Talk:Sexual orientation

Proposed merge to this article

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Androphilia and gynephilia is basically a merge proposal, with this page identified as the potential target. Editors who are interested in this article might wish to express an opinion there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. There's too much information (30+ references) at Androphilia and gynephilia to paste it here. It's certainly related and was already linked in this article. I just just added an encapsulation here per Wikipedia:Summary style. Jokestress (talk) 00:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it would make far more sense to have the entire discussion over there, rather than scattered around on different pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Removed text

I removed this "Two researchers argued that, due to a lack of research on change over time (as of 1995), there is a limitation on current conceptualizations of sexual orientation. They did not abandon the concept of sexual orientation, but concluded that "given such significant measurement problems, one could conclude there is serious doubt whether sexual orientation is a valid concept at ,all".ref name="Def-Measure-SO" Gonsoriek, John. C.; Weinrich, J. D., Definition and Measurement of Sexual Orientation, in Suicide and Life Threatening Behavior, vol. 25, 1995, pp. 40–51, http://doi.apa.org/getuid.cfm?uid=1996-16078-001 (abstract http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiLanding&fuseaction=showUIDAbstract&uid=1996-16078-001, as accessed Mar. 17, 2010). ref " because it is a direct quote of a later statement. I put it here in case one of the "ref names" breaks. (note, markup removed)--Kipruss3 (talk) 18:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Recent BRD edits

For the user who used BRD to revert my (third) recent bold edit.

"BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense.

BRD is not an excuse for reverting any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing."

This would indicate we should leave it as it is for now, pending discussions.

Boynamedsue (talk) 12:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Each edit was nearly essentially the same. But nevermind, I've made some changes for accuracy to your edits rather than revert now. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 12:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent edit to biological causes of sexuality

Here are the quotes I'm basing my edits on, the first is from the American psychiatric association, which was already linked regarding the fact homosexuality as a pathology is now discredited:

"Currently there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality."

Now, it has been stated that information about the causes of homosexuality is not relevant as this page is about the causes of sexual orientation in general. I don't see how that view can be defended, given all science on this matter has been geared to detecting what causes homosexuality and bisexuality, as differing orientations from the already very well explained heterosexuality. It is also in a paragraph which specifically refers to the development of sexuality, how can that possibly be discussed without references to specific sexualities? (which were already there and sourced, specifically refering to homo- and hetero- sexuality)

The paragraph which refers to parental influence is again taken from the already existing refs:

ref 54. "Different aspects of sexual orientation may be influenced to a greater or lesser degree [p. 303:] by experiential factors such that sexual experimentation with same-gender partners may be more dependent on a conducive family environment than the development of a gay or lesbian identity."

ref 55. "Whereas there is no evidence from the present investigation to suggest that parents have a determining influence on the sexual orientation of their children, the findings do indicate that by creating a climate of acceptance or rejection of homosexuality within the family, parents may have some impact on their children's sexual experimentation as heterosexual, lesbian, or gay."

These clearly indicate a parental influence on sexual activity (in both cases) and sexuality itself (in the first quote).

Boynamedsue (talk) 18:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree to keeping it - but we should generalize it (as I did through some slight changes to the wording) as this article is about Sexual orientation in general. Also, heterosexuality isn't well explained too much more than the other sexual orientations when it comes to causes, and additionally don't forget asexuality (which is the often missed 4th orientation). Scientific research on the matter is mostly on what is the cause or controlling biological factor which decides sexual orientation - not specifically any orientation, because the controlling factor is almost certain to be that for all 4. The quote on sexual activity conforms with the other information provided in the section, but it is already rejected that sexual orientation can be affected by any experiences. But anyhow, the slight rewording I did mostly addresses these. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 07:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Zoosexuality

Why is there no mention of zoosexuality anywhere in the article? Considering that it is increasingly being recognized as a legitimate sexual orientation, and considering that it's a fairly large category, it should probably be at least mentioned somewhere in the article.Plateau99 (talk) 00:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, our article on sexual orientation says: Sexual orientation describes a pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to males, females, both, or neither. So zoosexuality wouldn't be a sexuality in that it describes the species of your partner, not the gender. Even a zoophiliac can be attracted to either male or female animals, and that'd be his sexuality.

The section on zoo sexuality in zoophilia is very poorly source and mentions only one researcher who uses the term-Hani Milteski. It has been also heavily edited by you, and I'm a bit worried about neutral point of view. It doesn't seem the term is as widespread as you claim it is. But for me, the primary reason not to include zoosexuality is that it doesn't describe gender, hence it's a philia (pedophilia isn't a sexuality for the same reason, being a paedophile doesn't say anything about your gender preferences).

I will look over the Zoophilia article more closely later. Some of the material (yours or otherwise) is quite on shaky grounds. One thing I'd like to point out is that a reliable sources are needed. Blogs or debate.org are not reliable sources, as they have user-generated content. I noticed you're new here, so let me be the one to welcome you to Wikipedia. I've left some cookies on your talk page. Puchiko (Talk-email) 07:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Puchiko, paraphilias can also be a sexual orientations (I.E. Homosexuality is a paraphilia and a sexual orientation at the same time). Heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality are actually sexual preferences inside the sexual orientation for Homo Sapiens species. (Though I have no idea why sexologists call that a sexual orientation instead of sexual preference) Zoosexuals also have a sexual orientation for one or many species (including Homo Sapiens), they also have sexual preference (I.E. homosexuality, bisexuality or heterosexuality among others). There is also a sexual orientations for objects, they also have sexual preferences inside their sexual orientation (I.E. preference for cars or radios, etc). I agree that in the article, Object Sexuality and Zoosexuality should be mentioned, along with other sexual orientations, at least be mentioned as "possible sexual orientation" that are under research.Alusky (talk) 10:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)