Talk:Homosexuality/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Assertion that someone incorrectly identified as gay in this article

The gentleman named is NOT, to the best of my knowledge (which is pretty good, as a gay politician), openly gay. It's an open secret, but if he had come out, it would have been pretty massive news. I refer you to the note on outing at the top of List of famous gay, lesbian, or bisexual people. - Montréalais 16:58, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

New topic for discussion: History of Homosexuality--Cross-cultural

Throughout most of written history, homosexual relations usually took the form of pederasty, that is, they were characterized by a marked age difference and the fixed assignment of sexual roles.

While this may be true in certain cultures eg the Roman Empire, ancient Greece, it is evidently not true in others, eg the Court of King William II of England (who ruled 1086-1100) or the molly houses of London. The article alludes to the fact that homosexuality didn't exist before the nineteenth century, and someone looking for a greater history of homosexuality outside of the confines of this or of ancient civilisations is left seriously wanting. There is a long and very interesting history to homosexuality and I could write about it but it's going to take me a bit of time. Votes for making it a new article? Or should we shove it all under the history heading here? Graham :) 20:27, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

If you think there will be enough to make a new article, sure, go ahead. -- Kimiko 21:19, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
There is an interesting book on the Chinese history, Passions of the Cut Sleeve, but Bret Hinsch, ISBN 0-520--06720-7. -- Patrick0Moran
I am looking forward to that, it's quite neccessary to write an article about the History of Homosexuality. Once it's done, i will translate it into Chinese. Just do that! :D --Gboy 16:15, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
The best expression of erotic attraction between males is Cao Xue-qin's discription of the feelings of the (pre-pubertal) Bao Yu toward the (pre-pubertal) Qin Zhong, and the latter's similar feelings toward Bao Yu. That is in a page or so of text near the beginning of Hong Lou Meng (Translated as "Story of the Stone"). The sex comes a little later. Referring to materials like this lets the reader judge whether this form of behavior is "homosexual" or something else that existed in a non-Western context. Another source would be materials in Shi2 Shuo1 Xin1 Yu3 regarding the amorous and sexual activities of historical individuals in the fifth (?) century. Hinsch's book is interesting in that it includes mention of negative stereotypes and abusive behaviors as well as historical mentions of erotic behavior that don't give much information about the motivations of the individuals involved. Also, in the Tale of Genji there is one story in which Genji goes to visit a lovely young lady who is out of town, so he spends the night with her younger brother and is just about as well satisfied. Love? Depends on your definition. Erotic dalliance? Definitely.Patrick0Moran 17:14, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
That's interesting. I know very little about the hostory of homosexuality in China, but i prefer to know more( but i like to read more about that in western countries). The attitude towards homosexuality in China is vague...--Gboy 10:06, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It would be well worthwhile to do some primary historical research in Qing dynasty and 20th Century sources to work out what the actual changes were. I seem to remember that the Manchurians considered the sexuality of the Han Chinese in need of correction when they gained political control over China. Ming novels have some interesting stuff on sexuality, but hard to know what connection the fictional accounts had to real affairs.

I've seen it asserted that before the Second World War homosexuality was widely accepted in Japan, and that in the early decades after the war it was very thoroughly suppressed because those in control of Japanese society thought the practice put Japan in a bad light in the rest of the world.

Bai Xian-yong, in his novel Nie4 Zi3, depicts a society in Taiwan in the 60s where homosexual behavior was definitely present and was strongly repressed by the police. Interestingly enough, there was no legal basis for harassing gays, but it happened anyway. In mainland China the assertion, until AIDS rates made it sound ridiculous, that homosexuality was a Western perversion, a symptom of Western decadence, and that it simply never happened in China.

It might be possible to do an oral history of the situation in mainland China. Also, several gay Chinese coming from the PRC have established websites to tell their stories.

