Talk:Heterosexuality/Archive 3

Terminology discussion

moved from article

Terminology

Heterosexuality is referred to as being straight, although straight can also, though less often, mean anyone whose sexuality could be described as orthodox. For example, people who practice BDSM (bondage and discipline, domination and submission, and sadism and machochism) sometimes use the term to refer to anyone who does not (though the terms vanilla or vanilla sex are more common). The word is sometimes shortened to "hetero" or "het," (almost exclusively in the homosexual community) and can refer to both men and women, to sexual behaviour, to sexual orientation, and to sexual identity.

Although the use of the term "straight" is used often to denote a heterosexual person, this term appears in early or mid 20th century gay slang as in, "to go straight", or stop being gay. One of the first coinage of this reference was in 1941 by the author, G. W. Henry. Henry's book concerned conversations with homosexual males and used this term in connection with the reference to ex-gays. Though not originally intended to refer to heterosexuals, it has evolved over time such that this is its primary usage. [3] Note also that a related meaning of drug addictions in which straight is "not intoxicated" (ie. sober).

An offensive slur for heterosexual is "breeder", which is used in the homosexual community. The term primarily originates from the fact that most heterosexual couples can "breed" or increase the population (while homosexual couples cannot). Although sometimes used playfully, it has a derogatory connotation. [4]

The above is clearly not acceptable in its current state. This article is about heterosexuality, there are plenty of other places to discuss paraphiliac jargon. Sam Spade 18:46, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You can thank user Reddi for those two paragraphs, but "paraphiliac jargon"? Please. Instead of removing it all why didn't you just rewrite it? Exploding Boy 12:32, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry. anyways I don't see a need for this stuff here, and if you do, please condense and NPOV it. Sam Spade 00:26, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'd rather not. Every time I do Reddi comes back and starts reverting like mad. I do think certain of those things belong in the article, however. Exploding Boy 08:16, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

offensive terms

The fact that some people find the term "heterosexual" offensive is irrelevent. It is used in scientific literature to denote a very specific condition. It would be inappropriate to denote "evolution" or "homosexual" or "cancer" as offensive terms given their specific connotation, and likewise the attempt to muddle the issue appears to be highly political. There is a separate article for political issues surrounding sexuality, and I suggest you post there.

Nigger, bitch, fag, and fuck are not scientific terms, and the argument is a straw man. Please post in a political article.Amicuspublilius 17:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

offensive terms are always clarified as such, esp. in a case like this where they are obscure. As for the other edit, it was gratuitous and poorly worded. It reads much better as is. Sam Spade 05:24, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Offensive is a value judgment. I can think of nothing that is offensive to 100% of the population. Just as we do not declare that Hitler is an evil man (c.f. Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View), instead letting his actions speak for themselves, we ought not declare the term "breeder" offensive. Let it's meaning and context speak for themselves, and trust the reader to decide whether to be offended. As for the other edit, I'll make another pass at it. I think the connotation of a laboring animal/the implication that all a heterosexual is good for is ensuring the survival of the species is an important aspect that is not sufficiently reflected in the current language. But I can see how the previous wording was awkward. Snowspinner 05:28, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

review fuck, fag, nigger, bitch, or heck List of ethnic slurs. All of these clarify that the terms are offensive. Sam Spade 05:32, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

fuck specifies its offensiveness in "polite conversation" - far from a blanket statement about its offensiveness. Politeness is something that can be factually agreed upon, and so it is NPOV to state what is and is not polite. Faggot mentions historical offensiveness, though it quickly counters that with a note that it has lost much of its offensive force. Again, the suggestion is that it is more socially acceptable now than it used to be - not the sort of judgment of taste that was being made in this article. Nigger mostly avoids that as well - its one declaration of absolute offensiveness links it to the derogatory intent of the speaker. Since this article admits that the term is sometimes used playfully, again, it does not seem a valid example. You are right on bitch, however, and I'll edit that article tomorrow as well.

Regardless, as it stands with this article, the term is being described as offensive in an absolute sense, with no attention to a particular social context. Since there are people who are not offended and social contexts in which the term is playful, it is inappropriate.

As for the other section, I think supremacism/eugenics goes a bit too far. I have trouble thinking of any term advocating eugenics and supremacism as being playful. I've taken another pass at the whole thing. Snowspinner 05:47, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Its you that brings in this idea of playfullness. The term normally refers to animal breeding, often to a sow in my experience. I rememeber reading about how a pregnant woman was beaten at a canadian lesbian gathering, to shouts of "breeder!", and I have definitely heard anti-reproduction/pro-homosexual propaganda. The link illustrates that. Sam Spade 05:54, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

It's also something I've been playfully called by my gay friends. And something I have seen my gay friends playfully refer to a number of people as. It's a complicated term - not easily summarized with a simple adjective like "offensive." I would, however, caution that such violence against people and anti-reproduction propaganda is on the decline, and that it was pretty much a fringe view even before it started declining. The term is much more frequently used over a couple of beers and among friends than it is as any kind of hate speech. Snowspinner 05:57, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. The story I mentioned I read over 10 yrs ago, and I remembered it precisely because of its oddity. However the technical implications, and negativity towards breeding is something being glossed over in your edits I fear. Sam Spade 06:02, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

