Talk:Heterosexuality/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removed:

[...] - persons disinclined to sexual behavior with members of the opposite sex have been at a considerable reproductive disadvantage.

This is based on some unmentioned assumptions and also unnecessary to the article in general. --Robbe

I disagree on both counts but not strongly enough to fight about it. However, I am including the complete text here for context:
"Heterosexuality is romantic or sexual desire for, or sexual activities with, persons of the opposite sex. It is overwhelmingly the most common sexual preference or orientation.
This is not surprising when we consider that heterosexual behavior (coitus) is responsible for the reproduction of human beings - persons disinclined to sexual behavior with members of the opposite sex have been at a considerable reproductive disadvantage."


Surely there's *someone* more recent than Kinsey to refer to? --MichaelTinkler

Yes, surely, but I don't know them so I wrote about what I know. Kinsey should still be referenced as the researcher who first explored the subject, though. Probably any extended discussion of sexual orientation belongs there. --Dmerrill


"These studies have been discredited, because they relied on prison inmates, hardly a representative sample of the general population."

Ok. Let's see the ref. :-)


OK, trying to avoid an editing war here, but why do you insist on changing the citation style when it is taken directly from wikipedia: cite your sources? Also, heterosexualism, despite the link (which opens to the page homosexuality) is not a word. Try looking it up. Exploding Boy 11:17, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

I seen it (ie., wiki:CYS; that's a guide ... not rules in granite) ... the hyperlink is still there ... but it's inline ... instead of "text : hyperlink" ... it's "hyperlinked text" ... the link is still there (and does the same thing without the clutter) ... as to the heterosexualism, it is linked by "List of Isms". Some editor(s) thought to list it and redirect it here (not homosexuality) ... so, it probably is used by ppl (I didn't know about ... and it's not probably not in the OED (oxford english dictionary))... JDR

ETA: I have found the word heterosexualism in one place. It's so rare I think it needs a note to that effect.

I rv'ed the qualifiaction ... it's not needed. JDR

Heterossexualism???

Does this word exist? Looks like a disease! (and according to my gay brother, it is) I dont like it at all, cant we negotiate it? Muriel 12:06, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes it does exist ... I was browsin' and found the def:
heterosexualism: An ideology that holds that heterosexuality is the only viable and valid expression of human sexuality. (Politics and Sexual Definitions)
I'll modify it in the article to reflect this link... Sincerely, JDR [PS. Disease? YMMV on that =-]

I've been writing for the gay press for 25 years and I've never heard the word heterosexualism - as opposed to heterosexism, which has been around for a while. Adam 12:27, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've never heard it either, and it's a ridiculous word, but I have found at least one reference to it. I've redirected the "heterosexualism" page (which used to redirect to heterosexuality) to "heteronormativity." Exploding Boy 13:00, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
ridiculous? that is your POV ...
I corrected your redirect ... it belongs here [being closely tied to this article). Heteronormativity is different (made a contrast wlnk though). JDR

You "corrected" my redirect? May I ask why? According to the definitions given, heterosexualism basically IS heteronormativity. It's certainly not synonymous with heterosexuality. Exploding Boy 13:40, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

Yea ... that is one definition (1st one I found and cited because of that) ... but there are other (more genreral) ... you can find them through a search. It is similar but not "is". JDR 13:46, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Also, I just followed the link you provided; the definition there is not the same as that given on the page, and furthermore that webpage is highly suspect as a source. First, it's titled "#1 Blonde Jokes," second, the definitions it provides range from slightly off to wildly incorrect (eg: "bisexual: Possessing characteristics of both sexes " and "transsexuality: Sexual attraction directed toward playing or mimicking the role of a person of the opposite sex; erotic acts for the purpose of gaining sexual excitement or gratification while pretending to be a person of the opposite sex"). Exploding Boy 13:48, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

Either way, "heterosexualism" and "heterosexuality" are NOT the same; heterosexualism should not redirect to heterosexuality.Exploding Boy 13:49, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

Look Reddi, i dont understand your annoying opinion acronyms like YMMV and the likes, but i hpe that with your comment above you are not implying that i have some sort of prejudice. I said that it looks like a name of a disease and i dont like it. And i think it should not to this page, basing on the given definition. Muriel 10:10, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'd also one again like to register my objection to the word "heterosexualism," the link you provided for its definition (see my post above) which does not belong in a scholarly article, and the fact that "heterosexualism" redirects to "heterosexual" rather than "heteronormativity." Exploding Boy 10:57, Feb 11, 2004 (UTC)

Objections and disputes

So, this is becoming one of those articles... Well, here goes:

  • the word "heterosexualism" and its definition
  • the link provided for its definition does not belong in a scholarly article
  • "heterosexualism" should not redirect to "heterosexual"
  • the stated etymology of the term "straight" (""to go straight," or stop being gay")

Carry on

Exploding Boy 16:19, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

... becoming one of those articles? The following hopefully addresses your concerns ...

