Talk:Heterosexuality/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Open call for discussion

  • "Heterosexualism is a system in which sexual attraction is to (or sexual relations with) persons of the opposite sex (ed. though other may not adhere to this system and this does not necessarily exclude them). [1] It is an ideology that specifies that arousal from members of the opposite sex is the valid expression of human sexuality (and has the capablility of functioning adequately). (Compare with Heteronormativity.)"

Open call for discussion on the above paragraph. Exploding Boy 08:55, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

To get the discussion going, in my opinion "Heterosexualism does not belong on this page, but rather on the Heteronormativity page. In addition, I dispute the factual accuracy of the definition of heterosexualism. Comments, please. Exploding Boy 09:04, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

Heterosexualism belongs here. JDR
I'm not very pleased with the reference to Heteronormativity at all, thats why I deleted the paragraph before, along w the fact that I couldn't make alot of sense out of it. I have to admit that a well written, NPOV paragraph discussing the subject would be acceptable, but I wouldn't very much prefer one, I am much more focused on matters of biology and the mechanics of heterosexuality, and other non-soft science/non-controvercial areas. Sam Spade 09:11, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Just curious as to why you get so upset with heteronormativity Sam, it a sociological and gender studies term to define the social pressures to conform to heterosexual "norms". In short, it is the collective pressure in society to act and behave heterosexual and the position that heterosexuality is the default position in human sexual relations. So I don't really understand where your discomfort in that term comes from. It is demonstrative fact that heterosexuality is the presumptive orientation that almost everyone assumes. Why a clinical term for that phenomenon discomforts you I have yet to understand. Its an honest question and not flame bait (pun noted). Lestatdelc 21:49, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)
I concur with your suggestion that it be removed from here. I also have had no contact with the word until here, and I am very well read on issues surrounding non-heterosexuality and gender studies. Given what is the posited definition, I also concur that it is basically saying what heteronormativity is. Lestatdelc 21:49, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

I've looked it up, and Heterosexualism appears to be a real word, meaning something seemingly compatable w the above paragraph from the article. I have found at least one example of a radical feminist using the word as some sort of catch all slur for stuff she disapproves of. Sam Spade 09:17, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

But it also redirects to this page. I feel it belongs on the heteronormativity page. User:Reddi has also reverted my redirect to that page on at least one occasion. (previously unsigned) User:Exploding Boy

I agree w him (JDR) about the redirect, I mean, its a synonym for heterosexual and all. Besides, I have no interest in doing anything to bring credit or excess attention towards Heteronormativity, which I see as an offensive soft-science quakery.

Maybe its more of a philosophy, but anyways it's not a good place to link Heterosexualism to. Sam Spade 09:36, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

For reference, here's the definition of heteronormativity from that article:
      [edit]Heteronormativity is a critical concept of traditional norms of
      sex, gender identity, gender roles and sexuality, and the social 
      implications of those ideas. It describes a binary organization in 
      which biology is congruent with gender identity and social and sexual 
      behaviour.
Princeton University WordNet defines heterosexualism as synonymous with heterosexuality. If we accept that definition then the sentence in dispute is factually incorrect. By way of comparison, the same source defines heterosexism as "Discrimination or prejudice against lesbians or gay men by heterosexual people." Exploding Boy 09:40, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)
I think you are missing the point, heterosexualism IS NOT Heteronormativity. Also, that citations is baised, IMO (other sources do not give that POV'ed defintion). JDR
I am actually quite surprised to see this word listed in so many online dictionaries as it is almost entirely absent from most gender studies and literature on homosexuality and bisexuality. Lestatdelc 21:56, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

Right. It appears to be a bit of a fusion between the two, and similar enough to heteronormativity to be fairly contrasted with it. It is not however synonymous with heteronormativity and should not link to it, and how to fairly contrast the two... maybe we should just forget about the ambiguous 'heterosexualism', and focus rather on contrasting heterosexism and Heteronormativity (assuming some one feels it needs doine enough to do it, clearly it won't be me ;) Sam Spade 10:10, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The issue is (at least) threefold: (1) what definition of "heterosexualism" are we going to use? (2) based on (1), should heterosexualism (a) be discussed in this article and (b) redirect to this page, and (3) how much detail do we need? If we accept the definition given just above, then all we need to do is add " (also heterosexualism) " to the top of the article and we can get rid of that paragraph completely. Exploding Boy 17:27, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)
(1) This has been determined by the extensive previous edits to the article that you don't agree with nor respect.
(2) heterosexualism should be discussed in this article and SHOULD be redirect to this page.
(3) If additional detail is needed, a seperate article could be used [though the info here should be left (just duplicated and expanded in an "more extensive" article).
JDR 16:40, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
However several of the online dictionaries also indicate that heterosexualism is a POV that heterosexuality is the only true orientation. This would make it a dogmatic example of heteronormativity made into an ethos or dogma. Heterosexuality is in and of itself NPOV and simply is. How it is viewed and constructed within societal mores and norms can certainly lead to a state of heteronormativity (as is the case in our society) and thus lead a person to embrace "heteorsexualism" as defined by several of the definitions in online dictionaries. Lestatdelc 22:01, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)
Several definitions do not imply this ... and nor does heterosexualism ultimately mean this [that is a case more of "heteronormativity"; eg., misapplied term to heterosexualism ]. JDR
See the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology.Hyacinth 23:03, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Ok. I'm completely new to this conversation, and perhaps this idea has already be beaten to a pulp... Why not start a new page on heterosexualism that discusses its various meanings, perhaps contrasting its meaning to other similar/realated words. Of course, appropriate links would lead in each direction. -Rholton 19:46, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I'd be for a seperate article, as long as the information about summary of heterosexualism (much like it is now) is left here too. JDR 16:40, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Sounds fine, but we have to be very careful with these poorly defined ideosyncratic terms, where the relibale sources make no comment at all, amd the editors are pushing an agenda. Just look at the shambles heteronormativity is in. Sam Spade 20:07, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Too true, there are people in edit wars on that topic who are "out to stop horror shows" and "defend normalcy" by pushing their agenda... wonder who that could be (and of course the almost comical irony given what heteronormativity is) Sam...? Lestatdelc 23:43, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