See, I thought spelling out that it reduced people to being work animals, and that it suggested that heterosexual sex was something unpleasant that is best left to beasts of burden got that negativity pretty clearly. :) Snowspinner 06:04, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Good call with the link to Animal husbandry. I think it should go later in the paragraph, though. I've tried again (Since I think the explicitness of the animal link should be in this article - not entirely left to a Wikilink) Snowspinner 06:12, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Terminology

I thought we settled this section two months ago. :( Apparently not. Two notes - 1) Breeder is used playfully, often in the form of gays teasing straight friends. 2) Straight is clearly not only gay slang anymore, and I think we can safely note that development. Snowspinner 19:04, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know enough to speak to the first point, but I wholeheartedly agree with the second point. →Raul654 19:06, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I mean, I certainly hope my friends are being playful when they call me a breeder. :) Snowspinner 19:08, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

Calling one a breeder is as disrespectful as calling one a bitch. In playful contexts almost anything can pass well (and I don't think your friends intend to hurt your feelings), but those terms when used to describe humans are derogatory (they refer to lower intelligence life forms, obviously enough). Chick is similar and is unappreciated by several women as well (despite chick having a cute connotation to many people). 66.11.179.30 14:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

POV reverts

Needless to say there have, supposedly, been many POV reverts. I think right now conservative editors are exploiting the complicatedness of the issue to POV the article. As Jonesy says, "painting homosexuality as deviant, abnormal, and a modern chic lifestyle...as 'fluid' belonging to the 'politically correct'" (emphasis mine, Please note, I have not checked Jonesy's actual edits, and they be POV as well).

Being gay is painted as a deservedly marginal social position chosen by gay folks and having nothing to do with heterosexuality. Any trace of the idea that "sexuality" is labeled by society (constructed) that appears in the article is quickly non-neutralized, becoming depicted as homosexuals' sick attempts to legitamize their condition by prioritizing the supposed "fluidity" their gayness supposedly endows them with. As a consquence, not only does the article marginalize gay folks, it also disallows even the mention of any other conception of sexuality.

Hyacinth 19:49, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wow, I like how you sum up my opinions. Three cheers for Hyacinth! :D Sam [Spade] 22:32, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"One of the most distinctive features of the current regime under which we live is the prominence of heterosexuality and homosexuality as central, organizing categories of thought, behaviour, and erotic subjectivity. The rise to dominance of those categories represents a relatively recent and culturally specific development, yet it has left little trace in our consciousness of its novelty. As a result, not only do we have a hard time understanding the logic at work in other historical cultures' organizations of sex and gender, but we have an even harder time understanding our own experiences of sexuality that are not universal." - David M. Halperin, How To Do the History of Homosexuality, p.3. The University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0226314472.

That looks like an interesting article, and points to the novelty of "gltg"-ism/community, as well as non-"heteronormativity" in general. In the past people understood that men and women marrying was normal, and other types of sexuality were not suited to matrimony. Sam [Spade] 02:10, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Pardon? Exploding Boy 02:24, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

basically in traditional societies there wasn't the false dicotomy of modern sexual mores, but rather a continuum, or "bell curve". The strict regulations against homosexuality in abrahamic religions are indicative of this, suggesting that it was not a minority ("10%") of the population capable of commiting these acts, but rather that they were sins which all (or most) were capable of. Sam [Spade] 03:11, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I certainly hope that wasn't meant to be an improvement on what you wrote before. Exploding Boy 16:05, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

hush Sam [Spade] 17:25, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What is the problem Exploding Boy? Otherwise, I agree, hush. Hyacinth 21:11, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In case its relevent I (while I love God w every fiber of my being) am not a believer in biblical inerrency, and see the bible as largely a collection of opinions and oral histories of ancient semites. I don't necessarilly see any one specific "command" from any book as being the direct word of God, binding, etc... My point was more subtle, which is that a hearty percentage of the population might well behave in a homosexual or bisexual (or any sexual really) manner if you make them feel like its ok. I think the number of people w extreme, natural (as opposed to those based on nurturing) gender based sexual preferences is probably quite small. Thats why I think ancient semites saw this as a problem, being that "be fruitful and multiply" was another of their commandments. Nontraditional intercourse necessarilly has an impact on birth rates. Sam [Spade] 21:23, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sam, I'm having a hard time being clear, obviously, as we all are. One of the things which I have found confusing regarding your statements, is that you stated above that sexual orienation is a bell curve, implying that people with exclusive attracted to one gender constitute a minority (or two extreme minorities). Given your definitions of hetero and homosexuality, it would seem then that the middle of the bell curve, the majority of people are bisexual. Yet I have never seen you this written by you, and you argue, if I remember correctly, that the majority of people are heterosexual. Hyacinth 02:37, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't like the term "bisexual", but I will agree that most people, if raised differently and/or were placed in radically different environments, would be able to adapt to a variety of alternative sexualities (assuming this were encouraged/condoned/expected of them). Heterosexuality is the sort of sexuality which I encourage, and which I choose to participate in, and it is likewise the sexuality which most people encourage and participate in. I think the concept of "bisexuality" puts too much emphasis on choice and freedom, which is not something I generally approve of :) Sam [Spade] 02:48, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Don't hush me. I mean, seriously, do you have any idea how rude that sounds? If you're going to insult me, do it outright, please. I always have to question what Sam writes, because he's forever writing something different -- one minute homosexuality is a sin, the next it's a choice, it's nature, it's nurture, he doesn't seem to know what it is, just that he doesn't like it. Exploding Boy 03:38, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

