Talk:Lesbian/Archive 13

Suggestions
We could profitably include a little more about lesbianism in the African American community. At the moment, we only mention – As a summary of the African American lesbian experience overall, that gives an overly rosy picture of the black community's attitude towards lesbianism. In the South in particular, lesbianism has not been popular with Blacks, for reasons of both race and religion. See for example Liddell & Kemp, or Patricia Hill Collins' Black Sexual Politics, which states that LGBT African Americans have been widely seen as "disloyal to the race", and many lesbians and gays felt it necessary to "pass" as heterosexual.
 * Harlem: "Among African American residents of Harlem, lesbian relationships were common and tolerated, though not overtly embraced.",
 * Nearby in Hartford, Connecticut, African American freeborn women Addie Brown and Rebecca Primus left evidence of their passion in letters: "No kisses is like youres".
 * the first film about African American lesbians, Cheryl Dunye's The Watermelon Woman

Liddell & Kemp also mention the common accusation that lesbians are "man-haters", a term which doesn't occur in the article at all presently. That term is of course is not restricted to the black community, or to males for that matter; see e.g. Arlene Stein. I feel some work could profitably be done on these aspects. -- JN 466  14:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree, but per the section above, I'm wary of adding too much information to the article, primarily for its size. It's just very, very long. Also, for a global topic such as female homosexuality, it focuses quite a lot on English and American experiences. That's primarily because most of the source material is written in English, and much of it originates in the U.S., which has been prominent in gay activism in the past 50 years, eventually leading to academic scholarship about homosexual cultures. I'm eager to read the sources you provided, though, and discuss the appropriate weight with which the issues should be included. --Moni3 (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Related: ""Iffe Degman, a professor at a local" is an interesting search term. Quite specific. --Moni3 (talk) 14:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For a general discussion of African-American lesbian and bisexual issues, there's this article, which may be more appropriate as a source for an overall review:
 * African American Lesbian and Bisexual Women Article first published online: 17 DEC 2002 DOI: 10.1111/0022-4537.00163
 * There are, of course, articles and books written about homosexual Latinas, American Indians, Asian-Americans, Jews, and other groups in the U.S. Potentially, it's possible that an entire new section about racial, ethnic, and religious minorities in the U.S. has to be created to accommodate all this information. But then the question is why American minorities and not English, Irish, Canadian, Australian, or South African? Were you envisioning something in particular? Because it's supposed to give a general overview of social complexities (i.e. the way women's sexuality is perceived, why and how lesbians are considered a minority, and how they function with that minority status), the issues in the article should apply to the lesbian concept as a whole, and direct readers to separate articles about more specific issues. Again, I'm not averse to including detail where it belongs, but quite wary of adding an entire section. --Moni3 (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm interested in African American studies, and the South, and I just noticed that to the extent that the article touched on African Americans, it didn't seem representative of scholarship in that area. I've just started reading Hill Collins' book; I love it, and would recommend it to you. I've also just noticed that we actually have an article on it: Black Sexual Politics: African Americans, Gender, and the New Racism. If you want to have a peek, the title hasn't got Preview in Google Books, but it's got Look inside in amazon.
 * I realize it's a big article already ... and you've done really well. But given that we give ample room to American sources, a bit on Hispanics and African Americans is not unreasonable; together, they represent about a third of the US population.
