defined by the Sanhedrin
• Judaism as defined by the Shulchan Aruch
• Halakhic Judaism. But then there is more than one version of halakha, isn't there. At least the WP article says so. Ashkenazic halacha, Sephardic halakha, Mizrahi halakha, etc.
• Halacha as defined by the chief rabbinate of Israel in 2015
• Judaism as defined by the very numerous Reform Jews
• Judaism as it is defined by the Progressive Movement in Israel?

Perhaps you could add to this list. The Rebbe's version of Judaism? My point is that whatever your personal belief is that's fine, that's between you and ha-Shem. But as an editor of Wikipedia you have to take a neutral POV. The point I'm making is that by privileging halakhic Judiasm as the sum total of what Judaism is (please correct me if that's not precisely right), you are not displaying a neutral POV.

A principle of WP that I much admire is "assume the best". So I'm assuming that this had not occurred to you, you thought you HAD a neutral POV. That the idea that someone might say "I'm a Jew, you agree I am, or assume for the sake of argument I am, but I don't think Judaism and halacha (correct me again if I haven't got it precisely right) are the same thing". You're right and I'm wrong? According to whom? And what gives he/she/them the right to make that decision? Gee, this is getting philosophical. I guess that's good.

What I will ask of you is similarly to assume the best of me, that I believe it is my responsibility as a Jew and as a WP editor to raise this question. And not attribute it to my own sexual behavior, or interests, which, whatever their vices or their virtues, are totally irrelevant. deisenbe (talk)

All: I'm inclined to think that the balance in the other article is (qualitatively) reasonable. But if that's to be done here, someone has to write it. It's not something I have enough expertise to write. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I made this a subsection of the previous section, since I think it is really a continuation of it. As to the question itself, I do not think we need an article "Jews and sexuality", in the sense that we do not need to know the opinion of every Jews dead or alive on the subject of sexuality. That is the what I had in mind. Debresser (talk) 13:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

St Aquinas

Surely he knows more about Christian beliefs than a Jewish rabbi right? I'll just have to find a secondary source that states his statements.112.211.214.39 (talk) 12:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

No personal attacks, please. Issue one I have with this edit is that it uses a primary source. That is not recommended on Wikipedia. Another issue is that Thomas of Aquinas was a church philosopher, but he didn't invent the idea, and there exist other views on the issue. Lastly, the simpler we keep the statement, the better it is IMHO. After all, this article is not about Christianity. Debresser (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I never had any intention of attacking anyone, I just asserted that a Christian saint would know more about his religion than someone who is not a member of that particular religion ( in this case a Jew); it is a reasonable assertion, right?112.211.214.39 (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

If there exist other views on the issue, shouldn't we just put "certain christian views" instead of "Christianity."112.211.214.39 (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Debresser: I am not weighing in on the Personal Attacks issue, but the content. If you don't want to fully discuss the issue of original sin, which I agree might be off-topic for this article, you may not want to raise the issue at all. It is not enough to offer one rabbi's interpretation of original sin and sexuality. The way it is written is not WP:NPOV because it states an opinion as a fact. The doctrine of original sin is largely unrelated to sexuality, my copy of the Catholic Encyclopedia (Nihil obstat and Imprimatur) says original sin was a sin of pride, disobedience and ingratitude. Reading sexuality into original sin is controversial because it implicitly places blames on Eve for Adam's sin - under the doctrine both Adam and Eve share blame for the original sin, which is nothing more then the fall from grace. It more broadly discusses "the rebellion of man's lower appetites against reason and will" - but interpreting this as "does not view sex favorably" without any detailed discussion reinforces widely believed misconceptions that are harmful, sexist and doctrinally inaccurate - unless you want to discuss the controversy please remove it. Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphim System So you'd propose to remove "due to a belief that it has been contaminated by original sin"? Debresser (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I am referring to this line The basic Jewish positive attitude towards sex and sexuality within marriage is opposed to the Christian theory of original sin, which does not view sex favorably. sourced only to Rabbi Gold, I don't see the "contaminated by" line in the current article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to this version, in which the sentence reads "The basic Jewish positive attitude towards sex and sexuality within marriage is opposed to Christianity, which does not view sex favorably, due to a belief that it has been contaminated by original sin." In that version the "original sin" part is conveniently located at the end of the sentence and can easily be removed, leaving "The basic Jewish positive attitude towards sex and sexuality within marriage is opposed to Christianity". Because that fact is IMHO relevant and important, and shouldn't be left out. Debresser (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

That statement is not in the source, and you would need more then one source for it even if it was. There are several different theological schools of Christianity, so there is no way for that statement to be factually accurate or anything other then promoting one religious belief over another, which is not what we do here on Wikipedia - it is irrelevant and undue - I am removing it. You seem to also be consistently chastised for promoting one school of Judaism over others as the truth. You should consider using attribution and being clear about the theological doctrine and its development within certain sects, and noting places where doctrine converges, instead of adding material to the encyclopedia that is inaccurate. In the future, you should certainly avoid SYNTH comparisons of two separate religions which each have their own differing views within the religion. Since you self-identify as a rabbi, this does not appear to be a good faith mistake, and if you did indeed add this content then I will caution you that it is not acceptable to push your own religious views by denigrating other religions. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Please do not edit the page while this is being actively discussed. That is rude, and ignores the Wikipedia pillar of WP:CONSENSUS.

