Talk:Lesbian/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Authority

This article is prima facie of very light authority: no sources are cited unless one counts Lycurgus. In order for it to be taken more seriously citations need to be introduced. Admittedly topics of fluid form in current popular culture are hard to pin down in such a way but that must be done here.

Well, for my part, I added the two main characters from "South of Nowhere" under the entertainment section. After all, if those insipid chits from "The O.C." can take their place on the list, then Spencer and Ashley more than have a right to be on there. I'm afraid I don't know how to cite a television show, apart from linking to the Wikipedia entry for it. Firebreeze 00:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Pornography

Comments moved to bottom of page. Newer comments should go to the bottom of a page. Dysprosia 01:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Image

Are these women really typical of lesbians in general, thus, is this the best image to represent lesbianism? Dysprosia

I doubt that they are typical at all - the photo was taken at a BDSM event and the subjects are very out about their sexuality. Thus they represent a stereotype. More typical lesbians unless celebrities might make for a rather dull photo. Pretzelpaws 04:09, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, we aren't looking for pictures based on their excitement value ;) It's not quite NPOV to show a stereotype as being somewhat representative of the whole, with its placement, it does imply this. It may be more suitable alongside a description of lesbian stereotypes which we don't have right now... Dysprosia 04:37, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see what you mean about NPOV. However unless we have a picture of a famous lesbian (say Ellen DeGeneres)

what other kind of picture could we have at the top of the article that wouldn't appear generic? I have some

pics from a gay pride march but the participants would still be at the very 'out' end of the spectrum.

You have a point though. I'm not sure what would be the best sort of situation/subject matter that would typically be "lesbian". Dysprosia 07:24, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've moved the original pic further down the page and added a new one at the top that might fit the bill. Pretzelpaws 09:01, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's a great image. Kudos! :) Dysprosia 09:02, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think it's silly to put a bunch of images. How the hell are you going to find a picture of "a lesbian"? What's the point? They look like women. They walk among you. This isn't a damn field guide. -Montréalais 04:54, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Of course, if one were to judge by our article on woman, three out of five women have visible genitals. But I suppose that's a side issue<g> - Nunh-huh 04:57, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Granted, but at least the first image is somewhat relevant, and provides a bit of visual interest to the article too. It's a pretty good image for the subject matter.

I'm less keen on the second, but that's something we can discuss amongst ourselves. Dysprosia 05:12, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Does the article need "visual interest"? I repeat myself: you can't provide an image of "a lesbian" because lesbians come in a variety of shapes and sizes. We can't just show two random women, even though I'm sure they'd be thrilled to know they were chosen to illustrate the encyclopedia article on lesbians.

Maybe something like the National Lesbian Conference, or Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, or an ensemble shot of the Toronto Dyke March or something, would be more appropriate; appropriately captioned and positioned so that the photo means something more than, And now, lesbians. - Montréalais 05:20, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

All articles need visual interest of some kind. Y'know, "a picture is a thousand words", and all that. An article just looks a bit more complete with an image.

And, those suggestions are great also. Dysprosia 05:33, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dysprosia -- How about "couples of any sexuality"?; I think the current form of "regardless" is a bit wordy. Feezo 11:46, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Then we have "like any couples of any sexuality" - too many anys. Dysprosia 12:01, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mmm..agreed. I suppose wordiness is the price we pay for precision, which is very important in this case. Feezo 12:07, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The photograph supposedly illustrating lesbians' support of women's suffrage is of a bunch of men outside an anti-suffrage office. Isn't this just a trifle odd? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:26, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's been taken off Feminism, as far as I can imagine. Feel free to remove it, if you wish. Dysprosia 10:51, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK, I have. I kept the long caption, tidied it up (it was difficult to see when it was small, but it was a bit of a mess), and included it in the section. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:03, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Recent Changes

I'm following the wake of a recent newbie (or possibly a vandal). There have been several recent changes. The most recent change may actually be an improvement in some way. Is somebody watching this page who can go over the recent history and straighten things out? P0M 04:09, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the link to the Encylopedia of Lesbian Movie scenes, as some of the images seem to be of girls below the age of sixteen, and under UK law that may well be considered as child pornography. I would be greatful if Wikipedia investigated this, and if it is, to contact the relevant authorities User:Kimbolton2

I went to this article to find that a vandal had inserted the same picture five or so times. These images were rather explicit and the comment that accompanied them were offensive, so I removed them. -Gilbs(unregistered)

Hey, new to Wikipedia here, but I was just reading the debate over lesbian photos. It seems to me that putting a picture of a single lesbian does seem kind of pointless, since they just look like ordinary women, but I do think that a pic of a lesbian couple would be good.

One reason

The male viewing the lesbian pornography has a gender related issue. While maintaining a sexual preference for females, he prefers to think of himself as one of the females in the pornographic depitcion. See transgender for further deails.