 * The search term Iffe Degman ... was just a trick to get Google Books to display the section where that particular discussion started. ;) -- JN 466  16:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The article "African American Lesbian and Bisexual Women" which you mention above is accessible here: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0341/is_2_56/ai_66419864/ From looking at it, it very much mirrors Collins, including the charge of disloyalty to the race, and other fundamental points found in Collins (who is cited multiple times). I don't think an entire section on African American lesbians is needed, just a few sentences at an opportune place or places to balance the African American material presently in the article. -- JN 466  06:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll read through the article. I have access to it, but I have to go get it. I will do that today. --Moni3 (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Lesbian bed death
Opinions are needed on my clean-up/expansion of the Lesbian bed death article -- on whether the article is now decent, whether I've included appropriate material for the subject at hand, and on what more can be done to improve the article. I'm asking editors here to have a look at the article and weigh in, because the term is related to lesbianism, the Lesbian article is well-watched, and I generally don't receive any help when asking for it at the WikiProject LGBT studies...or just about any WikiProject these days. Flyer22 (talk) 07:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Globalize template
Does have any specific sources in mind that should be accessed? Would you like to give examples of what you think should be improved? --Moni3 (talk) 01:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Latest trend as of 2011 Lesbian and female bi-sexual
Can anyone confirm this source? http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sax-sex/201004/why-are-so-many-girls-lesbian-or-bisexual Apparently the article is written by some MD PhD, physician and psychologist. His studies said that today, the new data is 15% of young girls identified themselves as bi-sexual and lesbian. 3 times more than men nowadays. (5%) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.18.238 (talk) 11:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't have time right now to respond in full as I would like, but I read the article halfway and it's interesting. I wouldn't use it as a source for this article (it's written in first person and is not the study itself), but it is a compelling discussion. I hope to be able to read the rest of it and be able to form a decent response later today. --Moni3 (talk) 12:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * These are the sources from the Psychology Today article:
 * Evolutionary Psychology: the new science of the mind, Professor David Buss (University of Texas / Austin)
 * Can Animals Be Gay?
 * Ritch Savin-Williams and Geoffrey L. Ream, "Prevalence and stability of sexual orientation components during adolescence and young adulthood," Archives of Sexual Behavior, volume 36, pp. 385 - 394, 2007
 * Sexual orientation and suicide attempt: A longitudinal study of the general Norwegian adolescent population," Journal of Abnormal Psychology, volume 112, pp. 144-151, 2003
 * Same-sex attraction in a birth cohort: prevalence and persistence in early adulthood", Social Science and Medicine, volume 56, pp. 1607 - 1615, 2003
 * Gender differences in erotic plasticity: the female sex drive as socially flexible and responsive," Psychological Bulletin, volume 126, pp. 347 - 374, 2000
 * "Female bisexuality from adolescence to adulthood: results from a 10-year longitudinal study," Developmental Psychology, volume 44, pp. 5 - 14, 2008.
 * "The evolution of plasticity in female-female desire," Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, volume 18, pp. 245 - 274, 2006.
 * "What does sexual orientation orient? A biobehavioral model distinguishing romantic love and sexual desire," Psychological Review, volume 110, pp. 173 - 192, 2003.


