 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
References edit
I found a few references for this article on the web. There were more, but these are representative of the scholarly and popular work that's out there. Removed the {{Unreferenced}} and did some copy editing while I was at it. Would be nice if an New Guinea expert would flesh this out. Erielhonan talk | contribs 仕方が無い 00:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Details of any sexual actions missing edit
I viewed O'Neil and Kottak (Google Docs preview of relevant chapter). Neither makes specific mention of anything other than ingesting semen as regards "homosexual" acts. None of the other citations are available to me. It seems that having anal intercourse would be seen to waste semen if the articles statements about heterosexual sex are also given as a waste. Indeed from what is presented in these two sources it seems that the only allowed activity is eating semen as any other act is making you closer to death. As I said neither citation specifies that the consumption is part of an act of oral sex. It strikes me that a culture of consumption of semen amongst males may be being conflated with homosexuality; I guess the other sources must be particularly clear in this respect given the content of the article? Pbhj (talk) 01:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ejaculating into someone else's mouth is generally considered sexual. Look up some bukake videos for reference.
- What is the difference if you first turn around and put the semen in a cup? Does that somehow that makes it non-sexual? (These are not rhetorical questions, btw)
- To answer the non-rhetorical question, horse semen can be purchased for human consumption; some people think there are health benefits. This is not counted as bestiality and is not illegal. I think the Etoro habits are, or are not, "homosexual" depending on the means by which semen is passed from the donor to the recipient, and potentially would also be pedophilic. Darmot and gilad (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- If sexuality is simply a matter of whether you think it is sexual or not means I can impregnate my wife through vaginal intercourse, but everyone else should see that as non-sexual, because I don't consider that sexual in nature. I simply don't think any of that makes sense at all, and I think most people will agree with me, which is where we get the concept of 'sexual' from.
- 96.86.187.165 (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Merger proposal edit
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- The result of this discussion was Oppose. Mimi Ho Kora (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
I propose merging Edolo language into Etoro people. I think the content in Edolo language can easily be explained in the context of Etoro people, and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Etoro people.~~~~ Mimi Ho Kora (talk) 01:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose: By that reasoning, Russian language should be merged into Russian people, Chinese language into Chinese people, Arabic language into Arabs, etc. We have separate articles for languages and peoples precisely to discuss them separately, even if a people and their language have a long-standing relationship together – .Raven .talk 14:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC).
- Oppose: Both topics are notable, for different reasons, and can be expanded with reliable sources from the fields of anthropology and linguistics. And even if there wasn't enough material for expanding the articles, the number of languages (with all the fuzziness of the concept "language") in the world is finite, and each language is notable per se; we can afford to have perennial stubs about them. –Austronesier (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)