Jump to content

Talk:Heterosexuality/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

I find this debatable: Heterosexuality is sexual or romantic attraction between opposite sexes, and is the most common sexual orientation among humans

I have reasons to believe that this statement does not hold water. And I can also get citations to prove my point. But, before that, can someone tell me, why is a statement like this put here without a citation or reference. If none is available, why should we not remove it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masculinity (talk • contribs) 19:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

EDITOR'S PLEASE TAKE NOTE:

There's been no answer to this point raised. Does it mean that the editor(s) agrees that it is a misleading statement, or at least not supported by references?

Or does it represent some kind of "haughtiness" -- of not having to reply to something which in the modern west is considered the 'accepted' thing?

This question has been given reasonable time. Should I just go and remove this statement now? I do not expect the editor to revert the changes again, (like he did before), since I did discuss the issue here. (Masculinity (talk) 02:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC))

Here are some references, both from US and South Asia, that cleary point out that the majority is not heterosexual in the least, at least not by birth/ nature. (They may take the heterosexual identity in the west, because of pressures of society, because of social conditioning, etc.), but to say that humans are predominantly heterosexual is distorting the facts:

REFERENCE:

The Changing social construction of western male homosexuality: Association with worsening youth suicide problems: chapter: Male homosexuality: from commonality to rarity; http://youth-suicide.com/gay-bisexual/construction/3-gay-youth-suicide-homosexuality-rare.htm

Quotes:

"Male homosexuality in South Asia is widespread and it has many forms. For example, in a 2002 article published in The Times - "Kandahar comes out of the closet" - one aspect of male homosexuality that has been common in Afghanistan is described: "Our correspondent sees the gay capital of South Asia throw off strictures of the Taleban… Visible again, too, are men with their ashna, or beloveds: young boys they have groomed for sex [said to be 15- to 16- years old]. Kandahar’s Pashtuns have been notorious for their homosexuality for centuries, particularly their fondness for naive young boys.

Before the Taleban arrived in 1994, the streets were filled with teenagers and their sugar daddies, flaunting their relationship. It is called the homosexual capital of south Asia. Such is the Pashtun obsession with sodomy… "'In the days of the Mujahidin, there were men with their ashna everywhere, at every corner, in shops, on the streets, in hotels: it was completely open, a part of life,' said Torjan, 38, one of the soldiers loyal to Kandahar’s new governor, Gul Agha Sherzai… 'They are just emerging again,' Torjan said. 'The fighters too now have the boys in their barracks. This was brought to the attention of Gul Agha, who ordered the boys to be expelled, but it continues. The boys live with the fighters very openly. In a short time, and certainly within a year, it will be like pre-Taleban: they will be everywhere'" (Reid, 2002).

Other forms of South Asian male homosexuality have also been described in recent studies (Khan, 1994, 1996, 2001; Silva et al., 1997; Asthana and Oostvogels, 2001). Kahn offers a challenge to western perceptions (i.e. social constructions) of human sexualities and related labels by describing a situation in a country bordering on Afghanistan: "Who is gay in an Indian context? What is gay? Who is homosexual? About three-quarters (72%) of truck drivers in North Pakistan who participated in a recent survey published in AIDS Analysis Asia admitted that they had sex with other males, while 76% stated that they had sex with female sex workers. Are these 72% gay? Homosexual? There is sufficient anecdotal evidence to indicate that in the other countries of the sub-continent, similar levels of male to male sexual behaviors exist as part of a broader sexual repertoire. Are these males bisexual?" (Khan, 2001: 102-3) In South Asia, "much same-sex sexual behaviour involves non-penetrative varieties, mutually indulged in frameworks of friendships and sexual play, while in other situations urgent sexual discharge and sexual 'need' is the significant factor" (Khan, 2001: 106). The first type of homo-sex noted by Khan is called maasti in Hindi, but the term (and practice) is widely known in South Asia, possibly accounting for the high rates of reported homo-sex in other South Asian countries. "For example, 50 per cent of male university students recently interviewed in Sri Lanka reported that their first sexual experience had been with another man" (Silva et al, 1997, cited in Rivers and Aggleton, 1999).

