Talk:Homosexuality/archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Archived Exploding Boy 14:31, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

Contents

Early comments

The list of countries with the death penalty for sodomy recently listed Idaho. I dropped that thanks to Lawrence v. Texas. But it was probably wrong even before that, since there is Supreme Court precedent that, outside wartime, the death penalty can only be assigned for aggravated cases of murder. Someone should probably please check this list against ILGA anyhow to make sure it's current. --Tb 21:18 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I used to live in Idaho. Contrary to popular belief, it has a live-and-let-live attitude and state Constitution. (This is partially why so many extremist groups have collected there.) In 1993 a group called the "Idaho Citizens Alliance" tried to get an initiative passed that would classify homosexuals as "deviants" and assure that they had no special rights. Although it was close, it was defeated by Idaho voters. I'd be surprised to hear that sodomy ever carried the death penalty in Idaho, but I don't know for sure. Uranographer 12:28, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to see some references for the anthropological study of homosexuality. It seems to me that every one of the alleged "forms" of homosexuality also exist in heterosexuality. --Dmerrill

My intuition tells me that this article is pro-homosexuality. Was that the author's intent? --Ed Poor

Who knows. Who cares, as long as it's NPOV.
My intuition was that it was written by Christian fundamentalist with an anti-gay agenda. Possibly that's a sign that it is NPOV.

we need to pay more

Cross-Cultural

Concerning the Greek additions:

I remember from a program I saw on the Discovery Channel (which doesn't constitute proof, BTW), that young men in Classical Greece where almost expected to engage in peer-to-peer homosexual activity so as not to defile the female population with pre-marital sex (a bride HAD to be a virgin at that time).
This peer-to-peer male sexual activity was in addition to the type of relationship described in the article and it was expected to end upon marriage to a virgin bride (although, in later life, the man could take on a eromenos).
Can someone verify this? I don't like posting additions to articles based upon what I saw in a single TV program. Maveric149
I don't remember such from the book, but I now found that there are in fact in the book photographs of ancient Greek vases with pictures of homosexual conduct between youths. But most are between erastes and eromenos. This book does not give the answer to your question. It shows how different that society was and proves some weird details, but can not give a complete view.

OK -- I leave this on the back burner until I am able to find substantiation.Thanks! maveric149

A contribution offered

Ihave a contribution to make, but it diverges significantly from the tone of the current article. Since I do not have a big investment in the topic, and have not worked on this page at all, I would like to present it here, and ask others to decide if and where in the article it would best be placed.

Cultural relativism of "homosexual" status

Many people in Western societies today speak of "sexual orientation" as a unified and actual thing. Over the past thirty years anthropologists, historians, and literary critics have pointed out that it in fact comprises a variety of different things, including a specific object of erotic desire, and forms of erotic fulfilment (i.e. sexual behaviors). Many scholars have argued that "sexual orientation" and specific sexual orientations are historical and social constructions. In 1976 the historian Michel Foucault argued that homosexuality did not exist as such in the 18th century; that people instead spoke of "sodomy" (which involved specific erotic acts regardless of the sex of the actors) as a crime that was often ignored but sometimes punished severely. He further argued that it was in the 19th century that "homosexuality" came into existence as practicioners of emerging sciences as well as arts sought to classify and analyze different forms of sexual perversion. Finally, Foucault argues that it was this emerging discourse that allowed some to claim that homosexuality is natural, and therefore a legitimate "sexual orientation."
Foucault's suggestions about Western sexuality led other historians and anthropolosts to abandon the 19th century project of classifying different forms of "sexual" behavior or "sexual" orientation" to a new project that asks "what is "sexuality" and how do people in different places and at different times understand their bodies and desires? For example, they have argued that the famous case of some Melanesian societies in which adult men and pre-pubescent and adolescent boys engage in oral sex is not comparable to similar acts in the United States or Europe; that Melanesians do not understand or explain such acts in terms of sexual desire or as a sexual behavior, and that it in fact reflects a culture with a very different notion of sex, sexuality, and gender. Some historians have made similar claims about so-called homosexuality in ancient Greece; that behaviors that appear to be homosexual in modern Western societies may have been understood by ancient Greeks in entirely different ways.
At stake in these new views are two different points. One is the claim that human sexuality is extraordinarily plastic, and that specific notions about the body and sexuality are socially constructed. The other is the fundamentally anthropological claim of cultural relativism: that human behavior should be interpreted in the context of its cultural environment, and that the language of one culture is often inappropriate for describing practices or beliefs in another culture. A number of contemporary scholars who have come to reject Foucault's specific arguments about Western sexuality nevertheless have accepted these basic theoretical and methodological points.

