Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:33, 1 April 2003

I'd like to see some references for the anthropological study of homosexuality. It seems to me that every one of the alleged "forms" of homosexuality also exist in heterosexuality. --Dmerrill

My intuition tells me that this article is pro-homosexuality. Was that the author's intent? --Ed Poor

Who knows. Who cares, as long as it's NPOV.

- also, the statistical estimate of "percent of the population that is gay" has been changed on this page a few times. Can anybody get us a hard cite for a number here?

Seconding the latter! The best way to counter endless arguments and suspicions about bias is to contextualize assertions by saying such things as, "According to a widely-cited survey by so-and-so, N% of Americans are homosexuals. There have been a number of attempts to estimate the percentage of homosexuals worldwide, such as..." Etc. --LMS

By the way, re "People whose sexual desire and activities are strongly channelled toward members of their own sex are a minority of the population (variously estimated to be anywhere from 2% to 10%)." Of what population? --Yours for scientific precision, LMS

Why on earth should americans be specially mentioned? Should we specially mention every single country where there has been survey's percentages? ;) arcade

Concerning the Greek additions:

I remember from a program I saw on the Discovery Channel (which doesn't constitute proof, BTW), that young men in Classical Greece where almost expected to engage in peer-to-peer homosexual activity so as not to defile the female population with pre-marital sex (a bride HAD to be a virgin at that time).

This peer-to-peer male sexual activity was in addition to the type of relationship described in the article and it was expected to end upon marriage to a virgin bride (although, in later life, the man could take on a eromenos).

Can someone verify this? I don't like posting additions to articles based upon what I saw in a single TV program. Maveric149

I don't remember such from the book, but I now found that there are in fact in the book photographs of ancient Greek vases with pictures of homosexual conduct between youths. But most are between erastes and eromenos. This book does not give the answer to your question. It shows how different that society was and proves some weird details, but can not give a complete view.

OK -- I leave this on the back burner until I am able to find substantiation.Thanks! maveric149

Ihave a contribution to make, but it diverges significantly from the tone of the current article. Since I do not have a big investment in the topic, and have not worked on this page at all, I would like to present it here, and ask others to decide if and where in the article it would best be placed.

Many people in Western societies today speak of "sexual orientation" as a unified and actual thing. Over the past thirty years anthropologists, historians, and literary critics have pointed out that it in fact comprises a variety of different things, including a specific object of erotic desire, and forms of erotic fulfilment (i.e. sexual behaviors). Many scholars have argued that "sexual orientation" and specific sexual orientations are historical and social constructions. In 1976 the historian Michel Foucault argued that homosexuality did not exist as such in the 18th century; that people instead spoke of "sodomy" (which involved specific erotic acts regardless of the sex of the actors) as a crime that was often ignored but sometimes punished severely. He further argued that it was in the 19th century that "homosexuality" came into existence as practicioners of emerging sciences as well as arts sought to classify and analyze different forms of sexual perversion. Finally, Foucault argues that it was this emerging discourse that allowed some to claim that homosexuality is natural, and therefore a legitimate "sexual orientation."

Foucault's suggestions about Western sexuality led other historians and anthropolosts to abandon the 19th century project of classifying different forms of "sexual" behavior or "sexual" orientation" to a new project that asks "what is "sexuality" and how do people in different places and at different times understand their bodies and desires? For example, they have argued that the famous case of some Melanesian societies in which adult men and pre-pubescent and adolescent boys engage in oral sex is not comparable to similar acts in the United States or Europe; that Melanesians do not understand or explain such acts in terms of sexual desire or as a sexual behavior, and that it in fact reflects a culture with a very different notion of sex, sexuality, and gender. Some historians have made similar claims about so-called homosexuality in ancient Greece; that behaviors that appear to be homosexual in modern Western societies may have been understood by ancient Greeks in entirely different ways.

At stake in these new views are two different points. One is the claim that human sexuality is extraordinarily plastic, and that specific notions about the body and sexuality are socially constructed. The other is the fundamentally anthropological claim of cultural relativism: that human behavior should be interpreted in the context of its cultural environment, and that the language of one culture is often inappropriate for describing practices or beliefs in another culture. A number of contemporary scholars who have come to reject Foucault's specific arguments about Western sexuality nevertheless have accepted these basic theoretical and methodological points.