This seems a little dodgy or reaching to me. Even if the reason has validity, it sounds rather esoteric. I hardly think this article should become a compendium for reasons why heterosexual men enjoy lesbian pornography... Dysprosia 10:03, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

The issue of why some heterosexual men have an interest in lesbian pornography is an interesting question. However some lesbians may feel that this is assuming a disproportionate amount of attention, this is not of importance to the lesbian experience. Should we shift this to a seperate article e.g. "Lesbian pornography"? PatGallacher 20:17, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I don't know what research and established information one could make to an article -- it may be all mostly speculative? Dysprosia 03:08, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the first statement. I like what I see on this picture, but I definitely do not want to be a female. → JarlaxleArtemis 23:22, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Lesbian definitions

A woman who is primarily attracted to other women, could be consider bisexual or lesbian, right? Such a woman is technically bisexual, but since she's primarily attracted to women she could be considered lesbian, which is a looser, not really official definition of lesbian. There's sometimes an overlap of opinion as to whether a person is homosexual(gay/lesbian) or bisexual or straight/heterosexual or bisexual. Their technically bisexual, but since their primarily attracted to the same or opposite sex, they could also be considered straight or gay.

Men and Pornography

I have removed the "four possible reasons" why men generally accept pornographic images with "lesbian" sex. If there is no reliable source, then it does not belong. If there is a reliable source, then it needs a citation. It sounds entirely speculative. "Men find images of lesbian sex to be completely non-threatening". Was every man alive polled about this? Is it a-priori true? What kind of a claim it it? It doesn't have much to do with lesbians anyway.

disambiguation

I may be hooted from this talkpage, but I do think Lesbian should as a generic adjective (due to Wikipedia being initial-letter case-insensitive) be a disambiguation page. Lesbian in classical literature is often used as simply referring to Lesbos, and the Lesbian language. We could have

Lesbians (the people, possibly redirecting to Lesbos) — I see it's already a redirect; it would have to redirect to the dab page, then.
Lesbian (homosexual)
Lesbian language

so neither usage gets the right of the "default" article. That's just 'how I would do it'. I can live with the present solution. dab (ᛏ) 18:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From the article,

In modern Greece, the island's name is pronounced and usually transliterated Lesvos and its inhabitants are thus called Lesvonians or Lesviots (rather than "Lesbians").

I am guessing that Wikipedia should use the Modern Greek rather than the Classical? If this should be the case, should not lesvian be the adjective? Dysprosia 04:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

not at all. Even the Modern Greek transliteration is still lesbian. lesvos is just the phonetic transcription. In all articles about Ancient Greece it would be perfectly ridiculous to talk about the "Lesvian" dialect, "Lesvian" literature etc. dab (ᛏ) 08:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

logical consistency

The author claims that beacuse there is variation in the behaviour of lesbians, "it is impossible to generalize accurately about lesbian behavior". But this is just nonsense. You can generalise about things that are not homogenous in their properties. Morevoer, in the next paragraph much research is cited which makes generalisations about lesbian behaviour!

A generalisation just means a largish statistical probability, when compared to some control group. Plainly, on the average, there are important differences between male/male female/female and female/male relationships. I dont know what all those differences are (I was reading this article to find out), but just claiming that to generalise is somehow automatically to be prejudicial is the worst kind of nonsense, because you just end up saying *nothing* 81.174.243.35 6 July 2005 21:37 (UTC)

Pornography

This has been my first major change to a Wiki article, but I felt that the pornography section could use some kind of general introduction. I hope someone else can improve on what little I came up with.

I also throught that some information about the reactions of lesbians to pornography needed to be included along with the reactions of heterosexual men and women. This seemed a more appropriate place to address concerns about gay-bashing, so I moved that bit from the "Reactions of heterosexual men" section. -- 16 Jul 2005

Okay, I see my changes have been removed. So I have to ask, why should an article on lesbians include sections on the reactions of heterosexual people to lesbian pornography and ignore the reactions of lesbians to lesbian pornography? If there's going to be a pornography reaction section at all (and I'm not convinced there should be -- I don't think it's relevant in an encyclopedia article, and there's nothing about anyone's reaction to any of the other forms of media) then why is the lesbian perspective being left out?

Since I'm new I'm hesitant to cut a chunk out of any articles, but I think the pornography section deals far too much with what other people think of lesbians and is not very interesting, well-written, or informative. I think simply noting that lesbian pornography exists but that most is produced by and for straight men is all that's necessary. -- 16 Jul 2005

Your changes seemed okay to me, but I didn't really analyze it all closely. OTOH I didn't remove the changes, so I'll leave that for Wyss to discuss. Dysprosia 01:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for moving my comments to the bottom. I'm afraid I've jumped in a bit too quickly without mastering Wiki etiquette first! (I confess I only skimmed the editing help page, which was foolish of me.) I just searched and found that there's already a stub about lesbian pornography, perhaps it would be better to move information on heterosexual reactions to lesbian pornogaphy there and leave the lesbian article focused on lesbians themselves. I intend to back off from further attempts at article editing until I'm less of a newbie, so I'm just putting the idea here as a suggestion. 02:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Lesbian pornography is a controversial topic across the lesbian community, with some viewing it as entirely negative and unhelpful while other lesbians make a distinction between content produced by lesbians and that produced by non-lesbians. Still other lesbians are mostly indifferent to any distinction and advocate the availability of such material. I removed an edit that said, in effect, "lesbian" pornography has nothing to do with real lesbianism because the statement is not supported by the literature or the evidence. Wyss 15:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

My last edit did not say that "lesbian" pornography has nothing to do with real lesbianism, and I don't see how anyone could come away from it with that impression since (unlike the current version) it mentioned that while most lesbian pornography is made by/for straight men there is also a growing industry devoted to porn by/for lesbians. I'll admit that my description of lesbian reactions may not have been properly NPOV, but at least it attempted to explain why gay-bashing was being mentioned at all in that section. Bringing up gay-bashing in a section on the reactions of heterosexual men to lesbian pornography implies a connection between the two. References to this (supposed) connection should either be made explicit or omitted altogether.

