Talk:Prevalence of heterosexuality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Most common, social norm 2 History section 3 intercourse 4 societal default 5 Mergers

[edit] Most common, social norm

For instance, the sentence: "Heterosexuality is the most common sexual orientation." I would grant the accuracy of this statement if Wikipedia were about only the United States, but its not. To include this sentence, Wikipedians would have to show evidence that the homo/hetero dichotomy or whatever conception of sexuality we are discussing in the article, is the ruling conception of sexuality in all countries. Then one would have to show that statistically, heterosexuality was the majority. Neither of these have been done.

Likewise with the next sentence: "Heterosexuality is the social norm in nearly all societies, but less and less so in the modern urbanity of the post-industrial age." One would have to show that this conception of heterosexuality exists in "nearly all societies", that it is the predominate conception of sexuality, and that it is the social norm. This has not been done. Also, "nearly all societies" is a weasel term. Numerous counterexamples of societies or countries in which heterosexuality is not the "social norm" thus may be ignored; either because despite counterexamples "nearly all" still do, and any counterexample may be dismissed as not being from a "society" (but rather from some other kind of group).

Hyacinth 19:49, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Lets get off our high horse, and get our hands dirty w some facts. In which societies is heterosexuality not the norm? Sam [Spade] 18:10, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I think, the burden of proof here would be on those making the statement. Hyacinth 02:46, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, depending on what level you want to define society (And it is perfectly sane to define it on a more local level), San Francisco, Providence, Smith College... Snowspinner 18:17, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)

I challenge you to provide any remotely convincing evidence that heterosexuality is not the norm in those places. A large amount of gay people does not a norm make. Sam [Spade] 18:23, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sam, I challenge you to provide a definition of "norm" that would be provable. Hyacinth 02:38, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I object to saying "heterosexuality is the norm" because it implies that non-heterosexuality is abnormal. It would be best if we didn't word it this way. (Besides, many people think that most people are bisexual rather than heterosexual, so whether or not this is true I think it should at least be offered as a "some feel" in the article.) -Branddobbe 20:55, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're going to have to define a few things a lot more carefully if you want to say something like this. What is a "social norm"? What is a "society"? How do we know who's heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, etc? By whom is it seen as the social norm? How do you know? That should do for a start. Exploding Boy 01:00, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

Heterosexuality was invented in the 1860s. I don't see how this conception of sexuality could have taken over the world, inducing all societies to adapt or abandon whatever conceptions of sexuality they held in favor of the hetero/homo conception.

I edited the article to read "is and was", as a shorthand way of asking if it was intended. Sorry, please edit accordingly. Hyacinth 03:11, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] History section

MOVED FROM Talk:Heterosexuality.

>> From a historical perspective, the practice of heterosexuality is rare in human society. Most ancient and pre-modern societies practiced a quasi-universal bisexuality, in which same-sex love manifested as one of several constructs (see History of homosexuality). With the rise of Christianity in the west, that erotic polymorphism was problematized, and men who were caught engaging in sexual relationships with other males were labeled as sodomites and subjected to a range of punishments. However they were still not seen as being "different" from those who chose not to engage in such practices.

It was only in the early 1900's that heterosexuality began to appear as an identity, the polar opposite of the recently invented "homosexuality." <<

Thank you for making this attempt...

The content of the first two sentences is highly disputed on a factual basis. I don't think it was only Christianity that "problematized" "erotic polymorphism" (if that is supposed to mean "stigmatized non-heterosexuality, etc."), so that needs more context, at the very least. The issue of e.g. homosexual identity in history is rather complex. Which cultures considered e.g. homosexuality a neutral behavior which anyone might choose to engage in? Which cultures assigned an identity to "homosexuals" in the same way we assign the identity "thief"? Etc. The last sentence also seems problematic, since it seems to imply that e.g. biological homosexual sexual orientation did not really exist before the 1900s. As a factual matter, that's unlikely to be the case, if you believe that there is such a thing. (Which I do.)

It would be nice to have a quick summary of History of sexuality (note there's no hetero- or homo- there) in this article, but it has to be fair and neutral and accurate and not over-simplify.