May we

1. Socially or materially ground all assertions of fact.
2. Attribute everything else to a source.
3. Be less universal, or more specific.

Hyacinth 19:49, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

gay terminology

These terms are not widely used outside the gay community, and I question their relevence here. Sam [Spade] 04:14, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Straight is widely used by straight people. It is not "gay terminology." Exploding Boy 04:17, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

Maybe where your from, but I'd like you to try explaining the concept to my grandpa. Its slang, any way you cut it. Sam [Spade] 04:19, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Easy: Grandpa, "straight" means guys who like girls and girls who like guys. Ok? Now it's time for your nap.

It's slang. That much we agree on. Exploding Boy 04:24, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

ok. Sam [Spade] 04:25, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nonsense. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary gives "heterosexual" as sense 3h for "straight" [1]. Similarly, in the American Heritage Dictionary, it is given as sense 11. [2] It is not marked as "slang", "colloquial", or "usage limited only to gay community". It is an ordinary English word with an ordinary English definition. If your grandfather isn't familiar with the usage of the word "straight" to mean "heterosexual" he is clearly disconnected from at least part of mainstream English usage. The Columbia Guide to Standard American Usage labels this usage as "Conversational and Semiformal or Informal" [3], but nowhere is it described as "slang" or is it implied that the usage is limited to the gay community. The claim that usage of "straight" to mean "heterosexual" is in any way marginal English usage is not supported by any actual evidence from recognized arbiters of usage. Nohat 21:59, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Merriam Webster defines slang [4]:

1. : language peculiar to a particular group: as a : ARGOT b : JARGON 2
2. : an informal nonstandard vocabulary composed typically of coinages, arbitrarily changed words, and extravagant, forced, or facetious figures of speech

Neither of which apply to "straight". Hyacinth 05:21, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sam is right here, the word straight has little usage or significance outside of 'gay' subculture. In fact, even after aggressive attempts to make sexual identities popular, the term 'straight' even in the west has little significance outside of gay circles. I mean, have you gone to one of the 'straight' chatrooms. The discussions come round to gays -- even if it is for bashing only. The fact is that the term 'straight' has any significance only when contrasting with 'gay'. Otherwise, no one cares for that. Whether that should be used here or not is a different matter. (Masculinity (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

Deleted Link

[5] The site International Organization of Heterosexual Rights is concerned solely with homosexuality, specifically homosexuality as immoral and deviant behavior. It offers no information about heterosexuality, specifically or generally. Nor can it even be considered heterosexualist advocacy since it offers no "pro" argument.

Reordered Link

Some other links, including the commercial straightpridewear.com, were moved lower in the list, due to their non-academic content, but remain for the time being. They at least have some peripheral bearing. What is the policy regarding commercial links on wikipedia? --Sinuous 23:30, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

History section

Moved to Talk:Prevalence of heterosexuality.

Prevalence of heterosexuality

Why was this made a separate article? I'm about to remerge it. Sam [Spade] 23:43, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As was explained before, somewhere, it was made a seperate article so we could have that argument on that talk page, and not clog this talk page with every issue ever argued by anyone anywhere. From the section directly above, it isn't working ideally. If you really MUST merge it, please NPOV it as currently it makes wild unsubstantiated claims. Hyacinth 23:56, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think "so we could have that argument on that talk page, and not clog this talk page with every issue ever argued by anyone anywhere" is a bad reason for creating a page, so I think I will remerge it.

That said, can we just focus on where we agree for once? Does anyone dispute that sexuality is a continuum, and not a dicotomy, and that heterosexuality (men marrying women w the intent of reproducing) is and has been the normative sexuality thruout all history in almost all places? Sam [Spade] 00:07, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What you propose as our current consensus are really just unsubstantiated statements. Are you playing naive?

1. We don't agree
2. It doesn't matter which issues or points we agree on
3. All that matters is that our disagreements are covered in the article to the extant that they reflect larger real world disagreements.

Please provide sources Sam. Hyacinth 00:29, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand the above at all. Sam [Spade] 00:49, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Translation:

I, personally, would dispute that sexuality is even a continuum. I would agree that heterosexuality, DEFINDED AS PROCREATION, has been the norm, DEFINED AS COMMON AND/OR TYPICAL, throughout history, even normative, DEFINED AS PRESCRIPTIVE. Since you also include marriage, I would need to be convinced and thus currently disagree on that point also. You of course will remember the second part from our previous disagreements and discussions.

