Talk:Lesbian/Archive 1

I think at this point, "gay woman" is the primary meaning of lesbian, especially since the Lesbians have made it clear that they would prefer to be called Lesvonians. *snort* - montr&eacute;alais

From article (needs to be substantiated):

"(Some modern researchers looking into sexual arousal found that women by nature are bi-sexual - i.e. they get aroused from both male and female nudity. Their most likely reason for choosing male partners would then be a need for security - income, physical strength - rather than heterosexuality. And a lesbian would then be a woman who chooses a female partner instead.

However, the results haven't been replicated by other scientists yet.)" -- Notheruser 19:50 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Reverted as the added bonobo information was only partial/irrelevant. The implication that only a few females engage in lesbian behavior (by the use of 'Although some females..) is not true. By all standards, bonobos as a species are fully bisexual- every member having bisexual tendencies, both sexes engaging in sexual behavior with both sexes, but they are most noted for the sexual behavior between the females(lesbian sex lasts longer, and in general is preferred by the females over heterosexual sex). All females engage in lesbian behavior, the difference is 'how much and with who'- some females engage in it only occasionally, others very frequently, but having 'preferred' individuals and so on. The rest of the added information (they do not form permanent relationships with partners) was irrelevant, as none form such relationships, either homosexual or heterosexual. The only long term relationships are between mother and offspring(females leave the troop to join another troop at maturity though). -- Kaalnek

Information on "Lesbian Bed Death" is now almost half the article -- and the bonobo info is back in the artticle. Does anyone object to my removing it? -- BCorr ¤ &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 14:22, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * I think the content that Kaalnek removed was the phrase "Although some female bonobos rub their genitals together, they do not form permanent relationships with partners". Dysprosia 21:51, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The phrase re LBD "use it as a motivator" at least requires the reader to stop & ponder, in my case without resolution: is it the concept, the belief that the concept represents a widespread phenomenon, or the self-ID of having experienced LBD (and if so, with a sense of neglecting, being neglected, or both, or neither)? How is it used, like promising myself a new stereo if i knuckle down and leave that loser, or by promising a potential new partner that she'll get more sex, or promising her that her preference of downplaying sex will eventually win out even if it doesn't seem that way now?

If the original editor doesn't provide clarification & no better source is forthcoming, IMO the clause that includes that phrase should be struck.

Similarly, "couples of any other sexual orientation" includes "couples who are so sexually traumatized that they never even consider having sex" and who "couples who succeed in carrying out a decision to be asexual", so the statement containing this phrase is obviously false until replaced by one that specifies what orientations Schwartz considered. --Jerzy 19:52, 2003 Oct 29 (UTC)

I agree Jerzy, I haven't had time to seriously look up the responses to LBD at length, but it seems like a bit of a POV generalization of lesbian women too. I read it as these couples break up as soon as something like LBD turns up, which is probably not something the author encountered, but what the author guessed might happen. Dysprosia 22:26, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Wow, do i feel na&iuml;ve; it sounded like sloppy writing to me, but i didn't put the bonobo claims & this phrase together. Hmm, do they say "agenda" (which is plural in form) bcz people who have an agenda are going to bring it up repeatedly in different forms? [Mulling noises.] Tnx. --Jerzy 01:47, 2003 Oct 30 (UTC)

I'll remove the "motivator" section now. Dysprosia 07:03, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

(For editors intersted in researching, or for inclusion somehow in article: (A quick glance at a Google search leaves it possible this cited research may not be peer-reviewed, BTW (the U Wash directory makes her "Pepper J Schwartz .... Professor, Sociology" and her dept's site lists
 * Pepper Schwartz
 * Professor
 * Gender, Family, Sexuality, Marriage, Same-Sex Couples, Sociology in the Media
 * 1974 Yale University
 * couples@u.washington.edu
 * http://faculty.washington.edu/couples/
 * http://faculty.washington.edu/couples/

(Other sites give her a PhD, and cite American Couples..., of which her Publications page says
 * American Couples: Money, Work, and Sex
 * By Philip Blumstein and Pepper Schwartz
 * Wm. Morrow Publishers
 * October, 1983
 * Out of print, but may be available at Amazon.com online bookstore!