One thing to keep in mind with respect to the Greek model and similar situations is that the age and/or status differences may have served as rationalizations for what was basically just the attraction two people felt for each other. On the other hand, there are at least many stories about senior monks or abbots who used considerably younger monks. I don't recall any stories about younger monks making erotic advances toward considerably older monks. In the case of stories of samurai in Japan, however, there were stories of people who became infatuated with an older samurai. All of the storybook material could only serve as a basis for research hypotheses.

At least up until the fifth or sixth century in China there doesn't seem to have been any shame attached to homosexual relations. There was no shame indicated in the Tale of Genji from Japan, either. So during those times whatever is written is probably pretty reliable as long as it isn't something that was deliberately sensationalistic. But something seems to have happened after those times. I have no way to guess when it happened or exactly what the change was. However, if "nice" people could no longer practice homosexuality in the open, perhaps that paved the way for some of what appears to have been coercive interactions in the monasteries. If there were social strictures that made open relations between people of equal status, then maybe those relations were either disguised as the more "normal" kind of thing that was taking place within monasteries, or perhaps those were the only places where erotic attachments could be expressed. Patrick0Moran 07:21, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

social construction of homosexuality?

It's my opinion that sexual orientation as we regard it today is an invention of society.

The concept simply didn't/doesn't exist in certain cultures, such as the Ancient Greeks, who freely felt sexual attraction for well, whatever they felt it for, without prejudice.

Generally societies have frowned upon bestiality and incest, but 'bisexuality' to some degree is the norm in older cultures especially.

Generally, though, you'll find that around the same distribution of 'homosexual' people arose in those societies as well. Whereas almost everyone in Ancient Greece had some degree of homosexual interaction, about the same minority of people actually entered long term love relationships with members of the same sex. This suggests that homosexuality evolved more predominantly as a mechanism of social-sexual bonding, but secondarily as a mechanism for love-infatuation bonding. It could be presumed that homosexual relationships evolved to form a sort of suppport system to look after the the children of the tribe who had been orphaned, or were simply in excess to their families.

Khranus

new content -- NPOV question

Someone has added:

Homosexuality and AIDS
Risks of homosexual life are rarely advertised in the media. But as much as 29% of American gays are infected with HIV. In Europe, the pertcentage of HIV positive homosexual males is lower, at around 7-9%. Some pharmaceutical companies try to conceal this fact, as the high number of HIV positive people in USA is seen mainly as a market for the HIV supressing drugs.

This content does not sound neutral, especially as regards the activities of pharmaceutical companies. Proof?

Patrick0Moran 19:02, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

29%? That requires a boat load of good citations to back up. It is also highly suspect given the great deal of controversy surrounding just what percentage of the population is homosexual to begin with. Reverted. --mav 22:20, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
That sounds like a reasonably accurate presentation of some figures of HIV infection rate correlated with the practice of anal sex which I saw a year or so ago. The major flaw in what was added here was the mistaken assumption that anal sex equals homosexuality. However, I don't have the study results to hand - if I happen across them I'll present some better substantiated figures, though they really belong in an article about HIV, since the practice of anal sex is not indicative of homosexuality. Jamesday 21:16, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The following changes were reverted:

  • most people who regard themselves as having a homosexual orientation
  • most white Americans who regard themselves as having a homosexual orientation
  • less common as acceptance of homosexuality increases
  • less common, especially among more affluent whites, as acceptance of homosexuality increases
  • the question naturally arises
  • the question naturally arises in our notably heterosexist society

The first two show a POV biased toward the USA/racial differences. Although an explanation of racial differences regarding homosexuality would certainly be a valuable addition, it would IMO be better to put it in a separate paragraph instead of changing the rest of the text.

The third change is clearly POV. Not only is it not made clear which society is referred to, but heterosexist is also quite condemning here.