Sincerely, JDR 16:44, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The criticisms are not directed at you personally, so let's get that out of the way. I still disupute the definition of heterosexualism, but you've got rid of that other link and that's something.

ETA: by "one of those articles" I mean fiercly disputed. Exploding Boy 16:49, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

I object in the strongest terms to several of the definitions given in this article, to the way several sections are written, and to the sources provided. I dispute the accuracy and neutrality of this article as it stands, but am not going to start an editing war. I am also refraining from placing a {msg} on the page, for now, but I would like to discuss some of these issues. Reddi?. Exploding Boy 13:52, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)
"discuss some of these issues"? Ok ... lets discuss ... [though I may not be able to respond as quickly as you would like ... I'll make my best effort; hopefully other will too ...]
"several of the definitions"? Which ones? heterosexualism is not one, because that referenced ... (and I have modified it to encompass the various readings I've seen on it)
"way several sections are written"? Which ones?
"sources provided"? Which ones?
"dispute the accuracy"? It'd be nice if you exactly listed why ...
dispute the "neutrality"? It'd be nice if you exactly listed why ...
"placing a {msg}"? It's kinda hard to address a msg tag if you don't explicitly state why ... =-\ ... JDR
  1. I object to the definition of "heterosexualism." I have looked at your reference, and have done an extensive online search. Definitions vary, but most suggest that the meaning is closer to heteronormativity or "heterosexism" than "heterosexual." At the very least it's wrong because of the "ism" -- think of the difference between alcohol and alcholism.
  2. Anyway, the section that defines the word (and why does it require such a large section? If it needs that much explaining surely it should have its own page?) is unclear and confusingly written.
  3. The definition of "straight." "Straight necessarily means heterosexual; bisexuals and homosexuals are not straight, so "(or an individual that has sexual orientation to other individuals of the opposite sex)" is not strictly correct. A gay guy who has sex with women is not "straight."
  4. The word "straight": it is not limited to "drug addictions": "'are you high?' 'No, I'm straight.'" I also doubt the etymology given. You've copied parts of your source and left out others, distorting the meaning. Also, "straight" arose as a way of describing people who were conservative or boring. Its meaning expanded to its present usage.
  5. I object strongly to the section on "breeders." The way it is written is majorly non-NPOV, and again you've copied from your source (which again is highly questionable). Also, "commonly called a moo and a male breeder is commonly called a duh"? Where did that come from? That one source claims that's the case, but I've personally NEVER heard it. You've also added in a few things that weren't even in the source.
  6. Oh, and I also think there are far too many "see also" links, and some of them are getting a bit far removed from the topic.

I don't know your orientation obviously; it could be you're happily gay, but all your writing on gay-related topics -- and I've looked at most of it -- smacks of anti-gay prejudice.

Exploding Boy 14:27, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

  • definition of "heterosexualism"? Google defintes it here ... Definitions vary do vary ... from the ones that suggest that the meaning is closer to heteronormativity or "heterosexism" than "heterosexual" are, from what I can tell are heterophobic sites .... "wrong because of the "ism""? Umm no ... marxism and other ideologies have -ism suffix ... here's a def http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn?stage=1&word=ism
  • "section that defines the word"? Definition are needed to understand the context ... "require such a large section"? it's not that large ... "have its own page?" no ... not really ... "unclear and confusingly written"? IYO ...
  • "The definition of "straight." "Straight necessarily means heterosexual; bisexuals and homosexuals are not straight, so "(or an individual that has sexual orientation to other individuals of the opposite sex)" is not strictly correct"? it is generally correct ... and the article states " is used sometimes to denote a heterosexual person" ... don't mischaracterize what is written ...
  • "A gay guy who has sex with women is not "straight.""? That's not entirely correct because he would be bisexual ... not homosexual ...
    • Thats not exactly correct, because funny things can happen and it works both ways: a man that once in his life slept with another man is not automatically promoted to the gay/bissexual categories. Muriel
      • GENERALLY, if you sleep with only individuals of the opposite sex = heterosexual; if you sleep with only individuals of the same sex = Homosexual; if you sleep with individuals of both sexes = bisexual. (this is an external observation ... a person can orientate theirself whatever which way they wany though) JDR
        • Well thank you for your enlightening definitions! I was pointing out that in human life, sometimes reality defies definition. I know of at least one gay man that slept with women. And you dont need to SHOUT all over your comments. I dont need glasses, i can read perfectly well with small caps, have a nice day. Muriel
          • From the article: "The use of the term "straight" is used sometimes to denote a heterosexual person (or an individual that has sexual orientation to other individuals of the opposite sex)." Maybe it's just a case of unnecessary repetition (since the definition of "heterosexual" is given in article's first sentence). Either way it's redundant because "straight" in this context can only apply to a heterosexual.