(Around here, there are at least 30 copies in libraries per million residents; hopefully the book cites peer-reviewed publication of the study.) --Jerzy 19:52, 2003 Oct 29 (UTC)

Page for male equivalent?
Should there be a mirroring page for gay man, gay male, gay men, homosexual man, homosexual male, homosexual men, or somesuch? Martin 00:47, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Go ahead if you want there to be one. However, most of the info at homosexuality and related articles seems to focus on gay males already. -- Kimiko 09:29, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * True, but that seems wrong to me: it's falling into the trap of thinking that homosexuals are, by default, male, with lesbians being a weird exception. Better, imo, to have homosexuality be generic, and put male-specific content at gay man or whatnot.
 * Of course, this is a fair amount of work... Martin 21:40, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Preference and choice
Cut from intro paragraph:
 * Lesbians prefer romantic and sexual relationships with other women.

Is this Wikipedia article asserting that female homosexuality (or perhaps homosexuality in general) is merely a matter of preference? That one can "choose" to be a lesbian? (See lesbian until graduation.)

I don't think this is a position the Wikipedia ought to take. It's a very big controversy, if you haven't noticed!

How about engage in rather than prefer for starters? --Uncle Ed 15:51, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Actually it seems simply to be a statement of fact that you have chosen to read an agenda into. - Outerlimits 16:00, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * "Preference" does not mean that people have a choice in the matter, but I agree that "orientation" would be clearer. (note that sexual preference redirects to sexual orientation)
 * Also, "engage in" is incorrect. One can be a lesbian just as well without a romantic or sexual relationship.
 * Agreed on the agenda remark.
 * -- Kimiko 21:46, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Fixed. JulieADriver 01:31, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Isn't the wording redundent now? "Lesbians have or prefer to have romantic and sexual relationships with other women." Wouldn't "Lesbians prefer to have romantic and sexual relationships with other women." be better. After all, would a woman who had romantic and sexual relationships with other women but didn't prefer to have them still be a lesbian? I tried to make this change, but someone reverted it. Any comments? Michael L. Kaufman 04:37, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)


 * I had misread your change exactly, I apologize, but the points you bring up still warrant a discussion, IMO. "After all, would a woman who had romantic and sexual relationships with other women but didn't prefer to have them still be a lesbian?" - Possibly? Consider a woman who is just coming to grips with her attraction to other women - she may be uncomfortable with relationships with other women and prefer not to have such relationships, but her preference for women may solidify in future. When does the line between being termed a lesbian begin? The current wording avoids this grey area, I think. Dysprosia 07:45, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I am not so sure. Your hypothetical woman isn't having sexual relations yet, and - by your use of perfer - she doen't prefer them, so does that mean she isn't a lesbian yet? I think that the preference (whether desired or not) is the defining element. To but it another way, would a prostitute or and adult acress who didn't enjoy sexual relations with woman, but did them for money be considered a lesbian? Michael L. Kaufman 15:55, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)


 * Your argument is compelling. I will revert the wording as to your version before. Apologies again for the confusion. Dysprosia 00:29, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * No apologies needed. That's why we are all here working together. Michael L. Kaufman 02:14, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

In animals
Because the article is about lesbians and not sexual relations between people or animals of the same biological gender, I've removed the following as it just doesn't fit into the article:


 * Lesbianism (among a variety of other sexual behaviors) is also extensively practised by the pygmy chimpanzee (bonobo), one of the human's closest ape relatives. However, chimpanzees and most other apes do not normally engage in such activities.

BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 15:02, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

Pornography
I did some reorganizing of sections, but did not change much if any content. But, I think the section on pornography could use work. Much of it seems to be "common sense". Is there any real research to support the assertions here (e.g., women are more tolerant of sex between two women than between two men)? Also, there is nothing here about the argument that lesbian pornography inherently objectifies women for the pleasure of straight men. I am sure someone can dig up some stuff on this. If anything about pornography is going to be in an encyclopedia article, it should be well-researched. Gwimpey 00:05, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)