However, we need to find sources before we make such assertions in articles, and I will oppose their addition until cited. However, as it is "common knowledge" (Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Neutral_language), I would support the addition of, "heterosexuality, DEFINDED AS PROCREATION, has been the norm, DEFINED AS COMMON AND/OR TYPICAL, throughout history."

Hyacinth 02:26, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hmm... I agree w that last part. I'm still not sure why you say "It doesn't matter which issues or points we agree on", and I certainly disagree, but lets just accept what progress we can, "heterosexuality, DEFINDED AS PROCREATION, has been the norm, DEFINED AS COMMON AND/OR TYPICAL, throughout history." is acceptable. Sam [Spade] 09:36, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Problem paragraph on research

"This is largely because heterosexuality is viewed by social conservatives and traditionalists as normal and non-heterosexuality as deviant, particularly in less developed countries."

There is so much wrong with this sentence, that I cannot even begin to correct it. I presume the terms 'normal', 'deviant' and 'developed' have all been used in its emotionally charged meaning, otherwise the sentence is completely void of meaning and might as well be stricken. (If 90% of the people do something, then statistically that is the normal state. Stating that some people believe in the normal state does not sound very useful. As for 'development', that is only meaningful to mention if you also say what is being developed, and towards what.)

If the three terms are indeed emotionally charged, it might be better to rephrase the sentence first to what the author really tried to say: "This is largely because heterosexuality is viewed [...] as good and non-heterosexuality as bad, particularly by idiots." Now somebody can help me correct it.--branko

Removed text

Sexual orientation and its causes have been the subject of much attention and research. However, research on sexual orientation has not usually focused on the causes of heterosexuality. This is largely because heterosexuality is viewed by social conservatives and traditionalists as normal and non-heterosexuality as deviant, particularly in less developed countries. Some social liberals, sometimes influenced by Kinsey's disputed theories, regard sexuality as fluid and as covering a range. Any attempt at understanding the causes of sexual attraction will be more successful if the mechanisms that underlie sexual attraction are understood.

Explanation

I agree that this paragraph is extremely problematic...

First of all, the people who support and oppose homosexuality don't break down neatly into conservatives and liberals. They are, pretty much by definition, conservative or liberal on this issue, but not necessarily in general.

Secondly, it seems to me that research into the causes of sexual orientation inherently deals with both homosexuality and heterosexuality. If there's a hypothesis that factor X causes or is correlated with homosexuality, then that tells you just as much about what is necessary to be heterosexual (not factor X) as homosexual (factor X).

Beyond these things which I think are off-base, this paragraph does not add anything to Causes of sexual orientation. And this section should really be a summary of that article, not an expansion. So that's why I just removed this paragraph completely.

If someone wants to add material about research into the causes of sexual orientation, that's certainly encouraged, though I would suggest adding it to Causes of sexual orientation and then summarizing only the important and/or hetero-specific points here. -- Beland 04:55, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wow... I never knew so much about the bizarro universe until I came to the wiki. God help us all. Sam [Spade] 14:40, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Huh? -- Beland 02:02, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the paragraph was problematic; on the other hand, the cause of heterosexuality is rather obvious and originates from biological factors (and related basic survival instincts), they are only debatable on a psychological point of view when considering the existance of other types of sexual relations between mammals (which obviously does not relate to reproduction alone)... venturing in that area, things get rather complex quickly, though. Posted by User:66.11.179.30

I think you're confused about what "cause" means in this context. Exploding Boy 19:20, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

there was no confusion pertaining to the "cause" meaning in the previous context. 66.11.179.30 10:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Heterosexual definitions

Don't some people consider a person who is mostly attracted to the opposite sex heterosexual/straight and other people consider that person (technically) bisexual? Some also consider that person mostly heterosexual/straight. So which is correct for a person who is mostly attracted to the opposite sex heterosexual or bisexual? Or is it just a matter of opinion and not really set in stone?

Certainly one can self-identify as heterosexual but be attracted to both sexes, in more or less equal amounts. As for where to draw the line between heterosexual and bisexual attraction, that's certainly up for grabs. Personally, I think the best resolution of that question for many practical purposes is simply to recognize that, to a first approximation, you're dealing with a spectrum of attraction and behavior, a la the Kinsey scale. For most people, there's also a considerable variation in attractiveness of members of a given gender, and in the social circumstances in which people become sexually attractive, which make measuring "attraction to gender X" somewhat complex.

So in short, no, there is no one "official" definition here. -- Beland 04:15, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! I thought there was no "official" definition for that, but I thought I'd ask anyway. The same thing is also true for people who are mostly attracted to the same sex, they can be considered homosexual(gay/lesbian) or bisexual. Also,something kinda interesting, as far as I know, being totally straight dosen't necessarily mean that a person has no kind of physical attraction to the same sex. A totally straight girl can think that another girl is pretty. Although, a girl thinking another girl is hot or sexy, esp. really hot or sexy dosen't sound straight. I've never heard a straight guy say another guy is good looking or something that mean's pretty much the same thing.

