Talk:Pomosexual/Archive 1

Fleshing out
Flesh out the second paragraph and this looks less like a dictionary article. As it stands, it's a dictionary article.


 * I agree, more content that goes a little more in depth of what exactly "pomosexuality" encompasses -- aside from what (little) is already written here -- would be nice.

I agree, as it stands, this article is in violation of the wikipedia policies on neologisms: The first is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and so articles simply attempting to define a neologism are inappropriate.

The second reason is that articles on neologisms frequently attempt to track the emergence and use of the term as observed in communities of interest or on the internet—without attributing these claims to reliable secondary sources. If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use.

In my opinion, this article as it stands is a dictionary reference. (Perhaps you could add it to the Wikionary?)

Secondly, running the term through search engines only reveals websites suck as urban dictionary that are completely unreliable. The second citation on the page is more of a reliable source, but is still not a peer-reviewed or educational book.

From the page: "PoMoSexuals is the literary amusement park we’ve all been hoping exists someplace. Carol Queen and Lawrence Schimel have found Oz." —Kate Bornstein

Note the words "literary amusement park."

At any rate, I encourage someone to put this term on wiktionary, and in time, if the word becomes more of an accepted word, then I encourage this page being up. However, as it stands now, it is not appropriate for this article to be on wikipedia, and I nominate it for deletion.

Laytonsmith14 (talk) 09:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

'Sexual orientation - or complete rejection thereof'
Hi.

As far as I understand it, Pomosexuals didn't completely reject sexual orientation as a concept. It discussed the interplay between orientation and identity, both sexual and gender, and it sought to demonstrate the complexity of real life lived beyond binary polarity. There was a range of experience and position expressed in the book. I'm not sure that, for example, its second essay - Like a virgin, by John Wier - would agree to reject sexual orientation.

I'm happy to flesh out this article, but if complete rejection of sexual orientation is everyone else's understanding of what this book posits, I'm confused. Can we discuss this a bit before I go amending stuff?

Also - it maybe should be mentioned that pomosexuality as a concept probably has its origins in a Butlerian lit-crit approach. Riki Anne Wilchins has a | great history of queer theory that talks about how Butler's pomo decategorisations were the origin of pomosexuality in print - | Marco Vassi and Patrick Califia are probably Butler's heirs in this. What I think Pomosexuals did that hadn't been done before was to argue that people of many orientations and identities, but principally queer-identified people, had been living those decategories for some time now. It borrowed heavily from trans theory to do so, too.

White hotel 12:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm going to make a wild assumption and propose that you are probably better versed than anyone else toying with this subject. I'm sure anything you add would be a benefit to the article—however—regardless of what the book ultimately suggests, the meaning of a label that defines you as undefinable is pretty clearly satirical, IMO, and as such is ultimately a rejection of the application of labels to individuals. this article is about the term, not the book. --popefauvexxiii 10:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization
The capitalization is wrong. It should follow standard capitalization rules. This version should be the redirect to the standard capitalization page of pomosexual. This current capitalization is a creature of one authors book title. Its subsequent usage and its previous usage was with standard capitalization. filchyboy

Metrosexual
05/11/05: Why is Metrosexuality a related link? I think most pomo-heads would find Metrosexuality a rather offensive, banal lifestyle choice.. -- Harmonica


 * I'm not the one that added the link, but I'd assume they're related because they're both fairly recent terms to describe sexual/gender difference. Regardless, as far as inclusion in an article or not, it doesn't matter who finds what banal or offensive.  -Seth Mahoney 21:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * i added it because it is not only a recent, contemporary sociosexual development, but i believe it to be a closely related (if, in some ways antithetical) study of the blurring of traditional sexual roles and perceptions--and the way these emerging attitudes are disseminated memetically through language -popefauvexxiii 03:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