AND IN THE US PRE-1978, AS WELL AS IN ANCIENT GREECE: "My adolescent environment precluded having such feelings because desires to relate sexually with same-sex individuals, and engaging in such joyful activities, could not result in the "freak" label wholly dependent on the socially constructed false belief that homosexuality is rare, or almost non-existent, and therefore abnormal. In fact, I was part of a majority even if, as with masturbation and relating sexually with females, my sexual activities with other males were private acts all deemed to be about equally sinful according to my local Roman Catholic religion (Note 4a). It is also doubtful, given the information available from Ancient Greece, that adolescents boys of the period would have experienced the "freak" related self-hatred and isolation, with often associated suicidal feelings, because they were involved in a sex/love relationships with an older male. If suicidal feeling existed, they likely would have been experienced by a male youth being ignored by all older males, usually young adult males. Given that pederasty was a social institution, stigma/shame could have been experienced by boys not having an older lover/mentor and Murray (2000: 34-5) supplies an example of this for Crete that is considered to be "the first cite of the intitutionalization of pederasty" by scholars specialising in this historical period, such as Percy (1996)"

In fact, it the following reference makes it clear that it is the western society, which through its hostility towards man to man sexuality, especically through its concept of "sexual orientation", forced men to adopt heterosexual identity:

Quote from the same source:

The latter is implicated in the increasing rarity of males reporting same-sex sexual desires and related sexual activities in the Western World. As Chauncey (1994: 13) reports on the basis of the evidence: 

   "...in important respects, the hetero-homosexual binarism, the sexual regime now hegemonic in American culture, is a stunningly recent creation."

(Masculinity (talk) 11:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC))

Sabotaging a valid addition, Why?

The addition I made providing a link to a page constructed after discussing it at the LGBT discussion page on homosexuality, was removed by someone called Silly Rabit, by just saying "original research". Also, I received no warning about the text being removed, which clearly shows that it was not the editors who did this.

Well, I have added several references in the article to which the link has been provided, and I can also provide enough references here. This is certainly not original research.

If people feel like it, I can first discuss the proposed changes I wish to make, here, before adding on to the main section, but then I would not appreciate any sabotage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masculinity (talk • contribs) 15:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The addition did not cite any sources which thus makes it "original research." Also, there was no provided link, but if there had been it would still not have eliminated the need for sources. The added section made a number of highly suspect claims, such as that notions of heterosexuality are not valid outside of the "middle class western" sphere. This is a fairly bald statement, and it's going to need some hefty mainstream sources. I'm sure you can find some people saying things like this if you google enough. But if I can't go and find it in, say, a first year sociology or gender-studies textbook, then the statements are going to have to be qualified and properly attributed to sources. Please familiarize yourself with WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:RS. Silly rabbit (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

What are mainstream sources? Emanating from the West? Do the voices of the non-Westerners count, even when you claim to talk about them? Or are their voices too non-mainstreamish? Is there a policy that says that the published papers should be from the mainstream? And, can you define mainstream?

If a mainstream source says something without validating it with proper evidence, will that give you a right to use it here?

In any case, I can provide any number of mainstream references from published sources. You need to consult the person making additions rather than just going about on your own judgement, deleting things ... unless of course you're the editor around there. And if you are, even then you're supposed to warn or intimate. (Masculinity (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