I also think the section on the reactions of heterosexual women deals overmuch with generalizations about female bisexuality that are neither well-supported nor relevant. The "Prevalence of bisexuality" section of the bisexuality article doesn't say anything at all on this subject of how many women are bisexual/bicurious. I think if there are supportable claims to be made on the subject then they belong there instead of in an article on lesbianism. 15:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

The bisexuality article should include it as well. Also, the implied connection between bashing and lesbian depictions in the media is reasonable IMO (I didn't put it there btw, but I've regarded it as a thoughtful end to the para)... Wyss 16:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

If there's any connection (real or perceived) between pornography and gay-bashing, I don't think it should be merely implied. It should be stated plainly. As things are, I think it's at best a non-sequitor and at worst comes across as a sneaky attempt to suggest that porn causes gay-bashing without providing any support or explanation.

I don't see it as a non-sequitor because the statement relates to tolerance (that is, it warns "don't think this has anything to do with tolerance for lesbians, 'cause they still get bashed and worse"). Nothing sneaky about it all.

I should add I don't think the text even hints at a causal correlation between lesbian-themed porn and the abuse of lesbians. Wyss 22:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

But if they're not correlated then why mention it there at all? If the point is that lesbians can be the victims of gay-bashing, this shouldn't be stuck under the "Pornography" heading. If the point is that the popularity of lesbian pornography has little relation to tolerance of lesbians in the real world, I think that's sufficiently clear from the rest of the text without the reference to gay-bashing. Placed the way it is, it looks like it's suggesting not only that men who like lesbian porn may not be tolerant of real lesbians, but that they're probably gay-bashers and rapists too. (And that's my final post on the subject, I promise!) 02:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Only to follow up... The construction does (and is meant to) suggest "men who like lesbian porn may not be tolerant of real lesbians", but does not assert they're "probably" bashers etc, only that such things happen, in spite of the popularity and acceptance of lesbian depictions in that genre of entertainment. The wording is strong, I agree, but I've liked it since I first read it. Wyss 12:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

By the way Wyss, I think what you posted above about lesbian reactions to pornography ("Lesbian pornography is a controversial topic across the lesbian community...") is better than what is in the actual article. I think your summary here better reflects the diversity of viewpoints and is also more clear. 22:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

You might have missed how I've written a new opening to that section of the article? Please let me know your thoughts... Wyss 22:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I saw it, but I liked the way you phrased things in your post here better than what's in the article. Just my opinion. 02:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, sigh, why people just remove anonymous stuff without giving it a chance is beyond me, but here's my comments...

"Historically, the depiction of lesbian sex in entertainment has been controversial among lesbians." It has not been historically controversial, unless of course you mean the last 80 years... either qualify it or don't bother saying it, in this case I think it would be much more productive to talk about pornography.

First, thanks for bringing this to the talk page. I disagree with your statement that "It has not been historically controversial, unless of course you mean the last 80 years..." and I don't think any qualification is necessary. You might want to be more specific about your concerns here though, maybe I don't understand yet what you mean. Wyss 10:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I do have a problem with throwing around words like historical, especially when the historical research hasn't been done. I'm sure one could make an argument for images of lesbianism having existed in folk and low cultures for long periods of time without necessarily having been controversial in nature. Furthermore, pornographic depictions of sex have existed in high art for some time without provoking controversy. I'm thinking specifically of some of the gay and lesbian independent films I've seen, and therefore I find it relevant to classify pornography. The current usage is a very specific, albeit mainstream, form of pornography.--71.34.234.43 08:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

"while others have made various assertions supporting its availability among adults" what does this mean? It's not clear. I attempted to insert something clear and informative, if you don't find it accurate, replace it with something that makes sense. What are these vague assertions being referred to? This section is also very western, specifically US-centric, and I think that needs to be noted. A lot of the broad generalizations made here do not apply in other countries, especially in Asian countries.