Well, you can certainly think that someone is attractive without yourself being attracted to them. You can also like someone's appearance in a relatively non-sexual way, not unlike the way you might like a pretty landscape. The line between sexual and non-sexual attraction is rather fuzzy. Whether or not people express views on each other's attractiveness is mostly a matter of local culture and personality, I guess. -- Beland 23:02, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It could be noted in the heterosexuality article that a person who is mostly attracted to the opposite sex is sometimes considered heterosexual/straight, but such a definition isn't really an official definition of heterosexual. There's an overlap of opinion because such a person could be considered heterosexual/straight or (technically) bisexual.

Most people in most societies around the world have mostly experienced heterosexual attraction and engaged in predominantly heterosexual behavior.

I find it a bit hard to say anything about this phrase, it says so much already, but perhaps unintentionally. At the very least it raise questions about objectivity and accuracy. It also reads like sloganeering. I don't think it is necessary to sell the universality of sexual expression between people of opposite sex. And I don't think it can defensibly be presented within the heterosexual matrix, which appeared a blink of an eye ago vis-a-vis the time frame claimed here. It is not clear to me whether or how this phrase can be corrected, but I think it is worth investigating this further. Haiduc 10:51, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary to sell the universality of sexual expression between people of opposite sex.

Well, it seems to me to be one of the most basic and most interesting facts about heterosexuality. Perhaps a rephrasing would sound less like boosterism; certainly a simple statement that attribute X is more common than any other variant shouldn't imply that X is somehow the best one. For readers not familiar with the subject (especially young readers, or those from isolated communities or gay villages), what seems obvious to us might not be so obvious to them. And I think it's good to remind people of this fact, to set the appropriate context for consideration of what follows. -- Beland 06:41, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

questions about objectivity and accuracy

Since you accept "the universality of sexual expression between people of opposite sex", I assume there's no need to count up all the societies of the world that have ever been and investigate the phenomenon of heterosexuality in each of them. Though the term "heterosexual" is a recent invention, the phenomena of heterosexual attraction and heterosexual behavior are not. If the terminology is causing winces, it could be re-phrased - "men being mainly sexually attracted to and having sex with women, and women being mainly sexually attracted to and having sex with men", or somesuch. Certainly the notion of a heterosexual identity, in constrast to a homosexual identity or other possibilities, is more problematic when taking a historical view. -- Beland 06:41, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It could be argued that everything you said about heterosexuality applies equally to homosexuality. I think there's danger in attempting to suggest one is more natural or common than the other, since we have no biological evidence to that effect at all. For all we know, prehistoric societies were a sexual free for all, and cultural taboos against homosexuality quashed its expression, though clearly not its practice. Exploding Boy 18:05, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

I'm certainly trying to avoid saying that one or the other is more "natural". However, there is plenty of historical evidence that man-woman and woman-man attraction and behavior have been significantly more common than man-man and woman-woman attraction and sex in most societies, not the other way around, and not 50/50. Pre-historic times are of course considerably foggier. The original statement is also not intended to say anything about why this is so - for example, whether biological or cultural influences are dominant. Do you disagree with the factual claim, or do you merely think that it in some ways implies things we're trying to avoid implying? -- Beland 02:37, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there is no question that procreative sex, and to a lesser extent libidinal opposite-sex sexuality, has been universal. Really, it is a truism. It is a lot like having an article on food begin with the claim that people everywhere have always eaten. On the other hand that does not exclude the fact that people everywhere have also gone hungry and have fasted, willingly or otherwise. Forgive the digression, my point is that while heterosexuality IS universal, so is homosexuality. We may be handicapped because we view the world through a Christian/Judaic/Moslem prism. (I was amused to see, on the front page of the NY Times the other day, a gathering of religious leaders from Jerusalem, people who generally do not agree with each other (when they are not actually at each other's throats) get together to harmoniously agree that the coming gay pride parade is an abomination.) As for the discussion about numbers, there is enough evidence to indicate that when it is culturally accepted, "everyone" does it (I am sure you do not need me to trot out e usual examples). If you feel a discussion about the incidence of heterosexuality is appropriate here (besides a link to the Demographics article) why not cite specifics rather than sweeping generalities? Haiduc 13:38, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removal