SR

The above paragraphs by SR are a great general discussion about sexual orientation.! Assuming they are either public domain, or the work of SR, they should be added at the end of the sexual orientation article. maveric149

Thanks Maveric149 -- you can do anything you want to with them, I have no objection to placing them in this or another article. I just leave it to you and others who have already been putting work into these articles to decide where and how, SR



Deconstruction of Homosexuality

As a philosopher, the following is very interesting to me:

the notion that sexual identities such as 'homosexuality', 'heterosexuality' or 'bisexuality' have any objective existence, as opposed to being a social construction.

This is supposed to be, I imagine, a radical thing to say. But I'm not sure what it even means. It seems to me that social constructions always, unless they are totally arbitrary (which they almost never are), grounded in some facts. For example, the notion of homosexuality might very well be a social construction, in the simple, humble, uncontroversial (!) sense that we wouldn't have the concept of homosexuality if we hadn't invented it. It's not an innate concept. But it hardly follows from that that there is no objective basis on which to apply the concept. For instance, it seems we can have a perfectly objective basis on which to notice that people are sexually attracted to members of the same sex. (E.g., we might use hidden webcams in their bedrooms...er, scratch that thought.) On the other hand, if Foucault's point is that homosexuality is a "social construct" in the sense that the behavior is chosen (one thinks of the radical freedom of the existentialists) and not something to which some people have a genetic, perhaps in some cases irresistible disposition, he'll be disagreeing with many scientists, or so the authors of our homosexuality say. If neither of those are what Foucault means by saying that homosexuality (etc.) is "merely" a social concept and not "objective," then I can't figure out what he means.

Now, I don't intend to get into an argument about all this. I just think I'm saying some pretty obvious stuff, so that I can say the following: has anyone replied to Foucault and the others who make such points as I have above? If yes, for pity's sake, please add a reply into the article If not, too bad. Perhaps we could add: "Most trained philosophers in English-speaking countries pretty much ignore Foucault, however." That would be both accurate and relevant, I imagine... --LMS

Without having read Foucault (even though I think I should) I would interpret the "social construction" as follows: society wants to neatly divide people into (bad) homosexuals and (good) heterosexuals, forcing everybody to pick their side, while in reality it's a spectrum with everybody being a little bit of both (mostly based on the people they meet and like), some more on one side than on the other. Akin to the criticism of the "race" concept I would imagine, which society wants to define but biologists can't find an objective basis for. --AxelBoldt

I imagine (and I'm not expert) that when Foucault says that homosexuality is a social construct you should bear in mind that:
  • he is not talking about same-sex attraction which, as LMS pointed out, has some evidence that may be pre-determined by a variety of factors. He is more talking about the exclusively same-sex homosexuals.
  • despite being a social construct it does not necesarily follow that it is a chosen one - one may presume that you can adopt a social construct unconciously perhaps through an already existing attraction.
  • he is not explicitly talking about just homosexual orientation - for Foucault exclusive heterosexuality is also a social construct.

--Axon

To elaborate on Axon's assertions, which I agree with: There seems, to me, to be a large logical disparity between homosexuality as a social construct and the way in which it actually affects our lives. I normally wouldn't cite personal anecdotes, but this is a fairly philosophical discussion so I figured I would make an exception.

I've had numerous discussions with (male) gay friends that were very similar to the one you are having here. I have proposed to them that the popular definition of the word homosexual, if accurate, would constitute both an unnatural and unhealthy condition. This popular notion is that a male homosexual is a man who is solely attracted other men, is completely unaroused by women, and thus is unable to make love to a woman. Because procreation with a woman is an essential biological function of a man, a condition which rendered a man unable to fulfill that function would properly be considered a negative condition.