It means what it says... succinctly. I don't agree that this section is US centric. Again, maybe if you could be more specific...? Wyss 10:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more clear, I didn't mean specifically the passage cited above, but rather the article in general. I was specifically thinking of a counter-example related to Pornography, which constantly refers to the aversion of the image of male homosexuality. My experience in Japan, however, is enough to demonstrate that this is not a universal claim as the article currently dictates. In fact, I would be willing to speculate that gay pornography is much more popular than lesbian pornography in Japan, although this is based on my limited experience with Japanese sex shops. Nonetheless, the views are not the same, nor are they in Europe, or anywhere else in the world, really. Therefore, the article needs some specification as to what exactly is being discussed. I'm not saying I don't find value in the US-centric discussion--I do--but we can't have that value unless we realize what is actually being discussed.--71.34.234.43 08:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

"Many people (especially among younger generations such as college students) claim bisexual women are far more common than bisexual men." Claiming that college students claim something doesn't claim a whole lot... this is very messy. If somebody wants to put up, non-anonymously, what I worked on, I'm going to leave it here:

It is difficult to classify pornography due to a wide range of potential definitions and its close ties with subjective pleasure, however, it can be said that the depiction of lesbian sex has been controversial. In contemporary western society, some have argued that pornography in any form inevitably leads to the objectification and stereotyping of women, while others support pornography as a valid forum for the assertion of women's rights through individual agency. Currently, however, an overwhelming proportion of pornographic media is targeted exclusively at men, including both gay and lesbian pornography.

In the US the popular response to the lesbian as an entertainment icon is consistently positive. This contrasts sharply with a widespread aversion to the image of male homosexuality. As noted earlier, pornography is produced primarily for heterosexual males. Positive reactions by straight men to lesbian pornography does not necessarily indicate evidence of tolerance of lesbians, or a general acceptance of lesbianism in society. In fact, in the US, Lesbians are often the victims of gay-bashing and sexual assault.

Many heterosexual women are said to have a more positive attitude towards depictions of lesbian sex than most heterosexual men have to depictions of male gay sex. Some suggest that this may be because heterosexual women are on average "more bi-curious" than heterosexual men, while others claim that it is simply a manifestation of the effects of the male gaze on female socialization in the US. However this is controversial, since significant numbers of heterosexual women have negative attitudes towards lesbianism, ranging from mild to extreme.

Thanks for your time! --71.34.234.43 10:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

In truth, I found the above much less clear and very wordy, less helpful. If you'd like to discuss this, I'm willing... are there any specific points you feel are missing in this section? Wyss 10:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you found it less clear and helpful, but I believe that my points are valid, and is that any basis for whimsically removing an edit that was obviously thoughtfully applied? No, I suppose I should rephrase that. If an entry is less clear and helpful, it should be removed. If an entry adds interesting points, but you have problems with it, you should make it better (not just pretend it never happened). But ten minutes after I make the edit, it's already removed, and only because I posted anonymously? I didn't realize that Wikis were subject to only one individual's judgement of clear and helpful. For this to work properly, people should not form attachments to their edits or feel the need to take responsibility for maintaining the worldview of a specific "regular" group of individuals who claim a single article. But, that's just my opinion. --71.34.234.43 08:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The edit had many problems IMO. I've made an effort to integrate it. Wyss 12:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I have made some changes to the "Reactions of heterosexual men" section. The previous version began with "In western culture, popular response to lesbian content in entertainment is consistently positive." Let's try not to be so vague. This section isn't about the response of all of Western society to all lesbian content in all entertainment (something that obviously is NOT "consistently positive"), it's about the response of straight men to lesbian scenes in pornography. Even then, I think it's an overgeneralization to say that the response is "consistently positive." There are many men who find lesbian pornography uninteresting, or even morally offensive. CKarnstein 01:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Also revised the introduction to the Pornography section, which was even worse in terms of vague wording. "Has been controversial" among which groups? "Some" who? We need to be clear about the subjects of our claims. Let's not be afraid to say things plainly. CKarnstein 02:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The vagueness may have been an artifact of differing PoVs. I think your changes are helpful. Wyss 12:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Glad you think so. :) And you're right, we may have so many different chefs stirring the broth here that things can get a bit muddled from time to time. CKarnstein 14:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Merge Dyke (lesbian)

I've suggested in the article above that it be merged with this article. My reason is simple: it doesn't stand on it's own as an encyclopedia article, and it makes a good addition to this article. I make this suggestion on editorial grounds, not cultural; I'm het, but have many friends in the gay and lesbian community. Thoughts? Ken 15:42, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I'm torn here but I'll come down against a merge; I note there is already an article at Lipstick lesbian and arguably this term is as valid and already the same size. There is no "terminology" section on lesbian (there should be - I'll try to write it soon) and this could be expanded further. (also posted to source talk page). --Vamp:Willow 16:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm strongly against it. Dyke has shades of meaning and intent different from lesbian. Also the invective potential of dyke makes a merge and re-direct contextually dodgy. Wyss 18:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Lipstick lesbian, I'd say it should be merged as well. There should definitely be a "terminology" section in the main article. As far as shades of meaning, invective, etc. yes, the word dyke can be pejorative. So can "lawyer" or "accountant". And the word dyke is used, according to the article in question, "... is usually used in a non-pejorative sense as simple alternative to 'lesbian' or 'gay woman'." I don't see the objection. Ken 00:01, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Against. A terminology list (or link to one) in this article would be ok with me though. Wyss 00:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Image posted by User:Klonimus

The following has been copied from the Administrator's Noticeboard to document why this image is inappropriate for the article. Wyss 13:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Abusive image added to Lesbian [1] by User:Klonimus. Odd, this seems like a helpful user, so this is only a "heads up" I guess. Wyss 11:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Looks like it was added in good faith to me. In what way is image "abusive"? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 12:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't look "abusive" but it doesn't look like good-faith, either. If those women are lesbians I'm Martha Stewart. --Calton | Talk 12:59, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

