Talk:Sexual orientation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class.

Contents

[edit] Merge causes

I added a link to the article on causes of sexual orientation, which raises the question of whether these two articles are too similar and perhaps should be merged into a single article.

This article is clear and uncontroversial. The "causes of" article is incomplete. Ed Poor

[edit] Affectional orientation

Hmmm, I had not heard of "affectional orientation" before just now reading it here, but I did a search in Google, and there it is. I have to say, though, that I find that term much more obfuscating than "sexual orientation". For one thing, people feel affection all the time for their parents, children, pets, friends--none of which have anything to do with sexuality, and it has nothing to do with "affectional orientation" as described here. (A cat-loving pet owner's affectional orientation would be towards cats, while a dog-loving pet owner's affectional orientatin would be towards dogs. But of course, that's not what they mean.) Anyway, it seems to me that "romance" is a component of sexuality, not vice versa. But that's just my opinion.


I agree. I'm just reporting that it exists. --Dmerrill

[edit] Choice

I have a problem with the line "purely a matter of choice." My problem is not that this may or may not be one cause (or justification) for sexual orientation, my problem has to do with what we mean by the word "choice"

Let me start with a personal and individual example, just to make clear that what I am talking about doesn't have to do with homosexuality or heterosexuality as such.

Let's say my "prefered sexual partner" (we can call her my wife, if you want) is Veronica. I love her and married her and the sex is fine, but in fact when I first met her I wasn't terribly attracted to her. In fact, there is still this woman Betty I find a lot more attractive.

Now, maybe I didn't marry Betty because she doesn't want me. But I would rather say that although I find her really attractive, she has other qualities I cannot stand.

SO this is an example where you could say my "prefered sexual partner" was decided by "choice." It is not just that I chose between Betty and veronica, I made such a choice based on a calculation of several considerations, including how attracted I was to whom.

Do you see the problem? To say that Veronica is my prefered sexual partner by choice is true, but it just erases any consideration of the fact that I still find Betty more attractive. Why do I find Betty so attractive? I don't know! I just do!

To say that I chose Veronica by "choice" does not really explain "why" she is my prefered sexual partner, it just identifies a conscious process -- one that involved (but does not explain) unconscious variables (like, wow, Betty is really hot!)

I realize you may think I am just rejecting reason three and arguing that reason two is always true or the most plausible. I am not. What I am saying is that in most of the choices we make, choice names the last step in a process that almost always includes a lot of other things besides choice. Maybe I am rejecting three in favor of two, I don't know. But I hope you all see that I am not doing it because I have some strong theory on why people are gay or straight, it has to do with a more general concern I have about using the word "choice" as if that explains anything. -- SR

The big issue about choosing and sexual orientation is that moralists criticize homosexuals for being sinful, while gay rights activists defend homosexuals. The defense takes many forms. Deconstruction, as in today's version of the article, makes it a non-issue on the grounds that we merely invented the concept (or something like that). The term homophobic blames the moralists for irrationality or hatred. New translations of the scriptures promote the view that the Bible never condemned homosexuality: we've all been reading it wrong. If they were to acknowledged homosexuality as a sin, they'd be obliged to find a way to repent of it, same as thieves, drunkards, or wife-beaters.
Given this perspective on homosexuality and gay rights, I find it an immense challenge to stick to the NPOV when editing wikipedia articles. My goal is to stick to what is factual and relevant and not to "infect" articles with my own bias. Hence, I tend to let a lot of time go by between edits, and use the talk pages. Ed Poor
Hi Ed. Well, can't one "choose" to do something (e.g. homosexual sex) without believing it is a sin? I am choose to eat pork, even though God commands me not to. I know that some people consider it a sin, but I do not. I also give to charity on occasion -- I choose to do so. My point here is that "choosing" in and of itself does not make something virtuous or sinful. In any case, my point was that saying it is a choice is not an explanation -- you still need to explain why people make that choice. If homosexuality is a choice, I guess heterosexuality is a choice -- I mean, I certainly do choose when to have sex and with whom to have it. But why do I make the choices that I do? Just to say it's my choice doesn't explain it. That's all.
Also, I edited your new heading -- I definitly appreciate what you are trying to do. I only want to point out that the views presented there (I wrote at least the original version) are not necessarily deconstructive. Specifically, the view of FOucault is definitely not deconstructive; Foucault violently disagreed with deconstruction. SR
Hi, SR. Thank you for your thoughtful comments. It's not easy to discuss "choice", "sin" and "homosexuality" in one breath. I think we agree that (A) whether I choose an action, does not necessarily affect (B) whether that action is sinful. In fact, I would say it's the other way around: (C) whether I regard an action as sinful, affects (D) my choice of whether to choose that action.
Interesting as the topics of sin and choice may be to me personally, I am not sure whether they belong in this article. Perhaps they would go in a religious perspectives on homosexuality article. The topics of sin and choice might also be relevant to gay rights. --Ed Poor

Does queer mean bisexual more often than it means homosexual? My impression of the term queer is that it non-heterosexual, i.e., it refers to a person who has (some) homosexual desire. Thus we could divide adults into "straight" (heterosexual) and "queer" or "gay" (homosexual or bisexual).

This is purely a question on terminology and usage. I am not trying to advocate anything here, as far as I know. -- Ed Poor

Ed, I am actualy not the best person to ask. I think there may even be some who would say that there can be queer heterosexualis; I also think there are many who would say that even if "queer" meant "non-heterosexual" it means more than or even soemthing quite different thatn homosexual or bi. There must be people out there who were members of QUeer Nation or who know a lot about "queer theory;" I hope they can answer your question and correct any mistakes I made! SR

[edit] General definition

Maveric149 recently reverted the article to a previous form. This had two consequences: it changed the introduction to the article, and the organization of the article. I agree with Maveric149 that the reverted structure is an improvement. I do not agree that the reverted introduction is an improvement. As a matter of fact, I changed it before and included an explanation, which M perhaps did not notice.

My explanation was, a general definition should precede a specific definition. If the article were "Sexual Orientation in the United States" Or "...in the West" the reverted opening would be appropriate. But if the article is meant to describe a general human phenomena (of course, the article could include sexual preference among other species, but it doesn't and I have no objection to that!) then the opening should be inclusive and general, and not provide a culture-bound definition. SR

Now I understand what you were trying to accomplish. However, you did also replace the research section with an older version at the same time you changed the intro para. An hour before that I had replaced the "3 - 7 %" figure with one that broke down to numbers for males and females -- since the percentages are very different and really useless as a combined percentage. I also liked the other intro para better -- but I can understand why it was replaced by a more inclusive statement. However, this is the English wikipedia and somebody can make a very good argument that the more specific definition is the most valid. --maveric149

Well, I hope it is all sorted out, now -- I am sorry if I erased the details you added, and I hope my last change didn't do it again. As for my criteria for the definition, I hope you notice that I added a sentence to the first paragraph mentioning specific orientations in our society (for the reason you mention). Still, I think it is important that the overal framework be neutral -- not just personally or politically, but culturally.