My earlier-mentioned gay friends tell me that I would be right, except that the idea that gay men are completely unaroused by women is a myth. Most men who describe themselves as gay have had female partners at some time in their lives, and would do so again in the right circumstances, and thus the above definition is flawed. Therefore, Foucault can logically contend that homosexuality as a rigid orientation is merely social construct, and I would agree with him.

It seems to me that the term homosexual, and its definition, which originated in clinical context, is used inappropriately in describing the people it is often used to describe. In a way, it sometimes seems to me that the gay community and gay identity are a biproduct of convenience rather than of an actual orientation, so to speak. In other words, it seems to me that many people who describe themselves as gay do so only because there is no alternative way to describe their sexuality, which is undoubtedly far more nuanced than the terms gay/bi/straight.

As Axon did, I would also emphasize that even if homosexuality is a social construct, it does not logically follow that same-sex attraction is choice-based or that it is in any way detrimental. Also, I consider heterosexuality to be just as much of a construct as homosexuality, for the same reasons.--Crucio 05:49, 3 May 2004 (UTC)


As far as Foucault goes, it is interesting to note that he wrote a lot more about heterosexuality than he did homosexuality, and he applied similar methods of analysis to all of his studies, so its no surprise that he viewed homo-/hetero-sexuality as a social construction with a definite power structure behind it, much like he viewed medicine, psychology, and epistemology. I never thought that he meant that homo-/hetero-sexuality is a purely social construction, but that it manifests in the world through society, social expectations, existing power structures, etc. As far as responses to Foucault, you can find them all over in the fields of queer theory, queer studies, feminism, and gender studies, as well as, in a sense, in biology, genetics, and history.

I agree that if homosexuality (and heterosexuality) are social constructs it doesn't follow that sexual attraction is a choice, though I would say that an individual sex act is a choice. Individual sex acts, even when strung together though, don't constitute a sexuality, as is evidenced by people who regularly engage in homosexual sex and don't identify as gay, a trend very much dominant in modern-day Russia where men may (rarely) identify as gay even though they fully intend to get married to a woman and have children, all the while continuing to have same-sex sex, but where more often, due partly to seemingly absurd Soviet laws, when identifying with a social group gay people will identify as transsexual (though they may have no intention to have a sex change operation). Many people are also aware that same-sex attraction primarily manifested in ancient Greece in the form of pederasty. There is definately a social and even linguistic element to sexuality, and the idea that sexuality is fixedly polarized is a modern one, but I've always interpreted Foucault as only taking it that far (well, actually he thought there was an epistemological element to sexuality as well, but that's not pertinent to the topic at hand). -Seth Mahoney 06:31, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

If "homosexuality" means something like "the state, character, or condition" of being homosexual, then we have to know what "homosexual" means before we can ask whether homosexuality is a social construct. "Sexual" is an adjective, so, logically, "homosexual" must have started out as an adjective, and it must have meant "pertaining to the same sex." Probably if we were to trace the word back to its earliest occurrences it would come up in combinations like "homosexual desire," i.e., (sexual) desire for a person of the same sex, "homosexual behavior," i.e., (sexual) behavior directed toward people of the same sex, etc. So "a homosexual" is a rather blurry categorization to begin with just on semantic grounds.