IMHO if it was good faith it was insensitive, misleading, mis-informed, unrepresentative and plainly has the potential to provoke and distract. I know some editors want to "push the envelope" on the inclusion of images in WP but including something pulled straight from a contemporary porno flick is not my idea of helpful. It's "abusive" because anyone seriously editing this sort of article should realize that some of its readers would be annoyed by it (to put it mildly), for all the above reasons, never mind the model's silicon enhancement. Wyss 13:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I guess it could work as a depiction. I mean, obviously it's acting, as Calton says, but I don't see why that necessarily makes it less valid as a depiction. I don't see why it shouldn't be considered good faith. But aside from that point I don't know if it's a helpful addition to the article, either. To be fair, if offensiveness is an issue, as Wyss seems to suggest, it seems a lot more moderate than a lot of the images we have on sex-related topics. Everyking 13:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

That's no depiction, it's a fantasy, created for entertainment purposes. If the image had been included in the article's pornography section I likely would have deleted it without comment. Offensiveness is not the issue btw. For example, I have no problem with this [2], it's the context, content, placement and caption. Anyway I only wanted to note that it happened. Wyss 13:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't thinking about the fact that it was produced for entertainment factoring into the equation. Anyway, I think the basic point is that while it may not be the best choice of image for the article, it's not really a good faith question or something that needs to be raised on AN. If he starts revert warring over it, OK, then maybe. Everyking 13:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it was in bad faith, bad taste maybe. I think putting a porno style photo into an article about one's lifestyle/sexual preference is a bit distasteful, but not enough to warrant action. Just revert and give reasons for the removal. ∞Who ?¿? 13:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd be concerned about this image from a copyright standpoint. For an article about the specific porn flick in question (or about pornographic films in general), a few still images might be appropriate. For an article about the broad topic of lesbians, two actresses faking it in a copyrighted film may be stretching the 'fair use' provision past its breaking point. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

It's certainly copyrighted and not licensed for our use. It could be fairly used in an article that discusses the movie it's taken from, or even possibly in an article that discusses the depiction of lesbian sex in mainstream pornography. (No, really. I'm sure there've been many women's studies dissertations on the subject.) But on Lesbian? It's unnecessary, beyond fair use, and distracts from the article. --FOo 14:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I see it as a bad-faith effort to introduce male-framed erotic imagry into the article for entertainment purposes (and who knows what else) but that's only my take. Wyss 15:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I certainly would not mind a lesbian erotic image, and it would not hurt the article, either. Only this image is not lesbian - it is a wanking phantasy. And until somebody writes Fake lesbian sex for the entertainment of heterosexual males (maybe together with Fake stupid gay males for the entertainment of heterosexual males) I don't really think we have a good place for that image. -- AlexR 17:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, the picture from the 19th century shows almost exactly the same heterosexual male fantasy from the point of view of Casanova of all people! I'm not saying that this page needs a playboy pinup, but I'm saying that I don't really see the point of any of the porn here, and if you're going to remove some of it, why not all? Would you approve of the Playboy image if it were a lithograph? -Harmil 18:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

The 19th century photo plainly illustrates an article about a very specific sexual act. The general article about lesbians already contains a woodcut from a few centuries ago. I suppose that somewhere there is a photo or drawing of "21st century lesbians" making out or whatever, with none of the problems listed above, that would be helpful (and maybe even work-safe) for this article. Wyss 18:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, will see if I can help at some point (gong to sleep, looking at wikipedia at 1am and NO I WASNT LOOKING FOR PORN YOU QUICK JUDGING PEOPLE just bored.. I do have lesbian mates y'know)

It does seem a pity that there is only one real image of lesbians (not including male-orientated art/lithographs (just because it's old, doesn't mean it's good.) in this article and that is of lesbians protesting... I mean really..

I also think the start of the article should not start off by saying "homosexual" in a pretty clinical POV but rather be somethng along the lines of "women who feel romantic or sexual attraction to other women"... I dunno. What do other editors think? --Chaosfeary 01:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Move of pornography section

I have moved the section on pornography to Depictions of lesbian sex in pornography and linked it from the See Also section. The rationale is available at Talk:Depictions of lesbian sex in pornography, and I suggest that discussion of the move, as well as further discussion of the appropriateness of various images for that article, be directed there. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:05, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that I've since retitled the above-mentioned article as Lesbianism in erotica ("erotica" covering both erotic art and pornography) and am working on a complete rewrite of that article, as it is poorly referenced and very POV. Presently, I'm incorporating an art history type of survey of erotic lesbian themes into the article, covering both "high art" and porn. Later, I'll tackle the "sociology" around the issue. Contributions are welcome if the topic interests you. Iamcuriousblue 19:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Publications

Cut from article:

However lesbian publications such as The Well of Loneliness were prosecuted in the courts.

