Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SineBot (talk | contribs) at 03:07, 12 July 2014 (Signing comment by 216.114.98.75 - "→Janis Joplin bisexual?: new section"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sexology and sexuality Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies This article has had a peer review which is now archived. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Ethics / Social and political Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Ethics Social and political philosophy

Undue weight to sexual, biological aspects

Some individuals identify themselves as heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual without having had any sexual experience. Others have had homosexual experiences but do not consider themselves to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual. Likewise, self-identified gay or lesbian individuals may occasionally sexually interact with members of the opposite sex but do not identify as bisexual.

I'm not sure if I'm retreading an old argument here, but it seems like this article gives a great deal of weight to sexual attraction without giving much more than lip service to aspects of identity or romantic attraction. This section in particular has the unfortunate connotation of implying that sexual experience is a "gold standard" in determining identity - as if biological response in bed is the central factor which usually indicates the sexual attractions people wish to seek out. I think that approach ignores a great deal of the social aspects of bisexuality. --Lunar Jesters _(talk) 18:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Lunar Jesters. No, you are not "retreading an old argument here." However, I don't see how there is WP:Undue weight with regard to the "sexual, biological" aspects. The topic of bisexuality is certainly mostly a sexual topic. And the quote you cite above comes from a section (meaning its subsections as well) that gives a lot of weight to identity. For example, before the "Some individuals identify themselves as heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual without having had any sexual experience." text, there is the "Sexual attraction, behavior and identity may also be incongruent, as sexual attraction or behavior may not necessarily be consistent with identity." text. I'm not sure what social aspects of bisexuality you are looking to include. But whether they should be included or not doesn't mean that the existing text should be removed; in fact, I consider those factors important to mention. They are there because they concern bisexuality and too often people equate sexual behavior with sexual orientation and/or sexual identity. I agree that there needs to be something in that section about people not needing to engage in sexual activity to know that they are bisexual. It is easy to go on Google Books and find such material. Flyer22 (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that there's a place for the biological component of sexuality, but social aspects are barely discussed within the section on definitions. Yes, that section mentions the concept of identity, but it primarily discusses how biological responses inform people's understanding of their sexuality. Sociologists and queer theorists have described how "bisexuality," as it's understood in public discourse, comes from the way people articulate their biological desires. For example, Lisa Diamond discusses this in her work on sexual fluidity. As it stands, the article relies on a common understanding of attraction as "sexual attraction as a precursor or always entwined with romantic attraction and practice." It provides little basis for understanding people (for example) who want to pursue deep romantic relationships with men, but who want to pursue casual, sexual relationships with women. Likewise, there's not a great deal of information here about the historical context of bisexuality - i.e., it's a relatively recent phenomenon that "bisexual" became an identity you labeled yourself as, instead of something you DID. We might call the very intense, intimate friendships men had with other men in the 1800s a sign of bisexuality, for instance. These are all cogent parts of what we group into "bisexuality," and it seems a shame that most of this article concerns various physiological tests used to find the cause of bisexuality. (And then there's the overlong "in media" section, of course.) I just don't think we need so many paragraphs about hormones and penile plethysmograph testing, given the depth of what bisexuality as a whole covers. --Lunar Jesters _(talk) 19:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Which material in particular do you object to? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The latter two paragraphs of the "label accuracy" section - it positions the legitimacy of bisexuality as tied primarily to the methodology of one lab experiment, and spends far too much space describing that study's news coverage. Then there's everything below "social factors" in the "studies, theories, and social responses" section, which places a hodgepodge of biologically informed theories of the origin of bisexuality together and spends far too long elaborating on individual studies. I'd like to see that section trimmed down to two or three paragraphs, and I'd like to see an expansion of the "social factors" section to about the same length. (The opening section of the theories section is pretty unwieldy, too, especially since it quotes the necessity for a holistic view before proceeding into a series of disconnected ideas.) --Lunar Jesters _(talk) 20:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm familiar with Lisa Diamond; her studies and theories, like other researchers, have support and non-support. We need to be careful about giving undue weight to individual researchers' beliefs. If you look at the "Studies, theories and social responses" section, there is some material there supporting some of what you want included. For example, it includes the "Research indicates that bisexuality is influenced by biological, cognitive and cultural variables in interaction, and this leads to different types of bisexuality. In the current debate around influences on sexual orientation, biological explanations have been questioned by social scientists, particularly by feminists who encourage women to make conscious decisions about their life and sexuality." text. And Marjorie Garber is mentioned at the end of that section as arguing that most people would be bisexual if not for repression and other factors such as lack of sexual opportunity; here is what that text used to state.