As to your claim of WP:SYNTH. The first part of the sentence is in the article, and I event quoted it in the reference template. The second part isn't, which is why I asked you here if that is the part you would remove. Debresser (talk) 21:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

There is no discussion, there are multiple editors who disagree with you about sourcing whose complaints you have either ignored or characterized as "personal attacks against religious jews" - this statement is not adequately sourced and it references "Christianity" by someone who is not clearly not qualified to discuss Christian doctrine - a Rabbi is not necessarily an expert in New Testament scholarship or Christian doctrine. There is no consensus here to justify inclusion, there is only your unwillingness to accept that this statement is not sufficiently sourced or WP:NPOV even though it has been pointed out by more than one editor. Some of the comments may have been personal attacks, but the original complaint - that this source is not a good scholarly source about Christian theology is valid. Perhaps this is what you interpreted as a personal attack, but it is clear from the quote which does not identify which Christian doctrine it is referring to or even which Christianity it is referring to - or which Judaism. Any genuine discussion would bring new sources to bear on the issue, and you have not done that. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

For example your statement below Since virtually all denominations of Christianity have "an issue" with sex, see original sin - is POV and OR. That is not a consensus discussion, for a consensus discussion you need sources. If you have better sources then this quote, which you are cherry picking to insert your own POV into the article then I am willing to discuss balancing. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)To the contrary. The text is on purpose general, because the statement is true for basically all of Judaism and all of Christianity.

Why you assume that rabbis can not be knowledgeable about Christianity, or in more general term, certain areas of other religions, is something I don't understand. Possibly more an expression of some prejudice of yours than of anything else.

You are wrong. A talkpage is not an article. I do not have to source everything I say here.

And you are 180 degrees wrong about something else: I happen to be the one who sourced this statement to begin with, after it was in the article for a long tie, but without a source. Debresser (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Rabbis are experts in a different field - being an Old Testament scholar requires knowledge of Hebrew and sometimes even older forms of writing. I had a professor in college who was knowledgeable about cuneiform and other ancient writing systems that I don't even know the name of ... Christianity is no less demanding. Usually experts specialize in one field or another. I have never encountered a Bible Scholar who was specialized in both fields. The is not prejudice, it is a fact - these are separate areas of study. Again, I think you should be careful that your expertise does not become disruptive, or lead you to cast aspersions about other editors. Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I had such a teacher too, in school. I agree with you. Still, anyone can do research, and you don't have to be a professor in Christianity to research a fairly limited area like "religion and sexuality". According to your logic, only a Christian would be able qualified to make any statement about "Christianity and sexuality", only a Muslim about "Islam and sexuality", only a Buddhist about "Buddhism and sexuality", and no interfaith discipline like "religion and sexuality" could ever exist. That is obviously not true. Debresser (talk) 10:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I added three more sources. The last one is especially interesting, mainly because of the suggestive title. Sit on that! You will of course say that the opinions of Christian can not be used, where he compares with Judaism, since he is not an expert in Judaism. I have already show that argument to be futile and leading nowhere. Debresser (talk) 11:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Chritianity vs. Catholicism

I'm the one who made the change to Catholicism, I've restored it, and I'm going to defend it. To identify the Catholic (including St. Thomas) tradition with the Christian tradition is just as wrong as identifying Orthodox Judaism with Judaism. If you go back, sure, there are some versions of Protestanism, like Calvinism, that were pretty sex-hostile. But Martin Luther was (marital) sex-positive. A growing number of Protestant denominations support or perform gay marriage. None has the Catholic church's blanket prohibition of birth control devices or medicines. None has Catholicism's prohibition of divorce. Many are supportive of abortion, which Catholicism views as murder.

The article is, from its title, not about the history of these questions, except as background. It's about the present.

If this is reverted again I plan to request outside intervention. deisenbe (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Since virtually all denominations of Christianity have "an issue" with sex, see original sin and Religion_and_sexuality#Christianity, the previous, stable version should be preferred.

Adding a primary source is never a good idea, especially when that source is from the Middle Ages. All the more so, since the source is indeed Catholic, so can shed no light on the issue in other Christian denominations. Debresser (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

It is not true that "virtually all Christian denominations have an 'issue' with sex". Not today. deisenbe (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Theology tends to change only slowly. As it should, by the way. So I have to seriously doubt the implication that the theory of original sin has changed much recently. If you can show me wrong, I'd be interesting in reading up about the subject. Debresser (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Deisenbe

This discussion is closed. It should not have been started here. Please do not restore it. John (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Once again you're equating religion with theology. That theology changes slowly, is irrelevant. Religions can change quickly. The "theory of original sin" hasn't changed much, but that's not the point. The point is that it is nowhere as widespread as it used to be. I don't know if this is typical of a Haredi rabbi (not of some types of rabbis, for sure), but you constantly look at written sources from long ago, and all but ignore what is going on today. Lack of neutral POV. Like when you accused me of an ad hominem attack, then went on to make a more inflammatory one yourself. Against me. Your claim that I should not have restored Catholicism because of talk page discussion is self-serving. The opposition is from you and only you. No one on the talk page supports you. You're the one being disruptive. deisenbe (talk) I have no idea what you are talking about. I will consider reporting you for persistent personal attacks on me as a rabbi. Debresser (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Judaism and sexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:oe244K9f7lEJ:h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl%3Ftrx%3Dvx%26list%3DH-Judaic%26month%3D0211%26week%3Dd%26msg%3DQd%252BxlvJNt9Pdyte46rHffQ%26user%3D%26pw%3D+%22zera+levatala%22&cd=39&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us with https://web.archive.org/web/20121229104304/http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx on https://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=H-Judaic&month=0211&week=d&msg=Qd+xlvJNt9Pdyte46rHffQ&user=&pw=
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716083639/http://www.jofa.org/pdf/Batch%201/0092.pdf to http://www.jofa.org/pdf/Batch%201/0092.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.jewishpress.com/uploadedimages/stdimage/june%202008%20edition.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716083703/http://www.jofa.org/pdf/uploaded/1518-OWUK0769.pdf to http://www.jofa.org/pdf/uploaded/1518-OWUK0769.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100707115712/http://www.yoatzot.org/article.php?id=121 to http://www.yoatzot.org/article.php?id=121