I don't see how a book can be prosecuted. I'm guessing this is just a grammar error. Should be author was prosecuted or book was banned. Uncle Ed 03:11, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Rephrase, don't censor. [3] - Outerlimits 03:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree, there was no reason to remove the content. Anyway I've clarified it considerably. Wyss 03:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Umm. This reads like a history book

Let me guess, plagarised from Britannica? :\ Pretty pitiful --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 21:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it is not. Why don't you either suggest some concrete improvements or be bold and make some improvements yourself? Dysprosia 02:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with User:Mistress Selina Kyle's characterisation. Wyss 20:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Lopez

Lopez's character is said to be lesbian except (as I've read) she ends up with "the guy" in the end. I don't think that really is indicative of lesbian behaviour. Dysprosia 05:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

She is a bisexual in Gigli. That's more like it. Batzarro 08:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Then you might like to add her name to the bisexual article if there is an opportunity to do so. Dysprosia 08:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Two objections to the intro

First, I attend, from time to time, gay youth conferences (as a presenter) and the girls there are clearly lesbian and just as clearly not women. Second, I find it misleading to use the term "homosexual." Not inaccurate, but misleading since it is many things to many people. Why not keep it simple, and avoid the semblance of circular reasoning, by being a bit more explicit. I am sorry Dysprosia, but the argument that a particular formulation has been around a long time is not, by itself, sufficient. Haiduc 02:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the intro is rather sparse - compare with gay or other sexuality articles. SouthernComfort 16:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Female vs woman

Dysprosia, why do you prefer "woman" over "female"? What about girls (who obviously aren't "women")? Also IMHO that is not a minor edit, in changing the terms. SouthernComfort 15:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Not that user, but it might be because if one is going to use queer community terminology, sex and gender are differentiated. Female refers to biology. Woman is an identification. An article on lesbians, another queer identification, that of women who like only other women, should be specific.

Well, aside from the issue that the term "woman" is not "queer" specific (and the issue of gender identification is an entirely different matter altogether), articles should ideally be neutral and use neutral terminology. Haiduc corrected the problem by clarifying the intro by including the term "girl" since "woman" is not exactly inclusive. SouthernComfort 12:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

what exactly did i remove? are you talking about the straight guy lesbian fetish, cuz umm HI THERE i wrote it myslef and then realized it didnt really fit in the intro and added to it and moved it to culture, bro. maybe its my fault for not summarizing if thats not it let me know, if it is let me know, i dont wanna cause any trouble and any vandalism on the lesbian page was unintentional pleae get back to me on thios as soon as possible thanks Qrc2006 09:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

How many places are you going to ask this at? Its obvious that you need to learn how to comment in wikipedia. --Scott Grayban 10:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Male fetishising of lesbianism

i think it should be included in the article that many men, especially in recent times, even a pop culture phenonema and often charicterized on television that some/many heterosexual and bisexual men find lesbians very enchanting, exiting, interesting, arousing, sexy... whatever.. any thought on this anyone? Qrc2006 20:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I just don't get it, men are hard wired to wanna watch lesbians do eachother. Females are hardwired to make gay people their best friend Glocky 11:32, 22 May 2006 (PDT)

That topic will be covered in the article Lesbianism in erotica. See "Move of pornography section" above. Iamcuriousblue 19:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Porno

A lot of the "lesbians" in pornos are actually hetero or bisexual. They just want the money.

Vandalism

This is weird, but when I look at the etymology section, there is some funky stuff about "all lesbians can fly" etc but when I try to edit it out, it won´t show up - as in, it´s just not there. I´ve refreshed my page a couple of times, but it´s still there. Can someone edit that out please, cause it´s just stupid. (Tho also kinda funny, really) Thanks

It is true: all lesbians can fly. Winona Gone Shopping 07:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I just removed some more vandalism at the end of the lead section by a certain someone. This wasn't the only one they hit either. Counterfit 23:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed and fixed the following line in the entymology section: "The word Muff Muncher derives from Lesbos (Λέσβος), a Greek island located in the East Aegean Sea, which in ancient Greek mythology was inhabited by the Amazons, an entirely female warrior-nation". Now, I don't have any direct proof of this, but a hunch tells me that "Muff Muncher" isn't derived from the Isle of Lesbos. This appears to be the work of 86.134.198.145, who's apparently been going around to several homosexuality-related articles and making slight (but derrogatory) changes. Guse 21:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Lesbian Sex

How exactly do lesbians have sex anyway?

Oral sex. Strapons. — ceejayoz ^talk 15:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not the end of the story, though. Dysprosia 10:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Read the article. Wikipedia is not a forum. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 05:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Judaism's stance on Lesbians

"Jewish religious teachings condemn male homosexuality but are more lenient towards lesbianism, ruling it to be acceptable in an unmarried woman if this prevents her from premarital sexual relations with a male but it is not encouraged."

Can anyone give a source for this? I've done quite a bit of reading on that topic and I've never encountered the point of view that lesbian sex is OK if it prevents premarital heterosexual sex. Judaism *does* tend to be more lenient with lesbianism than with male homosexuality, though. WikiGnome 06:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

this is obviosly wrong the talmud (traticate shabat 6th chapter)says clearly that it is not permited.