I encourage you to start adding some of the material you want included. I don't agree with any removal on the sexual, biological material, except for tweaking the text, material that is redundant or material that is WP:Undue weight. I completely disagree with removal of two of the three paragraphs in the Label accuracy section, for reasons that were already addressed in the Bailey -- "Straight, Gay or Lying? Bisexuality Revisited" discussion. That is some important information to address in this article, considering that it tackles prominent misconceptions about bisexuality and that study is cited as the biggest biphobic study to date; a lot of people still use that study to claim that bisexuality, especially male bisexuality, does not exist. Read the previous discussion I linked to about that matter. On a side note: The Media section actually isn't too long. It simply looks that way because of all the subheadings. Per MOS:PARAGRAPHS, "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." Flyer22 (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

My issue is that that passage pays lip service to the "interaction" of these variables, but doesn't expand upon that idea. The masculinization section, for instance, presents research into the biological cause of sexuality as uncontroversial: which certainlyisn't the case, nor is the opposition to the methodology of that research relegated to fringe thinkers. Garber is a wonderful thinker, but I believe she's primarily a figure in media studies and literature. (Her writing could add some definition to the "Literature" section in the media section, though.)

And that makes sense in regards to the study - I'll try to clean up the prose around it so the significance of that study in public thought becomes more obvious. But I have to disagree with the Media section: why is it necessary to have a "Webseries" section? Why are there so many accounts of bisexual musical personalities that don't describe the significance of the person's coming out in society as a whole? (The information on Bowie is excellent, however.) Why is the section on Torchwood so long - is its depiction of bisexuality more important than every film involving bisexuality ever produced? Given that there's a child article, the section as a whole seems awfully granular. --Lunar Jesters _(talk) 01:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

By "that passage," do you mean the latter two paragraphs in the Label accuracy section? If so, what "expand upon that idea" do you mean? Or do you mean what I cited with regard to the "Studies, theories and social responses" section (not the Garber part)? It seems that you mean the latter of my queries.

Yes, the Media section could use some cuts and cleanup. I just don't feel that it's too long, per what I stated above about it. Flyer22 (talk) 02:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, what do you mean by "child article"? The Child sexuality article? Flyer22 (talk) 02:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Or the Media portrayals of bisexuality article as a "child article"? Flyer22 (talk) 02:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry - my response got a bit muddled. By "that passage" I mean the section you cited which begins with "Research indicates...", which seems to "tell, not show" that these factors are holistically related. And by "child article", I'm referring to Media portrayals of bisexuality. --Lunar Jesters _(talk) 12:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Pictures

I've removed a couple of pictures that were recently added to this article. My edit summaries came out rather garbled and confused, but hopefully it should be clear what the reasons for removing those pictures were: 1) We should not be including pictures of any particular person without a good reason for including pictures of that particular person, and 2) We cannot make unsourced statements about a person's sexual orientation, per WP:BLP. Doing that is still unacceptable even if the article about the person backs up the statement about their sexuality - Wiki articles can't use other articles as sources. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: FreeKnowledgeCreator is referring to this, this, this and this edit. Flyer22 (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The existence of bisexuality as a sexual orientation questioned in another study

Should we include information about this latest study in the article? The aforementioned The Huffington Post source is titled Bisexuality Not Deemed A 'Legitimate Sexual Orientation' By Heterosexual Men, Women: University Of Pittsburgh Study. Despite its title, it also discusses gay men and lesbians doubting that bisexuality is a legitimate sexual orientation. We already include information in this article about people doubting the existence of bisexuality (the sexual orientation, considering that bisexual behavior is clearly observable), but perhaps this study is worth a mention as well? Here is a CBS News source also talking about the study, and of course other news outlets have as well. Perhaps it would fit best in the Biphobia article, or is putting it there non-neutral in a way (with regard to those who feel that not every debate about this matter should be categorized as biphobic)? Flyer22 (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the primary focus of the article should be scientific. I'm not sure that it's really helpful to mention a study showing that random, unqualified persons who happened to be heterosexual doubted the existence of bisexuality as a "legitimate sexual orientation", whatever that means. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

FreeKnowledgeCreator: I think by doubting that bisexuality as a "legitimate sexual orientation" means that people dont think that bisexuality is a real sexuality. Flyer22 did not say that those who participated in the study were all heterosexual but also lesbians and homosexuals. Flyer22: I am bisexual and I class that as biphobic so I think it should go in the biphobic article. Stormy Nights (talk) 20:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The relevant point is that those disputing the "legitimacy" of bisexuality didn't have any relevant credentials. It's not important what their personal sexual preferences might be. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems like Dispute Resolution might be necessary: Pansexuality