  • "The word "straight": it is not limited to "drug addictions": "'are you high?' 'No, I'm straight.'" "? I think the article states that ...
  • "I also doubt the etymology given. You've copied parts of your source and left out others, distorting the meaning."? no I haven't ...
  • "Also, "straight" arose as a way of describing people who were conservative or boring. Its meaning expanded to its present usage."? I think the BDSM part says that ...
  • "object strongly to the section on "breeders." The way it is written is majorly non-NPOV, and again you've copied from your source (which again is highly questionable)."? What? I sourced it ... it's what it means .. and Dysprosia even copyedited it ... =-\ .... I think your POV is getting in the way ... I did not plagerize (it's paraphrase and the source is cited).
  • "Also, "commonly called a moo and a male breeder is commonly called a duh"? Where did that come from?" LOOK at the cited source!
  • "one source claims that's the case, but I've personally NEVER heard it."? The learning and knowledge that we have, is, at the most, but little compared with that of which we are ignorant. — Plato
  • "You've also added in a few things that weren't even in the source."? If you really read the source you would know that what you just said is incorrect ...
  • "Oh, and I also think there are far too many "see also" links, and some of them are getting a bit far removed from the topic"? YMMV on that ... they are related in one way or another (if you look @ them, they mostly all link here!)
  • "anti-gay prejudice"? DO NOT accuse me of being anti-gay ... that is a personal attack ... I have not called anyone "anti-straight", have I? No, I haven't ... so, ultimately, it seem that your POV and mischaracterization of my position (along with the mischaracterization of what is written) is becoming the problem here. Sincerely, JDR
The the redirect should point here.

Because you say so??

Then it's better that you don't

I don't know what it means because it is confusingly (and, I might add, ungrammatically) written.

See above

Right back at you.

Oh but you did exactly suggest that ... the source is widely recognized ... see wiki's and it's own evaluation. JDR 15:28, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I did not suggest that. Please re-read.

There is bias evident in the way you choose to write, yes. Whether it's because you actually have bias or because you're trying too hard to be unbiased I don't know. Either way, I see it.

I am now adding a dispute message to this article.

Exploding Boy 15:35, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

Because you just removed portions of my previous post (I believe to mischaracterize what I said), this discussion is over ... I have placed the appropriate tags on the article. Others will review it. Your POV and what your desired editing slant here is plain to see. Sincerely, JDR 15:51, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC) (PS., this isn't the 1st time you have made accusation @ me ... I'll look up that and post it here when I do find it. [PPS. See here for previous accusation Talk:Homophobia#RE: neologism])

what on earth does that have to do with this? Or with anything? Exploding Boy

Sorry, that was a mistake. I think we got into another edit conflict and I thought I had copied and pasted your comments twice. Please revert them. Apologies again. Exploding Boy 15:53, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

To avoid another disaster, I've copied the page I accidentally screwed up and am pasting it here. 

Right back at you.  Right back at you.
+ I'm not suggesting that you plaigiarized, but that your source is inaccurate and unreliable. I know where "moo" and "duh" came from, I question the source's (and by extension your) claim that these terms are "common." Had you ever heard them before reading that source? I certainly haven't.
Oh but you did exactly suggest that ... the source is widely recognized ... see wiki's and it's own evaluation. JDR 15:28, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)  ::: Oh but you did exactly suggest that ... the source is widely recognized ... see wiki's and it's own evaluation. JDR 15:28, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
+ I'm not accusing you of being anti-gay. I'm saying that your writing seems to show an anti-gay prejudice. I'm not picking on you or trying to start a flame war or anything like that. After all, I don't even know your orientation (nor do I need to). My point of view is irrelevant to the articles I to which I contribute, as is yours. That's not the issue. The issue is whether there is some bias evident, and I think there is.

