Jump to content

Talk:History of homosexuality

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

Untitled

[edit]

VfD vote - removed April 16, 2004 - no concensus to delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Texture (talk • contribs) 15:26, 16 April 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Complete the page?

[edit]

Could anyone help complete this page? I am looking forwards to it. Thanks! --FallingInLoveWithPitoc 04:55, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Why removed the notice above? I think a lot of parts in this page need to be improved, and almost all content in the page was moved from Homosexuality. :O --FallingInLoveWithPitoc 05:24, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This page is not an unbiased treatment of the subject. It is anti-gay in several places. The last section in particular, on consequences, is not factually accurate and has no references cited for the statements made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.128.250.9 (talk) 12:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Separate pages?

[edit]

At some point I plan to add a lot of content on the history of discrimination against homosexuality. Most articles related to the subject briefly touch on negative attitudes & discrimination but mostly in the modern context with no understanding of the basis of long-held notions. I'm wondering if it's more appropriate to put that content here or on a separate page, perhaps a "History of Heterosexism" page. Right now I'm leaning toward putting it here, but if this article becomes at all comprehensive with what's available, it will quickly outgrow this page. Markwiki (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Please feel free"

[edit]

I took this paragraph out of the beginning of the article:

This article tries to introduce the history of homosexuality in the world from ancient to modern times. Please feel free to add anything you know to improve it.

First, the name of the article is "history of homosexuality". If it dealt with cat kidney diseases or the Boston Red Sox, it would probably make sense to describe the subject of the article. But it's probably pretty self-evident now.

Second, anyone should feel free to add anything or delete anything or edit or update anything in any Wikipedia article. There's no need to enjoin them to do so in the article itself. --ESP 22:29, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I thought at first that the first comment above conflicted with Manual_of_Style#Article_introduction. On reflection I can see that although there probably should be a headline to explain the thrust of the article, it shouldn't just say "This is an article about..." I shall try to think of something. William Avery 23:07, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Wow, it's so cool you guys added so many stuff here :). About that intro, I just try to make people know that this article needs attention, and it would be deleted when it's finished (or nearly finished, or well enough, just like lots of articles do, see List of China-related topics). Anyway, keep working! I am looking forward to that.  :) --yacht (Talk) 04:56, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

Proposed name change

[edit]

I propose changing the name of this article from History of Homosexuality to History of Western Homosexuality, or History of Homosexuality in the West. History of homosexuality outside the west is given only in the form of links to dedicated pages (eg: History of Homosexuality in China). Exploding Boy 04:29, Jan 24, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I think keeping this title will be useful. I will try to expand the homosexuality in the east, but I think we will finally split this article into several articles as the content being added; maybe later we would have different articles about the history of homosexuality in different countries! (i am planning to write Homosexuality in the United States). BTW, do u think the current structure of the article is good? I think I made a bad beginning. --Yacht (Talk)Q 01:57, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)
   Good point about adding histories of homosexualities in other countries.   
   This article could become more general as other articles expand.  It's   
   looking good so far though  Exploding Boy 08:41, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)

I think this article is great...but I'd like to see a lot more between ancient times and modern times. The molly clubs for example.

See: History of sexuality, which contains the content from this article.-Hyacinth 19:42, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In Ancient Egypt

[edit]

What happened to the text in the section regarding Ancient Egypt? Bfotino (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between this page and LGBT history?

[edit]

Should they be merged or what? I don't find any difference between this page and LGBT history. Both are quite the same. I don't see why we should have two pages regarding the history of homosexuality (NOT that there's anything wrong with it, but merging the page seems a good idea). Lionhead99 (talk) 14:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this section down; per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout, a new talk page section should be at the bottom of the talk page.
Also, remember to sign your username when commenting on a Wikipedia talk page. If you don't already know, all you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. I signed your username for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 16:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Persia

[edit]

In the early Safavid era (1501–1723), male houses of prostitution (amrad khane) were legally recognized and paid taxes.

How on earth did that happen in spite of Islam? The Islamic legal system doesn't tolerate it.