I think a Western source is not too much to ask. If it is accepted that sexual identification has no validity in Eastern cultures, then it should be trivial to find a Western source that attests this: a standard sociology or gender-studies textbook, perhaps. On the other hand, if this view is only held by a few sources, then it probably doesn't belong at a prominent place in the article, as that would be assigning undue weight to fringe viewpoints. Silly rabbit (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the geographic origin of the source matters, only that it's reliable. I thought Masculinity had a source from UNESCO, which I think is considered a pretty well established institution. --G2bambino (talk) 17:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, there were no sources given at all, which is clearly an unacceptable state of affairs. I don't object to non-Western sources in principle. But if this is something that is generally held to be the case by all experts, then it should be trivial to find a Western source (or an Eastern source for that matter). If, on the other hand, this is a minority viewpoint, or is something which is not generally held to be true, then Wikipedia cannot state this as unqualified fact without providing appropriate attribution. The UNESCO source you are referring to (which can be found at the article Non-western concepts of male sexuality) while making some illuminating historical remarks, does not appear to support the synthesis Masculinity is making. I find the whole thing rather suspect, and I think that very clear sources need to be provided before it will pass. Silly rabbit (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Admittedly, I hadn't given my full attention to this before responding above, but I agree that there shouldn't be any unsourced statements, or synthesis, for that matter. Maybe Masculinity just needs some assistance in constructing his points in a manner acceptable to Wikipedia; lord knows I hadn't a clue how to do so my first few weeks here. --G2bambino (talk) 17:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I just stopped by to state that I don't see how the entry that "Heterosexuality is sexual or romantic attraction between opposite sexes, and is the most common sexual orientation among humans" is all that debatable. Anyone who has done in-depth research on sexuality should know that heterosexuality is often cited as the most common. Even if someone states that bisexuality is, many people either identify as straight (heterosexual) or gay (homosexual) even when sex experts may want to define either of those people as bisexual in regards to their sexual orientation. Plus, according to most sources, 10% of the world is said to be homosexual. That leaves 90%. Out of that 90%, there shouldn't be any doubt that most identify as heterosexual as opposed to bisexual. Thus, heterosexual is the most common. At least identifying as heterosexual is. Flyer22 (talk) 04:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Flyer, if they claim 10% of the population is Gay, it doesn't automatically make the rest heterosexual. They could very well be bisexual.
Also, like we have seen, the concept of Sexual Orientation is a very western one, and it should only be used in the modern west's context. In most non-western societies, and even in the west, not so long ago, most men have sexual relations with other men, even if this is in private. When the society allows men to have sexual relations with other men, without losing their manhood and be counted as queer, as in ancient Greece, men have actually preferred sexual relations with men over women. In fact all male dominated societies tend to celebrate male eroticism more than female eroticism, and in fact restrict the latter. Take ancient Greece for example. Or, take the traditional Afghan saying that goes, "Women are for procreation, and men are for pleasure".
Also, as for most men identifying as heterosexual:
1.) It only happens in the west, as there is no such identity in the non-westernised spaces of non-western societies. I was told of a funny incident in India, not so long ago, of a meeting of highly qualified doctors discussing HIV/ AIDS, when one of them narrated that AIDS in India is spreading through heterosexual contacts, to which many men gasped, "We didn't know there were so many of them in our country" (taking heterosexuals to be some kind of freaks).
If you call someone a heterosexual on the street 10 years ago, he might have beaten you up in India, especially when you explained what it meant.
2.) Even in the west, if people identify as 'heterosexual' it could very well be because of the immense pressures of the society, applied through the route of manhood (equivalent to western 'straighthood'). You surely can't deny that there is a strong pressure.
If you were to say that a the majority of western men identify as 'heterosexual' -- that should be o.k. But you should also mention that there are pressures to be heterosexual in our societies -- both western as well as non-western. I have a reference that says that such pressure is extreme in western heterosexual societies, where indeed the media raises such a hue and cry about men kissing on screen, or two men holding hands in public.
(Masculinity (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC))
Masculinity, yes, I did bring up the point that "even if someone states that bisexuality is [the most common sexual orientation among humans], many people either identify as straight (heterosexual) or gay (homosexual) even when sex experts may want to define either of those people as bisexual in regards to their sexual orientation." I mean, if you read the Bisexuality article, it makes clear that many people who some would possibly call bisexual often identify as one over the other or sometimes just feel more "at home" as identifying as one over the other. So, basically, I was saying that most people identify as heterosexual. "Identify" is the key word. On the flip side, I have plenty of gay and lesbian friends, and I've known plenty that once identified as bisexual, but because their sexual orientation is so much greater for the same sex, they now identify as gay or lesbian. They have said that it feels more at home. More real to them to identify as gay, some because they now only exclusively date the same sex...and others because they feel like they are leading on the opposite sex by identifying as bisexual when they would much rather be with the same sex. I don't feel that they identify as one over the other due to pressure from society but rather due to their own comfort levels. I'm not denying that there is pressure out there to identify as one over the other. And, yes, I know that there is a lot of pressure out there to identify as heterosexual, but I'm just pointing out that a person identifying as one over the other is not always about societal pressure. I'm not even sure if it's mostly about that. If I had to guess, I'd say it's 50/50. Half due to societal pressure and half due to comfort level. Again, "Identify" is the key word. Identifying as heterosexual is the most common sexual identity to identify as, was my point. Flyer22 (talk) 03:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Flyer, yeah sure. But please understand that you are talking only about US and other similar western societies. Like the examples I have given suggest, there is no such identity in non-western countries. E.g. read this reference:
The Changing social construction of western male homosexuality: Association with worsening youth suicide problems: chapter: Male homosexuality: from commonality to rarity; By Pierre J. Tremblay & Richard Ramsay Faculty of Social Work, University of Calgary.
   http://youth-suicide.com/gay-bisexual/construction/3-gay-youth-suicide-homosexuality-rare.htm
"Who is gay in an Indian context? What is gay? Who is homosexual? About three-quarters (72%) of truck drivers in North Pakistan who participated in a recent survey published in AIDS Analysis Asia admitted that they had sex with other males, while 76% stated that they had sex with female sex workers. Are these 72% gay? Homosexual?"
Or this one -
  Masculinity for Boys, Resource Guide for Peer Educators, Published by UNESCO, New Delhi, 2006.