Regardless of those historical niceties, as used today the expression "a homosexual" means something like "a peson who is motivated to have sexual relations with people of the same sex." Now here is where the "social construction" comes in. If Kinsey's surveys were accurate, almost nobody is 100% heterosexual and almost nobody is 100% homosexual. In other words, almost everybody has some mixture of sexual attraction toward people of the same sex, people of the opposite sex, etc. To take an individual who is 87% heterosexual and call that individual a heterosexual without qualification is to construct something that is at variance with what is really there. To take an individual who is 55% homosexual and call that individual a homosexual is also to construct a "reality" that is at variance with what is actually there. And the extreme version of this interpretation of homosexuality is to maintain that there is no innate preference in anyone, that we are all taught by a combination of social and of contingent factors of which we may have been totally unaware that we are either male or female, and that we feel "male" desires because we have learned that socially conditioned definition of ourselves or we feel "female" desires because we have learned a different socially conditioned definition of ourselves. That interpretation suggests that if a human is born with a certain kind of external genitalia he or she could learn to enjoy same-sex and different-sex erotic experiences with equal verve and facility -- if society would just have left his or her preferences unmangled. Carried to its logical extreme, one ought to be capable of experiencing erotic satisfaction with a manatee having perfectly ambiguous external genitalia and a perfectly androgynous behavioral profile. The fact that very few thunderous orations are heard on the depravity of manatee lovers, and the fact that very many vociferous denials and attacks are heard regarding homosexual lovers, suggest that there is a real biological component, but one that is a kind of clinal differentiation. So my guess is that "homosexuality" is a social construct that, much like race, is built on some objective factors and a liberal amount of ideology. P0M 08:03, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Initially the word homosexual had nothing to do with the sexual act, nor anything to do with other people of the same gender - a homosexual was defined as a person whose "general mental state was that of the opposite sex", which is to say, basically, a transgendered person. Otherwise, right on. Well, maybe not the manatee part... -Seth Mahoney 17:20, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

To quote: "sex is already gendered." Hyacinth 16:22, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Combine "Homosexual" and "Homosexuality"?

Can someone tell me a good reason for homosexual and homosexuality to be separate articles? - user:Montrealais

I think they should be combined. AxelBoldt
Very well. user:Montrealais

Comments on questioned changes

Comments regarding the changes Camembert is questioning...

I broke the "consensual act" part apart from the "wolfenden report" part because it stands alone as a statement regardless of which culture we are discussing (britain or other).

The part on "religious movements" makes a statement about what those movements "believe", therefore should use the language that they themselves use. These movements believe that they are "curing" homosexuals, not merely changing behavior.

I changed the "consenual act" thing mainly to try and preserve flow between that para and the previous part of the article. I'm changing it a bit again now to break off the Wolfenden Report, I hope it suits you.
The "religious movements" "healing" business, I'm not changing back, however. I don't think it's true to say that all religious movements who want to change sexual behaviour see it as "healing" or "curing". I also see no reason to remove reasons psychologists give to dismiss such practices, so I put them back. --Camembert
I understand. Please see the new version. We aren't talking about "all religious movements", but the primary supporters of reparative therapy are the IHF and NARTH, and *they* believe that they are curing and healing.

I have to agree; the groups who talk about reparative therapy do indeed use words like "heal" and "cure". And the statement simply says that some groups believe that they can heal, etc... That's a simple, ordinary statement of fact about what some groups believe, and should stay. --LDC


Fair enough - I just thought it a bit patronising to present their views in that way, but I guess if those are the terms they use themselves... I was a bit heavy handed with the edit, apologies. --Camembert

Issues centering around "repair" of homosexuals

About this sentence:

Some religious movements believe that they can "heal" or "cure" homosexuals' sexual orientation through "reparative therapy". However, this is denounced by the psychological mainstream as ineffective, unnecessary, and often cruel.

I have a quibble with the wording -- not the ideas. I think it is a small number of therapists (not religious people, let alone whole movements) who advocate reparative therapy. What some religious people generally advocate is prayer, repantance and religious counseling, rather than therapy. In general, religious people and psychologists are at odds over the issue of God's existence. If there's cooperation between these factions, even over an issue like changing sexual orientation, it's the exception not the rule.

I would like to distinguish, therefore, between two approaches:

  • that of religious ministries, which advocate prayer, repentance, and other religious activities
  • that of psychologists and therapists, who use non-religious techniques primarily or solely.

(We should keep the statement about "denounced ... as ineffective, unnecessary, and often cruel" of course.) --Ed Poor --Ed Poor

Another verbal quibble:

The term homosexuality is also used for sexual behavior, rather than attraction, between people of the same sex.