I removed: "The prevalence of heterosexuality has varied over the centuries and also from culture to culture." I think this is just nonsense really. For instance while the acceptance of homosexuality has obviously varied over time and cultural difference it is accepted (by antropologists, not religious fundamentalists with an axe to grind) the actual number of homosexuals stays relatively constant. Simillarly, there is no reason that I can see to suspect that the incidence (prevalence) of heterosexuality should be any different.--Deglr6328 02:05, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good point. I was beginning to grate at that myself (after having put it there originally). I realize now that what I should have said is "The prevalence of exclusive heterosexuality has varied over the centuries and also from culture to culture." That is not nonsense, and since it is somewhat counterintuitive and not generally known, should be in the article. Haiduc 04:41, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fine, though I don't know how you'd work that in to the article usefully. The degree to which you could possibly quantify the phenomenon of exclusive heterosexuality throughout history would seem small and conjectural at best.--Deglr6328 20:59, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is always a stretch to try to actually quantify historical variations. It is already an achievment if you can show that they occurred at all. Michael Rocke is one of the few I am aware of, in his study of Florentine court records, which show that the majority of the males were, at one time or other in their life, brought up on charges of male/male sodomy. Then we have anecdotal information about, say, the shock of early visitors to Japan upon encountering widespread sodomy. Though numbers would be impossible to generate, the info remains significant. Haiduc 23:04, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"...in his study of Florentine court records, which show that the majority of the males were, at one time or other in their life, brought up on charges of male/male sodomy.". ??! wow. What time period? What do you mean by "majority of the males"? The majority of males with a criminal record? The majority of all males? Perchance a pre-modern european life would've been more fun than I'd thought?... :) --Deglr6328 00:04, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Here are some excerpts from reviews of his work, "Forbidden Friendships" Haiduc 04:32, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Looks interesting, thanks.--Deglr6328 18:01, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

67.173.181.67's "more scientific" reformatting

It appears that the article quality has degraded after the changes from 67.173.181.67.

"more scientific" is very subjective, the previous text might have needed some cleanup but seemed more appropriate, delineating the common (and nonetheless correct) interpretations and usage of "heterosexuality".

Consider the following ideas:

"heterosexual behavior"
"heterosexual orientation"
"heterosexual identity"
"heterosexual relationship"
"heterosexual coitus"
"heterosexual desire"
"exclusively heterosexual"
"occasionally heterosexual" (could be considered bisexual)
"occasional heterosexual behavior"

They are widely considered valid, and have several conotations. They all exist, in the wide realm of human complexity and language. Replace all instances of "heterosexual" by "homosexual" and "bisexual" re-reading those lines, and it still makes sense. In the spectrum, black and white exists, with an infinitely large grey band in between.

Disjointed paragraph

Early in the article there is this paragraph:

For most humans, in most of the time of their lifespan, the above factors may correlate very well. After the sexual hormone production changes about the ages of fifty, changes are expected at physiological, sensory, visual, emotional and physical levels. Inexperienced persons however often are mistaken in their judgements on hetero or other sexualities.

I'm not sure I understand the meaning of this paragraph very well. The first sentence is obviously referring to the list above it, saying that body/identity/etc. tend to correlate well. The second sentence seems to be referring to menopause (unless its supposed to be a different age, in which case it could be referring to puberty). Then, the third sentence seems to be saying that most people aren't very good at guessing what orientation someone is, or have wrong stereotypes about different people. Can someone explain this paragraph to me (i.e. what is the thought process getting from sentence to sentence)? I didn't want to change or delete it until I really understood it, and I figured maybe one of the regular contributors could explain it to me. Thanks. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 00:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

"Mechosexuality"

I can find no references to "mechosexuality" in literature, and no non-Wikipedia references to it in Google. I've removed it unless someone can cite just what researchers propose the concept, and what it is. "Mecho-" is a weird prefix and my dictionary lists no other words beginning with that, but I guess it might mēkhanē, "machine." Machine sexuality..!? // paroxysm (n) 03:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Mechasexual ?? // paroxysm (n) 03:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Article layout/writing

I've tried to rearrange some of the information in the article to address the concerns that the intro was too long; I've mostly done this by creating a new section, "Heterosexuality among humans." However, I'm still not sure how well the article flows. Perhaps someone can help out by reading the article all the way through and getting an overall view of it. Also, there may be periods where the information is redundant and could use some merging. Overall, it may be possible that large sections of this article just need a complete rewrite. This article in general doesn't seem to be well-watched, but hopefully a few of you out there can help me out. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 18:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I've trimmed the intro further as it contained too much confusing technical jargon and inappropriately began by defining heterosexuality as sexual behavior between animals, especially in light of contrasts with homosexuality and bisexuality. As it was, I found it too reader-unfriendly. I think the article as well could use some general expansion. SouthernComfort 06:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Heterosexuality in Animals

"In the animal kingdom, the vast majority of sexual reproduction results from heterosexual coitus between sexually mature partners." Are there instances where sexual reproduction results from anything other than heterosexual coitus? -Case

No, though homosexuality is well known and some species are asexual, sexual reproduction would be obligatorily heterosexual. I have edited to reflect this. --Cdernings 04:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. Sexual Orientation is a peculiarly modern-western concept. It has nothing to do with animals or non-western cultures.

There is no evidence that animals that reproduce are 'heterosexual', as it is understood in the west. In fact, there sexual and social behaviour is often quite contrary to what is considered 'heterosexuality'. Especially in the mammalian world, there is hardly any heterosexuality at all (but that doesn't mean there's homosexualtiy as the west defines it, or even bisexuality).

