Talk:Academic seduction

Disputed

"It has been attributed to the psychological projection of status and authority on the professor by the student, and the professor's exploitation of their experience in psychological techniques of NLP or speed seduction, which were a fad for a time in western academia."

Teachers and students have been falling for each other for thousands of years, long before the notions of NLP -- hell, before psychology and thus "psychological techniques" -- were invented. This is nothing but bizarre speculation and I'd like to know how much of the rest of the article is based on any better foundation. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance, but simple linking (like with the little bracket-thingies) to "NLP" as in the article and talk page leads to a disambiguation page. Is it meant to link to "Neuro-linguistic programming"? DTM 03:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Presumably... -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Disputed: "Natural tendency for females of college age..." On the passage:

There is also a natural tendency for females of college age to develop crushes on authority figures [1], for perhaps sociobiological reasons.

This also happens, to a lesser extent, with males.

I have to dispute the authority of a (presently dead) link from "askthecollegeguy.com," self-described as an "advice/humor column," as a source for such conclusions in an encyclopedia article on psychology. Samaritan 11:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac. -Tachi 09:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The citation link for this is dead too.

Most disputed info is now gone or revised and backed up with sound references. Aine63 04:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Neologism

Neologism? The term "academic seduction" with this meaning (rather than referring to the attraction felt to a particular topic of study etc.) seems to appear only on Wikipedia and mirror sites. 142.3.164.195 17:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• we are voting to rename the article below Aine63 04:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The gender issue

There is literature on this topic, but most of it targets male teachers as if they are the only ones that over-step boundaries, which is a complete fallacy. And as women step into positions of increasing power, they are making all the same mistakes that men have in the past--including sexual harassment and abuse of subordinates. [2]Because of this, as I add new information and sources, I'll be making a point of maintaining a gender-neutral focus in the article. Women are as guilty of these transgressions as men, and the article should reflect this. Aine63 21:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Renaming the article or keeping the title as is: please vote

The votes support keeping the article, but most feel the title should be changed. Please vote here on possiblilties:

1. keep current title

2. rename: "Academic sexual abuse," "Academic sexual harassment," or another possibility, "Sexual harassment in education"

Right now, my vote is for "Academic sexual abuse" because sexual harassment can also be included under that category. This is what most of the editors who voted on this title also seem to prefer. Aine63 01:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• However, "Academic seduction" may be less POV then the others which clearly label this phenomena as abusive.Aine63 17:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I counted the votes on the delete discussion regarding suggestions for a new title:

-2 votes for new name "Academic sexual abuse"

-3 votes in the discussion were for a merge to the "Sexual abuse" article, but since the decision was to keep this article as a stand-alone, they could be counted as votes for "Academic sexual abuse" which would make it 5 votes for that title at this point

-3 votes for a new name with no preference given as to name

Global perspective

Since Academic seduction/sexual abuse happens all over the world, the article cites sources from all over the world, and will continue to. (For example, Martin is Australian, Prekel is from South Aftica, Pat Sikes is from Britain, and Camille Claudel was French.) However, it doesn't divide the discussion into "this is what people in France think" or "this is what people in India think" because most people are on one side of the argument or the other, or may straddle the fence, regardless of where they live. Other than a mention of how the laws or policy trends vary in different countries, I don't see a need to divide the argument into cultural "camps."-that is, unless some culture has some very extreme views such as thinking all young people should be de-virginized by a teacher. But that's just my opinion. Aine63 04:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for slapping a globalize tag on the article without much much explaination. However, I believe that this article's perspective is in fact rather limited.

The problems start out early:

Right after the definition, the article states that

One survey, conducted with psychology students, reports that 10% had sexual ::interactions with their educators....In a survey of high school students, 14% reported ::that they had engaged in sexual intercourse with a teacher.

These statistics are drawn from a study of American university students and high-schoolers, yet this is not clear from the onset. Not that the author's intent is to deceive, of course, but it is bad form to suggest that there is little difference between rates of academic seduction in Italy and Alabama.