   http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001465/146514e.pdf

   Quotes-

   Page- 62
The Indian usage of the word "Homo" is quite different from its usage in the west. In India it refers to transgendered males who have sex with men.
The term 'homosexual' is used for a feminine male who is stereotyped as being desirous of having receptive anal sex with men as an assertion of his feminine gender.
... It is interesting that although in the West 'homo' refers to sex between any two males, in our traditional society, masculine or so-called 'normal' men who have sex with other men are not considered homosexuals. On the other hand, a feminine male who may have sex only with women would be described as a 'homo'. So 'homo' in India is basically a feminine/ third sex identity rather than referring to a sexual preference.
Case Study
In a series of workshops on masculinity conducted by an NGO with men of all ages in several cities of north India, the men described a famous TV character Dilruba as a 'homo'. Dilruba is a limp-wristed, extremely feminine person, but his sexual interest is only in women."
On the other hand, two masculine men who have sex exclusively with each other (and not with women) were not identified as 'homo'.
You must understand that this entire issue of "Sexual orientation" is a peculiarly modern western concept, that other societies do not relate with.
And, it is not that the concept has always been there, "only they don't give it a name", As westerners who fit into 'gay' identity like to believe. There is no such concept of being attracted only to women. And this is what you should try to understand. Its a diagonally different experience than yours, but unless you learn to see things outside the limited gay point of view, it will be difficult for you and others to appreciate that. Just a friendly remark, not meant to be offensive.

(Masculinity (talk) 10:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC))

And, Flyer, this is my original research (I'm a sexual health counsellor), but since you gave your personal opinion on this, let me tell you that the identities of 'straight' and especially 'gay' are comfortable only for a minority of males, who speak on behalf of the majority who do not have a voice. If you think there is only limited pressure on males in western societies to be heterosexual, you're seriously mistaken. The pressure is extreme in western societies, and I have personally spoken to western men observed this extreme plight. I have also personally experienced this extreme pressure to be heterosexual in westernised spaces in India. The gay identity is seen as so shameful that men even don't touch each other's hands in public, lest they be considered gay. Such extreme fear and hostility is unparralled in history of humankind and is attributable solely to the concept of "sexual orienatation" which attributes same-sex desires only to 'gays' (and bisexuals).