SR

The above paragraphs by SR are a great general discussion about sexual orientation.! Assuming they are either public domain, or the work of SR, they should be added at the end of the sexual orientation article. maveric149

Thanks Maveric149 -- you can do anything you want to with them, I have no objection to placing them in this or another article. I just leave it to you and others who have already been putting work into these articles to decide where and how, SR

Moved from Talk:Homosexual

This is the first I ever heard of the "assumption" that homosexuals choose their orientation. My careful study of the Bible -- okay :-) my haphazard skimming, geez, gimme a break! -- shows absolutely nothing about choosing to have sexual desires of any sort. The Bible speaks only of what to do with those desires we realize we have.

There is no small controversy over how homosexual desire arises. Is is it innate (perhaps genetic), learned somehow, or what? I've never heard anyone admit, "It was then I decided to have homosexual desires." --Ed Poor

I agree that it's a ridiculous theory, but there are vocal conservative christians in the US who hold this position, blaming gays for their "wrong choices" and trying to reform them. These views are probably irrelevant or non-existant elsewhere, (I certainly haven't heard them in 25 years of living in Germany) and that should be mentioned in the article. --AxelBoldt

I believe that the argument is something along the lines of: "Although we may covet a neighbors's goods, it would be wrong to act upon these impulses." Similarly some would argue that we have a duty not to act on homosexual or other "unGodly" desires.

Right, it's such a ridiculous theory that it's probably a staw man argument. After you knock down that straw man, you can say that having conceded that I didn't choose to be homosexual, surely you must see that I was born that way. I think this is the fallacy of the excluded middle. --Ed Poor

I have never seen anything to suggest that the following sentence is true.

Judaism, Christianity and Islam have always assumed that homosexuals choose their sexual orientation.

The only thing I've ever heard from any of the monotheistic religions about homosexuality and "choosing" is that people have a moral obligation to choose not to perform homosexual acts. The quoted sentence is more likely a straw man, but I'll let it alone while I follow Taw's advice.

As a philosopher, the following is very interesting to me:

the notion that sexual identities such as 'homosexuality', 'heterosexuality' or 'bisexuality' have any objective existence, as opposed to being a social construction.

This is supposed to be, I imagine, a radical thing to say. But I'm not sure what it even means. It seems to me that social constructions always, unless they are totally arbitrary (which they almost never are), grounded in some facts. For example, the notion of homosexuality might very well be a social construction, in the simple, humble, uncontroversial (!) sense that we wouldn't have the concept of homosexuality if we hadn't invented it. It's not an innate concept. But it hardly follows from that that there is no objective basis on which to apply the concept. For instance, it seems we can have a perfectly objective basis on which to notice that people are sexually attracted to members of the same sex. (E.g., we might use hidden webcams in their bedrooms...er, scratch that thought.) On the other hand, if Foucault's point is that homosexuality is a "social construct" in the sense that the behavior is chosen (one thinks of the radical freedom of the existentialists) and not something to which some people have a genetic, perhaps in some cases irresistible disposition, he'll be disagreeing with many scientists, or so the authors of our homosexuality say. If neither of those are what Foucault means by saying that homosexuality (etc.) is "merely" a social concept and not "objective," then I can't figure out what he means.

Now, I don't intend to get into an argument about all this. I just think I'm saying some pretty obvious stuff, so that I can say the following: has anyone replied to Foucault and the others who make such points as I have above? If yes, for pity's sake, please add a reply into the article If not, too bad. Perhaps we could add: "Most trained philosophers in English-speaking countries pretty much ignore Foucault, however." That would be both accurate and relevant, I imagine... --LMS

Without having read Foucault (even though I think I should) I would interpret the "social construction" as follows: society wants to neatly divide people into (bad) homosexuals and (good) heterosexuals, forcing everybody to pick their side, while in reality it's a spectrum with everybody being a little bit of both (mostly based on the people they meet and like), some more on one side than on the other. Akin to the criticism of the "race" concept I would imagine, which society wants to define but biologists can't find an objective basis for. --AxelBoldt

I imagine (and I'm not expert) that when Foucault says that homosexuality is a social construct you should bear in mind that:

• he is not talking about same-sex attraction which, as LMS pointed out, has some evidence that may be pre-determined by a variety of factors. He is more talking about the exclusively same-sex homosexuals.
• despite being a social construct it does not necesarily follow that it is a chosen one - one may presume that you can adopt a social construct unconciously perhaps through an already existing attraction.
• he is not explicitly talking about just homosexual orientation - for Foucault exclusive heterosexuality is also a social construct.

--Axon

Can someone tell me a good reason for homosexual and homosexuality to be separate articles? - user:Montrealais

I think they should be combined. AxelBoldt

Very well. user:Montrealais

Comments regarding the changes Camembert is questioning...

I broke the "consensual act" part apart from the "wolfenden report" part because it stands alone as a statement regardless of which culture we are discussing (britain or other).

