Talk:Heterosexuality/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Causes

Why is this article missing causes? Pages such as, homosexuality and pedophilia include a "causes" section, why not this page? Should it have one? 2001:8003:38F1:DB00:50F2:DEE5:F505:2EBA (talk) 08:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The "Academic study" study section is the Causes section, in part. But research on sexual orientation is overwhelmingly about what causes homosexuality, and about other aspects concerning homosexuality. Keep in mind that homosexuality includes any same-sex sexual behavior and not just a homosexual sexual orientation. Because of reproduction, researchers don't see as much of a reason to focus on why people are heterosexual and why non-human animals engage in heterosexual activity. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the clear up. I was just always curious on why people don't study on causes on heterosexuality much and just thought the section was missing from the article. 2001:8003:38F1:DB00:50F2:DEE5:F505:2EBA (talk) 10:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The main ultimate "cause" (if you want to call it that) is evolutionary selection for perpetuation of the species... AnonMoos (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

The natural "cause" of heterosexuality is the continued survival of the species in question. Unless it reproduces asexually. -ThunderLight18 (talk) 07:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Straight

The disambiguation page,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight, says "Straight, slang for heterosexual." This article is itself a redirect from "straight man." Meanwhile there is no redirect from "straight woman" even though the term "Straight women" is used alongside "straight men" in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation. But beyond the redirect notice at the head of this Heterosexuality article, this article does not use the word "straight." That is in itself odd, I think. Then I notice that Wikipedia does offer up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer as well as both https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay . The discrepancy suggests to me that the relation of straight : heterosexuality is not congruent with that of queer : homosexuality or gay : homosexuality. Hence I begin to question whether "straight" and "heterosexual" are true synonyms; are they perhaps just related terms? Has an older synonymy deteriorated over time as knowledge about sexuality and sexual orientations has grown, and theories of them shifted? I may well be wrong about that; I'm just guessing. Still I believe that this article could be improved by including a discussion of recent (and not so recent) publications that explore the problematics of straightness in relation to heterosexuality. For example: Theorising Heterosexuality (1996), Border Patrols (1997), Straight with a Twist (1999), Thinking Straight (2004), Straight (2012), and Straights (2014). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.178.22 (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

My apologies, the article does use the word "straight" and discusses heteronormativity -- all to the good. But I still think it would be worthwhile to elucidate the concept of "straightness" here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.178.22 (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

If "straight" has some subtle philosophical implications, I doubt whether the great majority of people know about them, so they might not be suitable for inclusion on the article. However, in a science-fiction short story I once read (maybe by Larry Niven?), gay people are referred to as "bents" in future slang, and appears that this does have some minor use in the current day (see Bent (play) etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 07:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Sexual orientation change efforts

It seems odd to have two long paragraphs on conversion therapy. I applaud the motivation involved in showing the practice is no good, but it seems odd to discuss it so much in an article about heterosexuality. No heterosexuals are being pressured to undergo that. Shouldn't that material mostly be in sexual orientation or somewhere else? Perhaps it could be shortened? -Crossroads- (talk) 04:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The article is about heterosexuality, and people have not been actively trying to change heterosexuals into homosexuals. I would advocate for it to be removed, but it will most likely just be shortened. —TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 06:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Necessary for reproduction in lead

Regarding this, it seems weird to me to mention animal behavior in the lead and not mention heterosexual behavior's role in sexual reproduction. That doesn't need a cite per WP:BLUE. That is the reason all mammals and nearly all animals engage in the behavior and why it evolved. Two of us seem to feel it should be there. I don't get the opposition. Edited to add: I'm not opposed to cutting the reference to animals in the lead either. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with pretty much all of what you said, except I think that the reference to animals should remain in the lead. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Prevalence

Hey, Flyer, regarding this, you should know that on my talk page TrynaMakeADollar suggested adding this statement, and changing the lead version, and I stated, both of these ideas sound reasonable to me. I suggest implementing them. I originally didn't put "vast majority" so as not to make the statement too strong, in case there was an objection to having it at all. But since others support it now, we may as well try to make it fit the source more. I am not aware of any similar MEDRS sources that contradict it. I didn't think you would necessarily object.

But at any rate, the source does say, There is no persuasive evidence that the rate of same-sex attraction has varied much across time or place...We expect that in all cultures the vast majority of individuals are sexually predisposed exclusively to the other sex (i.e., heterosexual) and that only a minority of individuals are sexually predisposed (whether exclusively or non-exclusively) to the same sex. All the MEDRS and scientific sources I have seen are in harmony with this. Like this genome study for instance, which for its prevalence figure had cited several sources including Bailey et al. (unfortunately it is paywalled now). There are others too. Like I said, I don't know of any MEDRS or scientific sources that contradict that in all cultures the vast majority are heterosexual. We could maybe leave off "exclusive", so as not to be too strong and given that a few researchers speculate on higher numbers for low levels of same sex desire, but even that is not necessary, IMO. My original statement was weaker, but that was because it was preferable to not having it and I didn't know if there would be opposition. But I now see no need to water down Bailey et al.'s findings. We may as well correct some people's mistaken ideas that 'everyone is at least a little bi', 'in Ancient Greece everyone was kind of gay', and so on. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I was just replying to this. This is what I was about to state on your talk page and then I decided to state it here:

TrynaMakeADollar, I reverted per what Crossroads1 and I discussed via email before. Like I noted here, "I did object in the past to stating in the lead that most people are heterosexual; this is due to what the literature states about self-reports, homosexuality (whether exclusive or bisexuality) being stigmatized, and women's sexuality being more fluid than men's/female sexual orientation being significantly less understood, but, considering some things in the 2016 Bailey review and talking the matter over with Crossroads1 via email, stating 'most' seems okay."

In that review, Bailey et al. also note the self-report aspect, the homosexual stigma aspect, and the "women's sexuality being more fluid than men's/female sexual orientation being significantly less understood" aspect. They state, "We expect that in all cultures the vast majority of individuals are sexually predisposed exclusively to the other sex (i.e., heterosexual) [...]." They do not state "The vast majority of individuals are heterosexual." or "The vast majority of individuals are exclusively heterosexual."

As for contradicting research, a number of reliable sources are clear that given that these surveys are based on self-reports, and that many people identify as heterosexual because of societal pressure to do so, we don't actually know the sexual orientation of these people. Yes, there is the penile plethysmograph, which has flaws but is considered by enough researchers to be a good indicator of male sexual orientation (with the assertion that male sexual arousal equals sexual orientation), and there are MRI scans, but researchers usually are not going by those things when reporting on what portions of the population are whatever sexual orientation; they are going by self-reports. This is why we state "identify as" rather than "are" in the Demographics of sexual orientation article. The Bailey et al. review examines more than self-reports, but the assertion that male sexual arousal equals sexual orientation is subject to debate, as in the case of the "Straight, Gay or Lying?" debate, which also centers on Bailey's research. And to repeat, Bailey et al. and most other researchers are clear that they significantly lack an understanding of female sexual orientation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

How do you feel about keeping it with in-text attribution? -Crossroads- (talk) 03:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I thought about that as well. I wouldn't want the in-text attribution quote in the lead, but I am okay with it being lower in the article, and sticking with "most" in the lead. Also, the prevalence of heterosexual behavior is different than the prevalence of how many people are actually heterosexual. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll keep the lead the same then, and re-add the lower piece, in a modified form. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. Good compromise. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Is there anyway that we could include the fact that Bailey et al stated in their literature review that "There is no persuasive evidence that the rate of same-sex attraction has varied much across time or place"? Obviously we would change it a little bit because this is the Heterosexuality article. We could state something along the lines of Bailey et al essentially said there is no persuasive evidence that the demographics of sexuality have varied much across time or place. Because that is essentially what they are saying. TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it would be redundant or off topic in this article. Bisexuality mentions this point already. Perhaps Homosexuality, Sexual orientation, and Demographics of sexual orientation could use it. But I wouldn't say "essentially" as that looks like reinterpretation/OR. -Crossroads- (talk) 22:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I worded it the wrong way. I think the following statement would be better: In their 2016 literature review, Bailey et al. stated that they "expect that in all cultures the vast majority of individuals are sexually predisposed exclusively to the other sex (i.e., heterosexual)" and that there is no persuasive evidence that the demographics of sexual orientation have varied much across time or place. TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2019

Correctly termed, heterosexuality would simply be described as sexuality. Without reproductive intent the sexual act becomes simply erotic. An erotic act can be configured numerously according to the persons or genders involved. Most commonly we hear "Hetero Erotic" and "Homo Erotic" although other combinations may be possible depending on how the involved parties wish to represent themselves.

Perhaps quite unusually, it has become commonplace to use the suffix "sexual" where in fact no sexual (meaning "reproductive") behaviour is involved. In the future it may be desirable to consider adopting the term "hetero/homoEROTIC-in-lieu-of-SEXUAL" to also establish at the outset particularly in relationships between sexually compatible partners that a man or woman's wish is to absolutely avoid a reproductive result (pregnancy), and equally desirable to make it illegal to entice a person of the opposite sex with such terms as "sexual" when only mutual mastubation (eroticism) is the objective. Usage of birth control methods, for example, remove the sexual intent and therefore render all "play" sexless.

Until the/a culture advances to adopt the proper usage, however, the following article sets out to describe the word "Heterosexual" as we accept it popularly today: Real Meanings (talk) 02:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a platform to campaign for new terminology or to introduce novel interpretations. Acroterion (talk) 03:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done @Real Meanings: Here we state what reliable sources say. Talk pages are not a forum to expound personal opinions. (Posted at same time as Acroterion's comment.) -Crossroads- (talk) 03:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)