The only males who don't experience this pressure or experience it only mildly are males who are comfortable in the feminine, third sex, gay space. Because, if you take up the gay identity you won't go through this pressure at all. (Masculinity (talk) 11:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC))

Masculinity, let me just state that I don't believe that there is a such thing as anyone being 100% heterosexual or 100% homosexual. I don't believe that for various reasons. So even though I appreciate your advice that I "need to learn to see things outside the limited gay point of view", I don't need it. And don't worry, I didn't take offense to your stating such. I don't feel that the identities of "straight" and especially "gay" are comfortable only for a minority of males, but I still understand what you are saying. And believe me, I don't believe that there is only limited pressure on males in Western societies to be heterosexual. There is a lot of pressure, of course. There is a lot of pressure to be heterosexual period, whether you're a man or a woman. Again, this is mainly why I stated that identifying as heterosexual is the most common sexual identity to identify as.
Maybe the lead should be changed to state that Heterosexuality is the most common sexual orientation to identify as among humans, but that's how I looked at the lead anyway. This should be discussed with more editors here, of course, before making any changes like that (about identifying) to the lead. And if you can find valid sources to back up anything that you want to add to this article, then discuss here and, by all means, don't be too hesitant to add it in. Flyer22 (talk) 00:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Readding LGBT section

Why shouldn't the LGBT tag be put here?

Are you aware that more than 90% of transexuals are heterosexuals? And that a considerable number of transvestites and cross-dressers are heterosexual too?

(Masculinity (talk) 17:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC))

That's why the LGBT tag is on the Transsexualism, Transvestism and Cross-dressing articles. This article is the complete opposite of what belongs in the LGBT project. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 02:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
So, you are in effect reasserting the common Western belief, that Heterosexuality includes only masculine gendered opposite-sex male behaviour, while feminine-gendered opposite sex behaviour is part of LGBT.
Do you see that you are actually dividing Heterosexuality (sic) into masculine and feminine?
But, to show you, how the western society, through the concept of "Sexual Orientation" adopts double standards, Male-male sexual behaviour, whether masculine or feminine is clubbed together under the 'homosexual' label, into the LGBT section.
Apart from being an oppressive system, this kind of classification makes any comparison between 'heterosexual' and 'homosexual' a mockery, which would lead to absolutely misleading conclusions. And they do so often, when Western science reaches such conculsions that men who desire men have brains like women and so on... (Masculinity (talk) 13:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC))

Quote from Masculinity on the Talk:Non-western concepts of male sexuality page a few minutes before he posted this latest comment - "I am not really going to press for inclusion of LGBT tag on the Heterosexuality page." So are you going to keep on about this or not? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to insist on it, not especially from neutral people. But are you trying to avoid the issue I've raised above? (Masculinity (talk) 14:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC))

I'm not avoiding anything, but I'm not spilling over your endless long debates from the Talk:Gay page onto here. You've already rambled on enough from the looks of it. If you want to talk about this, start a discussion on your talk page. End of my discussion with you on this page. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight and original research

After reading this long debate I can say User:Masculinity, your argument/research is better suited for the sexual orientation article. By your own admission, you assert most of your finding are based on original research, which is completely unacceptable for wikipedia. For the sources you do have that are reliable, you have to keep wikipedia policy in mind regarding weight and point of view. The following if copied from WP:UNDUEWEIGHT

Undue weight

Shortcuts

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.

We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list:
  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.

If you are able to prove something that few or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced. See: Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

On an article about heterosexuality, if 90% of scientific research dictates that heterosexuality is the most common sexual orientation among human beings, the article should reflect that, regardless of whether or not that final documented 10% find otherwise. Right now this article reads as if its an intellectual debate of the validity of heterosexuality, rather than a comprehensive study on the subject. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 12:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Subject is supposed to be about Heterosexuality

What is going on here with this article? It's supposed to be about heterosexuality so why then is the majority of its content on homosexuality? Wikipedia already has a page on that topic, a page which I will add that does not even mention heterosexuality. So what's it doing here? It does not belong here. Caden S (talk) 12:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Article structure

I'd like to propose the article be organised more consistently with the History of human sexuality article

  • Records of heterosexual behaviour
  • Religious and philosophical texts from various World cultures
  • Literary sources
  • Medical texts (and later Biological)
  • Linguistic developments in terminology, particularly in slang based on Psychological studies
  • More recent 19th-20th century studies of heterosexuality

Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This all sounds fantastic to me. I'm all for it. Thanks for taking an interest in this article. Caden S (talk) 04:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, this might not be worded quite right

From the lead;

"and is the only possible reproductive sexual orientation among humans without use of medical assistance."