BTW what is a "queer sexual orientation"? Google only finds 22 hits on this term. I've never heard anyone argue for such a lable in anything more than a colloquial sense of the term -- as a kind of shorthand for Lesbigay or GLBT. I've never heard of this term being used in the context of describing an actual thing, such as a true sexual orientation as defined by psychologists. Just wondering. --maveric149

Well, I did put the term back in but I do not think I was the one who initially introduced it. But I reinserted it because there are many non-scholars who are questioning the cultural conventions -- and by this I don't just mean concerning specific behaviors, but the language people use too.
You do raise an interesting distinction -- "as defined by psychologists." Right now I don't think the article is very clear about the differences between the approaches or views of different academic disciplines. Perhaps this is a good idea, to go into this.
But there are two things I object to: first, that there are "true" sexual orientations, unless you mean "true" in a purely subjective sense (like, "it is true that I am attracted to, and sleep with, only x"). Whether these "orientations" are permanent, exclusive orientations or mere preferences, firmly rooted in biology, or socially constructed, is at best a matter of debate. Second, although I value psychological research on the matter, psychological research is neither the only nor the ultimate arbiter of what these categories are.
I am glad you caught my earlier mistake, which cut important information from the article. I think the more information, both empirical and theoretical, in the article, the better. But I think it is equally important to frame the article in a way that limits the discussion. In other words, to start out saying there are three (or four or five) sexual orientations at best reflects either one society's conventions, or one theoretical position. This is why I prefer to start with a more general statement, and then say something like "In society x there are n sexual orientations," or "according to research done by y there are n sexual orientations." SR

[edit] Coot vs Kinsey

I don't have it before me, but Quentin Crisp says somewhere, I think in The Naked Civil Servant', written well before the complete politicization of the issue, that there are two kinds of male homosexuals, which he calls "coot queer" and "Kinsey queer". The first category,"coot queer", to which Crisp emphatically belonged, is entranced with the male body and its appurtenances, and loves everything about romancing other men, while the "Kinsey queer" is more oriented to multiple partners, anonymous sex, etc. Please excuse me if this is considered rude to mention, but I thought the distinction was most interesting as regards the question of permanent, inborn orientation.

I just found a quote, but I was sure that he said more than this:

" I knew he was Kinsey-Queer rather than coot-queer. He merely associated with homosexuals because they brought their love by the pound."

Ortolan88 19:54 Jul 22, 2002 (PDT)

This is a very interesting reference. It would be nice if you could, if there is any basis to the Coot portion of your comment other than being something in the British movie—to give further insight into this comment. I’m assuming you are referring to the famous Kinsey that did many studies on homosexuality. I am personally a Coot Queer as you have described it, it would be nice to know if Coot was an Anthropologist or not. Thanks. It is nice to hear of a British movie with Queer content from 1975 winning many awards.

[edit] Queer

A couple of people were asking about the nature of Queer. I've written an article on the subject - which should nonetheless be expanded upon. - user:Montrealais

I'm puzzled by the meaning of the following sentence.

Since the rise of the gay rights movement in the 1970s, most scientists in the field, psychologists and doctors have come to recognize at least a second exclusive orientation: for members of the same sex (homosexual).

Does "recognize" mean:

  • notice that it exists
  • regard it as natural and normal

I don't care which meaning was intended: I just want the sentence to be unambiguous. --Uncle Ed

They could be both noticing its existence AND regarding it as natural. ("Normal" and "natural" are not synonyms.) --ScottyFLL 04:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
"A vanishingly small minority nonetheless believe that re-orientation from homosexuality to heterosexuality is possible..."

Not entirely comfortable with this para. Yes, there are some people who view sexuality as a choice and use this "fact" to beat gays around the head. On the other hand, there are people who view sexuality as a choice who aren't anti-homosexuality. Just because sexuality may be (to some extent) optional doesn't mean that homosexuality is morally wrong, any more than it would mean heterosexuality is wrong. -Martin

I'm not sure I understand your discomfort, Martin. But it seems you are raising some important questions about the nature of choice itself, as well as the morality of homosexuality. Am I reading you correctly? --Uncle Ed

Difficult to explain...
I believe that we have some degree of choice over our sexuality: it's not something inflicted on us by the universe over which we have no control. However, I don't believe that homosexuals need to be "cured", or whatever. My discomfort is the assumption that this entry and causes of sexual orientation seem to make: that if you believe that there is an element of conscious choice in homosexuality then you are in the same group as believers in reparative therapy and the like. -Martin

I was hoping that the distinction you just made, would not become blurred in any of the Wikipedia articles relating to homosexuality. I have spent a lot of time trying to prevent such blurring. Please continue to point out places where the distinction needs clarification. I hope we can work together to clarify this distinction. --Uncle Ed

[edit] Sexual Orientation as Biological

Research and the expererience of non-heterosexuals, is now opening another viewpoint that sexual orientation is set in early childhood and perhaps even earlier. Studies of homosexual identical twins suggest that when one twin is homosexual that there is a 40 to 60 percent chance that the other twin will aslo be homosexual. In fraternal twins the figure is 15 to 30 percent. For same sex non-twin siblings the figure is 5 to 10 percent, or roughly the background level (ranges are from a combination of [1] & [2]).

For many, these data strongly indicate a significant biological influence on sexual orientation. For many others, including 2 of the 3 authors (Bailey and Pollard) of the studies cited above, there is a worry that recruiting subjects from readers of gay advocacy magazines may skew the results.

