Talk:Homosexual sexual practices

new name

This article needs a new title. I will be moving it to "Gay sex" by this time tomorrow if there are no objections. The article is about nothing except sexual practices, so it should be given an article title that represents what it is about. "Behavior" is a word so broad that it could potentially include the habit of taking the bus to work, brushing one's teeth, reading the novels of Proust, etc., none of which are under the domain of this article. In addition, the word "homosexual" is considered quite clinical and old-fashioned, and "gay" is the accepted and usual term these days. Moreover, there is something vaguely homophobic about an article called "Homosexual behavior," as if there is any "behavior" exclusive to gay people. For those reasons, I plan on making the change, but I wanted to announce it here first in case someone had objections or suggestions. Moncrief 05:18, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea. so far as i know, homosexual!==gay. "gay sex" sounds like sexual activity between/among male homosexuals exclusively. and, for me, "gay sex" implies the people who do that are gay. i think homosexual behavior is broader than "gay sex". well, that's my POV as a Chinese speaker. for reference only for English speakers. --Yacht 05:31, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Yacht. This article discusses sexual activity between members of the same gender, who need not necessarily be gay. Marnanel 05:49, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I see your points. What is more important to me is that the broad and not very helpful word "behavior" be replaced by the specific word "sex." I do understand that "Gay" may be too specific. What about Same-sex sexual practices then? That's really exactly what this article is about. Moncrief 05:51, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me! Marnanel 06:03, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Lesbian sex, gay sex, and this page should all be redirects. Meelar 06:04, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean? Redirects to the new title? Sounds good. "Gay sex" now merely redirects to "Homosexual behavior." I'll make sure all three redirect to the newly-titled article when it's created. Moncrief 06:08, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

Same-sex sexual practices? If homosexual behavior is about sex only (not include kissing etc), i am okay with that. i guess homosexual behavior is a specialized term for sexology, not sure... --Yacht 09:38, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

Homosexual "behavior" is not about sex only - that's why the title of the current article doesn't match the contents therein. Behavior is a very broad English word that can mean anything from one's daily habits to the way he or she interacts with the world. This article is about sex specifically. I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean in your comment. Moncrief 09:41, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

well, I meant that what is sexual practice can be very different from countries to countries. in western countries, maybe making love in bed is called "sexual practice", but in other countries, even "holding hands" or "kissing" can be considered "sexual practice". so i think "behavior" is good for the title because it's more vague. also, i am just thinking "homosexual behavior" is a formal expression among sexologists. i am not sure about that. when i was thinking about this article, the first word came into my mind was "homosexual behavior". anyway, if u guys feel "Same-sex sexual practices" is more appropriate, just go ahead. after all, i am not a native speaker. ;) --Yacht 10:06, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

I see your point about the definitions of sexual practices varying from country to country, but the word "behavior" standing alone has no sexual, or romantic, connotations so it really doesn't fit. In fact, the words "homosexual behavior" together have a vaguely homophobic connotation - as if gay people are alien beings with distinct behaviors (not sexual behavior - just the behavior of daily life). I'm glad you were able to understand the need to change the title. Moncrief 10:29, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

For the record, I did not move this page to its new title. I would have been quite happy to continue the discussion another day, or longer if concerns remained. It's sort of unfortunate someone decided to move the title without engaging in the discussion here. Moncrief 09:51, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

My apologies. For the record, I think that there are two articles needed - "homosexual behaviour" is not limited to same-sex sexual activity: there's a whole separate article needed on homosexual/queer culture, self-image and lifestyle. (For example, consider celibate homosexuals, of which there are many). It's just that this article was entirely about sex. I'll tweak things a bit, and see if I can improve the situation. -- The Anome 10:41, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you changed it back now!! We were all on board with the new name. Please don't forget to change it to Same-sex sexual practices tomorrow, if you don't do it today. I don't think anyone but an admin can do it now since the page was created. By the way, there is an article on Queer culture already. Moncrief 10:46, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

Same-sex seems to cover this well and isn't as likely to be perceived as offensive by those who self-identify as bisexual, ominsexual or something else other than gay. Jamesday 16:24, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

foster?