The part on "religious movements" makes a statement about what those movements "believe", therefore should use the language that they themselves use. These movements believe that they are "curing" homosexuals, not merely changing behavior.

I changed the "consenual act" thing mainly to try and preserve flow between that para and the previous part of the article. I'm changing it a bit again now to break off the Wolfenden Report, I hope it suits you.

The "religious movements" "healing" business, I'm not changing back, however. I don't think it's true to say that all religious movements who want to change sexual behaviour see it as "healing" or "curing". I also see no reason to remove reasons psychologists give to dismiss such practices, so I put them back. --Camembert

I understand. Please see the new version. We aren't talking about "all religious movements", but the primary supporters of reparative therapy are the IHF and NARTH, and *they* believe that they are curing and healing.

I have to agree; the groups who talk about reparative therapy do indeed use words like "heal" and "cure". And the statement simply says that some groups believe that they can heal, etc... That's a simple, ordinary statement of fact about what some groups believe, and should stay. --LDC

Fair enough - I just thought it a bit patronising to present their views in that way, but I guess if those are the terms they use themselves... I was a bit heavy handed with the edit, apologies. --Camembert

About this sentence:

Some religious movements believe that they can "heal" or "cure" homosexuals' sexual orientation through "reparative therapy". However, this is denounced by the psychological mainstream as ineffective, unnecessary, and often cruel.

I have a quibble with the wording -- not the ideas. I think it is a small number of therapists (not religious people, let alone whole movements) who advocate reparative therapy. What some religious people generally advocate is prayer, repantance and religious counseling, rather than therapy. In general, religious people and psychologists are at odds over the issue of God's existence. If there's cooperation between these factions, even over an issue like changing sexual orientation, it's the exception not the rule.

I would like to distinguish, therefore, between two approaches:

• that of religious ministries, which advocate prayer, repentance, and other religious activities
• that of psychologists and therapists, who use non-religious techniques primarily or solely.

(We should keep the statement about "denounced ... as ineffective, unnecessary, and often cruel" of course.) --Ed Poor --Ed Poor

Another verbal quibble:

The term homosexuality is also used for sexual behavior, rather than attraction, between people of the same sex.

This makes it seem like two people who are not attracted to each other might have gay sex. Surely this isn't what the author of this sentence meant? --Ed Poor

well, you know, Ed, there are even men and women who are not attracted to one another who nevertheless have sex.

I think the important issue here is that discussions of sexuality usually involve one or more of three things -- things that are conceptually, and often empiracally, distinct, but in popular conversation often conflated: desire, behavior, and identity Slrubenstein

Someone restored the antiwikipedic homophilia to the see-also section with the comment "(you're thinking of haemophilia. homophilia is an old-fashioned term related to homosexuality.)"

homophilia is not in the dictionaries (that I consulted), even as an archaic word. Are you confusing it with homophile, or does it have modern slang connotations?

• Homophilia: sexual arousal from person of same sex. Used in psychological terminology, treating homosexuality as a medical condition. Similar to homoeroticism. Homophile is a related word. American Heritage dictionary has it. -- April

• Yes, I have an American Heritage right in front of me (third edition) - I see "homophile", but I do not see "homophilia".

• • The terms are from the same construction; one refers to the person, the other to the behavior. I gather that "homophilia" is largely archaic, and dates back to when same-sex attraction was considered a disorder. If you do a Google search you'll find numerous instances of the term. It seems to be worth covering for this historical context if nothing else. -- April

Merriam-Webster online has this:

Main Entry: ho·mo·phile
Pronunciation: 'hO-m&-"fIl
Function: adjective
Etymology: hom- + 2-phil
Date: 1960

GAY 4b

I sense confusion, let me restate my point - I hold that "Homophile" is a well defined and accepted word, while "Homophilia" is not. The homophilia link should be changed to a homophile link.

I agree. --Ed Poor

Either way, they are both antiwikipedic.

LOL, what's your point? Personally, I regard "homophile" as redundant, since homosexual redirects to homosexuality. Generally, we don't make an extra article for a synonym. --Ed Poor

Homophile is useful to have in one context. Many words use 'phile' and 'phobe' as indicating for or against. For example - Europhile - devotee of the EU. Europhobe - detester of the EU. Homophile is the opposite of homophobe. Similarly homophilia is the opposite of homophobia. Like many words (eg, kyne as the old plural for cow) it has fallen into disuse. But because it has a direct linkage to words still used like homophobe/homophobia, I think it is worth still maintaining a mention. STÓD/ÉÍRE 03:33 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)