Sounds cool, Ed: I'm probably a little over-sensitive about it: I've been burned by both sets of advocates in the past... :-/
I've moved the above here, because it's about the causes of sexual orientation, so I don't think it is needed or desirable here. -Martin

But this article itself must also be balanced per our NPOV policy. There is already a section on Sexual orientation as a "construction" and Religious views, so you can't just take out the only science section. Granted it should be a lead-in to the more extensive article. I'll put it back in a few. --mav

Ok. When you put it back I'll try to change it so that it's a lead-in in a similar way to the religious views section. This NPOV stuff is difficult, you know? I've read the wikipedia article on the subject, but it's unbearably turgid stuff, and even after reading it I still make mistakes like this... learning process, I guess -Martin

My recollection is that the articles Sexual Orientation and Causes of sexual orientation were originally together, and separated (as often happens)when there appeared to be some controversy over one of the sections, and some people thought that it would be easier to develop that section separately. I believe that at some point -- and I think that point is now -- the two articles should be combined and reorganized. After all, what would a simple article on "sexual orientation" be besides a list of objects of sexual gratification? It is my sense that what makes "sexual orientation" a topic worthy of an encyclopedia article is debates over whether so-called sexual orientations are exclusive, and the closely linked debate over "causes." Slrubenstein

I agree that these articles need to be refactored but I'm not in favor of lumping them together again. IMO this article should introduce and provide summaries of all the other more extensive articles on particular topics. --mav

There are a number of related debates/information:

  • What causes sexual orientation?
  • What sexual orientations are/are not moral? (including religious views)
  • What sexual orientations are most/least common? (and how does that vary from culture to culture)
  • What sexual orientations are/are not legal? (and how does that vary)
  • What do people mean by "sexual orientation" vis-a-vis "sexual behaviour" (but wikipedia is not a usage guide or dictionary)
  • What sexual orientations are there? (annotated list)

Seems reasonable to me to keep these different aspects in seperate articles - there's a lot that could be said about each of them... -Martin

Well, there certainly is room for discussion here. I do not think there ought to be an article on "what sexual orientations are or are not moral" because any answer to this question is inherantly POV; instead, the article should account for general theories of sexual morality and debates over sexual morality. In any event, I do agree that sexual morality should be a separate article -- and I think a discussion of sexual morality ought to include a discussion of state regulation of sexuality (e.g. laws) since morality is, for many, just the more general domain of social regulation (mores). But I do think all the other topics you list can be incorporated into one article -- if I count it right, your items 1, 3, 5, and 6 all seem too closely related to meaningfully or effectively discuss separately. Slrubenstein

(there should be a list of other churches - United Church of Canada I believe, but needs to be verified.) (from article)

And there is, at Christian views of homosexuality. I don't think such a list should be duplicated there. -Martin

Would it make sense to merge sexual preference with sexual orientation ? I think this is a valid point that is rather lost by being on a seperate page... Martin

I said the above some months ago, and have at last got round to doing it... ;-) Martin

IMHO, there is a big difference between the sexual orientation of an individual and their preferences. Sexual orientation is not a choice - it is more an innate characteristic and/or instinctive trait of an individual sexuality. Where as preferences are in fact a desire's for something - which more to the point is a choice, ex: wanting chocolate vs. vanilla ice cream or wanting to be with a person that has black/brown/blonde hair). Just a thought . . . DCL

But whether you prefer vanilla ice cream or chocolate is not exactly a choice either. It just happens. Evercat 21:04 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Some control their desires by choosing what to do. They are hard workers.
Some control their desires by choosing what to desire. They are blessed.
Some do not control their desires. They are good in bed.
Martin 21:11 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Tropical fish have an innate "orientation" to mating with their own species, although they all pretty much look alike to me. Human beings are more complex, and I don't think the Wikipedia should endorse the view that people are ever born with a homosexual orientation. On the other hand, I don't think we should condemn that view either.

Actually, when I kept fish, one of my guppies was totally in love with one of my platies. :-) Evercat 22:47 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Let's just say that certain biologists, psychologists, sociologists, etc., say that there "is" or "isn't" such as thing as an innate homosexual orientation. Then we can can outline the arguments these experts give to support their views, summarize (or link to) they data they present, and mention any rebuttals from advocates of opposing views.

There's no way we can make a definitive pronouncement on this issue. --Uncle Ed 18:55 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think it's important to remember that we're not talking about inter-species relations here (and, by definition, most non-hetero relations are not actual "mating" in the sense of reproduction). What I think you're addressing is the entire nature vs. nurture+desire vs. action+choice vs. cause debates all roled into one article, however there are probably as many veiwpoints as there are people, you know? It's very hard to capture the whole thing in one article, don't you think? I mean philosophers, researchers, sexologists, etc. have spent lifetimes discussing this...with no definitive conclusion. How can we cover ALL of that here? Paige 19:49 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I've no idea, but causes of sexual orientation is where we try... Martin
Yup, that article does try, but as soon as we start talking about the difference between having a desire and acting on it, we get out of the scope of "causes," don't you think? I don't know. I guess I was not only suggesting we leave those debates aside, also just wondering how we could cover it. Maybe if some one wanted to give it a shot, we could all tweek it up, or do you think Ed's ideas could go under the causes article? Paige 21:20 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

My previous comments concerning sexual orientation of an individual and their preferences was to bring to the discussion that there is a difference. I know this can be argued over and over again - BUT IMHO - people do not usually choose their sexual orientation, they either are or are not "fill in the blank." - DCL

Yes, I understand your argument that people do not usually choose their sexual orientation but simply "are" or "are not". I am just saying that the article should mention this idea as one of the major points of view in the debate, rather than endorsing it.
Moreover, as Paige mentioned, there are at least 3 major issues related to the topic (which she listed above). For me, the most important is this: given that a person notices within themself a particular sexual inclination, what ought they to do next? According to my church and others of a like mind, "unprincipled" sexual desire should be resisted by all means. Contrariwise, both the free sex movement and the gay rights movement advise people to regard their desires as natural (inherent) and counsel them to carry them out without guilt.
I don't want to make this article endorse my own POV, of course. I just want it to explore the topic in sufficient detail that the issues are clear to all readers. --Uncle Ed 14:21 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

"Some advocates who do not want people to discuss the morality of homosexuality have used the technique of literary deconstruction to shut people up." Ed, this is not okay, not NPOV, and not wikiquette.Hyacinth 18:02, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)\

I just deleted it. Ed, have you blown a fuse? This kind of stuff just is not appropriate in an encyclopedia article. If you want to contribute to an article, do some research, don't just make things up. I deleted two paragraphs you wrote -- both paragraphs were not only wrong but really distort the situation.

  • people who aregue for "social construction" are NOT "deconstructionists"
  • decononstruction is used in literary theory, but is primarily a method of philosophy
  • social construction is also used in literary theory, but primarily from sociology
  • People who analyze the social construction of sexuality are not necessarily taking any stand concerning morality -- but they are ciertainly not arguing against taking a moral stand. I suspect most of them believe homosexuality is moral, and people who oppose it are immoral
  • Have you done any research on the word "homosexuality?" Do you know when the word was first used? Do you know how the word was used, at that time -- what it meant at the time? Do you know when people first started using the word in its contemporary meaning? Have you done any research on this?
  • If something is constructed, obviously it exists -- so how could a social constructionist (or deconstructionist) argue that something doesn't exist? You fundamentally misunderstand what you are talking about.
  • None of these scholars say that it is ireelevant; on the contrary, they believe it is INCREDIBLY relevant which is why they write about it. They write -- and they read. So they certainly are not saying "shut up."