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

"Consensus"

Debresser claims to have seen a consensus here that says we shouldn't go into the details of the Christian view s on sexuality because this is not a Christian article, but I don't see the consensus he speaks of. Where is it? 112.211.214.39 (talk) 00:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Now the article quotes at least three Christians, but only in so far as they speak about the views of the Hebrew Bible. If you allow me some original research, the reason why Kwee and Hoover refer to the Hebrew Bible is that in the New Testament there is no mention of masturbation or anything resembling it, apart from a word which is no longer translated to mean "masturbators" and Bible scholars agree that it does not mean that. So the only part of the Christian Bible which could be eventually construed as saying something about masturbation is the Hebrew Bible. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Attitude towards Sexuality

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus is to exclude the reference to Christianity i.e. inclusion of either of of the versions are opposed.Winged Blades ^Godric 07:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

---

Which of these two versions should be included in the article: Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Version 1 The basic Jewish positive attitude towards sex and sexuality within marriage is opposed to Christianity, which does not view sex favorably.

Version 2 Some theologians, including Rabbi Michael Gold, have argued that the basic Jewish positive attitude towards sex and sexuality within marriage is opposed to Christianity.The BBC reported that "Christianity's suspicions of sex as an element of 'the fall' are absent" in Jewish tradition, which holds that God commanded his people to "be fruitful and multiply."

Christian writers developed more restrictive views of sex then rabbis. Early Christian writers, including Clement of Alexandria, were influenced by the philosophy of Stoicism. Clement wrote that "moral self-restraint is common to all human beings who have chosen it." Under this view ascetic Christians could submit their bodily impulses to the "rational will". James A. Brundage points out that in Jewish tradition rabbis did not think enjoyment of sex needed to be restricted because God has given humans the capacity to "produce exquisite pleasure" through sexual acts.

References

Survey

• Version 1 Reasons: it represent the subject concise and objectively, while version 2 has problems with both those issues: it creates a false impression as though there are those who would disagree with the basic difference between the religions, and it violates WP:UNDUE, since this article is not about Christianity, which it elaborates upon far too much. I'd also like to add that version 1 is very close to the version which has been in this article since its creation in 2010 till recently. Debresser (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC) The opposition of Seraphim System to version 1 is based on their personal believes and interpretations only, as shown in the section below, and those should not influence the clear policies and guidelines of how we work on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 05:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
• 1 let the article Christianity and sexuality deal with reasons. All we need in this article is that Judaism views sex differently than Christianity. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
• Version 2 The first version comes across as denigrating to Christianity. If the issue is raised the context should be briefly explained (including "be fruitful and multiply") - the additions on Christianity are brief, only what is needed to maintain NPOV. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
• After disucssion, I also support neitherSeraphim System ^(talk) 02:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
• neither - omit reference to Christianity altogether. We have a whole article on Religion and sexuality where the views are compared and contrasted. I'll also note that the discussion of Judaism and sexuality there is all out of WP:SYNC with the discussion of it here, which is bad meta-editing. the discussion of christianity and sexuality in Version 2 is also out of SYNC with the content we have about Christianity and sexuality (here for example) which only adds to the problems of Wikipedia saying different things about the same topic in different places. Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC) (NB - fine with the alt version of 1 presented by DES below as well, as a 2nd choice Jytdog (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC))
• Version 1: A reference to Michael Gold works as a reliable source (in conjunction with the other sources used to establish this point). However, there is no indication that Michael Gold, himself, is notable. The second version makes it sound like this is just an idea invented by Michael Gold, rather than the widely held view. OtterAM (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
• Version 1 (but see a comment on an edit below). StevenJ81 (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

  The above holds if stays in, but at this point I think we should delete reference to Christianity altogether. StevenJ81 (talk) 01:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• Either neither (as per Jytdog above), or a modified version 1, such as "The basic Jewish attitude towards sex and sexuality within marriage differs from that taken by Christianity. Mainstream rabbinical thought tends to view sexuality positively, provided it remains within marriage and within certain limits.". Less emphasis on Christian views, which are properly handled in other articles. DES ^(talk) 23:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
• Neither - omit reference to Christianity altogether, this is too simplistic and poorly sourced for such a complex subject. btw, I think "as opposed to" not "is opposed to" is meant ie contrasting with . Pincrete (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
• Neither (invited by the bot) #1 is ridiculously & horribly over-generalized, taking discussions and sources that apply in specialized contexts and multiplying them by 1000 into statements about entire universes of Judaism and Christianity. #2 (which is much better) suffers a minor version of that problem in a few areas. Whatever is put in should be written with wording that defines the limited scope/ context of the statements. North8000 (talk) 11:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

I disagree with the unexplained statement (=argument by assertion?) that version 1 would sound denigrating towards Christianity. Version 1 sounds perfectly neutral and matter-of-factly. Regardless, that perceived non-issue can not justify a violation of WP:UNDUE (a quantitatively large violation IMHO in this case) and certainly can not be a reason to reflect sources in a POV manner. Debresser (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the statement comparing it to Christianty is undue and should be removed entirely but adding context to it is not. It makes a statement about religious beliefs. Adding context to a statement that is already in an article based on a widely-cited source is not undue Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