I'm not actually sure that that article is complete enough unto itself to construct a good summary. I've added a link to that article as a temporary band-aid, though. If anyone wants to attempt another summary of the history article, feel free; or, we might discuss some proposed text here on the talk page. If anyone wants to put the above text back in the main article (with a note that it's disputed), please also feel free; I don't mean to be too heavy-handed.

I suppose if I want to be more constructive than critical, I should put some time into improving History of sexuality to the point where it's easier to get a good summary. That might take a while, though. -- Beland 08:58, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Granted it is an attempt. I am trying to articulate the apparent dearth of historical evidence for any kind of heterosexual society, starting in antiquity. The Jews, perhaps? And can we even be sure of that? Do you know of any?--Haiduc 11:22, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I was under the impression that most, if not all, societies have stigmatized some or all homosexual behaviors. Not to mention that most people are naturally heterosexual in practice. Has there been any society in where there have not been people engaging in homosexual behavior? I doubt it. The above text makes it sound like in all societies before Jesus, almost everyone was bisexual in the modern sense of having romantic relationships with people of both genders, which is certainly not the case. There have been and continue to be huge differences in stigma in certain societies between proscribed homosexual rituals, pederastic relationships, and romantic homosexual relationships. And there are huge variations in tolerance, especially when considering contemporary and historical enclaves. The article on the History of sexuality has some more specifics, but I note that it is sorely incomplete. Perhaps the best next step might be to focus on improving it. I'll start a todo list on its talk page. -- Beland 03:09, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

ALL societies have stigmatized some forms of heterosexual behavior, and that continues to this very day (you cannot fuck your neighbor's wife). But we do not claim in the Wikipedia that heterosexuality was illegal, or unnatural. In like manner, no society stigmatized ALL forms of homosexual behavior, not until Christian times, and even then, only occasionally and only in the west. Forget Asia, Africa, Oceania, Australia, and the Americas. So the point here seems to be that societies generally REGULATE behavior. What you are labelling as "stigmatized some or all homosexual behaviors" is really a regulation of property rights or family honor. In ancient Rome it did not diminish your neighbor if he fucked your son, it diminished you indirectly through your son, so the rule was "hands off aristocratic boys." But you, or your neighbor, could fuck foreigners, or male slaves, at will and it was seen as being about as sinful as smoking tobacco is today. Less, actually, since it was not regulated at all. Heterosexuality would have been irrational to these people, the same way that many view refusal to eat pork or lobster as irrational (Why deprive yourself of a good thing? Life is short and mean enough as it is.) I am all for sprucing up the History of sexuality page, and I'm willing to pitch in, but that does not absolve us from being rigorous about NPOV on the heterosexuality page. Haiduc

See: Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality by John Boswell (1980). ISBN 0226067114. Hyacinth 23:32, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

History has moved on quite a ways in the last 25 years. Let's stick to specifics. The argument is that there is no historical basis for claiming normativity of _exclusive_ heterosexuality outside the Christian sphere. If you can show a preponderance of such cultures I will withdraw my claim. If not, let's correct the article.Haiduc 22:23, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] intercourse

Homosexual and heterosexual refer to types of intercourse, not types of people. The problem you all are having is that the irregular concept of "gay culture" has skewed our conceptions of people and cultures into "heterosexual" and "homosexual" (perhaps even "parasexual").

The truth is that all societies and people are a continuum, not a dichotomy. The abrahamic religions recognized this, and disapproving of sex which did not lead to reproduction (be fruitful and multiply) placed severe restrictions on these sexual acts. If we are to ascribe to a dichotomy of "gay culture" and "heteronormative culture" then we (the west) are currently a gay culture. Maybe that is the reason for the low birthrates?

In summary, heterosexual is a sex act between a man and a woman (biological man and woman, of course). Sex acts of all sorts have been regulated and stigmatized or encouraged in all cultures to one degree or another. The statement "the practice of heterosexuality is rare in human society" is ludicrous, and utterly without merit in the article. Do you mean that because men and women do not have sex with one another for most of their day, most of the time, etc... that it is rare for a man and a woman to have sex? WTF? Sam [Spade] 17:05, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Once again, the problem you are having is definition by fiat. Words do not mean what you or any one source say they do, at least on Wikipedia they don't. Thanks though. Hyacinth 21:36, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Reread your statement above, as that is my reply. Sam [Spade] 21:55, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If you mean my statement directly above, then that ("the problem you are having is definition by fiat") is a fair enough retort, at least when directed toward a general trend in sexuality related articles and not a malicious intent on my part. So, Sam, I suggest first that you take a look at heterosexual, which clearly states that heterosexuality is more than just a "type of sexual intercourse". Then I suggest that we duel in the article, our weapons being sources. Take ten steps, then make the points you have made in talk pages in the article, attributed.