Your actions betray the seriousness of Wikipedia. This is an attempt to write a credible encyclopedia, not just an opportunity to spout your own mis-informed B.S., Ed. Slrubenstein

  1. Sounds like you're saying shut up to me, but maybe I'm misinterpreting your remarks, professor. By the way, I have no objection to your removal of my "Some advocates...deconstruction" sentence. Hyacinth also objected, and you are both right. (I've rummaged around it my toolkit and found a replacement fuse with higher amperage ;-)
I'll say "shut up" to anyone who pretends to be educated when in fact they are ifnorant. But I welcome dialogue and debate with someone well-informed. Please provide me with scholarly sources for your comments. Where have deconstructionists like Derrida and DeMan said anything at all like this? Support your claims. If you can't, why do you post this? If you are sincerely interested in this, why do you not go out and educate yourself before presuming to educate others?
  1. 'People who analyze the social construction of sexuality are not necessarily taking any stand concerning morality -- but they are ciertainly not arguing against taking a moral stand. I suspect most of them believe homosexuality is moral, and people who oppose it are immoral.' You seem to both affirming and denying that the decontructionists are taking a moral stand: to wit, that opposing homosexuality is immoral. Again, perhaps I'm just misinterpreting you, but I'm an engineer by training. --Uncle Ed 14:25, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Again you bring up "deconstructionists." Who, exactly, do you mean? I know of no deconstructionist who has made this specific argument. Look, Ed., if you are going to pick fancy words at random without having done any serious research, why pick on "deonstructionists?" Why not write "orthodontists" or "entymologists" which make just as much (just as little) sense in this context. Don't use your being an engineer by training as a silly excuse. If you are being genuine, then do not contribute to articles not pertaining to engineering. If you want to contribute to a non-engineering article, by all means do so but do the research into the scholarship first and do not use "I am an engineer" as an excuse for writing deliberiately false statements. Do you think you are being cute? Wikipedia is not your personal playpen. Commit to the project and take it seriously, or take some time off.
But as to my point about "social constructionists," you misunderstand me and I suspect it is because of your bias and not because of your engineering teaining. Let me give you an analogy. A nuclear physicist can tell you how to construct a nuclear bomb. That does not mean that she favors using them -- or favors a nuclear freeze. There political views of the use of nuclear bombs has nothing to do with their expertise as physicists. In fact, many physicists oppose nuclear proliferation, even ones who played a major role in inventing nuclear weapons. Don't you see the difference between technical skill and a moral stance? I will give you another example. An MD may believe personally that abortion is wrong -- but that this is her choice. She will never have an abortion. But she chooses that moral position and gives others the right to choose other moral positions. Although she herself will never have an abortion, she will perform abortions on patients in a hospital. I don't know how likely this is these days, but it is just a hypothetical example to illustrate the difference between one's political and ethical views and one's work.
Some scientists study congenital birth-defects. SOme people are born with a learning disability or let's say a visual impairment. One doctor may say "these people are inferior and should be euthanized (this happened in Nazi Germany). Another doctor may say "these people need help so let's give them special education or eyeglasses" (this happens here). The scientific study of a phenomena and its causes does not necessitate one moral position!
Social constructionists study among other things the construction of gender and sexuality. Their studies reveal much about the meaning and history of gender and sexuality that we can all learn from. Those are historical facts. Are they right or wrong? Good or bad? Healthy or unhealthy? The facts alone do not determine this, you need something else to make a moral decision. So as I sai, social constructionists in the course of their work are not taking any moral stance at all. However, aside from their scholarship, if you ask them what they think, personally, about whether something is right or wrong, I suspect most would say people who descriminate against gays are immoral. But I am sure there are exceptions. Slrubenstein

[edit] Is classified as

Should the first sentence read: "Sexual orientation, sexual preference or sexual inclination describes the object, the gender, of a person's amorous or erotic desires, fantasies, and feelings."

Or should the second sentence read: "A person's Sexual orientation is most often classified, by gender of the object, as:..."

Hyacinth 19:59, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I tried to clarify that, as well as removing the term "object" which could be seen as offensive. Sam [Spade] 20:08, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think "object" is psycho-babble, I'm not sure if it is applicable to inanimate objects. Hyacinth 20:27, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Either way, I prefer focus. As far as the "Homo." thing, do we really need to list abbreviations? I agree that Homo is nearly always used a pejorative, but nobody uses "Hom." to my knowledge. I find "Het." unpleasant myself, and would just as soon not have any abbreviations listed at all. Why abbreviate? Sam [Spade] 20:34, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

See: Talk:Sexual_orientation#POV_issue

[edit] Homosexual virgin

I don't believe in this, does somebody have a reference? I've successfully made the joke for years that if your not sexually active, your not homosexual. In my HS it was the trendy thing to be "gay", but almost none of them were sexually active... until they found a partner of the opposite sex, that is ;) I've seen this similarly played out elsewhere. The choice to experiment w a label is alot easier to make than to experiment sexually. Neither of them constitute a an actual change of Sexual orientation, however. Sam [Spade] 20:40, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Having intercourse with someone does not constitute a "actual change of Sexual orientation" either. In fact, all gay and straight people are at one point virgins. Hyacinth 20:48, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] POV issue

This article is seriously POV in the sense that it promotes the idea that the sexual orientation of a human must necessarily be one of the few mentioned at the top (heretosexual, homosexual, bisexual or asexual). Almost all zoophiles, pedophiles, necrophiles etc. regard their own preference as a sexual orientation that should be regarded equal in validity and rights as the commonly accepted ones. Posted by 204.152.189.162

All of those paraphilias include a gender choice, so the point isn't relevent. Sam [Spade] 00:04, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

See: Talk:Sexual_orientation#Is_classified_as above.

§ I think I have to side with 204nnn on this one. Sexual orientation would seem, on the surface meaning of the word, to mean what your antennae rotate around to and follow. If one's sexual seeker points at an organism that has no external indication of its sex, what then? Maybe some people are turned on by earthworms, which happen to have both male and female sex organs. What then? What if somebody gets turned on by an anaconda? My guess would be that the person doesn't know and wouldn't care what its sex might turn out to be.

§ The original writers of this article may have narrowed the scope too far for two reasons: (1) Anything beyond "heterosexual," "homosexual," and "bisexual" may have been out of their range of experience. (2) As soon as you bring in the paraphilias, you reopen the issue of whether all atypical sexual orientations are paraphilias. P0M 03:54, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • I think it's important to show both sides of this debate, so I added a note to the article. The article on paraphilia has a reasonable treatment of the full range of "alternative" sexual orientations, and it can be expanded/improved to taste. -- Beland 23:58, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] gender role???