-- Kimiko 14:25, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

P0M: Hyacinth has added a statement from the Safe Schools Coalition that presumes to tell people not to use the term "homosexuality." The quoted passage would be pertinent to a discussion of the emotional attitude toward such words, but is not NPOV and does not constitute a discussion either of what homosexuality is or even what the word means. I favor removing the passage. Perhaps it belongs somewhere else.

The quote probably belongs in another part of this article but it most definitely does belong, and I believe it is NPOV to discuss what people have said. The Safe Schools Coalition of Washington did print the quote, and so saying they printed it is completely factual information. I also think it applies to the meaning of a word whether or not it is offensive. I'll add a sentence before the quote and see if that helps.-Hyacinth

"Persecution of homosexuals ("gay bashing") in such cultures is common; the experience of homosexuals in Nazi Germany for example is a natural evolution of earlier persecutions marked by torture, mutilations, burnings, and hangings."

Would whoever inserted these claims please provide some references for the supposed violent persecutions of homosexuals (outside Nazi Germany of course)? They seem doubtful; the penalties laid out in Canon 11 of the Third Lateran Council (1179 A.D.), for example, are defrocking and imprisonment for clergy, excommunication for laymen; severe, yes, but not "torture, mutilation, burning, and hanging". --MIRV 05:02, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I think the non-NPOV assertion here is that any part of the Holocaust naturally grew out of anything. Maybe it did (the ransacking without rebuilding after WWI didn't help much), but I don't think one could ever prove this specific point.

Issues with "related articles" section

I have a problem with this section for several reasons:

1. "Related articles/topics" should surely should mean related topics? How is frottage related to homosexuality? Same goes for oral sex and mutual masturbation. Surely a link to list of sex-related topics would suffice? 2. Compare the 80+ links on Homosexuality to the 31 links on [[Heterosexuality, several of which are actually about gay-related topics (eg: Reparative therapy and ex-gay) 3. Surely the test should be "could these links be intergrated into the article text? 4. There is a glut of links. Most of them are redundant and could be taken care of with a single link (see below):

sex, sexual behavior, sexual intercourse, frottage,tribadism, oral sex, mutual masturbation, anal sex, safer sex

List of gay-related topics

Comments please. Exploding Boy 04:17, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I shall out myself as the person who added a lot of those links (but not frottage, eek). I obviously got a bit carrried away.  :) I personally don't see any problem with duplicating links from the article in the see also section, one link buried in a paragraph may be hard to find. But, the section is too large. Perhaps someone should have a good look at the list of gay related topics, and merge the two (they are not all duplicates).
And to defend some of the inclusions... pederasty is not just historical; perversion is how some people view homosexuality, it adds balance to the gay pride etc sections; prostitution is just something I'm interested in as a subject, so the element which served the gay community interested me; the section on certain sexual practices (oral, anal, mutual masterbation, safer sex) ... I was trying to think why people would have looked up homosexuality, there will surely be young people who know little about sex in general, perhaps with doubts about their own sexuality, trying to find out basic information about what homosexuals "get up to" etc... in some countries information about homosexual activity is going to be hard to find, and not all over the TV like it is in the USA etc. fabiform | talk 08:06, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
To Exploding Boy: be bold in editing pages. If you seriously think something needs changing, don't be afraid of trying out something new. We can always revert it or put back some of the old stuff. I think your proposal is a good idea.
To fabiform: I don't think subjects already linked in the article text need to be mentioned again under Related Links. And people who are clueless about sexuality in general should follow the link to list of sexology topics or sex, not homosexuality.
-- Kimiko 10:07, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Being, as I am, currently in the midst of disputes over homosexuality-related topics, I'm treading carefully to avoid accusations. Exploding Boy 13:58, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
Fair enough... if I were you I'd have a good trimming session if the length of that section bothers you. And also review the list of gay topics to make sure it's got all the links you think are relevant as well. I wont make a fuss about any you choose to do away with.  :) fabiform | talk 14:19, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Have trimmed. Would still like to see the External Links and References section divided and tidied. Exploding Boy 14:53, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

there are no rules on how closed to the topics the related-topics should be, but i would like to see what's going on here, maybe we can meet a consensus later. the current style seems more neatly. but readers may need to click more times to get to the article they want, sometimes. --Yacht (Talk)Q 01:13, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism

The best part about the recent vandalism is that the guy can't spell. I'm not sure what fagots are, but he sure hates them. Exploding Boy 08:32, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)

er... eh? well... I admire his patience, awe! :o ;p--Yacht 17:33, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)

Anyone report it on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress yet? --zandperl 01:15, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Is it a coincidence that vandals attacking this page lack skill with the English language? This most recent "May we indeed hope for their speedy demise in great pain..." probably is supposed to mean something like "may we hope that these 'faggots' [sic] die a quick and painful death." Instead it sounds like those doing the hoping are to suffer great pain in their hopes for the "speedy demise". That's fine with me!  :) Uranographer 04:27, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Homosexuality in animals

Is there an article on homosexuality in animals? I'd recently been reading about the Central Park Zoo (in NYC) penguins, Roy and Silo, whom hatched an egg together. This article mentions the topic, but a more in-depth treatment including references for the bonobo study would be nice. If there is already a page on this topic, let me know, otherwise I'll start one. --zandperl | Talk

Orientation

Cut from article:

Although the term is sometimes used to describe all same-sex sexual behavior as well as other same-sex sexual or romantic interest, homosexuality usually implies an exclusive or predominant sexual orientation toward persons of the same sex, as heterosexuality implies sexual orientation toward persons of the opposite sex. Homosexuality is also distinguished from bisexuality, which implies a sexual orientation toward both sexes.

I think the term orientation isn't clear enough to be encyclopedic. It carries the intended meaning that one can be "oriented" deterministically toward something, and that one thus has no responsibility to turn away from it. Or, no need to. It's used in such a way as to imply that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality.

The term sexual orientation is an open compound noun (see the article compound noun and adjective), which means that although the words have separate meanings by themselves, together they form a word having a special meaning. For example, a "giant panda" is an entirely different animal than a "red panda".
"Sexual orientation" is clearly defined in A Dictionary of Psychology (Oxford ISBN: 019860761X), and there is a comprehensive article on "sexual orientation" in The Oxford Companion to the Body (Oxford ISBN: 019852403X). The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy (Houghton-Mifflin), the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, and Encarta all contain specific definitions of "sexual orientation". Furthermore, I found 25 references to "sexual orientation" in Encyclopedia Britannica, and 2 quotations in the Oxford English Dictionary.
Elsewhere, the term "sexual orientation" without further qualification is found in many anti-discrimination policies, including that of the University of California, and also appears in legal documents such as U.S. Supreme Court opinions. A 1992 Colorado initiative, which sought to assure that gays have no "special legal rights" (this was later overturned, see, Romer v. Evans), used the words "homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships" as definitive. Finally, the American Psychological Association maintains a public Web page entitled [Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality]. (Comparing that article to the current Homosexuality article does not flatter Wikipedia.)
The above sources provide documentation that "sexual orientation" is a standard term in common use. The word "orientation" was not used in this article unless it was part of "sexual orientation" (or "homosexual orientation", the usage and meaning of which can be similarly documented).
Now, consider the statement above:
[orientation] carries the intended meaning that one can be "oriented" deterministically toward something, and that one thus has no responsibility to turn away from it.
What is meant by "intended meaning?" By who is it intended? And where does this "deterministic" connotation come from? That aside, what is this notion of "responsibility to turn away from it?" Responsibility implies an underlying moral, legal, or mental obligation; how is this derived from "orientation"? This, however, is irrelevant. Any personal associations someone might have with an accepted term like "sexual orientation" are biased by definition. My understanding of Wikipedia is that above all, articles should be written without bias.
As for the rest of this:
Or, no need to. It's used in such a way as to imply that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality.
I disagree. The term "sexual orientation" is neutral, and does not imply that homosexuality is right or wrong--doing so would require a value judgement with respect to a particular system of morals or ethical standard. Similiary the "need to" remark implies a moral or ethical obligation, which in turn requires an underlying moral or ethical system. Establishing such a system, either implicitly or explicitly, violates the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view mandate.
It would appear that the complaint is that the neutrality of the article does not specifically imply that there is something wrong with homosexuality. Why does the article now almost immediately call attention to "advocates who call homosexuality immoral?" Uranographer 05:13, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Now, we all agreed that Wikipedia should neither endorse nor condemn homosexuality -- otherwise, we could never write an article about it!