This makes it seem like two people who are not attracted to each other might have gay sex. Surely this isn't what the author of this sentence meant? --Ed Poor

well, you know, Ed, there are even men and women who are not attracted to one another who nevertheless have sex.
I think the important issue here is that discussions of sexuality usually involve one or more of three things -- things that are conceptually, and often empiracally, distinct, but in popular conversation often conflated: desire, behavior, and identity Slrubenstein
See also situational sexual behaviour, which deserves to be more heavily linked than it is...

The term homophilia

Someone restored the antiwikipedic homophilia to the see-also section with the comment "(you're thinking of haemophilia. homophilia is an old-fashioned term related to homosexuality.)"

homophilia is not in the dictionaries (that I consulted), even as an archaic word. Are you confusing it with homophile, or does it have modern slang connotations?

  • Homophilia: sexual arousal from person of same sex. Used in psychological terminology, treating homosexuality as a medical condition. Similar to homoeroticism. Homophile is a related word. American Heritage dictionary has it. -- April
  • Yes, I have an American Heritage right in front of me (third edition) - I see "homophile", but I do not see "homophilia".
    • The terms are from the same construction; one refers to the person, the other to the behavior. I gather that "homophilia" is largely archaic, and dates back to when same-sex attraction was considered a disorder. If you do a Google search you'll find numerous instances of the term. It seems to be worth covering for this historical context if nothing else. -- April

Merriam-Webster online has this:

Main Entry: ho·mo·phile
Pronunciation: 'hO-m&-"fIl
Function: adjective
Etymology: hom- + 2-phil
Date: 1960

GAY 4b

I sense confusion, let me restate my point - I hold that "Homophile" is a well defined and accepted word, while "Homophilia" is not. The homophilia link should be changed to a homophile link.

I agree. --Ed Poor

Either way, they are both antiwikipedic.

LOL, what's your point? Personally, I regard "homophile" as redundant, since homosexual redirects to homosexuality. Generally, we don't make an extra article for a synonym. --Ed Poor

Homophile is useful to have in one context. Many words use 'phile' and 'phobe' as indicating for or against. For example - Europhile - devotee of the EU. Europhobe - detester of the EU. Homophile is the opposite of homophobe. Similarly homophilia is the opposite of homophobia. Like many words (eg, kyne as the old plural for cow) it has fallen into disuse. But because it has a direct linkage to words still used like homophobe/homophobia, I think it is worth still maintaining a mention. STÓD/ÉÍRE 03:33 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)

If homophilia is essentially an (archaic) synonym for homosexuality, then it should redirect here, right?

One should never jump into a discussion without reading the existing material carefully. But I never was very good at following my own advice. :) So, is there not a sensible distinction to make between "homophile" and "homosexual"? It is perfectly possible to like homosexual people without being homosexual onseself. (In exactly the same way as it is possible to like the French (be a "Francophile") without being French.) I'm not sure that there is any point in having an entry under "homophile" - what encyclopediac material would it contain, after all? - but there is certainly nothing wrong with the word itself. Indeed, it's a useful term. Tannin 13:41 Apr 4, 2003 (UTC)

A homophile when used as a noun means a homosexual. When used as an adjective, it means "supportive of the well being and civil rights of homosexuals". Wordsmyth Dictionary & Thesaurus

homophile - one who prefers the company of the same sex; a homosexual Forthrights Phrontistery - Dictionary of Obsure words.

The adjective homophile: one who prefers the company of the same sex; a homosexual" WordNet 1.7

Homophilia - sexual arousal from person of same sex From The Encyclopædia of Unusual Sexual Practices STÓD/ÉÍRE 21:26 Apr 4, 2003 (UTC)

An unanswered question

What does the section title "Homosexuality in Population" convey? To me, it suggests "Homosexuality as it appears in different populations", but that is just my mind struggling to make sense out of words that are extremely murky to me. Is it possible that other people will have the same reaction and that this section title should be changed? Patrick0Moran 04:10, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Etiology or not