I don't care what "gender role" you pretend to have, if the person (or whatever) your "focusing on" w is of the same gender, its not heterosexuality. Sam [Spade] 05:23, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

§Just to check my understanding, Sam, you are saying that if a person of masculine gender (but female external genitalia) is sexually turned on by another person of masculine gender (and with male external genitalia), then it is homosexuality? Whereas, if a masculine person (with female external genitalia) is turned on by a feminine person (regardless of whether that person's external genitalia are male or female), then it is heterosexual interest?
§ The whole issue is cockeyed as far as I'm concerned. The courts are satisfied if the external genitalia are complementary, no? Why do you oppose the courts on this one? ;-) P0M 03:54, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Care to be more specific about what you're railing against here? Exploding Boy 05:43, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)
Sam, all roles are pretend, there is no reason to point it out in this situation except to insult. Hyacinth 05:46, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I see. He removed a reference to "gender role" from the text of the article (check the page history). The problem seems to be that he doesn't fully understand homosexuality or the concept of gender roles. Exploding Boy 06:01, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

§ Sam or 204nnn?
Maybe you don't understand the concept of heterosexuality? It is when a person is sexual (or intends to be, etc..) w a person who has bone fide opposite gender genitalia (oft imitated, never reproduced). Did you think of that? ;)
Sam [Spade] 21:22, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
§ Yikes, I thought I had your position figured out. (See above.) Why did you change already? So if a a person of masculine gender (but female external genitalia) is sexually turned on by another person of masculine gender (and with male external genitalia), then it is not homosexuality?

Oh, right. So if a heterosexual person "is sexual (or intends to be, etc..)" with a post-operative transsexual, for example, then that person is gay? The point is, Sam, you have an inherent bias that just won't go away. Combine that with your penchant for oversimplification, and, well, you create a lot of extra work. Exploding Boy 01:52, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

Waaaaaaaanh! I AM LOOSING MY PATIENTS! >:() Sam [Spade] 01:55, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That is absurd! You mean to say that if someone has a dog's head transplanted onto their body, then someone having sex with that person is committing bestiality?

§ My patients all climbed over the wall and are now consorting in the cactus garden at a certain well-known institution. ;-)

§ To be serious for a moment, in the midst of all the sources of hilarity, it may well make a difference whether the lover knows whether the beloved is someone who was born with a dog's head or whether s/he is of such an audacious nature as to have drastically altered his/her body configuration. People are attracted to the totality of what people perceive in other people. That is what makes the idea of a love map very valuable. If a heterosexual guy is attracted to a woman who manifests other attributes once they get into a motel room, does that make him a homosexual? If a homosexual guy is attracted to an andromimetic without realizing that the individual is an andromimetic, does that make him straight? What about a heterosexual guy who is attracted only to people whom he knows to be andromimetic? What does that make him? P0M 03:54, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Fuzziness of gender and sexual orientation

So my answer to this recent controvery would be that gender is itself a "fuzzy" concept in certain ways. So sorting people into different classes based on the gender(s) they are attracted to simply carries forward this fuzziness. (See gender identity, gender role, sex, etc.) If someone has male DNA, genitals, is socially masculine, etc., then pretty much every who agrees that maleness exists agrees that they are male. But when not all of the typical gender indicators agree, different people may have different opinions about what "counts".

For the purposes of this article, it seems worthwhile to mention this fuzziness, and just put in a link to one or more of the above articles that explains the complications in-depth. -- Beland 10:01, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Maybe one of the things that needs to be clarified here is what terms apply to sex and what terms apply to gender. Part of the problem with talking about gender, for instance, is that some people created their own definitions of the term by reading it in context and deciding that it was intended as a simply euphemism for sex -- which wasn't the reason at all. The original distinction between male and female was almost certainly between animals that could father young (produce sperm) and animals that could produce ova and serve as the mothers of the young. Then by extension, and very naturally, one includes sexually immature but potential sperm and ova producers, etc.

Sex is a term that can be defined or explained in several ways, and there is an element of fuzziness even at this level. The traits that are ordinarily associated with sex are all subject to objective (intersubjective) verification, e.g., exact status of external and internal genitalia, chromosomal status, etc. Even so, there is a strong element of social construction involved in some uses of the term, as when a person whose body type (size, and whether the musculature has been made stronger by the masculinizing effects of male sex hormones) is female, but because of XY chromosomal status the Olympic authorities disqualify the individual from competitions with females. Except for the individual's inability to produce ova, the physiological characteristics are all essentially female, and many people would classify that individual as a woman.

Gender involves much more fuzziness, not the least most important reason being that some of the most salient characteristics are not currently subject to intersubjective verification. It may be that the feeling that one is a woman or is a man, the attraction that one feels toward primarily men or primarily women, etc., are all connected to brain structures that are in principle associated with objectively discernible brain structures. Researchers have been trying to measure the sizes and/or other characteristics of the brains of people with typical and atypical gender identities, but consensus has not yet been reached on the presence or absense of "markers" of gender identity in brain structures. So the component of "social construction" (and variety of opinions) becomes much more important in determining gender identities.

A further element of messiness is added when it is discovered that some individuals' sexual motivations appear similar to the most ordinary motivations of male or female humans but are directed toward non-human objects of attention or to a subset of human objects of attention (amputees, etc.). Furthermore, for some human beings sexual behavior is only strongly exhibited when in the presence of some special "releasers" of sexual motivation. For instance, some human males become sexually aroused primarily when they wear woman's clothing. Some humans become sexually aroused primarily when they are in the presence of other stimuli (fetish objects). The diversity of the releasers is great. It is a truism that even in "normal" love there is no accounting for human preferences.

Even at the most basic chromosomal levels and the most basic structural levels, nature does not break down into two simple and complementary categories. The fan-out beyond that point is tremendous. When asked by God to categorize Eve, Adam is reported to have said, "Eve looks more like a woman than anything else, to me." Things have never gotten any clearer. Language is "one way", but nature is inherently fuzzy. P0M 16:40, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I guess you're using "gender" to mean "gender identity" and "sex" to mean "anatomical sex"? Sometimes "gender" and "sex" are just used to mean "all that stuff that has to do with determining maleness, femaleness, or otherness.) In any case, the article sex already has a handy chart of biological and psychosocial components. I'll update this article per my suggestion, and then we can take things from there. -- Beland 22:48, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Most vs some

The assertion that "most" bisexuals have only one partner at a time asserts a specific percentage (>50%) of monogamy which may or may not exist for persons of any orientation. The stigma against non-monogamy makes it difficult to tell the actual prevalence of monogamy of any sexual orientation.


[edit] Comment moved from article

"We're totally forgetting pansexuality, a little-known deviation from bisexual that includes trans and androgynous humans, not just the male female binaries of bisexuality."