Abu Dawub 4462 reads:

The Messenger of Allah ... [that is, Muhammad] said, "Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Loot, execute the one who does it and the one to whom it is done."

And Bell 1979:13 reads:

The sodomite should be thrown from the highest building in the town and then stoned.

By the way, the 16th century—leave alone the 18th century—absolutely does not belong to ancient times, so the section shouldn't be titled “Ancient Persia.” EIN (talk) 21:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://epistle.us/hbarticles/neareast.html as well as potentially other sources; content added here; please see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Lionhead99 for background.. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History of Heterosexuality

[edit]

Wikipedia has an entry on "History of Homosexuality" so it should have one on "History of Heterosexuality". Right now if you search for History of Heterosexuality you are sent to "History of Sexuality" -- which implicitly equates heterosexuality with the universal sexuality. This is outright bigotry. Jonathan Ned Katz, author, The Invention of Heterosexuality (1995).Jnkatz1 (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't work like that. See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists.--Shantavira|feed me 12:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"History of Homosexuality", the title, furthers the anti-gay agenda of making people believe that homosexuality is a choice. The title implies, erroneously, that homosexuality is an invention. That makes it a cultural practice spread by socialization (teaching) rather than an innate aspect of human sexuality, one that has always existed. That there is no corresponding "History of Heterosexuality" fits perfectly with this error, furthering the erroneous paradigm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.194.198 (talk) 05:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seafarers

[edit]

The section on the 19th century had a link to the Wikipedia article on Seafarers, the group of people who live on water in south and east Asia. There's not even the remotest mention of sexuality of any form. I have removed the link.98.66.40.110 (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Historical errors and misunderstandings

[edit]

Many sections are built upon contemporary eurocentric understanding of history. It is rediculous to equate homosexuality with pederasty. Ancient Greek society mandated that some boys assume passive role until adulthood when they themselves would be the dominant in a relation with a minor. For example, it is evident from portrayal of Agathon in Aristophanes’ popular tragedy Thesmophoriazusae that sexual relations between adult were frawn upon by the ancient Greek society. I would argue that pederasty in ancient Greece and early Islamic Middle East belong more to what we would call paedophilia since it almost always involved an adult male and a adolescent.