If by "adding context" you mean the second sentence of the first paragraph in version 2, then I might agree with that. The second paragraph however is a gross WP:UNDUE violation, in its entirety. There is also something very wrong with "Some theologians". That sounds as though it is a minority opinion, while it is the mainstream opinion, if not the only opinion. Adding "including Rabbi Michael Gold" makes it even worse, since he is not linked on Wikipedia or otherwise widely know worldwide, so this attribution, instead of contributing to the reliability of the statement, probably even takes away from it, by further limiting the opinion. Which in short brings us back to version one, with the possible addition of one sentence. Debresser (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The second paragraph is necessary to explain the contrast between the views. This does not make sense without understanding that there was a Stoic influence on the development of early Christianity. I added only two lines about Stoic influence on Christian thought, which is a huge topic. The lines I added are precisely relevant to clarifying the distinction raised in your sources - which contrast the Christian view to how rabbis did not feel the need to limit sex for pleasure. This is not clear from your your version. What I added is based on all the sources, including the ones you added yourself. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@OtterAM: This is a pretty minor reason, it doesnt justify removing an expansion of a one-sentence paragraph. Most of the sources used for the expansion were already cited, and not added by me. I don't object to revising the wording of the first sentence Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Making a majority point of view, or even the only point of view, sound like a minority one, that is a serious problem. There are no one-sentence paragraphs in version 2, so what do you mean? Debresser (talk) 03:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. I really don't think we need to go into any great detail about Christianity at all here. But I do think that the phrase "opposed to Christianity" (in both versions) doesn't really correctly capture the flavor of what anyone is trying to say here, and if anything makes this far more combative than it needs to be. I'd recommend (in either case) "differs from that of Christianity". If someone feels the BBC statement from version 2 needs to be added into version 1 I could live with that, though I personally think it unnecessary. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@StevenJ81:I would support StevenJ81's wording, but for me, the issue is mainly that it is not ok to introduce soemthing controversial, such as a negative comparison of religions ("more favorably than Christianity") if you are not willing to discuss it in the article. It is not ok to just state that, and then not go into detail. You don't just write a topic sentence and not write a paragraph about it. If the paragraph would overburden the article, then the entire thing should be removed, as it is most likely undue for this article in any case. I can't imagine any encyclopedia articles would deal with this subject in this manner. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing controversial about the different ways two different religions view a certain subject. I am starting to think that the negative relation of Christianity to sex is what you are having a problem with, rather than with the way policies and guidelines of Wikipedia are being applied here. Please notice that the word "negative" is not applied to Christianity in this article. Debresser (talk) 22:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The fact that you are actually arguing that the topic of Christianity and sex is non-controversial, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is why I don't think there is any point in discussing with you. The problem is that you should not introduce the topic of Christianity unless you want to discuss it. What is the point of adding a source like "Jews are better at sex then Christians." The only reason this is in the article is to promote one religion over another in a way that is extremely painful and damaging for followers of that religion. When Christians read things like this, they don't suddenly decide their religion is deeply flawed, they decide they are deeply flawed because they are constantly flooded by reports that "Christianity thinks sex is bad" - in an encyclopedia, if you raise this issue, you should be willing to add two sentences from academic sources explaining its background. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

So you actually prove my point, that you have a probelem with the attitude of Christianity towards sex. You consider it to create a negative opinion about Christianity. That is, however, completely subjective, and should not be used as an argument for anything.

"you should not introduce the topic of Christianity unless you want to discuss it" is diametrically opposed to WP:UNDUE. We introduce it, and link to the article about Christianity and sex, and that is all we need to do here. That is what all Wikipedia articles do with issues on other pages. Debresser (talk) 05:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Nothing that you just said is true. Do not tell me what I do or do not have a problem with. We learned in 3rd grade to begin paragraphs with topic sentences. It is a fundamental rule of English grammer that you should be familiar with as an editor. It is not subjective, "Jews are better at sex then Christians" is the source that you added when I raised my concerns. Making comments about my beliefs on that is invasive and disgusting. Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

For example, I have asked you several times to stop directing these kinds of comments at me. You still don't understand what it wrong with not honoring that request. You and trolling and yes, I am sensitive, religion is a sensitive topic and you are incapable of not making personal comments. Telling me I have a problem with the attitude of Christianity about sex is a personal comment. I do not want to have personal discussions with you. Christianity is not about sex - the doctrine you are referencing is far more complicated then what you are making it sound like. I don't think there are many scholars of Christianity here, so I understand that this point may be not be clear to many of our editors. But you also don't want to listen or consider any view other then the one you are pushing. Religion and being religious means different things to different people. To say the Christian view is "unfavorable" towards sex is not enough. That is not Christianity. If I absolutely must, I can talk to you during a consensus discussion, but this is an RfC, and you are not saying anything new. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can only say what I think is the truth, in a civil way, as I am supposed per standing policies and guidelines. I stand behind my understanding of the issues here: version 1 should be preferred as neutral and concise, while version 2 is the opposite namely accentuating an incorrect or at least not mainstream point of view as result of an effort to rectify a perceived but non-existing insult to Christianity and gross undue attention to the issue of Christianity in this article. Debresser (talk) 09:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

This is getting way too personal and isn't solving the problem. So let me try to lay out a couple of stipulations, and then try to propose a solution, rather than having you guys continue to hurl slings and arrows at each other:

• Stipulation: For this purpose, "differs from that of Christianity" is more appropriate than "opposed to Christianity".
• Stipulation: For the majority of users (or at least uses) of this encyclopedia, the background context for any discussion of religion and sexuality is that of Christianity. Therefore a mention of that is probably appropriate, though what that looks like is far from clear.
• Stipulation (shakiest, but I'm going with it): At some point, most people would probably agree that the historical approach of Christianity to sex is, at least, somewhat "restrictive" (to use the language of Brundage). That doesn't mean we can't be very careful in how we approach it. And as Seraphim System says above, it's a long way from there to "unfavorable".