Again, I am not disagreeing, but Wikipedia is not the place for original research, including your propositions.

For "proof" that the POV exists that heterosexuality is more than just "types of sexual intercourse":

"1 a : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward the opposite sex b : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between individuals of opposite sex"

"2 : of or relating to different sexes"

[1]

Just the addition of "of, relating to" carries the definition far beyond "types of sexual intercourse".

Hyacinth 22:08, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it goes nowhere near the bizarre interpretation of a exclusivist heterosexual societal situation wherein

"From a historical perspective, the practice of heterosexuality is rare in human society"

would be a sensible statement by any measure. Essentially, you are attempting ("by fiat", if you prefer) to redefine "heterosexuality" to mean "heteronormative" which is a junk science term invented for the purpose of misleading those allowing its use towards perverse and unmerited conclusions.

Sam [Spade] 22:14, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Great, write me a letter, publish a book, produce a documentary. Hyacinth 23:19, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No comprende, amigo. Sam [Spade] 00:43, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK, I have been reading the old posts and see I have come in late in the conversation. But it is not clear to me if any kind of consensus has developed. Can we agree that human heterosexual expression is universal, but that its _exclusive_ manifestation as a societal practice, is rare? In other words, that the default setting for human males is one in which they are open to loving either sex? How can we settle this?--Haiduc 14:45, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I know at least one homosexual. He only falls in love, is attracted to men. I know at least one heterosexual. He has had sex with men, for the sake of sex. CheeseDreams 14:15, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] societal default

For the record, Sam, the evidence is that there are instances of Gay animals. I could find you a photograph, if you like, of two male lions having sex, the lower one clearly enjoying it, the photograph should be somewhere on this well respected website. Here is a link to an article about lions (though not showing them having sex). CheeseDreams 14:18, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See also this sub section of the above website about Gay sheep.