Thats incorrect. If a man and two women or two men and woman have an unprotected threesome, they would have had bi-sexual sex that resulted in potential pregnancy. On top of that, a homosexual man can still have sex with a woman and get her pregnaunt. Homosexuals don't have a lower sperm count. Keep it simple, "sexual intercourse between a man and a woman can result in reproduction". — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 13:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No, every time a male and a female of any species have intercourse, its heterosexual in the act. What does sperm count have to do with it?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • It could be worded better, but the example of a bisexual threesome does not disqualify the intention of the statement because the result of reproduction in a bisexual threesome would have to include a heterosexual action albeit within the context of a bisexual orgy. Also, if a homosexual man and a woman had intercourse, it would still be heterosexual intercourse regardless of the true sexuality of the individuals involved -- just as the action of a heterosexual man having sex with another man would be homosexual activity regardless of the true sexuality of the individuals involved. APatcher (talk) 05:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Can you name one documented evidence of a 'sexual, emotional and social bonding' between male and the female amongst mammals. Most mammalian males only have sex with females during the mating period, and there is no emotional or social bonding between the two. Males and females, in most cases, part company the moment the needful is done. Some mammalian males, in pairs or threesomes, herd females and keep them as their harems for some period. Even here there is no indication of an emotional or social relationship between male and female. The kind of emotional and social relationship you're talking about is found only amongst 5% of mammalian males, as per Bruce Bagemihl, the biologist, and the author of "Biological exuberance". Furthermore, most mammalian males participate in sex with other males, (e.g. as per Bagemihl, about 90 - 95% sex of Giraffe males is with other males). So their 'heterosexuality' is not exclusive. Under these circumstances, it is wrong to say that mammalian males too have heterosexual orientation. They only indulge in heterosexual acts. Just like animals don't have a 'homosexual' orientation, they just indulge in sex with other males.
      • In fact, heterosexuality, or an emotional, social and sexual relationship between male and female is not only a peculiarly human concept, it is a peculiarly Western concept, not found anywhere else in the world -- at least not in the proportion that occurs in the modern West. I can bring several published references for the same.


      • In fact, you should add that heterosexual bonding over a long period of time is not possible without assisted artificial contraceptives, because otherwise there will be too many children. Sex between man and woman cannnot take place for mere pleasure or bonding, without the use of these artificial contraceptives. Human heterosexuality has been made possible only through the use of contraceptives. Otherwise, in nature there is only heterosexual sexual acts. And in traditional societies there is marriage, which although is a social bond is not necessarily an emotional bond and in many cases is only partly sexual. It is only in Western societies that marriage and romance are linked. In the rest of the world marriage is only a social duty of men and women, with no obligation for any further bonding, except sex that is required for procreation(Masculinity (talk) 15:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)).
  • It is important to note that medically assisted reproduction is not the only alternative to heterosexual penetration. It is possible to fertilize an egg cell without penetration and without the presence of a medical professional. To say that sophisticated medical technology is necessary mystifies the process unnecessarily because it is really not that difficult to insert semen into the vaginal tract. I suppose a mug, or some such container, and a syringe is used in home insemination. The man ejaculates into the container, hands the container to the woman, who then harvests the semen from the container with a syringe. The semen is then squirted as far into the vaginal tract as is necessary. Technically this is the equivalent of "syringing" the semen into the vagina with a penis. Ilmateur (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
The classic implement for such is actually a turkey baster... AnonMoos (talk) 12:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Heterosexuality Article Peer Review Request