In response to my edits of the Sexual orientation, identity, behavior section on 9 April 2014, User:Flyer22 reverted, explaining: "disagree. This was already discussed on the talk page. And the paragraph is not contradicted by the Pansexuality article; there is generally no distinguishing bisexuality from pansexuality among scholars." I disagree. I researched the topic by searching peer-reviewed journal articles in the following databases: PsycBOOKS, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus with Full Text, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, SocINDEX with Full Text, and MEDLINE Complete. I found no evidence for a consensus opinion among sexuality scholars that "there is generally no distinguishing bisexuality from pansexuality". Should we seek a third opinion? Or perhaps we can hash it out and reach a consensus ourselves? --Mark D Worthen PsyD 11:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Markworthen, WP:Dispute resolution should generally only be sought after trying to work the matter out here on the talk page. This matter has already been worked out, in more than one area on Misplaced Pages, including the WP:Fringe noticeboard. Like I stated before, now shown at Talk:Bisexuality/Archive 3#Pansexuality: Most researchers certainly don't use the term pansexuality. And goodness knows I have done what I can to keep it from being listed as a sexual orientation on Template:Sexual orientation (it's there now, but not as a sexual orientation). See this statement made by me during Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology for backstory on that. But also see the Talk:Bisexuality/Archive 3#Why is Pansexuality talked about in the description? discussion, and the two discussions following that for why mention of pansexuality is in the lead. Though bisexuality is most commonly defined as a person being romantically and/or sexually attracted to two sexes (male and female)/two genders (men and women), and is defined in only that way by the authoritative scientific organizations, such as the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association, enough sources define bisexuality as romantic and/or sexual attraction to "more than one gender" or "irrespective of gender," and, in some cases, "all sexes/genders." And that is exactly the definition of pansexuality. If we are going to mention in this article the other way that bisexuality is defined, which we should, we might as well call it by the term that has been assigned to it -- pansexuality. It doesn't make sense to me to mention the alternative definition of bisexuality without mentioning the term pansexuality. Additionally, mentioning pansexuality in the lead complies with WP:LEAD, considering that it is a significant aspect of the bisexuality topic and is covered in the Definitions section; its inclusion in the lead also allows for a compromise with people who apply the term bisexuality more loosely than how it is most commonly defined. And in this way...the lead is WP:Neutral on the topic and generally helps keep this kind of edit, which leads to this, this, this, this, this and this, from happening.

A lot more on this topic is addressed in that now archived discussion. So if you searched "PsycBOOKS, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus with Full Text, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, SocINDEX with Full Text, and MEDLINE Complete" and "found no evidence for a consensus opinion among sexuality scholars that 'there is generally no distinguishing bisexuality from pansexuality,"' it's because scholars generally do not have anything to state about pansexuality; sexual attraction to "more than one gender" is almost always defined as bisexuality among scholars; the sources used in the Bisexuality article to address pansexuality are a reflection of that. See WP:Fringe; I object to any WP:Fringe presentation of pansexuality, which, in this case, means presenting it as completely distinct from bisexuality and that it is generally considered a sexual orientation among scholars. When it is discussed among scholars, it's usually discussed as an alternative label to indicate bisexuality or in a different way than its more modern definition (sexual attraction to more than one sex/gender); it's often discussed in relation to how it was originally defined or in some other way (usually in relation to some disorder topic), as shown by this link on Google Scholar. And Googling "pansexuality" or "pansexual" on Google Books, as shown here and here, does not show too much of an improvement with regard to discussing the term, especially among experts in the field of sexuality/sexology as opposed to simply authors.

On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with ": Pansexuality" so that it is clear as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. Flyer22 (talk) 13:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

For reference to the edits edits made between you and me on this matter, here are all the diff-links so far:.

And of course I recently stated more to you on this topic at the Pansexuality article talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: Markworthen and I did settle the above the matter, as acknowledged here at his talk page. Also, like I noted with this edit, I changed the order of the second definition, making it a part of the first sentence, though I considered simply making it the second sentence and I might still do that; I rearranged the order because it may help to (is very likely to help) stop people from removing the primary definition (sexual/romantic attraction to males and females/men and women) and enable them to better see that we clearly do acknowledge the second definition (the one covered by pansexuality). It's usually IPs messing with the definitions, which is partly why the article is currently WP:Semi-protected (see here) via my request at WP:Requests for page protection. My followup edits are here and here. My order change resembles what I did here at the LGBT stereotypes article after reverting this and then tweaking the matter here and here. I didn't use "or" for the Bisexuality article, because, per WP:Due weight, I believe that its first sentence should be clearer that the binary definition is the primary definition. Flyer22 (talk) 00:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Janis Joplin bisexual?

I have it on good authority, from Country Joe McDonald of Country Joe & The Fish, that Janis Joplin was indeed bisexual. McDonald quotes in his autobiography in the section, "Janis" that:

"I rode out to the Woodstock Festival on a plane that also carried Janis’s girlfriend at the time, Peggy Casserta. I knew Peggy from the Haight Ashbury days when I lived with Janis in her apartment on Lyon Street. I did not care that Janis was bisexual or that her and Peggy were lovers. That did not enter our conversations on the plane that day. I don’t know if Peggy knew of my liaison with Janis in the hotel. It never came up. Peggy has told the press and said in her book that I stood Janis up one day and that is why we broke up ... not true. We just broke up."

McDonald had lived with Joplin in the 1960s before he left her for his wife at the time, Robin. She showed a lot of anger toward him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.114.98.75 (talk) 03:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class sociology articles
• Mid-importance sociology articles
• B-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• Top-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
• B-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• Old requests for LGBTQ+ studies peer review
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• B-Class Philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Philosophy articles
• B-Class ethics articles
• Mid-importance ethics articles
• Ethics task force articles
• B-Class social and political philosophy articles
• Mid-importance social and political philosophy articles
• Social and political philosophy task force articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists, unused