Velma of Scooby Doo

I noticed that this article doesn't mention Velma. But in Scooby Doo article it is briefly mentioned. --Extremophile 21:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It's only speculation. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 05:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The Children's Hour

I noticed an inconsistency between the description of the play The Children's Hour on the play's article and the Lesbian article. The former states that in the play version of the story (as opposed to the film), the main characters are indeed involved in a lesbian relationship. The latter states that it as a "claim that is not true." I'm not familiar with the play, but one of the two articles is incorrect. (I am also postinf this on The Children's Hour (play)Porlob 13:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: I added a verify source tag to both this article and the play's article. If anyone is familiar with the play, go ahead and update the appropriate article. Thanks much! Porlob 21:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I also just added the "Contrdadict-other" tag to draw attention to the inconsistency. There has still been no one familiar with the play comment on what the verdict is, although on the Children's Hour talk page someoe said that the play directly dealt with lesbianism, but didn't specify if the couple in the play was actually in a lesbian relationship or merely accused of being in one.

-Porlob 17:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

As an immediate compromise that statement could be changed to: "... play schoolteachers accused by a disgruntled student of having a lesbian relationship, however the story is about the effect of an unsupported accusation, not lesbianism per se." which I think is an accurate statement regardless.--Invisifan 21:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I just discovered this discussion and apologize for editing out the assertion that it was an established fact that the two were lesbian as I could find no valid source at all. But I did read several times that lesbians flocked to the showings and read the maximum into the script - understandable. I posted a PDF file that was undeniably the BEST review of the play/movie?. I've done some editing (no other deletions), and left my links scattered within the edit as I have run out of time and I am do not know how to do inline cites. If you have any problem with what I have done, please feel free (naturally) to do what you think is necessary and tell me what the consensus and I will read when I drop in again. --Green in learning mode 19:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

What's a lesbian?

According to the definition, "a lesbian is a female who is exclusively emotionally, sexually, romantically and/or aesthetically attracted to other females."

So, a woman atracted exclusively to men emotionally, sexually and romantically, but to women aesthetically is a lesbian???? --83.44.191.96 09:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

A keyword there is exclusively. It is highly unlikely that somoene would be exclusively attracted to males emotionally, sexually and romantically, but exclusively to females aesthetically. -Porlob 13:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

"highly unlikely" perhaps, but ... the "or" in the statement is problematic (from personal experience) ... and excluding anyone who isn't exclusive doesn't really work either - like most areas of human sexuality (and life) there's a lot of grey area.

My editing of the use of Perogatives

I tried to explain why Dyke is not always a "bad word". I used the parallel of the term nigger to make it clear to those who haven't witnessed it for themselves (or haven't used the word themselves in these ways). Perogatives that are claimed by the targets, and then used within the community as a tool of empowerment, a way to forcefully drive shame from our self identity, is not just a good thing, but a very real thing. If you find this unclear or doubt it, please post here and let's see how many "Dykes" like me respond. ;o) --green Kiwi in learning mode 06:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Adding "Lesbian Community" a Topic Section

Yes, I know there is an entire topic called Gay Community, but it reflects gay male community so much more - there is alog there that really does not relate to us at all. But Lesbian Community so very different, intricate and complex that I think we need a section discuss the past, present and evolving future of Lesbian Community. Feedback welcomed! --A green Kiwi in learning mode 01:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Contact sport

I've taken the Aussie Rules picture out (Image:Women's tackle.jpg). I'd suggest a picture of Martina Navratilova instead, but tennis isn't a contact sport. I don't like marginally relevant pictures added to articles just to prettify them rather than add substance. The "contact sport" section is unverified. And are all/most/any of the women depicted in this picture lesbian? There's a difference between saying "many lesbians like contact sport" and saying "many women who like contact sport are lesbians"; to my mind the picture carries the latter subtext. jnestorius^(talk) 00:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. We all know there are lots of popular organized lesbian sports but it's unhelpful to throw into this article a picture of a bunch of girls playing a contact sport, with the overwhelming implication that they're lesbian, without knowing if they are or not. Yeah, they likely are but it needs to be supported. Likewise mentioning other sports. I've seen girls' volleyball and basketball leagues in some places which were made up mostly of lesbians, but seen others which were mostly straight girls. Gwen Gale 16:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

First Line

I propose the dropping of exclusively. Many folks who identify as lesbian would not identify themselves as exclusively attracted to females, but don't identify as bi-sexual and it creates a binary excluding trans people. Also I would say that wiki should use female bodied to again be open to the inclusion of trans individuals. Possibly the tone of the intro could be changed to say that lesbianism can be defined to make the statement less definitive.----georgiew

The only way to do this would be to support it through solid citations of secondary sources. Anything else could be original research. Gwen Gale 19:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Gwen, the proposed change and new material would require solid cites from reliable sources. BTW Gwen, you've done some great work on this page rcently, thanks! Doc Tropics 19:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Doc :) By the bye, whilst my own personal interpretation of the word lesbian indeed tends towards an exclusive interpretation (which is to say, if someone tells me she's lesbian, I glark she's saying she's not bi or straight), die.net, for example, gives a much wider dicdef:

lesbian [4]

    :adj : of female homosexuality [syn: sapphic]
    :n 1: a female homosexual [syn: gay woman]
    :2: a resident of Lesbos [syn: Lesbian]

homosexual [5]