So I propose the following:

• The basic Jewish positive attitude towards sex and sexuality within marriage is different from that of Christianity, which historically has had a more restrictive [or restrained] view of the subject.^{Same refs 1–4}

StevenJ81 (talk) 14:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I would agree with that. One of the fundamental barriers is Debresser's claim that this is "basically true for all of Judaism and all of Christianity." There is no evidence for it and he insists he does not need a source - it's very hard to arrive at a good outcome this way. If what I am saying is a minority view would it be printed here in Britannica, or here in the Bible, the “flesh” that is spoken of disparagingly is not the human body but human nature in rebellion against God - there are thousands of denominations of Christianity - but what Debresser is calling a "mainstream" view is American Evangelism - even though his sources are discussing Catholicism, and early Christianity. The mainstream view in America is focused on sex before marriage and homosexuality - not sex in a marriage. Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I have no real problem with such a phrase, although we already have two other alternatives which precede this one: version 1 as what seems to be the consensus version, or version 1 with the addition of the second sentence from version 2 but without its second paragraph. At the same time I agree there is no reason to make it sound as though the attitudes of Judaism and Christianity are juxtaposed, while in truth they are simply different, and that is expressed better in this proposal. We could still add that second sentence, by the way.

A problem here is that Seraphim System refuses to accept that this difference is generally true for all of Christianity and Judaism. For that simple reason, the sources do not differentiate between denominations, but rather use a general statement, much like this article. Obviously there are exceptions, but in general it is definitely true, and I fail to understand what issue Seraphim System has with that sourced fact. Debresser (talk) 17:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Debresser, I think it's beside the point whether or not Seraphim System wants to accept that this difference is "generally true for all of Christianity and Judaism". In fact, I think it's beside the point whether or not this is generally true at the present time for all (most?) of Christianity. The historical point is correct, and for the purpose of this article, that's more than sufficient. In a world where there are thousands of denominations of Christianity, I think you'd really need sources to support such a claim about modern Christianity. And since this article is about Judaism, that wouldn't even be appropriate here. Since both of you seem to be agreeable to my suggestion, why don't we go with that and be done with it? StevenJ81 (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Because somebody had to open an Rfc here... Had they discussed first and edited later, they would have found compromise is never far away with reasonable editors. Debresser (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

OK. Since I'm working on English Wikipedia less these days, I don't remember: Since a formal RfC was opened, do we need to let it ride out seven days before we can close it, or can we come to a consensus now? StevenJ81 (talk) 19:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The history of that phrase was that it first mentioned original sin [1] and this was removed after my comment [2] - sourced to a doctrinally sealed Catholic encyclopedia - after which he made this change [3] adding the source "Jews are better at sex then Christians" and removing the original sin part from the sentence, and decided it could stand on its own without any qualification because of the additional sources. The only one of those sources that is an academic source is University of Chicago Press and it speaks only of early Christianity. The rest are cherry-picked media articles where source follows content, that is not the way we are supposed to do things. As the opener of the RfC I think we can revise the RfC to reflect the input from editors to see if we can reach consensus. I do not know if we need to wait 7 days first. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The sources are not cherry-picked. A simple Google search yielded those results. Regarding the "Jews are better at sex than Christians" source, please see WP:HUMOR REQUIRED (feel free to create it if it doesn't exist). I mean, the source simply uses the provocative title to attract viewers, although the article is quite serious, as a matter of fact.

If there is consensus, we can close the Rfc. I want to make it clear, that I would like to see the consensus worked out here in detail, without any boy-scout edits to the article at a too early stage. Debresser (talk) 19:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Attempt to reach consensus

Proposed first sentence

"The basic Jewish positive attitude towards sex and sexuality within marriage is different from that of Christianity, which historically has had a less favorable view of the subject." This proposal is not completely identical to Steven's text, because on second consideration, the word "restrictive" is factually incorrect in two ways: 1. Judaism has more laws regarding sex than Christianity 2. the issue Christianity has with sex is that sex is regarded as something tainted. That is not "restrictive", that is "less favorable". Debresser (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Regarding a second sentence

"Christianity's suspicions of sex as an element of the fall of man are absent in Jewish tradition, which holds that since God commanded to 'be fruitful and multiply', sex is a holy deed." I would change the second sentence of version 2 into something like this. I can of course explain the changes I made, but perhaps it is more purposeful to just ask for comments on this proposal, so: opinions? One thing I like about it, is that it adds a statement about Judaism, which is important in this article, and helps to avoid the WP:UNDUE issue. Debresser (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Your comment there is probably why I intuitively preferred to use the word restrained than restrictive there. But you and I both tend to see the idea of "restriction" through a religious-legal lens, because Halachic Judaism is a religious-legal system. However, I was borrowing language from Brundage, which is the most reliable of the four sources from a WP:RS perspective. And Brundage was looking at things from a more sociological perspective: "...much more restrictive view of the role of sex in human life." That's not a legal comment, it's a sociological comment.

What's more: I wouldn't touch original sin here. It's not a Jewish topic, and while the historical Christian view on sex unquestionably has links to that concept, it is not identical to that concept. In any case, if I could borrow a page from the practices of the US Supreme Court, I would much rather not take the case any farther than I absolutely must in order to make my point. And I don't think we need to touch that concept here. It's sufficient to say:

• "The basic Jewish positive attitude towards sex and sexuality within marriage is different from that of Christianity, which historically has had a more restrictive view of the role of sex in human life."