APatcher, I do like your re-write in the first paragraph. I don't think that paragrah needs any further work. As for the theory on the cause of heterosexuality that you discussed on my talk page, I think it should be removed from the heterosexuality article. It seems to have caused the article in my opinion, to become yet another article on homosexuality. The extremely long, long section on the Behavioral studies/Kinsey Reports suggests this, and is complete overkill for the readers. It should be removed entirely and transfered to the sexual orientation or bisexual articles instead. As I mentioned to you on my talk page, I'm no longer taking part on the heterosexual article (for specific reasons due to the harassment of another editor) however, I wasn't sure if you got that reply. I do thank you for taking the time to drop by the Heterosexuality page and for helping out with this article. Caden S (talk) 01:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

    • I disagree. If "causes for homosexuality" can come on the "homosexuality" page, then "causes of heterosexuality" should also come on the heterosexuality page.

Article reorganization

There is a confusion between the different definitions of heterosexuality. I think this article should be worded more like the homosexuality article, which distinguishes between homosexual orientation and same-sex relationships. Likewise, there needs to be a distinction between people with a heterosexual orientation and people who have sexual relationships with people of the opposite gender. I think if we reorganize the page like the homosexual page this distinction would be more clear. For example, it would make clear that reproduction results from heterosexual sex, not from a heterosexual orientation. On the other hand, the causality section is mostly about the development of a heterosexual orientation. That crucial element isn't clear. I am going to start reorganizing it like the homosexuality page. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I vehemently disagree. There is no consensus on these neologisms. The homosexuality article should read more like this one: simple, streamlined, without a bunch of extraneous crap only tangentially related to the topic, and without trying to make up new definitions for things that don't exist. Homosexuality and homosexual orientation are the same thing. Please, let's not start creating pointless articles for every different sexual orientation we can think up. It's unnecessary and unwarranted. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the idea. Heterosexual orientation and heterosexual behavior are two different things, such as can even be seen on this talk page. That even during a bisexual orgy, heterosexual intercourse is still heterosexual intercourse. There is still no bearing on the orientation of either party. Yes, partly/fully (depending on your views) homosexual women and men can have heterosexual sex (i.e. spouses with kids who divorce and come out). And partly/fully (depending on your views) men and women with heterosexual orientation can have homosexual sex (i.e. Men in prisons & etc...).
This is delicate work however. There is a fine line between an article that keeps heterosexuality unbiased and free of cultural and religious morality, and an article that tries to minimize the importance of heterosexuality or that goes out of its way to invalidate it. I am part of many gay groups and am bisexual myself. But this article needs to remain true to its purpose and subject. Someone needs to clear the article of "second thoughts" and the many "pauses" it takes to mention homosexuality. Though I understand the need to define something by measuring its' distance from its' opposite. Homosexuality needs to be mentioned less in an article where heterosexuality is the subject. Many of the phrases seem added just to make sure readers don't forget that something also exists in homosexuality as if to say, "but this isn't any more valid than homosexuality because it happens there too". Such as:
Heterosexual behaviors in animals
In the animal kingdom, sexual reproduction results from heterosexual coitus between sexually mature partners, however exclusive homosexual behaviour that is related with the Western heterosexual identity is rare.
The second part after "however" shouldn't be there at all. It's supposed to be a small phrase on the topic of Heterosexual behaviors in animals. It shouldn't go on to mention homosexual behavior in animals. That should be reserved to either the homosexuality article. Or an article on homosexual behavior in animals. What's written would be better suited if the topic was "sexual behavior in animals", then linking to a page containing both. But it's not, it's on heterosexual sexual behavior in animals.
In a sense, as sad as it is to admit it, this article needs to be more like those old encyclopedia entries on sexuality that refused to admit that homosexuality existed and was anything but a mental disorder. Because at least then it had a clear purpose and thought on the matter. Remember that this is an article on heterosexuality, not sexuality. So there should be no need or aim to give equal attention or consideration. There should be less, "men can be this or that", and more on why they become "this". Less "humans can be everything" and more, "how or why they are this". This article can easily be renamed "sexuality" and all you would need to change is very few words. In fact it's almost a worse written version of the "sexuality" article, whereas the homosexuality article is rich with information on how it affects people by age or race, parenting, history of it, how it affected each country, laws concerning it, and much much more.
I would do it. But I'm the first to admit that I'm a much better critic than a writer. Someone better than I needs to do it.
Hope my English wasn't too hard to understand =) – Saphseraph (talk) 10:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

In the animal kingdom, sexual reproduction results from heterosexual coitus between sexually mature partners, however exclusive homosexual behaviour that is related with the Western heterosexual identity is rare.