Perhaps it would be helpful to distinguish amoung the three factors mentioned:

Then there's also the controversy over how sharply one ought to distinguish between heterosexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality. Is it a continuum, a spectrum? Are their clear bounds? Flexible bounds?

Above all, is homosexuality a matter of choice? Should it be? And is it anyone's business?

I don't understand this. Why is the notion of "choice" such an all-important concept? It sounds to me like you have an axe to grind, Ed.

For us to write a definitive article, we dare not sweep any of this under the rug. And all assumptions need to be questioned. --Uncle Ed 18:36, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you're being overcritical. Wikipedia is not the place to decide (once and for all) appropriate terminology, especially for the real world. I think for many many people orientation is used not because it conveniently implies "its okay to be gay" but because it accurately describes the reality of unchanging sexual and romantic attraction. Any other word would not be any more 'pedic because of greater concreteness. This, of course, is not the real issue. These issues are easily dealt with by listing the variety of opinions and meanings, not by deciding once and for all if being gay is a choice. Also, I've noticed you continue to use the "homosexuality", please see: User:Hyacinth/Style guide.Hyacinth 19:00, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
PS, for my vote, homosexuality isn't a matter of choice, though it should be, and its not any more or less anyones business than much else.

[P0M:] I've already written a good bit on the Sexual Identity talk page that probably relates to Ed's questions here. As to "orientation" being too imprecise, or to its allegedly implying absolution from moral responsibility, I have to agree with Hyacinth. The image behind "orientation" seems to be a kind of sexual compass needle that points at possible sexual objects. People who condemn homosexuality seem to believe that one chooses to be gay, to believe that such a choice is a moral choice, and to believe that it is a blameful choice. Ordinarily, when one makes a strong claim of that sort, one is required to supply objective proof of a credible nature. To the best of my knowledge, few if any people have claimed/confessed that they simply decided to be attracted to people of the same sex, and many people have maintained that they discovered homosexual attraction within themselves and strove to "decide against it" to no avail. A friend of mine wears a strong perfume that, to me, smells like diesel fuel or perhaps song strong organic solvent. I cannot decide to like the odor, and she cannot decide to hate the odor as I do. Both of us can decide what we are going to do on the basis of our feelings. (Sorry, I don't see any problem with "homosexual". It's Latin-derived and means "same sex".) There has been a great deal of serious research into the subject of homosexuality, and it would be disrespectful and demeaning to the individuals who have spent their lifetimes trying to get an objective understanding on these matters to simply discount it.

[P0M:] What should our attitude be toward avaricious feelings? Can we advocate or condemn? Can we discuss the nature of these motivations? Can we give an objective account of their origins and note that it is how one behaves under the impact of these feelings that is moral or immoral?

[P0M:] I think the paragraph that Ed Poor removed should go back in. P0M 01:50, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That is an excellent paragraph. Ed, you might want to read orientation as self-identified sexual identity. I'm pretty uncomfortable with a lot of your writing here - you seem to be wanting to write more about the attitudes of some religions to homosexuality than homosexuality itself. Perhaps that should be split into a clearly identified section of the article specifically about the views of various religions? Jamesday 21:04, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/o/m/Talk%7EHomosexuality_archive2_8dab.html"