As for the priests and public schools, even though this study only deals with the United States, this fact is not even mentioned. Furthermore, under "Debates", we read only about Britain and, again, the U.S.

While I certainly agree that disagreements about this issue exist within countries/cultures and not only among them, the fact remains that this article's cultural scope is all too limited. It does not address academic seduction in a single country that was not once a colony of the UK (except the UK, of course)! Ideas about academic seduction in Nigeria are probably going to be somewhat different from those in the U.S, and this needs to be discussed. Even among developed countries, sexual harrassment policies and university conduct codes vary widely. In many French universities, sexual relationships between university professors and their students are not proscribed. This is certainly not the case worldwide.

Nor does this article discuss historic, intitutionalised academic seduction.

This article is good insofar as it discusses heterosexual academic seduction in the anglophone world, yet all other cultures are ignored. Surely Japanese mores about gender and education are at least appreciably different from Californian ones.

In terms of the structure, perhaps we don't need Indian and French sections, but we most definitely need to hear about how this issue is perceived in France and in India. I respectfully disagree that focusing only on anglophone countries and those where de-virginisation by a teacher is the norm (if such ideas exist) is balanced and reflective of a global perspective. All the authors cited are anglophone academics; one link to an article about Claudel does not a globally-focused article make.

I don't want to discourage you. I believe that insofar as the article deals with anglophone universities, it's quite good. The content that you've produced is a very worthy addition to Wikipedia and I commend you for your good work. But this work is incomplete, for a global and historical perspective is lacking. The bulk of the article's sources present only the perspectives of English-speaking university-based feminists who don't seem to be very keen on academic seduction. The perspectives of, say, moderately conservative Latins, don't even get a mention.

Perhaps the authors of this article are not able to give this article a more global focus (I'm no expert on the matter myself), but at the very least, we need to acknoledge this gap -- with a "globalize" tag.--Zantastik talk 07:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the content is currently very "anglophone," but this is an article "in progress," and the "limited scope" of what is there now does not mean that this is the intention or plan for the article. I only began to edit the article a week or two ago, when there was nothing but original research--and all of it really, really bad--and a plan to delete. I volunteered to work on the article if the editors decided to keep it, which they did. But there is only so much free time in a day, and I am the ONLY person editing the content, and I add content as I come across it, so far I mostly come across "anglophone" content. (grin)

I think your points are well made. However, if you feel strongly about these missing areas, it would be great if you would help remedy the situation by helping to add the "less anglophone" content. If you yourself don't have the time, or the inclination (though you seem to have much to say about the topic), then you need to step back. Aine63 18:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:CIVIL; keep the discussion civil, please. Zantastik makes good points in his post above. Telling him to "step back" if he isn't going to add substantive information to the article itself is not going to facilitate discussion here. I think Zantastik realizes this is not a finished article and is a work in progress, in fact, I imagine that's the reason he added the "globalize" tag in the first place--to remind editors here that the article needs expansion to cover all appropriate bases. Additionally, I don't think he was criticising the work Aine63 has done on the article in the last several days, quite the contrary ("I don't want to discourage you. I believe that insofar as the article deals with anglophone universities, it's quite good."). · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 19:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Jesyko, Zansttik's critique was that there is absoulutely no non-U.S. content in this article. It doesn't show here in the discussion, but in the article history. My objection was to the fact that this is completely untrue, the U.S. content represents only a fraction. Of his points that the content is "anglophone," I didn't disagree. (I further object to insinuations that I'm being un-civil if I object to erroneous critiques by people who haven't really read an article carefully, or aprise themselves of the entire situation is it stands--this is all too common at Wiki.) Aine63 21:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, the only "erroneous" critique came well before he commented extensively on this talk page and before you made the comment that prompted me to butt in here. You were correct in pointing out that the article is not U.S.-centric, but Zantastik was correct in pointing out that the article does not necessarily have a complete worldwide and historical perspective. The comment I interpreted as being uncivil was not made in response to Zantastik's early, incorrect criticism, but rather his latter one. I would join Zantastik, however, in commending you for the work you have done on this article. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 23:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Jersyko. Yes, let me say yet again that I think that the content that you've added, Aine63, is quite good. I'm glad that we have someone here knowledgable about how this matter is treated in anglophone university literature; your contributions have made wikipedia more complete. I'm certainly not suggesting that you intend to only add material that addresses English-speaking developed countries. Yet as it currently stands, this article ignores every other cultural context in which academic seduction takes place, and until this situation changes, a globalize tag is in order. After all, it's a shame that we don't have people working on this article who are as knowledgable about A.S. in Latin America and Japan as you are it in the English-speaking world. One of the virtures of the globalize tag is that is attracts other users, who'll discover the article in a list of other articles needing a more global perspective. This fresh blood will be just as welcome as your own contributions, which is to say, quite welcome indeed.