A little colonic hydrotherapy for our pomosexual article
with all due respect and assumption of good faith to the anonymous editor, this clumsily inserted chunk of text sounds much more like an entry in a high school english journal than an encyclopedia article. it needs a little threshing out to say the least. i removed it and placed it here for that purpose. popefauvexxiii 09:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The traditional assumption of a heterosexual male is a genetic male who is attracted to a genetic feminine female. A heterosexual female would be a genetic female who is attracted to a genetic masculine male. This largely ignores the ability of the individual to place her or his affinities in terms of personal preferences and attractions. For example, should one be considered heterosexual, who is attracted to the opposite sex (male, female), but not the opposite gender (feminine, masculine)? Would a homosexual person who has opted for gender reassignment surgery be considered a heterosexual person if she or he continues to live life with his or her partner from before the surgery? What would the sexuality of the partner be considered. Rather than viewing sexuality as a rigid, fixed attribute of a person, sexuality can be different things for different people.

The Pomosexual movement is based around getting people to think about sexuality in terms that they may have previously ignored. What exactly is the meaning of homosexual, bisexual, and heterosexual? Traditionally, the terms are based solely on biological factors (i.e., sex), and the sociological factors (gender) are largely ignored.

anthrosexual
When i google "anthrosexual" i find a mix of the definition of pomosexual and pansexual, being attracted to "human". What should the proper action be...--Cooljuno411 (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

oxymoron
"the term itself is oxymoronic since it is descriptive of persons who do not identify with any essentially-defined sexual label, and is used in reference to oneself as a protest against such labels."

I think this is an unfair statement that is overgeneralizing both the nature of sexual labels and pomosexual(ness). Pomosexuals are against labeled sexual orientations, but is not a sexual orientation in itself. 67.162.10.70 (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

removed "Criticisms" section
I removed the criticism section, that is very inappropriate to have on a sexual orientation related article. Does heterosexuality or homosexuality have a "criticism" section?, no, they don't. It is vary inappropriate to degrade anyones sexual orientation or agenda, and this article does not condone an exception. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The criticism is sourced and written in non-inflammatory language. There is no reason why the other articles you mentioned (or any Wikipedia article) couldn't have a well-sourced, factually-written criticism section. Wikipedia is not censored.Queerudite (talk) 00:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Queerudite. According to the first two lines of the article, pomosexual(ity?) is not a sexual orientation. Therefore, criticism of it is obviously not criticism of anyone's sexual orientation. – Steel 00:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you not see the related portion in my statement, try reading it again, it's in the first line.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 00:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I did see that. But there were two further sentences which clarified what you really meant. – Steel 11:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * sexual orientation OR agenda....--Cooljuno411 (talk) 13:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Very horrible justification, i am taking it back down, i can reference 100s of sites critiquing heterosexuality, homosexuality. etc. so just because it is referenced doesn't mean it is neutral. And btw, wikipedia is a place of neutrality site btw, if you didn't know.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 00:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. I haven't looked at the content n question but ... in theory no article should have a criticism section as that suggests it inherently POV. Instead that content should be woven in wherever appropriate to provide NPOV throughout the article. --  Banj e  b oi    10:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Metacomment. A criticism section in a Wikipedia article, if the ideal of WP is being maintained, is not itself criticising the subject matter of the article, but is presenting the fact that others have criticised it and on what basis.  As such, a Criticism section is often vital in maintaining overall NPOV, else the article will present only one side of the story. --7Kim (talk) 10:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Pomosexual, or undefined sexual orientation
(See ) For a source to be adequate I think it needs to either (a) state that "undefined sexual orientation" = pomosexual, or (b) provide a definition of "undefined sexual orientation" which is clearly the same definition as the article gives to pomosexual. What Cooljuno appears to have done is google the term and throw in a handful of the top hits as references regardless of their quality or relevance. It is clear that none of them use the phrase to mean pomosexual as anyone who reads their content will notice. – Steel 11:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well one, if you note, 3 of the 4 have to do with canadian politics... and if you have taken algebra before you would know that if a=b, and b=c, then a must equal c. aswell your "It is clear that none of them use the phrase to mean pomosexual as anyone who reads their content will notice" is very ambiguous because i thought a pomosexual had no defined sexual orientation.....--Cooljuno411 (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ugh. I was hoping you would present something resembling a coherent argument. Why did I even bother. – Steel 17:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)