 * I want to read them and I thank you for posting the PT article here. I will do my best to get these articles within the next couple weeks. I have been waiting for the 2010 US Census to come out with updated numbers of same-sex households in the US to replace the numbers from 2000. Btw, "erotic plasticity" - never heard that term before. --Moni3 (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Do we need this article?
When browsing the word gay in homosexual terms it seems to refer to homosexuality. I don't see why this article shouldn't do the same. Do we need this article - if so why does gay not exist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.238.125.40 (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your question. Clearly many sources have written about this topic and it gets more than 5,000 hits a day, so there are people reading it. Can you explain what you mean? --Moni3 (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

"Lesbian" refers to the female part of homosexuality. If you go look up "gay", as for the male part of homosexuality, you will get at story about an old word. Or you can also follow the redirect to the article "homosexuality". What I'm trying to say is that there is no such article for the male part of homosexuality and therefor I just ask why the article "lesbian" just as well doesnt redirect to the same article gay redirects to, instead of all this text. At least consider merging "lesbian" with "homosexuality" would be a great idea instead of having separated politics. Oh well. I don't know how to indent this as you did - sorry about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.238.125.40 (talk) 07:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * To indent, put a colon before your comment.
 * To indent further, add another colon, and so on.


 * I haven't checked on the Gay article in a while, but I know how it was structured the last time I saw it. I know that the Homosexuality article is a hot mess--you can see me on the talk page there annoying people about its poor quality. In an awesome world, the Homosexuality would be rewritten to be more coherent and reflect the most current and excellent sources about the topic, but that's not going to happen anytime soon I think. The Homosexuality article would cover issues that are far broader than the ones in this article, like biology, legal issues, religion, and history of how homosexuality has been perceived in different cultures. It can give only a general overview of the topic and issues of homosexuality among women need to be addressed in another space, which is where this article comes in. The politics are separated because men and women are treated differently; the articles reflect the disparate treatments male and female homosexuals face because sources write about it. Because it's a real phenomenon.


 * If there is no article about male culture in homosexuality, there should be (or the Gay article expanded to cover this). That doesn't mean this article shouldn't exist, but that someone should build the article for gay male culture. This article fully meets the requirement for notability and reliable sources, so those bases are covered. --Moni3 (talk) 00:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we agree then - almost. I was very disappointed in the lack of an article about male homosexuality. The gay article binds the word gay to homosexuality but more in the view of how the word was folded. And for the missing part (culture, history, etc) you are redirected to the homosexuality article.


 * My language has both the lesbian word and a word for being gay. I don't know if it's the vague, English definition of gay that keeps the article gay from talking about male homosexuality. Seems like lesbians also often defines them selves as gay too. I don't care though - I just wait till male homosexuals starts defines themselves as lesbians :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.238.125.40 (talk) 08:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Male homosexual culture, or something similarly named, is waiting to be written. Perhaps by you. --Moni3 (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Television outside the U.S.
User:Tn73 added info yesterday about lesbian characters and plotlines in British soaps. Because it wasn't cited, I hid the information and posted a request for sources--and preferably book sources--on Tn73's talk page. Tn73 blanked its talk page, but complied by adding poor sourcing, including a YouTube clip, and a couple stories from the Daily Mail. I'm under the impression that the Daily Mail is generally not reliable in most anything it reports, exaggerating and emphasizing the salacious.

I recognize the article does not and should cover television from other countries, but I could not find books while I was researching the article to cover TV outside the U.S. I asked back when I posted the article rewrite in 2009, but its worth asking again: Are there books the cover how lesbians have been portrayed in media outside the U.S.? --Moni3 (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Picture at top
Okay, so the picture at top could be either men or women and i don't think that sends the message we would want to send. I get that someone who knows they are women probably thinks this is very symbolic and touching, and it is, but its lost on the person who visits and has no connection to the photograph. Could we get a better lesbian photo at the top of the article? Interracial would be better too. BlackNYer (talk) 03:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * See below. --Moni3 (talk) 11:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Female sexuality and its fluidity
The article states that "Women generally exhibit greater sexual fluidity than men and find it easier to become physically and emotionally intimate with other women." Even if the choice of the term "exhibit" leaves us the option of interpreting this fluidity as more of a matter of appearance than an inner difference between male and female sexuality, I think it's misleading. And if it does state that women actually have a sexuality that is less rigid than men do, it doesn't give any source to back such a claim (plus, if it did, it should be noticed that human sexuality is still a matter of much scientific debate, which makes me believe this assertion should be simply excluded). Finally, how do women "find it easier to become physically and emotionally intimate with other women"? Because society lets women exhibit such displays of same-sex (not necessarily homoerotic) affection more freely than men? Because women are gayer? I find this article very well-written and I think people have done a great job with it (contrarily to the awful article on "gay"); I just believe this particular excert to be problematic. Wthwiki (talk) 09:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello, Wthwiki.


 * I'm going to do my best not to light this article on fire, particularly the lead. I rewrote it about a month ago following a 3-week discussion that was really confusing. When I rewrote it, no one commented on it *ba dum tiss* but here you are, so let's get this going...