Do prep schools really foster same-sex sexual behaviour? I assumed this was some sort of urban legend. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 11:24, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure that they in of themselves foster same-sex sexual behavior per se, but I have heard enough anectdotal evidence to know that there exist incidences of situational sexual behavior in settings where there are only males and no females. If you want a scientific and precise answer regarding the extent to which it occurs, I can't provide that. Moncrief 19:52, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

I guess both this article and situational sexual behaviour will remain weaker than they ideally would be until we can dig out some data on that, but I agree it won't be easy. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 20:00, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

remove

I am not sure y this is removed: "For men, if anal sex is involved, it may cause prostate orgasm, which is uncommon in hetreosexual behavior." --Yacht 02:37, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure either, but why are you using the letter "y" to mean "why"? That is really distracting. Moncrief 02:40, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

sorry. that's the way i chat on MSN. (same pronunciation) :) --Yacht 05:20, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

VfD

I've listed this article as a candidate for deletion. It seems to me that there's really nowhere this page can go except to be a list of sexual practices, and such a list already exists at list of sexology topics. After all, we all pretty much do the same things: oral, genital, anal sex, masturbation/mutual masturbation, kissing, and variations on the above. Exploding Boy 12:26, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

You appear to be forgetting such things as the differences in frequency and legality of the various activity types when practiced in the different contexts. It seems quite unlikely that PIV sex is as common in same-sex relationships and rather likely that dildo in harness sex is more common in female-female situations than female-male or male-male, though it and variations are present in both. There's ample material for an article on each which covers such differences. Jamesday 16:22, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No offense, Jameday, but you're still not addressing the concern that this page can only consist of a list. Different-sex sexual practices contains discussions of courting/dating, laws and their inhibition or encouragement. This page had attempted to discuss MSM and down low, and could easily be expanded to courting, laws, etc.Hyacinth 16:30, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you often Hyancinth, but in this case I think you and Jamesday are both wrong. With the exception of penile-vaginal intercourse, there is nothing that same-sex couples (can) do that opposite-sex couples (can't) don't do (assuming of course that you wouldn't want to include entries on mutual fellatio and cunnilingus which would be totally unnecessary in my view as they'd be adequately covered by oral-genital intercourse or oral sex). Discussions of frequency and legality are easily covered in the specific articles (eg oral sex, anal sex, masturbation, etc).

Other issues specific to same-sex sex are already covered in the many articles on homosexuality, MSM, heterosexuality, lesbianism, etc. It's arguable that courting is about romantic, rather than sexual, love anyway, making it inappropriate for a sexology article. Finally, all these topics are covered in List of sexology topics, which is essentially the full version of what's going on here: a list. Links on that page go to articles covering all of the above sexual practices. Making them "same-sex" or "opposite-sex" specific is, in my view, as redundant as saying "male nurse" or "lesbian lover." After all, what's next? Group sex sexual practices? Transsexual sexual practices? And let's not forget we've got an article on Children's sexuality on the wiki too; do we need Children's sexual practices too?

As I've written before, and not to ruin the magic for anyone, sex comes down to a few basic things: stimulation of the genitals, oral and anal openings in various ways; insertion of genitals, other body parts or foreign objects into the genitals, oral and anal openings; various types of kissing, rubbing and touching; masturbation and mutual masturbation; and a variety of sexualised practices including fetishes, BDSM, dressing up, roleplaying, and so on. At the most basic level we're all just people having sex; there's no appreciable difference in what we do. Exploding Boy 01:35, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