[edit] Autosexuality

Does anyone else think autosexuality shouldn't be listed at the top? That list is currently gender based, and autosexuality is, by definition, not about gender. It's about as appropriate on a list of gender orientations as various paraphilias -- and while I don't have an opinion on whether or not things like paraphilias should be on that list, I'd rather it be consistent.

I'd just go remove it myself, but I already did that once, and someone put it back in.

Inkburrow 09:43, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. I moved auto and asexuality to see all, someone please feel welcome to readd to the text appropriately. I remove pansexual as it redirected to bisexual, and I removed the not stating with no evidence that these are all well established terms. Hyacinth 09:56, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. Autosexuality is a SUB-topic or sliver-group of a Common classification, Asexuality or possibly other orientations, however, it is not very common. Asexuals are said to make up 1 to 1.5% of the population and Autosexuals a small portion of that. Check out the Autosexuality article Talk Page for my reasoning as to why I feel this being put into the "Common classifications" Sexology box is out of place. This was a major jump to make this one of the major sexual orientations. TednAZ 19:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I added the terms to the section "Complexities and terminology" and added a note to the bottom of the list indicating the controversy over its inclusiveness. -- Beland 17:29, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual identity

The article sexual identity discusses male/female identity, not self-identification with respect to orientation. This is very confusing, and I would support changing titles around to make things more self-evident, because this is the second or third time I've found links that make that mistake. Part of the problem is that the underlying terminology is confusing; people use "sexual identity" for both. Maybe we want to do a disambiguation page at "Sexual identity", and put articles at "Sexual identity (gender)" and "Sexual identity (orientation)"? The latter could certainly use its own article instead of being shoehorned in here. -- Beland 06:46, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific research

The following pages have interesting pointers to research on the determinants of sexual orientation:

-- Beland 03:37, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Redundancy

Is it just me, or do the "orientation concepts," "psychological and sociological viewpoints," and "orientation as construct" sections tend to cover the same ground? It seems like they could be merged in places and trimmed in others to avoid repetition; the "orientation concepts" and "orientation as construct" sections, in particularly, seem like they ought to just be one section.

Inkburrow 09:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There's still a lot of redundancy in this article, including word-for-word repetition of parts of the intro in the first section. BrianH123 06:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genetics and Homosexuality (moved from article)

There are logical arguments for both sides, a few of which are described below.

===="Reduced Gene Pool"====

The Argument of Reduced Gene Pool states that since homosexuality is a behavior 
that does not promote reproduction, it is self destructive and cannot be genetic.  
Practically all animal species (including humans) continue to live and thrive 
generation after generation because of reproduction between a male and a female 
of the species.  Assuming increased homosexual behavior would lead to decreased 
heterosexual behavior and thus fewer offspring, the likelihood of homosexuals 
passing on their theoretical genes is also decreased.  

===="Either Or"====

The Argument of Either Or states that humans have genetic directions to reproduce 
(meaning have sex with the opposite sex), and that if that genetic information 
was somehow damaged or turned off, it would not necessarily direct the human to be 
attracted to the same sex.  It is irrational to say that humans are either 
heterosexual or homosexual.  Since sex genes are there to promote reproduction, 
they may be turned off altogether as in an asexual person, but would not 
attract the person to the same sex arbitrarily.
Inkburrow 20:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is original research, in fact the mainstream position holds that homosexuality is of an evolutionary benefit. 207.224.198.170 20:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The most recent "mainstream" theories seem to lean toward the idea that homosexuality is a non-beneficial side-effect of a mutation that has other evolutionary benefits. But it's my understanding that there is no broad scientific consensus, and there is still lots of evidence yet to be gathered. I've never heard it called the "Reduced Gene Pool" argument, but it's far from novel. In fact, I think of it more as the starting point for the whole question - how do we reconcile what evolutionary biology tells us shouldn't occur, with what we actually observe? In any case the article Genetics and sexual orientation explains this argument and goes on to talk about various explanations and findings reported so far. The "either or" argument is actually a rather interesting one. I mean, it poses an interesting question - why would a malfunctioning gene cause a phenotype like this? It's not very convincing to say "human genetics couldn't possibly malfunction in this particular way". Especially since half of the species "should" be female-attracted and the other half male-attracted...one could easily imagine some confusion in the mechanism that determines that, and indeed many modern theories on the origins of homosexuality look as such possibilities. (See Environment, choice, and sexual orientation.) I would be interested to know if there are any serious scholars advocating this "either or" theory, for it would make an interesting addition to our coverage. I've read elsewhere that other editors doubt that this is the case. -- Beland 07:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
For the record, the cited source for "Either Or Argument" was: Ridley, Matt. Genome. New York: Perennial, 2000. ISBN 0060932902. (Don't know about the other one.) -- Beland 04:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

This is completely one sided. There needs to be more information concerning the environmental influences but I don't have the time to add right now.

[edit] Major rewrite, but more work to be done

I just completed a major (but hurried) rewrite to deal with a lot of redundancy (both internally and with respect to other articles) and internal inconsistencies. I also made some improvements along the way, including the addition of some poll data. I'm sure there are mistakes in this new draft; corrections are of course encouraged.

This article needs serious resynchronization with its subarticles, especially:

The biggest thing to be done is to make sure there's no content in the parent article that's not in the main article. (By moving supporting details into the main article.) Also, each article that references the main article on a subtopic should summarize the referred article accurately, usually paralleling the structure of the main article (but filtered through the unique lens of the topic of the article in which the summary is written).

There's also a considerable amount of content that might be or already is duplicated across these four articles:

Even worse, I'm sure there are parallel portions that are either contradictory or at least out of sync. It would be nice to concentrate material in subarticles and share these across all four, with the aim of having one place for an in-depth discussion on each topic, rather than four different places, each with a slightly different spin and diverging claims and references. (Of course each article should introduce subtopics with a unique angle.)

There's also one paragraph marked as needing fact-checking, which I just didn't have the energy to get to.

The Pew report also has a lot of good information that should be added to the Wikipedia at some point. -- Beland 04:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual behavior is a changeable choice?

In the section about clasification and boundaries one of the bullet points reads:-

Sexual behavior is a changeable choice, not a fixed attribute of identity by which one should be classified.