Here are some interesting facts about mammalian male sexuality. I can get the references too, it'll just take a bit of work. You can refer to Bruce Bagemihl's book: Biological Exuberance for starters:

- Males seek females only during reproduction, which comes only periodically, like once a year. - Only a small percentage of males attempt to mate with females in any given mating season. -A large percentage of males never participate in mating with females at all. - The mating is devoid of any emotional or deeper interest. The 'lovers' forget all about each other as soon as the needful required for reproduction is complete, often never to meet again. - Males and females don't live in pairs, except in rare cases, amongst males that can only be described as transgendered. - Most males not only seek sex with other males all through the year, the only emotional, deeper and life-long sexual relationships are between males.

Most certainly this behaviour/ sexuality cannot fit into the western model or heterosexuality, homosexuality or even bisexuality.

It seems, in nature, sex is the main route for reproduction, but reproduction is not the main reason for sex. Sex was prevalent much before species started to reproduce sexually. It seems, reproduction just rode piggy back on 'sex' which was already there performing other important functions which are more primary to it. (Masculinity (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

Also, there are certainly cases of reproduction without what the west calls 'heterosexual coitus'. E.g. one type of lizard of which there are only females. Then, there are species which changes its sex according to need. (Masculinity (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

Proposed move

Heterosexuality to straight. More likely search term. Seed456 02:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~

• Strong oppose - yer kidding, right? - Adolphus79 02:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Seems kinda silly. A redirect from a disambig. "straight" page would solve this prob. more sensibly. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-29 07:48 (UTC)
• Oppose - straight is too ambiguous a term as it is; I immeadiatly thought of The Strait of Gibraltar; and of course you don't user a ruler to draw a heterosexual line, etc. Ratarsed 12:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - This proposes a more ambigous title. Jay32183 13:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm straight, and in context that's clear enough, but an article called "straight" is most likely about the opposite of wavy. Bubba ditto 23:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose same reasons as everybody else. This is what re-directs are for. Ace of Sevens 01:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose this crooked joke. Close the vote process asap if no other support shows up soon. --Matthead 16:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose this move. Krugs 03:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I have closed this proposed move. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Top of article currently encumbered

Recently there seemed to have been right-aligned vertical bars added to the article. Two of them leaves too few room for the actual article's text, it seems.

Moreover, much of the links don't really belong there IMO, or appear to be somewhat of a propaganda (more visible than the article itself). I wouldn't mind if those links were at the bottom of the article in a square like is done for a number of other articles within categories.

Anyone else noticed this problem with the current layout? 66.11.179.30 19:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Commons category

There's a commons:Category:Heterosexuality , but I don't know whether people will feel that including a {{commonscat}} template would add much to this article... AnonMoos 18:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. There's a pink and blue version of the symbol, if it's really wanted... You can find references to the symbol on various sites, including here and even "Hetero Pride" (though that's probably a joke site). It's also in the Unicode character set, Version 4.1 and later, as character U+26A4 ⚤ "INTERLOCKED FEMALE AND MALE SIGN" (though the Unicode standards document rather strangely annotates it as "bisexuality", which is certainly not the most widespread meaning of the symbol in common popular use). AnonMoos 18:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

"Controversial" Symbol

I'm referring to the main picture...how on earth is the symbol of heterosexuality (of all things...) "controversial?" I mean, I've never known that anyone actually cared about that, so can whoever claims this give an explenation to me? Because I don't get it. 81.145.241.67 14:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that in fact it's very controversial, but anonymous IP 62.87.123.210 added it without explanation or documentation on 5 May 2007, and then anonymous IP 70.248.253.209 seemed to want to question this by adding the word "controversial" on 24 June 2007. I changed it just now to "One version of a heterosexuality symbol", which should avoid all problems... AnonMoos 00:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the symbol warrants inclusion on this page. I have a lot of straight friends and none of them would identify with this symbol. I've never seen this symbol anywhere else with this meaning, and just about everyone on Earth knows what heterosexuality is anyway. Popkultur 01:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Symbols for heterosexuality are not all that widely used, but when they are used, the Unicode U+26A4 character (overlapping Mars sign and Venus sign horizontally or diagonally offset, and usually interlinked) is one of the main symbols -- probably the main symbol, in fact. AnonMoos 01:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

When are they used, though? It seems like the heteropride site is the only place it's been observed, and I don't think heteropride speaks for any sizable population of straight people. I think the symbol ought to go. Popkultur 03:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not "the only place it's been observed"!! That's one of two sites that I happened to easily find with a little quick Google Image searching on June 29th, 2007. How did you come to the conclusion that one of two separate links I provided as quick semi-random examples is "the only place it's been observed"?? In any case, it's an obvious extension of symbols such as Image:Gay_sign.png , and I suspect that it's been independently reinvented by a number of people on several separate occasions... AnonMoos 09:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