The section on Ancient Assyria also contains several legends probably going back to Ctesias’ Persica. The notion of homosexuality being widespread in Assyria probably comes from the legend of Sardanapalus. I couln’t verify the sources but some are obviously self-published non-academic references. For an expert’s take on Sexuality in the Ancient Near East refer to Karen Nemet-Nejat’s Daily Life in Ancient Mesopotamia.--Kathovo talk 13:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kathovo, I meant to state this much earlier, but I got tangled up in a matter when I was going to reply. I had a reply all typed up, and then it was lost. But anyway, I was going to state something close to the following: It's not for us to decide what are historical errors and misunderstandings. I likely don't have to tell you this, but we go by what the WP:Reliable sources state, per WP:Verifiability. A lot of WP:Reliable sources state that Ancient Greeks allowed romantic or sexual relationships between adult males and adolescent males, but this was only allowed if the adolescent male was of a certain age (typically pubescent or older), usually what we term teenager in modern times, and only if sexual penetration was not involved. And with regard to sexuality in ancient Rome, sexual activity between males was based on who was the passive partner (the one being penetrated or "taking the woman's role") and the active partner (the one doing the penetrating), similar to the Ancient Assyria text that you removed; that text seems to me like it was supported by at least two WP:Reliable sources (Pritchard and Greenberg)...if those sources were used correctly (I'm not sure who Pritchard and Greenberg are in this case, so I stated "seems"; I'm familiar with this Greenberg with regard to sexuality books). Are you also this IP who removed that text? Either way, I can't see a valid reason for you having removed it, other than the citations not having been clear and the fact that it was added by User:Lionhead99, an editor who continually violated WP:Copyvio, and was indefinitely blocked by Moonriddengirl in 2013. He sometimes pops back up as a WP:Sockpuppet (registered account or otherwise) to add his text back to articles. And the Ancient Assyria text you removed might have been a WP:Copyvio violation.
As for pederasty compared to pedophilia: Like the Pederasty article notes, pederasty is an erotic relationship between an adult male and an adolescent male; adolescence usually includes pubescents and post-pubescents, not prepubescents. Pedophilia, on the other hand, when accurately defined, is about a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children (or early pubescents who look prepubescent). So I'm not sure how you are defining pederasty.
Someone who can help on the "historical errors and misunderstandings" matter you brought up is Cynwolfe, who heavily edited the Sexuality in ancient Rome article and generally edited ancient history topics because she has a good understanding of them and seemingly liked editing them. But as her user contributions show, she hasn't edited Wikipedia since October 16, 2013. The most recent comment on her user talk page, though, is by Smeat75. Smeat75 seems to have edited with her, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome is a userbox on Smeat75's user page. So maybe Smeat75 can help or knows of editors from Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome who can/will. Flyer22 (talk) 07:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello - Cynwolfe was indeed an invaluable editor on topics to do with ancient Rome and is sorely missed. I am not quite sure what the question is that you want help with. Flyer22 in the post above summarises the position accurately as far as I am aware, I would definitely not apply the word "pedophilia" in general to ancient Greek and Roman sexual activity unless that is backed up by several reliable sources. It is difficult applying modern terms to ancient attitudes to sexual identities, many adult men had romantic or sexual relationships with male youths while at the same time being married and having children, which was considered the duty of a respectable man. You can post a message at the talk page of the Classical Greece and Rome project [1] and see if anyone is able to provide any more help.Smeat75 (talk) 13:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Smeat75. Kathovo similarly touched on what Ancient Greek society mandated with regard to sexuality between males. And you are on point about applying modern sexuality terms to ancient attitudes, which has also been addressed at the WP:LGBT talk page more than once. At the Pedophilia article, we refrain from applying the term pedophilia to ancient contexts, and that's because of how the term pedophilia is medically defined (which contrasts the Ancient Greek and Rome matter), like I noted above, and because it's generally difficult or complicated to apply to Ancient contexts or any era significantly before the term came into use...for the reasons you noted and for the reasons shown at Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 18#Muhammed: Notable historical examples section; also see Talk:Pedophilia/FAQ. As for your help, I simply meant anything you can help with regarding the above in this section. You've helped by weighing in here. I might invite Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome to this discussion or to help with this article in general. Flyer22 (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"It is difficult applying modern terms to ancient attitudes to sexual identities, many adult men had romantic or sexual relationships with male youths while at the same time being married and having children, which was considered the duty of a respectable man." No, it's not. That exact thing has commonly-occurred in recent history and continues to occur. The word "youth" is vague. If we are talking about older teens and young adults then my comment stands, particularly since even in the 1960s it was not illegal nor tremendously socially-damaging for a significantly older man to have a relationship with a 16-year-old (e.g. Sonny Bono and Cher) — clear evidence that the current definition of child including the oldest adolescents (15-18, now being increasingly extended to even 20 from a legal standpoint) is a very recent phenomenon. Loretta Lynn married at 15 and numerous examples of 15-year-olds serving in conflicts such as WWII exist. Research has found that both heterosexual and homosexual men generally prefer young-looking people in erotica, pointing to a desire to participate in intimacy