If this right? It seems wrong to me, I'd change it but I cant quite put my finger on what I think is wrong with it. [unsigned]

Sexual behaviour (ie, the decision on whether to have sex or not) is. Sexual orientation (ie, the gender of the person one is attracted to) is not. If one is a male attracted to females, or one is a male attracted to females, a female attracted to males or a female attracted to females, is not choice because attraction is subconscious. Whether that attraction is decided by nature (ie, one is born with it) or nuture (sexual socialisation experiences) remains unclear, though most studies suggest either a combination or nature alone.
Only extreme religious fundamentalists now believe the myth that someone can be 'cured' of whatever orientation they have, which is the basis for the nuture argument. It operates on the dubious principle that something went wrong in a child or pubescent adult's sexual socialisation and that that can be "fixed". In fact studies now find evidence of one's orientation existing far earlier than any socialisation experiences, increasingly undermining the nurture theory. It has been further undermined by the discovery of evidence of same sex attraction in animal species where there is no consciousness and so where no nurture experiences could have impacted.
Blech! Of course you're right about the general thing on the fundies and their homophobia. But what the heck does consciousness have to do with "nurture" (socialization)?! By this identical logic, we can conclude that birds do not learn particular birdsongs, but only sing the ones they are genetically programmed for. I think some ornithologists wouldn't be too happy by such bio-reductionism gone wild. (yeah, I know this doesn't matter for this article, but this particular crude failure of basic logic gnaws at my craw).
Interestingly, it seems to be mostly the bio-reductionists nowadays who talk most about "cures"... maybe gene "therapy" or hormonal "treatment" or something on those lines. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Cows for example are inherently bisexual. When a cow or heifer ovulates she her vagina gives off a distinct smell which immediately sexually arouses all members of the bovine family, male and female. Whichever one is nearest to her will immediately mount her and try to perform a sex act. Given that most cows now live in a single sex environment, with they either being fertilised using artificial insemination or through the introduction of a bull once ovuation starts, the sight of cows all jumping onto the back of one of their number in a frenzy of sexual excitement is the moment a farmer knows that a particular one in the herd is ovulating and needs to be fertilised. Studies have found same-sex experiences, sometimes exclusively same-sex experiences (with the object of the study having no sexual interest whatsoever in the opposite sex) throughout the animal kingdom.
As a kid I remember a local farmer's fury when he found that ram (male sheep) he had bought (very expensively!) to impregnate his ewes had absolutely no interest in the females of the species but wanted to ride the backside off the ram in the neighbouring farm. The ram kept breaking through fences, etc to get to the other ram who attracted him. However the other ram, being heterosexual, had no interest whatsoever in having gay sex with the first ram. The unfortunate gay ram ended up becoming lamb chops (ram chops?) when the farmer sold him to try to make some money back from his disastrous investment!!! FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pew Global Attitudes Project

The information in the Wiki article was incorrect, so I edited the section on the Pew Global Attitudes Project after seeing that Canada and the US had (in the wiki article) the same numbers for support of homosexuality. Canada is much more accepting of homosexuality than the United States, and is one of the four countries in the world that allows same-sex marriage. The actual numbers from the Pew Project showed much lower support for homosexuality in the United States. I have edited the Wiki page to show the correct information.


The PDF file for these numbers can be accessed at http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/185.pdf. The homosexuality results table is on page 114.

Cheers! Allison L.

[edit] What is distinction?

What is the diference between the category "Sexual orientation" and the category "Sexual orientation and identity"? If none, they should probably be merged. Wuzzy 11:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sex vs. gender confusion

I think it's best for this article to acknowledge that sexual orientation can refer to the sexes that somebody is attracted to, the genders they are attracted to, or both. The articles about specific sexual orientations should also be inclusive, but it's particularly important that the main article about sexual orientation in general get it right. Catamorphism 06:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Not to be argumentative, but I'm not convinced "gender" is right. Two different dictionaries I've looked at use "sex" only for the definition of "sexual orientation". (See dictionary.com. Not the best source, but do you have a competing one?) The primary use of gender in my experience is to refer to words (the gender of a noun in Spanish for example). I don't know what using the word "gender" here adds to the concept of sexual orientation. BrianH123 06:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Gender is not necessarily the same as sex. For instance, one's gender can be different to their sex and vice versa, of course. Thus it is relevant to describe one's orientation to whether attraction is based on gender or whether attraction is based on sex. As to your statement that I'm not getting into an edit war., I'm not going to either. But you made an earlier argument about consistency - bisexuality can use the word "gender" without confusion because a bisexual person is attracted to someone regardless of their sex. However we must describe sex and gender here since this is an article dealing with a broader scope. Correctness can override the need for consistency and should in this instance. Dysprosia 06:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I realize that gender is not the same as sex. My concern was that gender didn't apply but sex did. But I'll go with Catamorphism's explanation below, especially after reading the gender article which makes the distinction between biology and social construction. BrianH123 06:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I've edited Bisexuality and Heterosexuality to be more consistent with the way sex/gender are used in this article. Feel free to improve on my edits! Catamorphism 07:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Is a gender-male sex-female who's attracted to the male gender and the female sex classified as bisexual, heterosexual, or homosexual? BrianH123 07:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Such a person would most likely self-identify as homosexual. Self-identification is the key, it may be "dangerous" for us to classify those who identify as something contrary to our classification. Dysprosia 07:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
This is the purpose of an encyclopedia article though, isn't it, to state what these terms mean in an objective way? If the only way to know what someone's sexual orientation is to note how he identifies himself, then we can eliminate 99% of the text from bisexuality, heterosexuality, and homosexuality. The homosexuality article will boil down to "A homosexual is someone who identifies as homosexual." And when it comes to people who refuse to identify themselves, they won't have a sexual orientation. And if someone lies about what he is attracted to, we nevertheless take his word for it, even if a penile tumescence study shows otherwise. None of that seems satisfactory to me.
-- BrianH123 16:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I think the concept of NPOV is key here. We can explain what the definition of sexual orientation is that many people have traditionally used (based on attraction), as well as noting that people self-identify in ways that may not be consistent with that definition. Catamorphism 20:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
So you should, Cat's explanation is far superior to mine ;) Dysprosia 07:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Dictionary definitions are not an authoritative source for a modern concept such as "sexual orientation". People who are familiar with LGBT issues and gender studies acknowledge that sex refers to the biological concept of being male, female, or intersex and gender refers to a person's gender role, which may or may not coincide with their sex. It's important to acknowledge, in the context of sexual orientation, that people may be attracted to people who fall into the male gender but not the male sex, to people who fall into the male sex regardless of those people's gender, or to people who fall into the male gender regardless of those people's sex (for example). Catamorphism 06:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
The American Psychological Association defines "sexual orientation" in terms of sex, not gender. In particular it states that "bisexuals are attracted to both their own sex and the opposite sex." See here. The site mentions biological sex, gender identity, and social gender role, but specifically distinguishes them from sexual orientation and, again, defines the latter in terms of sex.BrianH123 21:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
The APA's definition can't be considered to be the only definition, of course. Sure their viewpoint only refers to sex, but that doesn't mean we subsequently only have to refer to sex. In the interests of neutrality we should also provide views from other sources and thus adapt our descriptions as well. Dysprosia 02:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Improving article

Just letting others know that I have begun re-working that article and plan on doing some fairly major renovations. :) Hope i'm not stepping on any toes. There's mountains of published material on this subject and so little of it is reflected here; I hope to rectify that. Cheers and look forward to collaborating. ntennis 05:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It's great to reword things for clarity and add more sources, just be careful you don't lose existing useful information (like the distinction between orientation and preference). Catamorphism 06:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Personally, I feel that point can be better made in the body of the article rather than in the lead section, but that discussion can wait until later... there's a lot to clean up here! ntennis 07:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] zoophilia & paedophilia

why are these orientations not included in the sidebar, why are they 'paraphilia', they are just as legitimate as male/ female preference, that is their 'sexual orientation' - nothing in that says to either male or female, it is just the direction or orientation of lust, regardless of public prejudice —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.112.58.29 (talk • contribs).

