| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | |  Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. | | Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. | | |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | | | Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. | | High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. | | | | [edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
- Edited to clarify first couple sentences reagrding the potential difference between heterosexual "orientation" and heterosexual "action" (i.e., heterosexual fertilization between male sperm and female egg). It now reads: "Heterosexuality is the sexual, emotional and social relationship between opposite sexes. The term is usually applied to human beings, but it is also observed in all mammals. The physical action of heterosexual fertilization is the only means of reproductive capability among humans without the use of assisted reproductive technology." APatcher (talk) 06:27, 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)
[edit] 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.
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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) I removed part of the section Heterosexuality#Academic_study -- for a couple of reasons: - It read like an essay, not an encyclopedia entry
- It was off-topic, never actually mentioning the stated section topic, "Academic Study"
- It made some fairly strong assertions which, while quite possibly entirely true, were completely unsourced (despite a request for sources dating back to July)
Turns out it was practically the sole contribution of an anon editor. I'm a little surprised it sat there unchallenged for nearly two years. --Rrburke(talk) 03:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC) [edit] Category: Straight people Am I allowed to create a category "Straight people," to complement the category "LGBT people"? Roscelese (talk) 01:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC) - Is there some reason you feel such a category is needed? Exploding Boy (talk) 06:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Human reproduction? Over the last couple of days there has been some slight editwarring concerning the inclusion of a section on human reproduction originally written by Joshuajohanson (talk · contribs). The argument against inclusion is that the section is redundant and/or offtopic. What is the argument for its inclusion? Gabbe (talk) 17:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC) |
