Talk:History of heterosexuality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is preserved as an archive of the associated article page's "votes for deletion" debate (the forerunner of articles for deletion). Please do not modify this page, nor delete it as an orphaned talk page.

VfD vote (for this talk page) - removed April 16, 2004 - no concensus to delete


[edit] From VfD

Vote count: Delete - ?, Keep - ?

  • History of heterosexuality Mere speculation, not a shred of evidence bar a biblical quote or two, which could just as well go into history of religion or some such. Probably beyond help. Tannin 09:17, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Secretlondon 09:25, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Mostly empty headings, and some of what is there is tedious and tendentious. seglea 09:35, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Page history indicates that this article was created to make a point. Bmills 11:20, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: headings are almost an exact copy of headings in History of homosexuality, it does appear this article only serves as a POV exercise. -- Graham :) 14:03, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete heavily POV article. The least that could be said about this is it should be History of term "heterosexuality" but even in that case it would need substantial revision. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:34, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Del. It's a stalking horse (though not nearly as ridiculous as List of heterosexuals. Delete. --No-One Jones 22:28, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)-- reformatted by Jerzy 23:14, 2004 Feb 13 (UTC)** Keep stalking horse, a real term. Secretlondon 22:53, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Del. unless it is changed to a more serious article on the history of the concept of "heterosexuality" Davodd 09:50, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • Ah! Ah! Ah! They met, they got married, they had little children and they lived happily ever after. Boring! Delete. Muriel 13:27, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • It complements History of homosexuality. Keep. Exploding Boy 14:00, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)
      • I disagree. History of homosexuality is a growing account of the culture, beliefs and opinions of or directed towards an oppressed minority over the last few thousand years. This is already complemented by history in general, which is traditionally heterosexist in its viewpoint. For a similar account of heterosexual people in the same time period, open any history textbook, it's there. -- Graham :) 14:13, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Whole books are written on the history of sexuality, this would help some ppl see thier sexual past (and how it relates to other orientations). This topic is as valid as homosexuality history. Giving an account of the culture, beliefs and opinions as specifically relating around heterosexuality (not the standard history textbook line, which does not focus on sexuality) is needed (especially about "opinions of" or "directed towards" other orientations (not just homosexuals, but bi and transgender individuals) ... this article would be informative in such a light; ie. how wrongs have been commited, how things have changed, and what is occuring today concerning heterosexuality). The History of homosexuality is as "heavily POV article" and "makes a point", so this isn't anything different. As to being an exact copy of headings ... don't reinvent the wheel (and as it grows it can change headings). To solve the problem of empty headings, place a stub msg. History of homosexuality is a "covering that serves to conceal intentions" as much as this heterosexuality history article. The History of homosexuality can also compare contrast to the history of heterosexuality. As for interesting articles, "They met, they spent time together, then they died" is not interesting, IMO ... in contrast to "They met, they got married, they had little children and then they died". If this is deleted, the homosexual one should be too. All for now </end rant> ... JDR 21:50, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Contains just a little meaningful material; should be transformed into a balanced History of sexuality. - Seth Ilys 14:42, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. List on pages needing attention. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:13, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge with human sexuality and redirect. Anthony DiPierro 00:07, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Any argument against this page applies to History of homosexuality. Not having the history of heterosexuality but keeping the one of homosexuality would imply that heterosexuality is somehow beyond history or pre or ahistoric. That is heterosexist. Hyacinth 00:18, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • That's flawed logic. Not everything has a compliment or needs to be balanced. Your logic dictates:
      • History of computing needs History of non-computing
      • Intellectual history needs Ignorant history
      • History of literature needs History of illiteracy
      • History of the graphical user interface needs History of the non-graphical user interface
      • History of mental illness needs History of mental health
      • History of board games needs History of non-board games
      • or even -- History of swimming needs History of drowning --Davodd 08:33, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
        • Point taken, but why is History of homosexuality one of those things which does not need a complement or balance?Hyacinth 16:59, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
          • History of homosexuality doesn't need a complement for the same reason that Gay Pride doesn't need a "Heterosexual Pride" complement -- the history of heterosexuality is already deeply ingrained in everything, and hence it simply isn't a phenomenon worthy of independent study. The history of homosexuality, however, has often been written out of the history books, which is why so much effort goes into its study -- it simply takes so much more effort just to uncover it. - Bearcat 09:36, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
            • Good point. However, I do believe that aspects of different-sex sexuality have been written out of history, and it is just as worthwile as uncovering as the aspects of same-sex sexuality which have been written out. And you?-Hyacinth 02:56, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
              • Aspects of sexuality, yes, but as distinct phenomena. Premarital sex, prostitution, etc. Not as heterosexuality qua heterosexuality. Bearcat 08:31, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • LOL! Made my day there. --Faradn 09:20, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete or heavilly revise. Honestly to me it seems ANTI-hetero. not a NPOV
      • Once again, if this article is anti-hetero, history of homosexuality is anti-homo (as Graham pointed out I even lifted the empty headers, and as he didn't point out, some of the content, from the earlier article).Hyacinth 16:59, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. The beginning of the article argues well, why its contents cannot be propagated without logical contradiction. "Heterosexuality and sexuality in general has been taboo in many times and places". Mkmcconn 20:40, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • How's this instead: "Sexuality in general, including aspects of heterosexuality, has been taboo in many times and places."? More edits and improvments, less heterosexist deletions. Hyacinth 00:51, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • To me, it sounds like a manufactured reason for writing this article. Mkmcconn
          • Could reedit your second to last comment or explain it to me? Do you mean "but" instead of "why"? Thanks.-Hyacinth 19:17, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not much useful content here. Heterosexuality has always existed, or else we wouldn't be here today. dave 05:50, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
      • Heterosexuality may "always" have existed, but this does not make it somehow beyond history or ahistoric.-Hyacinth 02:56, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I mean that, "heterosexuality" did not begin to exist when the term was coined. People married, had sex, bore children, got venereal diseases, disagreed with one another about sexual morality, set laws and boundaries for sex, as far back as anyone can find. So, the topic sounds artificial, like a mental exercise, when it begins "Heterosexuality has been taboo in many times and places". It pretends to inform, from the very first sentence. But, it is in trouble from start. Heterosexual sex is the means by which the human family is propagated. Which is all so painfully obvious, that the reader knows from the first sentence that he is about to hear a sales pitch. If the article does not mean to be a joke, it cannot start out saying "Sexuality has been taboo in many times and places." Mkmcconn

What I suppose you mean is, "Heterosexuality, as a term of sexual identity, and an idea of sexual orientation, is for the most part a product of modern thinking." That might even be a redeeming direction in which to direct the content. Otherwise it sounds silly - as though you are saying, "Sex used to be taboo - but in modern times, people do it all the time. Males and females have been known to do it, too, now that old prohibitions have broken down. In fact, as far as we can tell from the scanty evidence, this is not something new." That's how it reads to me now; and that is a bad joke. Mkmcconn 19:48, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Please make your edits, I made the change to "Sexuality in general, including aspects of heterosexuality, has [and have] been taboo in many times and places," before you wrote the above, so I assume I agree with you. I don't think we need get offended at every word of a text we don't like, because we can just change that word, and fix at least a portion of the text. Hyacinth 02:56, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

More editing, less complaining, thanks. SEE: History of sexuality.-Hyacinth 19:19, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I assume you mean that one can take the place of this one? I've redirected History of heterosexuality there. Angela. 20:42, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)