User talk:Crossroads/2019, 2nd quarter

Regarding “expected” in Richlin
Okay, I’ve now bothered pulling Amy Richlin’s The Garden of Priapus off my shelf and having a look at page 225, in reference to your recent edits at Sexuality in Ancient Rome and Homosexuality in ancient Rome. I don’t think your reading is particularly apt. That is, I don’t believe we can legitimately conclude that the “expected” from our articles is being extracted directly from Richlin’s text, let alone from the context of her usage. I deem it substantially more likely that “expected” is being used to interpret what is otherwise said on that page—as on the next page as well, for that matter. I also deem that a perfectly reasonable and even obvious interpretation. I see no need for alteration of any kind. Antinoos69 (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe odd to put a reply to this nearly 3 months later, but worth explaining to future readers. This was in response to my removing the words "expected and" from the sentence It was expected and socially acceptable for a freeborn Roman man to want sex with both female and male partners, as long as he took the penetrative role. I still maintain that the source did not use "expected" in the sense that sentence meant, but it does seem that the following page makes essentially the same point. I have left it be for now. Nonetheless, I consider this a highly implausible claim on Richlin's part, one no doubt influenced by outdated ideas of social constructionism, and I strongly suspect that at least some other historians disagree that this was expected. If anyone has any sources to share in this regard, please let me know. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * However “implausible” it may seem to you, it is a banal assertion of current scholarship. You may begin with the standard reference, Craig Williams’ Roman Homosexuality. Antinoos69 (talk) 16:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Might be interested in weighing in on the Sexual fluidity article
Hi, Crossroads1. You definitely don't strike me as exactly new or even relatively new to editing. By this, I mean that I sense that you edited Wikipedia before getting your Crossroads1 account. But given your work at the Human male sexuality article and interest in sexual topics, I'm wondering if you are interested in weighing in on the latest discussion at Talk:Sexual fluidity. The article does need a lot of work; it was significantly built by WP:Student editing. And I never got around to fixing it up the way it should be fixed up. I also know that my lead edits weren't perfect there. If you join the discussion and want to note there that I invited you to join, then do. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing it out. I have commented over there. Thanks for trying to improve that page. I had done very little editing prior to this account actually, but I did lurk for a while. So far I find that student edited material pushes hard for weird POVs, probably because they think they are writing a paper. Eventually I think the term 'essentialism' should be removed from the sexual fluidity page; it is not used in science but originates in decades old debates in the humanities of essentialism vs. social constructionism. Social constructionism is an extreme nurture only position in the nature vs. nurture debate; I suspect "essentialism" was made up by them as a strawman/insult. Pretty much all scientists are interested in how nature and nurture interact; as the Bailey paper and other recent sources show, nurture's influence on sexual orientation is minimal. Crossroads1 (talk) 03:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the editing prior to this account was as an IP. It was typo fixes and really minor uncontroversial stuff. I have been a long time reader of Wikipedia in addition. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Email?
Crossroads1, do you mind enabling email so that I can talk to you about some things privately? It's all in relation to Wikipedia, but it's best discussed via email. If you'd rather not, that's fine. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Flyer22 Reborn - Okay, it should be enabled now. Crossroads1 (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)