User:Reddi (JDR) wrote: "I'd be for a seperate article, as long as the information about summary of heterosexualism (much like it is now) is left here too." That this is inappropriate for inclusion on this page is the whole point of this discussion. Exploding Boy 16:43, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

Exploding Boy, but that is the point ... others have edited this page and it was been REPEATEDLY left here ... you are the only one that continually cannot accept that this need to be here .... JDR

Yes, some others have chosen to leave it in, others (I am not the only one) have not. Plus, the fact that they left it in doesn't necessarily mean they agreed with it, as the discussion here shows.

If they disagreed, they probably would have removed it or changed it drastically, which they did not. And it seem, from the cvarious comment on the entire page, that the info should be left here. JDR

And once again, would you please put your new comments at the bottom of the page so that people can actually find them rather than hiding them (for whatever reason) further up in the discussion. Exploding Boy 16:51, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

I will respond under the part I am talking about. Your accusation that I am "hiding" something [on of the many that in the past you hafve made] is baseless. JDR [PS., it's what a "threaded" format is (incrementing the discussion)).

Unrelated comments moved to Reddi/JDR's talk page

Based on the following sources (including user Reddi/JDR's own source from the article), I move to alter the sentence as follows: "Heterosexualism is synonymous with heterosexuality." (note: I would have altered it myself but the page is still protected)

Sources:

Exploding Boy 00:48, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

I could agree with that (after having looked it up). Though it is odd that it appears almost nowehere in most of the literature on gender studies and found almost exclusively in online dictionaries. Lestatdelc 00:54, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)
I agree it is very strange. I've never heard it or seen it used before, and I don't know who uses this word. Still, since the page was protected pending clearing this up, I suggest we come to a consensus and get the page unprotected, change the definition and move on. 202.234.194.194 01:38, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC) (Exploding Boy - not logged in)

Does anyone else care to comment on this before I ask for the protection to be removed? Exploding Boy 01:43, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)

I don't have much of an opinion. I would rather have all of it deleted, and no mention of heterosexualism, or heteronormativity, or whatever of any kind, since they strike me as BS, but maybe thats just me ;) Sam Spade 03:13, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

WAIT!

  • heterosexism: an argument that male-female sexuality is the only correct, natural, proper, or moral mode of sexual activity. Also known as heterosexualism.
    • From The Dictionary of Psychology by Raymond J. Corsini, ISBN 1583913289, emphasis added. Hyacinth 18:15, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I guess I take back the above :S Sam Spade 18:37, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I created a disambiguation page Heterosexualism, which states "Heterosexualism is used synonymously with both Heterosexism (Corsini, 2002) and Heterosexuality. Compare with heteronormativity." Hyacinth 18:40, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think you've done rather well, any other opinions before we place links/references within the article proper? Sam Spade 18:41, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Can we finally put this thing to rest? Exploding Boy 01:14, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)

Based on the consensus reached here, I have changed the paragraph in question as follows:
         Heterosexualism is a term that is used synonymously with
         both "heterosexism" and "heterosexuality" 
        (cf. "heteronormativity").
Exploding Boy 08:59, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)


Urban Dictionary Link

The bulk of the Urban Dictionary link was concerned with the childfree movement, which has no particular link to the gay community - many people in the childfree movement are straight, and simply uninterested in having children, or believing that having children is a poor decision with the world being what it is. The citation, therefore, is not germaine to the article. (Though, to my surprise, we have no article on the childfree moment. Huh.) Snowspinner 06:00, 4 May 2004 (UTC)


Prevalence of heterosexuality

Discussion moved to: Prevalence of heterosexuality. Hyacinth 03:20, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've been told that having a heading w no text other than See: Prevalence of heterosexuality. (or whatever) is bad style. Was I misinformed? It certainly looks odd, and is far from common. Is any separate article worthy of a subheading? Why was this made into a separate page anyhow? Sam [Spade] 05:07, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fixed. Hyacinth 05:12, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Apologies to User:Raul654, but the link is listed in ==See also==. It wouldn't be a horrible idea for someone to provide a short summary around the link, thus deserving of a header. Hyacinth 05:15, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
That's what I tried to say but I have now had 3 edit conflicts! →Raul654 05:15, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

That section was moved to its own article because of the length of the discussion and the controversy surrounding the issue. That way this page may simply summarize what that page says, while that page may take the abuse and endless amounts of text produced by conflicts. Hyacinth 02:36, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Gay-related topic?

Actually, I would consider masculinity a feminist topic, since so much of feminism is concerned with the prevalance of masculinity... similarly, I think that heterosexuality is tremendously important to any discussion of gayness... after all, it's really the norm which terms like "gay" are defined in opposition to. Snowspinner 05:29, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Heterosexuality/Archive_2&oldid=789384640"