To address your remarks that if I feel strongly about this topic that I should add some non-anglophone country content, I would note the following. I feel strongly about NPOV and articles having a global focus, but alas, that strong feeling isn't matched by any perticular expertise about A.S. Thus, what I'm able to add myself is going to be limited in the extreme. Consequently, I've chosen to limit my participation in the article to being a critic, pointing out some of the limitations (highly culturally bound, nothing about the history, few viewpoints of non-academics) so that others more knowledgeable than I can remedy them.

In conclusion, I believe that a globalize tag is in order until at least a reasonable amount of material dealing with A.S. in other cultures and from other cultural perspectives is added. Again, I commend you for your work and only hope that those who fill in these gaps write as well as you have about A.S. in anglophone universites in developed countries. A globalize tag isn't an insult against the article. It just means that it's a work in progress -- and we seem to agree on this. May you continue to do such good work. Let's tag the article and let you and others get back to work on this interesting article. Best, --Zantastik talk 21:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The problems with this article

First, the title is almost certainly wrong. "Academic seduction" gets <150 ghits, and five Google Scholar hits of whihc none are substantial uses of the term. Given that it is acknowledged in the article to be a form of sexual abuse, it's hardly surprising that the term seduction is not in common currency. It's not a lack of "global perspective", more that this is a neologism and one whihc is unlikely to gain much currency.

Second, this article gives a very strong impression of novel synthesis from the sources. That is likely the result of the title as much as anything else.

So, we need to have a better title and a change to the lead paragraph to reflect this.

Two titles have been suggested: Academic sexual abuse and Academic sexual harassment. Other possibilities exist. It is also unclear how this differs from abuse by any other adult in a position of authority (e.g. scoutmasters, youth leaders, priests) so perhaps the context needs to be widened. One thing of which I am absolutely sure: the word seduction is wholly inappropriate. Just zis Guy you know? 10:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

When I put this article up for deletion, most of the keeps were provisional on a later title change, though the "poll" above seems not to have gotten much interest. As described in the deletion discussion, I'd think titles specifically referencing harassment or abuse would be appropriate only if the text confined itself to those subjects. As it is, it describes sexual interactions between students and educators that are not necessarily abusive. Opabinia regalis 12:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

"Not necessarily abusive" is the issue--some people think they are, some think they are not. The problem with changing the name to one that includes "abuse" or "harassment", or merging the content into an abuse or harassment article, is that this could be viewed as being POV, as there are many arguments in favor of these types of relationships. The current title, though very lacking and certainly a neologism, is far less judgmental, and leaves room for the discussion of the debates that are taking shape in the article. However, I don't mean to be defending it as I don't like it either. Still, whatever the title change, I think it needs to be as free of any POV as possible. Aine63 16:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

My initial reaction to this article was similar to JzG's. Zantastik's suggestions, posted above, however, convinced me that this article has potential. I agree that the article needs a different title, but am somewhat flummoxed as to what it should be. Limiting the article to discussion of only abusive sexual relationships or harassment would be a mistake, in my opinion, as it would basically eliminate the potential to discuss subjects mentioned above, such as sexual relationships between pupils and masters in ancient Greece or the fact that French universities do not discourage professor/student sexual relationships (I think, anyway). Perhaps, then, the title Educator/student sexuality would be more appropriate, if a bit bulky (though perhaps it would create a subpage problem at Educator?). · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 13:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