They are not, it can still be oriented towards females or males and as such not a sexual orientation.KimvdLinde 03:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are parts of this page mis-categorized?

This page, which is ostensibly about the term "sexual orientation" in general, focuses OVERWHELMINGLY on a single sexual orientation: male homosexuality. It barely discusses heterosexuality, the sexual orientation of the majority of people, at all.

In particular, I'm very disappointed in the lack of treatment of the history of the use of the term "sexual orientation." The page doesn't specify when the term was first used, or by whom--treating it as if it had always been a term in common usage when in fact it is of very recent coinage.

The "History" section of the page is ENTIRELY concerned with the history of male homosexuality, and refers mostly to cultures in which the term "sexual orientation" was unknown. I strongly feel that this section should be moved to a page about male homosexuality, and the "History" section should be replaced with a history of sexual orientation as such--that is, the origin and use of the term.

Of course, I realize that this being Wiki I should do something rather than just complaining. I'll be researching just such a history (I had hoped to research it on Wiki for my own purposes, but I guess I'll try elsewhere) and hope to have it up soon. Dybryd 18:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I've looked through the page and fail to see an OVERWHELMING emphasis on male homosexuality, though I agree about the history section and have removed it. Can you specify which other sections concern you? ntennis 01:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
You're right, I was overstating because the specific parts I looked at had the problem, and the biggest of those is now gone. However, I still would like to see a proper history of the term "sexual orientation" to replace the one cut. I know, I know--write it myself! Dybryd 09:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homophobia is "Abrahamic"?

I'm curious about the passing note that it's "Abrahamic" religions that consider homosexuality unnatural or non-existent. Many religious and non-religious groups outside Christianity, Judaism, and Islam hold a similar view. For example, a former student of mine from a very traditional Taiwanese Taoist family told the story of being put through a sort of private "ex-gay" program by the family's Taoist teacher as a teenager, including prayer, cold baths, and herbs. Many Africans, including those from non-Muslim areas, assert that homosexuality is "Western" and doesn't exist in Africa. And so on.

I'm not sure what the easiest fix would be. Simply switching "Abrahamic" to "religious" wouldn't work because there are also secular ideologies that deny the existence or naturalness of homosexuality--for example in Communist China. Dybryd 09:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This idea, that Abrahamic religions are the sole origin of homophobia, has been a very pervasive myth on wikipedia. User DanB DanD edited the text to address your concern: see this diff. Thanks DanB DanD! ntennis 05:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Measuring an individual's sexual orientation

The text currently says:

A (homosexual) and B (heterosexual). A heterosexual individual may be A5, B0; a bisexual may be A3, B9; An asexual would be A0, B0; and someone with an intense attraction to both sexes would be A9, B9.
I think the A5, B0 for a heterosexual must surely be wrong (or else I'm missing something here.) Very very good article, otherwise. MacMurrough 00:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You are correct! Now fixed. ntennis 03:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orientation vs. preference

I've started a poll on merging Sexual preference into a section of this one which has been discussed (done?) before. Comments on the proposal should be made on that article's talk page at the link above to avoid getting lost in the long comments about this page. Thanks.—Chidom talk  23:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Autosexuality does NOT belong in the Sexual Orientation/Sexology's "Common classifications" box

Autosexuality is NOT a common sexual orientation... it belongs in the "Other classifcations" heading in the Sexual Orientation/Sexology box, not listed under the "Common classifications" heading. Autosexuality is a SUB-topical sexual orientation, most likely belonging under Asexuality - I'll let someone else do the research on that. I am a sexual creature and have no desire to research those who are not. According to the most recent sexuality research released from [ABC News], [CNN] and other media organizations, there are only FOUR major sexual orientations: Heterosexual, Homosexual, Bisexual and Asexual, albeit they said that Asexuals only make up 1 to 1.5% of the general poulation. Knowing those figures, how can Autosexuality be considered as common? Also, many Asexuals still have sex with themselves, so would that not make them somewhat Autosexual? Again, if Asexuals, considered one of the four major sexual orientations, make up only one percent of the population, then Autosexuals would make up a small sliver-like component of that select group which is something I liken to an analogy of the earth's atmospheric elemental components... 78% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen, 1% Argon and then the rest is simply listed as 'other' gasses.

If you want to see unscientifically see just how common the term is... just type in any order "asexual sexual orientation" without quotes on a search engine. I did on Google and came up with 177,000 examples. Then, type in "autosexual sexual orientation" - again, in any order, not using quotation marks in the search window. On Google, I got 2,540 results or 0.01 of Asexual results. Shoot, I typed my first and last name (which is fairly uncommon) plus my city and state and produced way more results than that. That pretty much sums it all up and puts this sliver-group subtopical sexual orientation in its place, certainly not as a common classification. There are no sexuality textbooks or reference books, no published studies, no research statistics anywhere that classifies Autosexuality as a common sexual orientation. This is not in any way, shape or form meant to be an attack on someone who identifies as Autosexual, only that it does not belong in a major or common classification box on Wiki. It is generally accepted there are three or four major sexual orientation classifications, depending upon which research you adhere to, however, adding in other types as common, muddies the waters of sexuality and orientation of the LGBT community. My sexual orientation, bisexual (the 'B' in LGBT), using the same search criteria as above, produced 1,110,000 results, so that would mean Autosexual would have 0.00002 of that finding. Not so common, after all... is it? TednAZ 19:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opening Paragraph

Shouldn't something be put in here right near the start of the article that many people for religious or other reasons only consider heterosexuality to be a normal and legitimate sexuality and consider all others to be mental disorders and perversions? This is a very popular opinion held by large numbers of people and I feel it needs to be strongly and promptly stressed!YourPTR! 19:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/e/x/Talk%7ESexual_orientation_d64b.html"