That makes the point adequately for the purpose of this article. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I can live without a second sentence. From my point of view that was more a compromise. Although I like the part of sex being a holy deed in Judaism, which on the other hand would really need a source in itself.

Let me think about what you are saying the usage of the word regarding "restrictive", and see what other editors here say about it. Debresser (talk) 20:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment I agree with StevenJ81 - regarding the first sentence, the academic source we are using says "restrictive" and we should use "restrictive" (or restrained) as well. The views on sex changed from early Christian writers to "original sin". There are multiple ways to understand Christianity - any serious source, like Britannica, will note that there are theological and academic sources, Church traditions and also a cultural understanding that may not reflect those sources. This is why we agreed to remove original sin in the first place. Beyond that, the restrictive attitude on sex in Christianity predates Original Sin and Augustine - it didn't start with Original Sin. This is not a minority view - it is widely recognized by major scholars in this field who study Greek language texts. There have always been theological differences between Judaism and Christianity, and Christianity was on the whole more restrictive in certain ways (poverty, forbearance/chastity, extending adultery to men, its the only Abrahamic religion that doesn't allow divorce, etc.) and as you say, less restrictive in others - but there are other articles where that discussion is more appropriate. Since this is not an article about Christian theology, it is better if we just stick to the academic source - which is about sex in marriage, not restrictions on sex overall. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I think I'd prefer to stick to Brundage's language exactly, just because that's the language he chose. That said, I think "restrained" is still supported by the source, if we should decide it's better to use a word with a less juridical overtone. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't have an objection to either choice, but leaning towards the source language as well. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Two other sources use the word "negative". The BBC source uses "positive" in relation to Judaism, and thereby implies "negative" in relation to Christianity, as also implied by the term "the fall".

The only reason Brundage uses "restrictive" is because in that chapter of his book he addresses the restrictions religion puts on sexual relations. That is precisely as I interpreted the word "restrictive", and Steven was mistaken to think it didn't carry a legal meaning in this case. He does not discuss the attitude as much in that chapter. On page 80 he addresses the issue of how sex was viewed in Christianity, and uses phrases like "Augustine's underlying belief in the intrinsic sinfulness of carnal desire ... became a standard premises of Western belief about sexuality during the Middle Ages and beyond." and "Not only was sexual desire a basic and pervasive evil..."

In short, 2 sources use "negative", 1 source implies negative" and Brundage says it elsewhere because that was not the subject of the chapter. As I said above, the most important difference between Judaism and Christianity is in the positive-negative attitude, not restrictiveness.

So after denying up and down that it was intended to be negative, and accusing me of making things up without evidence, you are now saying that your entire reason to include this line is to make a negative comparison of Christianity in relation to Judaism, and that you have cherry-picked non-academic sources in order to do it and want us to disregard the only academic source provided for this comparison? Did I understand you correctly? Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Besides that, I have given sources that have shown that what you are saying was not even true about Judaism in the Middle Ages, do you want us to spend more time on that? Probably not, because you've removed those sources too. Was inter-faith marriage allowed? Is it today? Do women consent to these marriages? - why don't we include some viewpoints from women also? Why don't you just not make this comparison at all - it's clear from what you are saying that this does not- really add anything worthy to this article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are accusing me of now with "after denying up and down that it was intended to be negative". There is a difference between saying that Christianity has a negative attitude towards something, or saying that Christianity is something negative. I still feel you are mixing up these two.

Your second paragraph sounds like a rant. If there is any specific question or issue you want to raise, please do so in a calm manner. Debresser (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

What I seem to be failing to get across to you is that the statement we are arguing about is meaningless. You say that "Judaism has a positive attitude about sex" - well no, that isn't English. Judaism can't have an attitude about anything, its a noun. So you must mean Jews. It follows from there that you mean all Jews have the same positive attitude about sex. This is obviously not true - there have been a flood of reports about how unhealthy the attitude is in some of these communities, especially for women and those who are vulnerable (I cited a few below, but there are more.) Further, when you compare the practices in religious communities, you find similar abuses documented in all of them, and similarly unhappy congregations - at least as far as women and young people are concerned. I can find at least a dozen sources and they all emphasize the inaction of the rabbis and the terrible (and sometimes illegal) advice that they give to those suffering from various kinds of domestic and sexual abuse. At first you cited the opinion of only a rabbi, and not a particularly well-known rabbi, and you reacted very defensively to any criticism that source's authority. Don't take this as a personal attack, but I still don't think it meets Wikipedia's standards for WP:RS. he is not a notable rabbi, that is not in dispute. I could send the IRS a form, start my own synagogue and start calling myself a Rabbi if I wanted to. I don't need any qualifications or expertise to do this. You have never justified using him as a source, beyond his title as a Rabbi. What it comes down is we have one academic source and the wording should reflect that source - that is what would be appropriate. The point is not to cherry pick sources to prove what you think is the "most important difference" - a negative comparison about Christianity" - what we should do is either reflect the academic source, or if it is not necessary or too complex for this article, remove it entirely. Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you notice that you change arguments every time? Now it is semantics, of all things. I don't think there is anybody who would find it hard to understand the statement "Judaism has a positive attitude about sex", nor do I think it is a problem to say so in English. And if it were a problem, it could be rephrased.