I vehemently disagree. If there is a strong misguided stereotype or presumption prevalent about an issue, like it is there about 'heterosexuality' in the Western society, where heterosexual acts are commonly confused with 'heterosexual orientation', especially in the case of defining mammals as heterosexual. In the West, a 'heterosexual orientation' is often validated by claiming it to be the same amongst animals. This leads to unnecessary confusion and misinformation. It's perfectly in place to clear the misconceptions in an article that is discussing the concept. There are even citations available for this.

I'm changing the sentence to "however exclusive heterosexual behaviour that is related with the Western heterosexual identity is rare." Earlier, it was "exclusive homosexual behaviour".

What does this even mean? That it is rare for individual animals to exhibit exclusively heterosexual behavior? That I find a little bit hard to believe. Perhaps you have a citation. That it is rare for an entire species to exhibit exclusively heterosexual behavior? This seems a little bit more likely, but should be at least spelled out, preferably with a reference so that the requirement of WP:V is satisfied. Or, perhaps it means that it is rare for members of the animal kingdom to have a "heterosexual identity". While this seems plausible, it also seems entirely speculative without a reference: how do we know about the sexual identity (or lack thereof) of animals? And, what in the world does this have to do with the "West"? That feels like an attempt at making the statement a WP:COATRACK for your own agenda. Anyway, perhaps what you mean to say is that homosexual behavior is also quite common in the animal kingdom. This at least can be easily sourced. However, it doesn't follow that exclusive heterosexual behavior is rare (that would be reasoning from a false dichotomy). siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Missing refs in the last section

The last section is missing some references. They just show up as bracketed numbers, but do not link to anything in the references section. This is probably because of a botched cut and past job from the deleted article heterosexualization. I don't know if this section should ultimately remain in the article. But it it does, then is there anyone here with admin powers who can restore the references from the deleted copy? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 11:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Update. I have removed the section based on WP:WEIGHT and WP:SYN concerns raised in the deletion discussion. If 30% of the main heterosexuality article should be about "heterosexualization", then this term should at the very least be discussed by some high-level WP:MAINSTREAM sources, like a gender studies textbook or sociology textbook. If 30% of the reliable sources on heterosexuality mention heterosexualization, then probably this section does belong here. However, as far as I can tell, the term is a neologism at worst, and is used in a completely different sense in the literature than it is in this article. Moreover, the deletion discussion points to a pattern of citation abuse and WP:SYN violations that is just as unacceptable in a section of this article as it was in the heterosexualization article. If there is consensus to keep this section here (which I doubt there is), then it can be restored. But otherwise, this should be zapped on sight, as Paul B rightly comments. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


This is known as bullying by a group in power... like the LGBT in this case.(Masculinity (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC))
      • Silly Rabbit, not willing to get into a fight over this, let me just clarify that the reason for deletion you have quoted is wrong, the article on Heterosexuality (including the text on heterosexualization) is 2906 words app. The text on Heterosexualization is merely 358 words. This is app. 12% of the total text. and not 30% as you've quoted.
Please respond to this within a reasonable time, because, otherwise we can proceed to reposition the text.
Here is another calculation for you: Before the text was added, the article was 25,227 bytes. Afterwards it was 36,364 bytes. So the total number of bytes added was 11,137. Now divide 11,137/36,364 = 0.30624. So (a little over) 30%.
Let me also add that your threatening to reinstate the text is contrary to WP:CON. You have to discuss and gain consensus before implementing your proposed edits. I have already given good reasons for removal, and for reverting your revert. It is now your job to respond in a way that establishes that this section on heterosexualization belongs in the article. The next step, if you want to take this up a notch, is probably to make a request for comment so that outside editorial input can be sought. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Heterosexuality/Archive_4&oldid=1136355467"