 * First, assure me you've read the article. I know it's really long, but sexual fluidity of women is mentioned several times, cited by reliable sources:


 * In the Second wave feminism section, the minds of the time removed sexual desire as the primary identifier of what makes a lesbian.
 * Mental health section: On the whole, women tend to work through developing a self-concept internally, or with other women with whom they are intimate. Women also limit who they divulge their sexual identities to, and more often see being lesbian as a choice, as opposed to gay men, who work more externally and see being gay as outside their control.
 * The Lesbian chic section discusses the rise of popularity of bisexuality in the 1990s and again in 2009.
 * The Sexuality and lesbians section discusses sexual fluidity of women more than once.


 * Secondly, part of the sentence needs to be changed. I noticed it after I wrote it, but got so tired of the wtf?? on this talk page that I just left it. It should read "Women generally exhibit greater sexual fluidity than men and find it easier to become physically and emotionally intimate with the same sex."


 * So, I don't have any problem looking at sources that discuss the issues you're describing: why women are freer to express affection for each other than men are. There are fine nuances in the language that a source (or more than one) should justify. Do you have any in mind? --Moni3 (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

So if the way male and female sexualities are conceptualized is so different (sexual desire playing a bigger role in the definition of the former), should we be comparing them? As for the bigger freedom women have to display affection among themselves, I'll let you know if I find a source to back this claim (I have this impression from a male perspective, of course, but I think most people would agree with me that a man seating on another man's lap is cause to more consternation than if both were women). Wthwiki (talk) 01:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It's up to the sources to determine what goes in the article. The "most people would agree with me" view is irrelevant, unfortunately, as are our experiences with same-sex affection (ass-slapping on the sports fields of life). Any changes to the article need to come from reliable sources, either focusing on lesbian identity/expression or women's sexuality. --Moni3 (talk) 11:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't even find the Gay article to be awful. I mean, it's been brought up before that it's not mostly about male homosexuality...but there's a valid reason for that. "Gay" refers to both men and women. Flyer22 (talk) 05:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't emplying anyone should change the article BEFORE I (or anyone) got a source to back the change. I know an encyclopedia is not based under unverified popular knowledge. I found two sources: http://www.springerlink.com/content/u607q44w301j8150/ and http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a920866965 Once again, I know that, should these sources be taken into account, it'll be a matter of "studies have suggested" rather than "it's like that". Wthwiki (talk) 06:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Selective homophobia
I was hoping to find an explanation in this article for why female homosexuality is not only not demonized, but even glamorized and eroticized by the media and a lot of people in general, which is a stark contrast to male homosexuality which is still to this day struggling to be positively portrayed and overcome negative stereotypes just to be accepted. 173.2.165.251 (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You're joking right? Let me guess, you're a gay male and you're bitter because straight men seem to love lesbians but they don't love you. Truth is gay women are just as demonized as gay men. The only thing that is "glamorized and eroticized" is a stereotypical caricature of "lesbians" who just can't wait to get some juicy cock. Actual lesbians who "reject" men basically don't exist in mainstream media. Don't believe me? Look at the GLAAD head counts from the last few years. There are five times as many gay or bi males as women, and basically no real lesbians, only wishy washy bisexuals. And yes, those gay males are portrayed positively by the media these days. Basically you are myopic and have it all ass backwards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.80.103.41 (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Since you think it's somehow acceptable for you to shoot your mouth off like that around here, please see WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. One more wise-guy response from you will earn you a report to the admins. Don't try me. 173.2.165.251 (talk) 00:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 173.2.165.251 does have a point. Lesbianism is often "glamorized and eroticized" by the media (especially in America). See Media portrayal of lesbianism for some information on the matter. And people in general, not just heterosexual men, have been reported as more accepting of lesbianism than male homosexuality. See the section right above this that talks a bit about female-female affection. However, 69.80.103.41 has a point as well. See what Sarah Warn had to say about the American soap opera couple Reese Williams and Bianca Montgomery, who, throughout 2008-2009, attracted much mainstream media attention for featuring the first same-sex marriage proposal and wedding on an American daytime drama. When Reese, who is supposed to be lesbian, was seen actively going after a man (to which some of the creators, notably one in particular, denied), this is what Warn stated: ..."...there simply aren't enough romantic-pairing options for long-running lesbian characters unless you're willing to change the general makeup of the established cast of characters. This logic is frequently used by TV writers and showrunners to justify minimal lesbian visibility, bad lesbian storylines, and the growing trend towards adding bisexual characters to their shows instead of lesbians." She said that while this may be an understandable decision for an individual show, when it is happening on various shows, the viewer is "left with a television landscape populated by lesbians who sleep with men, or no lesbians at all, only bisexual characters (who also primarily sleep with men)" and that All My Children "fed right into" this with the Reese and Bianca storyline."