The only societal default is that human sexuality involves heterosexuality. Sometimes (very rarely really) there is an attempt to make society exclusively heterosexual. Sometimes (ancient greece, modern san francisco ;) the society tends to favor homosexuality, or some other non-normative sexuality. But heterosexuality is always the default, and always occurs (otherwise we wouldn't be here). You are right to say that the condition of society attempting to make heterosexuality the exclusive sexuality is rare. That said, nearly every society has come up w its own, ldeosyncratic and (to pretty much any outside observer) bizarre and perverse guidelines regarding sexuality, heterosexual and otherwise. Attempting to redefine the term "heterosexual" to mean "a exclusively heterosexual society (which does not occur btw)" or "an attempt at a exclusively heterosexual society (which does, rarely occur)" is counterproductive and unencyclopedic. The latter would be the definition of "heteronormative" best as I can tell, which is certainly no synonym for "heterosexual". Sam [Spade] 15:46, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Tricky. It almost seems like we need to go back and firm down the meaning of "default." In the sense that you re using it, it is closer to "universal constant" in that it is true of any society that would survive - a truism, really. But that is not what I mean. By "default sexuality" I mean that home ground from which men in all societies deviate, but only under pressure of custom or sanction. Another way of looking at it is to divide heterosexuality into two classes, optional and compulsory. Historically, when heterosexuality is optional a significant percentage of men choose alternative pleasures as they see fit (I don't know of any studies comparing numbers of male and female brothels in ancient Greece and Italy, or premodern China and Japan, but that would be a good place to begin to gauge the relative strength of societal preference. But note that male prostitutes were double the price of female prostitutes in 19th c. Peking, as per Bret Hinsch, Passions of the Cut Sleeves. That of course could be indicative of restricted availability of candidates for the position, but it is also indicative of the greater valuation placed upon their services). Anyway, to sum up an overlong post, an entry that presents heterosexuality as "the way of all flesh" will be incomplete unless some mention is made of the arbitrariness and rarity of _exclusive_ heterosexuality.--Haiduc 00:24, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I don't see it as deserving of more than a sentance, and I think you are beginning to border on original research. Perhaps this might be a better subject for your next gender studies term paper? ;) Sam [Spade] 00:31, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is my belief that projects such as this one can only move forward by consensus, so it is well that we agree to include a sentence on this topic. Let me mull it over a bit and I'll come up with a suggested formulation. We are not really treading on OR ground here, the notion of compulsory heterosexuality has been around for a generation. And I loved your term paper suggestion. Unfortunately my kids are already out of college and my grandkids not there yet, so there's no one to carry that ball. But I will take it as a suggestion that I have a young mind, a compliment I treasure.--Haiduc 14:36, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I understand that the concept of compulsory heterosexuality has been around (I'd say its been around since the days of moses, maybe even adam, but whichever) but the question of OR is how you go about proving the particular point your trying to make (that heteronormativity is "rare", if I read you right) and why you think its relevant here, in this article. Hetrosexuality does not possess compulsory heterosexuality within its definition. It means hetrerosexual, nothing more, nothing less. No matter how parasexual my neightbor is, it makes me no less heterosexual ;) Sam [Spade] 16:59, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is impossible to relate to the relevance of including here the notion of "compulsory heterosexuality" unless one steps back from cw and views today western society through the wealth of historical studies undertaken in the past 20 - 30 years. Ruggiero and Rocke on Italy; Roscoe and Williams on North American natives; Leupp, Phlugfelder, Watanabe and Iwata, on Japan; Murray and Roscoe, Wright and Rowson (to say nothing of Burton) on the Arabs (and that includes much of non-Arab Islam), Hinsch on the Chinese; Vanita and Kidwai on India; I don't need to mention the Greeks and the Romans, I hope, and all this is just the tip of the iceberg. Why a discussion of the various constructs of heterosexuality (which is almost to say 'heterosexualities') belongs in an article on the subject? I'd ask rather, "Why suppress it?" By the way, I was reading through the article and came across another discrepancy: one cannot talk about the force of natural selection favoring heterosexuality without confronting the obvious conclusion that the same force of natural selection has prevented heterosexuality from entirely displacing homosexuality. Why? Who knows. Anyway, the whole piece is stilted and does not flow well, the proverbial horse designed by a committee. I have no grand solution though, and will content myself to nibble at the margins.--Haiduc 02:58, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

For the record I am fine w the article stating that "compulsory heterosexuality" has been rare thruout earths history, so long as it is mentioned in a balanced way (like mentioning that nearly every society has had ideosyncratic rules regarding sexuality, and that cumpulsary hetrosexuality has been a long tradition in abrahamic religions, etc..). As far as hetrosexuality displacing homosexual, or other parasexual activities, why would it? Why hasn't heterosexuality displaced mastrabation, or abstinance? The fact that one is more evoloutionarilly functional than the other in no way begs the question of why the less useful tendancy exists. Lots of things are les than perfect, IMO ;) Sam [Spade] 00:20, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mergers

So as I was re-writing the intro to cover the complexities covered on the talk page here, I realized that the topic I was introducing was really the history of sexuality, not the statistical prevalence of heterosexuality. I feel that most of this section should be merged into History of sexuality.

The remainder of the article is a very poor treatment of the statistical prevalence of heterosexuality, since it's either vague, or Kinsey. There's a much better treatment on Prevalence of homosexuality. Given how much overlap there is between the two articles, I think they should be merged into Demographics of sexual orientation. I mean, with some of these studies, when they show that 5% of people are homosexual, then they also show that 94% are heterosexual and 1% are bisexual, or whatever the numbers happen to be. (Not that there even is an article on "Prevalence of bisexuality"!) Some of them use spectral measurements of attraction and/or behavior, so they most certainly would have to be mentioned in all two or three or however many articles.

-- Beland 05:04, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm all for the mergers. -Seth Mahoney 17:13, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

"Demographics of sexual orientation" sounds like a great title to me. Hyacinth 20:26, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)