Cherry-picking is another of those empty words you use, like WP:BOOMERANG, because I already replied and told you that all my sources are from the first page on Google search. It seems that you are cherry-picking, looking for recent controversies and scandals, which per definition will have little if any lasting effect on Judaism as a religion. Debresser (talk) 12:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Dovid, I think you are not willing to rest unless you "win." But, frankly, I will not support you on this. I think that it is possible to use a word that has a mildly negative connotation (like restrained or restrictive) without having to shove it down anyone's throat. You don't think people will get the idea if you say "restrained" or "restrictive"? Really?

Remember that the only reason to include this at all is because the cultural background of the majority of users (or uses) on this wiki is at least vaguely Christian. The comparison is absolutely not essential to the topic of the page itself. So if you really can't get past this, then I'm going to suggest taking it out and keeping it out. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't need to win, but please comment on the issue, not the editor. The sources support "negative", so we don't really have a choice. I forcefully reject your claim regarding the cultural background of editors and its relevance. If we start writing what is pleasing for readers, this project will have lost all value. By the way, we can always leave the words "not favorably" as in version 1, which is less black-and-white. Debresser (talk) 06:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

You're wrong, the sources only support that "most early Christian writers" not "Christianity" - this idea you are pushing that because it was most early Christian writers, you are allowed to misrepresent it as "Christianity" is dishonest. Further, I have sources that support using negative, but most of the current sources need to be removed for reasons that have already been explained. BBC because it is not historical and we have changed the wording, Rabbi Michael Gold because for WP:UNDUE because his work is both primary and has not been cited, and Leif Carlsson. It could also address the pressure it puts on women when they are expected to enjoy sex and they don't. The view of this as positive is overwhelmingly a male (misogynistic) view. Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

You are wrong, source 1 says "Christianity", source 2 says "Christian writers" and further on uses "Western belief", source 3 says "Christianity", source 4 says "Christians". And I am not pushing anything, it's all in the sources. Debresser (talk) 13:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not, I am referring to academic sources that are available on Google books. There are several. The improper use of religious sources template and neutrality templates have been on this page for years. I don't need to post sources, I haven't proposed any language change to User:StevenJ81's version, and you haven't proposed a source that justifies using the language you are proposing. here Original Sin is not erotic in nature. You seem to think its significant that you have found some minor media sources that contradict academic sources and this has been an issue from the start. You don't want to use academic sources because they don't support the imprecise and incorrect language you are trying to push. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

this source says Judaism was also influenced by Stoicism toward a more "negative" view of sex, even within marriage. this source says Judaism contains both positive and negative elements, but encourages sexual activity in marriages for procreation (this is true for Christianity also, though you have chosen to completely obscure the issue by talking about early Christian writers who encouraged celibacy) psychological studies find negative attitudes about sexual desire in those with religious beliefs, particularly Roman Catholics and Orthodox jews. another book the negative attitudes toward sexuality that appeared in Christianity and Judaism were not products of ancient Hebrew culture - there are more...a few on Maimonides from OUP and gBooks - I don't really think having this sentence in the article the way it is adds anything necessary to the article. It also seems to be contradicted by a significant number of high-quality sources. Maybe it would be best to take it out. Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The sources you bring here do not compare Christianity and Judaism, so are not relevant. The third you misinterpreted, not surprisingly. It does not say that Judaism has a negative view of sexuality, and most certainly not that Judaism has a negative view of sexuality compared to Christianity, it only says that there are negative elements in Judaisms relation to sexuality. Nothing in that statement contradicts or is contradicted by any of the other sources or version 1. Debresser (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Your obsession with comparing Christianity and Judaism does not seem NPOV. Your argument is basically: Leif Carlson, a minor theologian, uses the world negative so we should change Brundage's wording - this argument is entirely unreasonable. You should not make a comparison at all, if the discussion of that comparison is off-topic. Since this article is not about comparing Judaism and Christianity, most likely its best if this statement is removed entirely. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Debresser: Regarding cherry-picking, it does not matter if the results are on the first page of Google.out The statement was originally sourced to only Rabbi Michael Gold (not a well known Rabbi, and you have never shown that he has been cited by any secondary sources - he is primary for his own opinions). All of the academic sources I have seen that compare Judaism and Christianity do this in a historical context, including Brundage. Similarly, they all discuss which early Christian writers had positive views and negative views. It is clear from the context that the sources are discussing the attitudes of "early Christian writers" contrasted with the views of contemporary rabbis - not the attitudes of "Judaism" and "Christianity" - this language is imprecise, and you have been consistently unwilling to acknowledge this (initially you would not even agree to note that the context was historical, though you have changed your position during this RfC). When you went out and found non-academic media sources that supported only the specific language you wanted, that is what I would consider cherry-picking. 23:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Please stop showing of that you know the word "cherry picking". I have not changed my point of view, as you falsely claim. You mention "academic sources I have seen that compare Judaism and Christianity", but you have shown none of them here. The language of the sources is precise, and is quoted above for each of them. This is just one big WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Debresser (talk) 13:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The only one of your sources that is acceptable is Brundage, your use of other minor and undue sources is only to insist that we change the language Brundage uses. Your claim that I am misinterpreting a source that says Judaism and Christianity have negative attitudes about sex (as compared to ancient Hebrew tradition) is not only laughable, it is dishonest - I understand what you're saying, most of the early Christian writers were "more" negative - but that is not what our version says, it currently says the "basic positive attiude of Judaism" - this actually is contradicted by a significant number of academic sources. Further, denying scientific evidence that Orthodox Jews suffer from negative attitudes about sex as much as Roman Catholics would be abhorrent. I'm not saying you are doing that, but I think you need to review the sources I posted more carefully. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The other issue is that you posted an article about contraception - which is entirely off-topic. You need to work from only the Brundage source. The comparison you are making, as it is represented in the majority of academic literature, is with early Christian writers and Gnostics who banned marriage entirely. What you are representing as the "positive" Jewish view of sex for procreation, has been true for Christianity for a long time also. Brundage goes further to discuss sex for pleasure within marriage, but other sources debate this (especially sources which discuss Maimonides and Stoic influence on Judaism). I did not misread the sources, I am very aware of what the article says, and what our current sources say. I'm willing to explain it to you, but you need to stop the personal comments and direct your comments towards content. I have alreay asked you several times to stop casting aspersions about my behavior, like your recent comment that WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That kind of comment does not help us reach consensus. Given the amount of debate in academic sources, I think this statement should most properly be removed entirely. We are representing something controversial as a simple fact based mostly on weak sources, where there is significant debate about these issues in academic sources. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Seraphim System, you are not being helpful here: "You don't want to use academic sources because they don't support the imprecise and incorrect language you are trying to push", "Your obsession with comparing Christianity and Judaism does not seem NPOV". You try to impose unclear rules: "You need to work from only the Brundage source". I have already shown that the quote from that source is about a different subject. Sorry, Seraphim System, but when you start being civil and stop ignoring the fact, perhaps it will be possible to work with you towards improving this article, but for the time being, you seem to have a WP:IDONTLIKEIT agenda. Debresser (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Calling other admins comments baloney because the sources contradict your view is not acceptable and neither are casting aspersions. You have not shown anything. You are resorting to personal attacks here and avoiding the fact that several academic sources that I posted contradict your version, and your states purpose is to push a negative view of Christianity and a positive view of Judaism, whether the sources support it or not. Once again your comments are not productive and you are unable to discuss the content instead of the editor, so I am through with this. We will have another RfC if we have to, though I am wondering if dispute resolution may be helpful - since I have made several requests that you direct your comemnts to the content and I should not have to deal with constant and repeated personal comments in a consensus discussion. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