 * That said, we must also keep in mind that some people who identify as lesbians have sex with men occasionally, for whatever reason, as this article (the Lesbian article) shows. These women don't consider themselves bisexual because their sexual attraction to men is so little or otherwise non-existent...that they would feel like it is a lie (false advertisement) to adopt the title of "bisexual" when, in actuality, they have no true sexual interest in men and don't want the impression out there that they are generally open to the idea of having sex with men. Some of these women are what others call "bisexual lesbians."


 * But back to the topic at hand, if Moni3 (the main one who has written/edited this article) is up for putting in information about society/media's portrayal of lesbians vs. gay men, then I am all for that. However, this article is pretty long as it is, though there is still enough room for more, and part of this information is already covered by the Media portrayal of lesbianism article. So I wouldn't state that much needs to be added on selective homophobia, if it's not already in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't even know what this entire discussion is about up there. O_o. --Moni3 (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL!! Flyer22 (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Astraea
Perhaps that Astraea Lesbian Foundation For Justice can be mentioned ? KVDP (talk) 10:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In what context? And sources, please? --Moni3 (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Historical attitudes toward lesbians
This article doesn't provide as much information about lesbians - what they do, how they feel or think, theories on how lesbianism 'develops', etc. - as about Western society's attitudes towards lesbianism and lesbians. And even then, it's biased against what it finds to be society's negative attitude (sort of "condemning its condemnation").

We need a much larger article, which would of course keep all the material in the present version, but which would cast the current article into the form of a section on Historical attitudes toward lesbians.

Even assuming that the slant of the article is justified - i.e., that lesbians have been misunderstood, underappreciated, and even persecuted (like Christians?) - we'd still need to provide some basic information on what lesbianism is, how it manifests (or develops), and so on. Only then can we begin to talk about how "straight" or "mainstream" society has regarded it.
 * We don't start off the global warming article with laments about how misguided conservatives have disregarded warnings about the runaway greenhouse effect. We just provide the science - or at least the science that most Wikipedians are aware of. There's an entirely separate article on the politics of global warming.

So can we please have more on-topic information here, before anything else? Thank you! --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, there is an article for homosexuality, that should address the issues of development. It sucks pretty badly overall, but last time I looked there was a biological section. Unless you're suggesting that female homosexuality develops differently than male homosexuality. Then, if so, . That's actually a good theme to go on here. What sources are you thinking of culling this information from? Because the sources I used address "lesbian" as a social construct, similar to race, that developed in the 20th century, which is reflected in the article. And I hope you can discern the wide difference between the scientific observation of climate change and the social construct of a subgroup of homosexuals. Articles are constructed based on what the best sources say about the topic, not because another article about a different controversial topic is constructed a specific way.


 * And I don't know quite what to make of your request: "what they do, how they feel or think". Like knitting? Or cunnilingus? And how they feel or think about what?


 * Also, you're welcome. --Moni3 (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Good point about the subgroups. I'm not saying that lesbians are different from homosexuals. On the other hand, terms like LGBT emphasize a distinction between 'lesbians' and 'gays' so I wonder if some clarification is needed. Does "gay" mean "man who has sex with other men" or what? And is a gay man "gay" in the same sense that a gay woman is?