All good points. These would make great sections of a more general article, (at this point) I'm more than okay with that. However, was there pre-existing text about MSM? Down low? About the legal encouragement of straight sex? Discussing many rapper's obsession with butts? Discussing a connection between sexual practice and policy? I now say merge these pages into more general articles, but be aware that they may have created good content that otherwise would be missing.Hyacinth 16:33, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If you mean to merge all the useful info into one artilce, that's reasonable. But i guess as the article grows, we will finally split them into separated articles. I recommend to remain this article as a redirect. I am not quite sure about that, but i've heard that SSP is a specialized term in sexology. --Yacht 01:54, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

---

Although I am mainly focussing on a more accurate parallel page than this one, the term gender is more accurate within the context of this page than "Sex". Witness the issues surrounding the "same-gender" marriage case in Texas several years ago, where the state of Texas allowed two lesbian women to legally wed because Texas refuses to recognize legal "sex changes" (i.e. gender changes) from other states. So "sex" and "gender" are in fact to overlapping but separate issues. In other words, two people whose genetic "sex" were different had the same legal gender in states OTHER than Texas. The same couple could not legally wed in other states because they are in the eyes of other states two women (gender). Lestatdelc 22:12, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC) (forgot to add my name/timestamp)

---

"Same-sex sex" just sounds too sexy (!) so I moved gay sex to Homosexual practices. It could also go at Homosexual activity.

I guess people are quibbling about whether two guys getting it on are necessarily "homosexual" -- in the sense of having a homosexual identitiy or "identifying themselves as homosexual". It seems part of the mystique of homosexuality is a refusal to be pinned down on anything, including what to call it all.

I hope we can settle this in an amicable way. And if anyone wants to write about the various terms and/or euphemisms, and why various indidividuals or groups prefer them -- why, then that will make for a great article in and of itself. --Uncle Ed 20:37, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I guess people are flippant about whether two bisexual guys getting it on are automatically "homosexuals". Furthermore, I think we can do without the "mystique" snarkiness don't you think? Lestatdelc 22:22, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

See the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology.Hyacinth 23:04, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

pending edit war

This is the second time in less than several hours 80.255 has unilaterally reverted edits of "sex" to "gender" without discussion and in disregard to the stated rationale for the change to "gender" in the first place. I am not looking for an edit war, but this capricious reverting is counter-productive. As I outlined above when I reverted it back to "gender" I provided the rationale as to why. I would like to hear what the justification is and have it discussed here before I act in haste and revert back to my original edit on the matter. The reason for 80.255's edits in the summary are inadequate in my opinion as a reason to make the change yet again in spite of the rationale for the edit to gender I made initially. Lestatdelc 22:18, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

I don't agree with much which my fellow Wikipedians write about homosexuality, but I've always refused to have any sort of edit war over these articles. If we're ever to have a stable set of accurate and neutral articles, we'll have to cooperate.

I realize they are all sorts of reasons various people prefer the use of certain terms over others. Perhaps Lestat, Hyacinth and I can work something out. --Uncle Ed 00:37, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ed and Lestatdelc, see the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology.Hyacinth 23:04, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ed, more than willing to hash it out, and in fact have tried to do so, and I think that Hyacinth project page is a solid step along that direction. I have already started adding pros and cons as per Hyacinth's structure. Some of what I have been trying to stabilize is discussed on my talk page in an very decent exchange with P0M.

I'm confused. Wasn't this page called Same-sex sexual practices?? Wasn't it listed for deletion? People seem to be moving things around before there's any consensus and it's making things difficult to keep up with. Exploding Boy 02:31, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

Also, I would point out that many of the things being discussed here right now -- including sex vs gender -- have been bitterly debated in the past. Please see the archives of this and other talk pages for some of those arguments, justifications and compromises. Exploding Boy 02:33, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

From WP:VFD

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Same-sex sexual practices

---

This has been removed without debate again?! Marnanel 01:07, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the decision on Different-sex sexual practices was to merge. The decision on this page was to keep. I merged. I say this discussion should continue on Human sexual behavior.Hyacinth 01:17, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)