with older adolescents and the youngest adults. Many men have married and had same-sex intimacy that they have hidden from society, due to opprobrium. This is not new, at all. (Similarly, the states where subscriptions to erotic video sites have been the highest per-capita are the most outwardly sexually-conservative.) It is also complicated by the existence of a spectrum of orientation, if one believes the Kinsey model (where strict pure heterosexuality and homosexuality are rare — a model supported by cross-cultural research, such as the percentage of males who refuse to fellate in Sambian culture and those who refuse to marry when they are of age, versus the percentage who fellate then marry). These Sambian practices clearly are isolated from the "West" as well as the "far East" so they serve as a valuable comparison model with what Kinsey found. If the Kinsey model is accurate, and if his assertion that partial bisexuality is quite common, that would also explain the practice of having "less prominent" homosexual intimacy while maintaining "more prominent" heterosexual social identity. The commonly-repeated claim that the ancient world and other historical periods were marked by people behaving very differently from today isn't matched by reality. The commonalities are great. Human nature has not changed. Innate aspects of human sexuality certainly have not changed, something this article should reflect by not having a faulty title that implies that homosexuality is an invention that came about due to socialization at some arbitrary point in history. What changes are the level of opprobrium, the commonly-held mores dynamics about the nature of sexual/gender roles (e.g. "You're still a true man if you're the active partner") — which is not the same thing as sexual minority desires and practices, which occur simultaneously — fashions basically. The fashions/attitudes change but the underlying human psychology and its biological basis does not. The percentage of homosexual people born, per capita, is fixed throughout history and culture. The problem with the term homosexuality is that it's very broad (encompassing sexual acts, desires, identities, tastes), not that it's incompatible somehow with historical periods/peoples. A homosexual can prefer older partners, desire complete monogamy, and be a virgin at 40. Another can prefer much younger partners and desire minimal commitment. Another example of homosexuality is engaging in homosexual acts without the underlying desire. It is a broad term. Homosexual, by contrast, is less broad. It means the person's main desire is for the same sex. It is broad, though, when it comes to taste, such as the age desired. The underlying error, one that is reflected in the erroneous nature of this article's title itself, is that homosexuality is a cultural invention, one that is spread by indoctrination/teaching. Only when one believes that can one truly argue that terminology can't be applied to the ancient world the same way it can be applied to the contemporary world. Yes, very specialized terms can be used for specific special historical things, such as specific cults' practices, but that is not really the point here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.194.198 (talk) 06:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And, yep, looking at the #Copyright problem removed section above again, the Ancient Assyria text was part of the WP:Copyvio problem. Lionhead99 showed up to re-add it to the article as a WP:Sockpuppet, And then Moonriddengirl showed up to revert "copyio to last clean" version," but left in the Ancient Assyria text; that leave-in might have been a mistake. Flyer22 (talk) 07:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, User:Flyer22. If I left anything in that he placed, it certainly was a mistake. Please remove it, if you can. Unfortunately, we have ample evidence that writing in original language was not something he really did. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Moonriddengirl. I considered whether or not what you left in was slightly altered or if you had concluded that it was WP:Copvio safe. But looking at it closer, I see that it's the same exact text. Thanks for clarifying. Flyer22 (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Cynwolfe has let everyone know that she's okay. Flyer22 (talk) 16:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Cynwolfe commented on this discussion at her talk page and might comment on it again there. And on a side note, I fixed the link to the "Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 18#Muhammed: Notable historical examples section" discussion above; it had gotten messed up when I reorganized the archives. Flyer22 (talk) 07:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of homosexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of homosexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of homosexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of homosexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article's title is misleading

[edit]

The article should be re-titled. The current title erroneously implies that homosexuality is an invention, a cultural practice that is taught. Better titles might be Known History of Homosexuality or Homosexuality, Current Historical Knowledge. Those makes it clearer that it's not about pretending that homosexuality is an invention that started at some point after the beginning of humanity — a practice that's spread due to culture (socialization) rather than being innate to human sexuality (biological). I made the same point in the unfortunately-titled "History of Lesbianism" article's Talk page, as the problem is identical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.194.198 (talk) 05:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another person brought up the lack of a "History of Heterosexuality" article for parity and that is an excellent point, as the lack of such parity furthers the same false narrative about homosexuality being an invention spread by socialization, rather than being an innate facet of biological human sexuality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.194.198 (talk) 05:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I have a found a reliable source which may contribute to the page. It is: 

 Tamagne, Florence., and Alice Seberry. A History of Homosexuality in Europe, Berlin, London, Paris 1919-1939. New York: Algora Publishing, 2007. Thanks!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwiboy1997 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_homosexuality&oldid=1207551693"