Stop me if I'm asking for too much clarity, but unless this is the elephant in the living room I'd like to (1) find out more about it and (2) expand the article. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, what modern terms like "LGBT" do is solidify very clear sexual orientations when historians and sociologists recognize that not to be the case. This thing of either you are or are not gay. Hence, then problematic issue of calling someone like Jane Addams a lesbian when the word wasn't being used for that definition while Addams was alive. She lived with women in long-term relationships but she did not call herself a lesbian--primarily because the word wasn't being used and the concept of a woman who pairs exclusively with other women, for the most part, did not exist.


 * There is an historical culture for male homosexuals that is long-lived and sometimes vibrantly detailed in history. There is much less of that for female homosexuals because even though men have experienced a lot more criminal and legal enforcement in response to homosexuality, women on the other hand have not been recognized to have any sexuality apart from their relationships to men. So men have had the freedom to pursue homosexual relationships because they haven't historically been tied financially to husbands, brothers, or fathers as women have. But when women entered into homosexual relationships the prevailing opinion was that they were unable to consummate any sexual relationship without a penis -- so everything else is merely friendship.


 * Hence, this article reflects the academic treatment of women's sexuality: women may have been participating in homosexual relationships for centuries, but without the primary object of concern--that a woman might give birth to a child sired by a man other than her husband--any relationship or action that did not end with the possibility that she may give birth to another man's child was seen by prevailing legal and moral authorities as harmless. Added to that is the fascination some societies have had with female homosexuality, making it stylish in between bouts of condemnation.


 * Was that the elephant in the room you're referencing? Your elephant may be tiny to me. Sometimes it's best to point out that elephant just so we know we're addressing the same Loxodonta. --Moni3 (talk) 13:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, you obviously know a lot more about women's sexuality than I do. Maybe I should read that article before going any further. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Obvious question time: have you read this one? In totality? --Moni3 (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I was wondering the same thing Ed, especially as the very first line of the lead was "Lesbian is a term most widely used in the English language to describe sexual and romantic desire between females". There is also a Sexuality and lesbians section. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Uncle Ed, we already have a History of lesbianism article, which is a mess. I already commented about it in the History of lesbianism article discussion. If we are going to have an article documenting the historical attitudes toward lesbians, then that article is the perfect body to build it on. But like I said in the linked discussion: I feel that "the history of lesbianism" is already covered quite well here at the Lesbian article. Flyer22 (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Misinformation or inaccurate content
I'm not much experienced in editing Wikipedia articles, but this phrase caught my attention.

"Women generally exhibit greater sexual fluidity than men and find it easier to become physically and emotionally intimate with other women. "

Not discussing the rightness or wrongness of this sentence, anyway I think the word "Women" here either should be replaced by "Some women", or accompanied by scientific quote or paper that proves this, because the word "women" means the collection of human females, the majority of which are heterosexuals and for whom this sentence isn't true (so, in reality, women (the majority of human females) find it easier to become physically (physically means sexually here) and emotionally (meaning love) intimate with men, not women).

If we discuss whether this statement is correct or not, then we must understand that the word "emotionally" is ambiguous here. If the word "emotionally" means friendship, then yes, women find it easier to get friendly with other women. But if it means love, then that's not true: most women find it natural (and of course, easier) to fall in love with men, because most women's sexuality drives them towards men, and some women cannot even depict themselves in a lesbian relationship (would it be love, or sex), so stating that women generally find it easier to fall in love with other women would be false.

As of the word "physically", the context here is sex. As I mentioned above, most women are heterosexual, so why would someone even consider that the generally accepted way for women to have sex is with another women, is unclear.

In general, I think this sentence was caused by a misconception of the author, who probably was lesbian and really thought that most woman find it easier to have sex with other women.

Please let me know when an update will be available, because I care about this article being correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luciusmalfoyy (talk • contribs) 14:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The sentence now reads Women generally exhibit greater sexual fluidity than men and find it easier to become physically and emotionally intimate with the same sex than men do.


 * This is accurate to the sources. --Moni3 (talk) 14:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That was exactly the clarification it needed. Well done. Doc  Tropics  15:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)