We already have an article on pederasty. This is a novel synthesis of abusive and supposedly non-abusive contexts. Perhaps it should all be merged to pederasty? Just zis Guy you know? 14:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, after typing then deleting a post in disagreement and upon further reflection, I think you're right about this being OR. The subjects Zantastik brings up above can be discussed in other articles. This article, though it cites reputable sources, synthesizes the facts and ideas contained in those sources without attribution for said synthesis, which seems to fail comport with this and perhaps this. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 14:29, 1 August 2006

(UTC)

Wiki-osmosis? I find it interesting that people can label the content of the article a "novel synthesis" of the references when it is unlikely that the people making these comments have read any of the books. Are you getting this information from some kind of channeling technique? (Of course, if you have read the books, I stand corrected with apologies.) Aine63 03:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you arguing that it is not a novel synthesis? Can you explain how it is not if you believe it is not, perhaps with a link to a reliable source which synthesizes the information contained in the multiple sources cited in the article (or one of the sources cited if they attempt such synthesis)? I have already changed my mind once on this, and could easily switch back, I think, provided that such a source exists. Thanks. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 03:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

New title

We are back were we started, with a need for a new title, but no one really being able to come to a consensus as to what it should be. However, that people don't know how to refer to an issue or a topic does not mean it isn't legitimate. Since the editors have already voted to keep the article with a name change, this is what should come next. But no one has been willing to discuss this in any significant way.

Therefore, I propose that we go ahead and change it to "Academic sexual harassment" or even better "Sexual Harassment in Education" which is a topic title that already does exist in the literature. This will make it a sub-article of Sexual harassment. (Merging it into "Sexual harassment" isn't good because that article is already very long, and still needs more global content.) While I think it's smacks of POV, it's a little less POV then "abuse," and I only lean in this direction because almost all of the literture uses the term "harassment" when they are discussing sexual interactions and relations between students and teachers whether they are discussing in support of these kinds of relationships, or agaisnt them. However, we should keep the "Debates" section, and expand to include a healthy balance of both sides of the issue--but I have to admit that literature in support of these kinds of relationships has been very hard to come by so far, which is why this section is still scant. (The truth is, the only arguments I've come across that are in support of any type of sexual interactions with students, consensual or otherwise, are made by teachers who themselves like to have sexual interactions with students.)

If there is no serious, in-depth discussion on alternatives to a title change over the course of the week, I'll make this change this weekend. Aine63 18:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

However, with this change, the definition will have to be revised to be one that is consistent with those common to "sexual harassment." The portions of the definition, and article, that discuss even consensual sexual interactions as abuse/harassment should be discussed elsewhere in the article.Aine63 19:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Educating Rita ;-) Just zis Guy you know? 12:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Lol and it's Google-able, too. Aine63 23:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It's also already taken as a title. If we used it, we would have to call it "Educating Rita (not the film)" ;) Aine63 00:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

New article has been made

OK, so no feedback means I make the change. I've created a new article called "Sexual harassment in education" to be a sub-article of "Sexual harassment." I chose this because it's an already established topic in the media and literature, and because it's the least POV. Also, "Acacemic sexual harassment" and "Academic sexual abuse" are just more neologisms.

The "Academic seduction" content will remain in the new article, but will now be a sub-topic of the larger issue of sexual harassment in education. This will require some minor changes to how those sections are structured. It will also require the addition of a lot of new content, which is in progress but will take time to add. See the article Talk page for more on the plan for the new direction.

I'm not going to place a re-direct to the new article for a few days, not until some of the needed new information has been added, and the body of the article has been shaped a little more. Peer harassment is more common then harassment by teachers, and this area needs to be fleshed out. Aine63 23:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Redirect has been made. This article is not finished. Aine63 21:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)