The "Theories" section lists one group of studies that attempt to objectively determine what subset of the general population participates in homosexual behaviors, and, of that group, what is the ratio between their heterosexual and homosexual behaviors. There is no theory included in this first paragraph. The second paragraph describes how some scholars "attack the notion that sexual identities such as 'homosexuality', 'heterosexuality', or 'bisexuality' have any objective existence, viewing them instead as social constructs." The next section implies that some people treat homosexuality as a sin -- behavior that one chooses to do that pulls one away from God. At the beginning of the "Homosexuality" article, there is an implicit argument that homosexuality is a biologically determined behavior that occurs in normal apes. And there is a mention of the idea that homosexuality results from an error in socialization and can be repaired by coercive procedures. Also relevant is the observation that some humans will not engage in homosexual behavior under most conditions, but will engage in homosexual behavior under special conditions

There is no cross-reference in this article to articles on the causes of homosexual orientation, and there is no coherent account of where homosexuality comes from in this article, just the mention of some possible explanations that have not been integrated. Therefore I added a link to a discussion of the etiology of homosexuality. That was a stopgap measure, and others have pointed out that it goes over some of the same questions that have been covered in other articles.

Would it not be a good idea to reorganize this page to bring all mentions of proposed causative factors into one place, and then direct the reader to one article that tries to explain why homosexuality occurs?

Patrick0Moran 04:36, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)


I agree with much of Patrick's analysis and suggestions. I find nearly all discussion of homosexuality confusing, and I attribute this confusion to the clash between those who seek tolerance for it vs. those who seek to wipe it out. Much of the discussion becomes hysterical and/or incoherent.
An encyclopedia article should try to describe the views of various researchers and advocates about the topic. Homosexuality is variously viewed as a "chosen practice" or an "inherent orientation", and this variation is probably the chief bone of contention between the clashing sides. I do hope the article can duck any conclusions and simply describe the various views. --Uncle Ed 15:50, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think Ed is right about the tendentious discussions of homosexuality.

I also think that, properly understood, there is no inherent conflict between the "chosen practice" view and the "inherent orientation" view. Somebody else commented somewhere, perhaps in regard to the article that I started on etiology, that the accounts of genetic determination seem to take precedence over the accounts of nurture and conditioning. A proper presentation would exhibit all factors for which there is the possibility of gaining objective evidence.

I think we should not accept accounts that we simply take it on faith that, e.g., homosexuals are normal people who have fallen under the mental control of Martians operating from flying saucers. I think that we also should not accept the idea of causeless events: She just decided to become a lesbian. I might decide to eat DDT. But if I did so without any reason I would either be doing it by accident (because a bag of it exploded in my face, for instance), or would not be in my right mind. If I did it for a reason, it might be to prove a point, e.g., "DDT is harmless! See? I'm eating a whole half pound of it!", or it might be that I actually love the taste of it.

There are three issues in regard to choice: (1) People can make choices, along the way, that determine them in small but telling ways. (2) People cannot choose what they feel, but they can choose what to do about it. (3) I have heard of lots of people who have been very unhappy about discovering that they are gay, but I've never heard of anyone who has been happily heterosexual and has decided to become a member of a despised minority, nor have I heard of anyone who has simply decided to become heterosexual. Think about it this way: Suppose somebody hated the smell of skunk spray. (Surprise, surprise.) Could they decide on Tuesday to like the smell and happily twist skunk tails all day Wednesday? I think not. On the other hand, as LBJ said (or maybe it was Stokley Carmichael), "Anybody can stomp a skunk. You just hate to have to do it."

I think the objective description of the etiology of homosexuality just says: These are all the factors that have been identified as possibily having some influence. Whether the real-world weight of a factor is zero or is some positive (or even negative) number has not been nailed down yet.

Patrick0Moran 19:35, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I have to admit, I think the section in question and this whole discussion should probably be merged with the [causes of sexual orientation] article, where it more properly belongs. The discussion and issues raised there are needlessly repeated here and it would make more sense to continue things there and revise that article, which is in need of editing.
AxonThu Jul 31 12:04:55 GMTDT 2003

I just had occasion to look at the history of the homosexuality page. Some people who have made changes have added a brief summary of what they have done. Others have just made their changes. If you are trying to figure out where something changed without your noticing it, the summaries can be extremely valuable.

Even if it's just "typo", please add a summary when you make changes.

Patrick0Moran 20:27, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)