One of the sites you found is a website that gives away free icons, and the other is heteropride. If it's been independently reinvented on a number of occasions, as you suspect, than it shouldn't be hard to find more sources. If you can, great, but I think the burden of justifying the symbol's inclusion is yours, unless consensus dictates otherwise. Suspicions alone aren't an encyclopedic basis for including this symbol. As for my suspicions, I'd be willing to bet that 99 out of 100 heterosexual people would have no idea that this symbol is supposed to be a shorthand for their sexuality. It looks like Venus and Mars to me. As for Image:Gay_sign.png, I'm not aware of any historical basis for that symbol either...it's been a pink triangle as far as I've been aware. Hopefully other editors will help build a consensus on this! Popkultur 00:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Dude, I really wish you wouldn't draw sweeping broad far-reaching conclusions based on two semi-random sites which I happened to easily find with a little quick Google Image searching on June 29th, 2007 (and which I linked from this discussion page as a specifically and intentionally unselected and uncomprehensive set of examples for exactly and only that reason). The main issue is not really what fraction of general population know the symbol, but whether that symbol is used when there is occasion to use a symbol with the desired meaning. I've seen symbols like Image:Gay_sign.png in a number of contexts over past decades (with variations in artistic rendering and appearance of course), and there are several further variants of it on Wikimedia Commons, such as Image:Crossed_Male_Symbols.png, Image:Crossed_male_symbols.svg, and Image:Pride-male.jpg -- and the symbolism of the Unicode U+26A4 character (overlapping Mars sign and Venus sign horizontally or diagonally offset, and usually interlinked) seems to be rather obvious to a number of people... AnonMoos 12:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You're still not addressing my point, so I don't think there's any use continuing this discussion. Popkultur 16:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Since you, for some reason, seem to persist in your rather strange belief that that the two semi-random links which I happened to quickly turn up in a perfunctory search on one occasion are some kind of systematic compendium of evidence for the prevalence of use of the symbol -- something which is NOT the case, and that I definitely never intended (as I've already explained several times in detail) -- then it's probably for the best.

I'm not gay, and have only had frequently-encountered openly gay acquaintances during rather brief periods of my life, but I'm highly sensitive and attuned to abstract symbols, and I'm pretty certain that I've encountered artistic variants of the basic symbol Image:Gay_sign.png several times at least, during both the 1980's and 1990's (in non-Internet contexts). If you're dully incurious and insensitive to the presence of abstract symbols, then this might not be the best subject-matter for you to be discussing at length... AnonMoos 21:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

---

By the way, a version of this symbol was used on the "Weekend Update" spoof news segment of a Saturday Night Live show from a few months back, which was re-run on NBC last night (during a report on how women prefer men with prominent chins for short-term relationships, but men with rounder chins for long-term relationships). AnonMoos 16:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Lbgt section

I basically removed the LBGT section because heterosexuality is not LBGT. Heterosexuality involves a union between one man and one woman, not a union between two males or two females. And neither does heterosexuality involve something where a man has at one point been in a romantic relationship with another man and then decides to make out with another woman. ( complete ) heterosexuality must occur where a man begins his first date and / or looses his virginity to another woman. The same goes with women as well. Lostinsidemyworld 15:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Section titles

Flyer22 - I don't object to "Academic study" as a section header, but, I wonder: what is listed that isn't a theory? As far as I knew, and this article seems to support, there are no absolutes when it comes to sexual behaviour and orientation. Further, will you alter the similar section at Homosexuality accordingly? --G2bambino (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

There are no absolutes when it comes to sexual behavior and orientation, but there is no doubt that heterosexuality is needed for reproduction...and since this article also discusses that and addresses facts that are not theories, I don't feel that that section should be titled "Theories on heterosexuality". And, yes, I will alter the similar section at Homosexuality accordingly, since it states some facts and should be titled Academic study as well... I mean, if you don't mind, and there's no other objection to that. Flyer22 (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it does seem obvious that heterosexuality is necessary for reproduction, but the section you refer to is within one that states right off the bat: "Heterosexuality, like any forms of identity is very subjective." Thus, perhaps the absolute of heterosexuality in reproduction shouldn't be a sub of "Academic study" (?).

And, again, I think academic study is fine for both articles; my main concerns were consistency and clarity. --G2bambino (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The "Academic study" section covers all aspects of the scholarly study of the phenomenon, including empirical findings and theoretical explanations. "Academic study" thus makes a fine, non-limiting heading for the section as a whole. Likewise, plain "Biology" and "Psychology" do well as sub-section headings. They also had been stable for quite some time -- perhaps for over a year, though I have not combed the history for instability meanwhile -- indicating a favourable consensus for them.
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a note -- the Talk:Homosexuality is (I suspect) watched by more people than Talk:Heterosexuality, and changes to the Homosexuality page should be discussed there. Fireplace (talk) 02:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't necessarily using the absolute of heterosexuality in reproduction as a sub of "Academic study", but I know what you mean about consistency, of course. Lonewolf BC makes good points for keeping the current titles of the section we're discussing, which have been consistent for a while now, although they are now changed at the Homosexuality article and there is objection from Fireplace about changing those back. I agree that discussion about changing those is best discussed there. Flyer22 (talk) 05:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)