With regard to DR, the ongoing RfC is a valid form of DR with respect to what to say here comparing Christian and Jewish views, and both of you should just disengage with each other and allow it to run. If the outcome is toward version 2 then subsequent discussion about that version might make sense. but if it is 1 or neither then there is no point to this. Some of the things SeraphimSystem has brought up that are just about Jewish attitudes toward sexuality could be incorporated in the article, without the compare/contrast aspect. That would be a different discussion. Jytdog (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog, as an uninvolved editor. I don't understand. I explained many times now that including a sentence about the negative attitude of Christianity is not the same as "push a negative view of Christianity", as Seraphim System puts it. How can I get that through to him? For example, "Christianity has a negative attitude to drug use", is a positive sentence. There is simply no fixed connection between the attitude of Christianity towards something and people's attitude towards Christianity. Should I drop it? It seems as though this whole argument is simply based on a misunderstanding, and I feel that is a shame. Debresser (talk) 23:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Would it be inappropriate to post on RS/N about Rabbi Michael Gold as a source while the RfC is running? Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Debressers intentions are beside the point, except that he is pushing very strongly for only "his version" as he refers to it, even when that version may not be appropriate because of debate in scholarly sources, and the complexity of the topic it introduces. What I think of making the comparison doesn't matter, there are conflicting secondary sources. We don't just pick sources that support language we are trying to insert, we need to summarize the academic sources that are available. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I would have no problem with going to WP:RS while this Rfc is ongoing. I don't really see the issue, but I suppose that is the reason for going to a noticeboard. :)

Seraphim System As a matter of fact, you can see for yourself that I have been open for all kinds of proposals during this discussion, both yours and Steven's. I don't think it is fair to say that I am pushing for only my version. Debresser (talk) 10:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Possible Balancing sources

• Leading US rabbi says that there is no such thing as rape within marriage
• Leading Ultra-Orthodox Group, Agudath Israel, Insists Abuse Claims Go To Rabbis First
• is not possible to work on it because you are dishonest. lyn-orthodox-jews-child-abuse-cover-up-feature Silence and self-rule: Brooklyn's Orthodox child abuse cover-up
• Child Abuse Allegations Plague the Hasidic Community
• Debate over Rabbi and the Sauna
• Sexual abuse: Report to police or rabbi?
• Rabbi and Educator arrested on Rape of Minor Charges
• The Orthodox Sex Guru

After a young woman marries — often, like the Satmar wife Marcus told me about, to a man she has met and spoken with only once before the wedding — she’s supposed to feel that sex is a blessing, a union full of Shekinah, of God’s light, not just a painful or repellent reproductive chore. Quietly, rabbis refer struggling wives to Marcus’s care. Her task is to instill desire in them.

• Identity Conflict in Modern Orthodox Judaism and the Laws of Family Purity

"menstrual blood is considered ritually unclean" "couples may be confused as to the specific focus of the prohibition, act or object" "there's no point to asking me this since my wife doesn't do anything with me - even when she can! (this was clearly a joke...)" Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

What are these sources supposed to come and balance? Please explain why you added these external links here. Debresser (talk) 10:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I reference them in my comment above but I don't want to clutter the RfC discussion. Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 12:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I added a link at the proper point, and also "demoted" the balancing sources section so that it is considered part of this discussion. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Added sections

Hello editors, I added the sections: Forbidden relations in Judaism, Consent in marriage in Judaism, and Sexual Pleasure. This is my first time editing a Wiki page so any kind of feedback would be appreciated. Best-Audi072636 (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Adding to consent section

I'd like to add more to the consent section with mentions of biblical literatures that give examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OH2MI (talk • contribs) 20:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)