    :adj : sexually attracted to members of your own sex [ant: bisexual,
           heterosexual]
    :n : someone who practices homosexuality; having a sexual
        attraction to persons of the same sex [syn: homo, gay]

~~Which is a hint at least that if lesbian means female homosexual in general usage and encyclopedic terms, such an exclusive spin is likely unsupported.~~ Gwen Gale 23:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

See below... Gwen Gale 15:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

...but an encyclopedia should be able to do better than a dicdef, and I think we/you have. While there is a broad spectrum of expression in human sexuality, your interpretation seems technically accurate, ie, a woman who is not exclusively attracted to other women would be considered bisexual (or hetero). It is exactly the exclusivity of attraction that defines a lesbian in this sense. I definitely support the current version, although I'm willing to reconsider if there are objections from the residents of Lesbos : ) Doc Tropics 23:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Whilst I'd like to see some scholarly secondary sources support the spin I encounter in my own life, until they show up I think it's more helpful to stick with the dictionary definition in the opening of an encyclopedic article. That said, one can mention on this talk page, for example, the usage over at Myspace... heterosexual is exclusively opposite sex, bisexual is attraction to both, and lesbian is girls exclusively attracted to girls. Can't cite that in the article though, since it would require interpretation (is Myspace a sufficiently broad sample and so on) and thus be original research. Gwen Gale 00:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The dicdef above for homosexual lists bisexual as an antonym of homosexual, so accordingly the dicdef does seem to strongly support lesbian as an exclusive term. Therefore, since dropping the term exclusively from the introduction would clash with an ordinary dicdef, I'd say, keep it. Gwen Gale 15:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but didn't want to be argumentative. I think it's accurate as-is. Doc Tropics 15:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was open to pondering it even if my personal interpretation of the word involved the "exclusive" spin too, like the intro, but the dicdef (lesbian = female homosexual, and homosexual does not = bisexual or heterosexual) fully supports the intro as is. Gwen Gale 15:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Diversity box removed

I've removed the (lack of) diversity box from the media section only because there is such a paucity of comparable lesbian material (movies, TV production, widely distributed books and so on) in non-western culture that the skew in the real world is simply reflected in the article. I'd say that editors who think there's a lack of cited material from other cultures should put some in. I do know some Bollywood productions lightly hint at lesbian themes, for example, but I think it's wholly misleading to readers to slap a warning about lack of diversity in the article when it seems to mirror a corresponding lack of representation of this topic in non-western cultures. Gwen Gale 15:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Comics Section

There are a few notable characters missing from the comics section. Namely Katchoo from Strangers in Paradise[6] and you could devote an entire sub article to Y the Last Man[7]. I'm sure there are more, but these are the most glaring omissions I could think of. FredNash

So add them? Gwen Gale 22:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Wants more info

Where is the section of the article that talks about the number of girls under the age of 30 being turned into homosexuals? How the cult or cultually they have created has affected modern society. The article also needs to also let people know what manner of symblos or codes they use. Ex. fingernail colors, or be it pink hair coloring. etc etc. What does their community have in plan for the social structure of what has always been. You know more info. etc.--Margrave1206 18:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Bias article "Agenda"

This article needs to be edited, due to the overwhelming fact it has a pro-lesbian stance. My previous comments where deleted by someone who deems themselves a god over this article and will not allow for fair discussion of this articles poor structure. "From a scientific point of view should it not be mentioned that lesbianism is caused by an imbalance, also what about a psychological state of mind? From this article and the LUG article, it seems to imply that girls can become homosexual one-second and the next be regular women. These articles are very troublesome, and need more balance with reality instead of being bias.--Margrave1206 18:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)" I find it outrageous and insulting to delete my comments. I am sure you can scream trolling all you wish, however from my point of view this and those that delete others comments are guilty of pushing their own agenda. This article need to be changed to reflect facts!--Margrave1206 19:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No, there's simply no need for the editors here to address this nonsense over and over again. Accurate facts and unbiased writing certainly don't constitute an agenda, except the agenda that is mandated by WP policies. It's perfectly acceptable to remove non-productive commentary (although it should technically be Archived instead of simply deleted). Which is exactly what is going to happen here again. Doc Tropics 19:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This article needs to be deleted to corrected. It reads like a pro-lesbians campaign add. Where is the scientific information in dealing such a persons psychological state.Does non productive mean truth, nor is it something that those that made this article don't want to hear? However this article needs to be made worthy of an encyclopedia.--Margrave1206 20:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No doubt you think "worthy" means it should reflect your personal bias and prejudices (which are blatantly obvious in your contribtution history), but it just ain't gonna happen. This article, as it stands, is both well written and fully compliant with our policies and guidelines. Unless you have something constructive to add, please just move on. Doc Tropics 20:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Margrave1206, please provide some independent, verified citations from peer reviewed publications to support your scientific concerns. Meanwhile your comment that "This article needs to be deleted" sounds like a threat to blank the page. Please think twice (or thrice) about trying anything like that and by the bye, please stop trolling this talk page, thankyou. Gwen Gale 20:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Gwen Gale I am sure that your threats work on others, however I shall not be intimidated by you or your cohorts. As it stands the article is not neutral!--Margrave1206 20:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Archived as trolling

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.