- Exploding Boy 15:16, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

But you did ... implicitly ... and are doin it again. BUT as you said that is not the issue.
"some bias evident"? Mabey from your POV ...
Sincerely, JDR 15:28, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
+ Definitions vary, yes. The article does not reflect that. I've seen no evidence of heterophobia. I disagree with the given definition, I don't think the word even needs to be in this particular article, let alone have a large paragraph devoted to it, and I think the redirect should point elsehwere.
The the redirect should point here. JDR
+ Compare MARX to Marxism.
+ as for unclear and confusingly written: "It is an ideology that specifies that arousal from members of the opposite sex is the valid expression of human sexuality (and has the capablility of functioning adequately)." I would edit this sentence, but I don't know what it means.
Then it's better that you don't JDR
+ "it is generally correct ..." It is not. It directly contradicts a later section in the article which states "sexual activity with a person of the opposite sex, in and of itself, does not necessarily demonstrate heterosexual orientation."
See above JDR
by what I meant by this see above is "GENERALLY, if you sleep with only individuals of the opposite sex = heterosexual; if you sleep with only individuals of the same sex = Homosexual; if you sleep with individuals of both sexes = bisexual. (this is an external observation ... a person can orientate theirself whatever which way they wany though)" (which is above in the other part) JDR
+ <<"A gay guy who has sex with women is not "straight.""? That's not entirely correct because he would be bisexual ... not homosexual>> Again, read the article:."Not all people who are attracted or have sexual relationships with members of the opposite sex identify themselves as heterosexual: people who do not identify primarily as heterosexual sometimes engage in heterosexual behaviour."
Self-defined orientation is not the question ... see above ... JDR
Oh but you did exactly suggest that ... the source is widely recognized ... see wiki's and it's own evaluation.

I did not suggest that. Please re-read. I did not suggest that. Please re-read.

But you did ... implicitly ... and are doin it again. BUT as you said that is not the issue.

Sentences

Why prefer " this is primarily because that breeders have a chance of increasing the population (and homosexuals don't)." over "The term primarily is used because that most heterosexual couples can "breed" (which homosexuals cannot)"? (I should have written "The term primarily originates from the point that" instead of "The term primarily is used", however) Dysprosia 12:05, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No prefernce. I just got a conflict edit ... so I merge in my edits (over the "striaght" thing (see above)) and went back and remerged your edits. Hope that it didn't cause you much stress. And I did substitue the "The term primarily originates from the point that" (after your post here). Sincerely, JDR
Thanks, no problem :) Dysprosia 12:17, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Dispute, continued

C&Pd from above, where it was hard to see:

by what I meant by this see above is "GENERALLY, if you sleep with only individuals of the opposite sex = heterosexual; if you sleep with only individuals of the same sex = Homosexual; if you sleep with individuals of both sexes = bisexual. (this is an external observation ... a person can orientate theirself whatever which way they wany though)" (which is above in the other part) JDR

The sentence in question is, I believe, the following:
      The use of the term "straight" is used sometimes to denote a    
      heterosexual person (or an individual that has sexual orientation to 
      other individuals of the opposite sex).
This has been changed since we started discussing it. Still, it's redundant. If a person's orientation is only to the opposite sex, then they're heterosexual, thus, straight. Heterosexual has already been defined in this article, so it's unnecessary to define it again. However, what's written in the brackets here is potentially misleading and confusingly written: bisexuals are also oriented towards people of the opposite sex, but clearly they're not straight. Anyway, the entire sentence is off because "straight" is mostly, not sometimes used to refer to heterosexuals these days. Anyway, this sentence is hardly the most important thing under dispute here. Exploding Boy 08:23, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)
The use of the term "straight" is used mostly to denote a heterosexual person (or an individual that has sexual orientation Primarily to other individuals of the opposite sex).
It is necessary and clariffications is needed.
JDR (plaese stop removing information from the article ... see Wikipedia:Verifiability; inparticular don't be too keen to remove unverified information at the cost of completeness.)

1. It is unnecessary and clarification is not needed. The very first sentence in the article states that "Heterosexuality is a sexual orientation characterized by romantic or sexual desire for, or sexual attraction toward, members of the opposite gender as distinguished from bisexuality and homosexuality." There is no need to restate.

2. Please stop cluttering the article with non-NPOV information from questionable sources. Just because you read it on some website doesn't make it true, and in this case it's absolutely untrue. There's a difference between unverifiability and incorrectness. Your definition of breeder is simply wrong. The way that entire section is written is non-NPOV. Exploding Boy 09:31, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)

[1] It is necessary and needed for clarification as reguard to the phrase "striaght". Add "mostly" and "primarily" if you want though.
[2] The article has NPOV information from sources (seen as reliable by many). The definition of breeder is simply right. To your POV, it's non-NPOV and wrong. Others are editing it and not changing the basic form [ie., not removing large tracts of information]. I'll ask again, please stop removing information from the article. JDR 09:42, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And I'll remind you that your edits on this and several other pages have been questioned by several users. Seems you're something of a problem user, actually. Some Wikipedians feel you make a habit of causing problems on pages related to sexuality, and in particular to homosexuality, for example by causing a flurry of controversy and then failing to return to answer the issues raised (see below). Either way it's clear your knowledge on the subject is largely derived from quick internet searches and a reliance on questionable sources. I removed only the information that was (a) redundant, (b) unnecessary, and (c) incorrect.

I might also add that you've ignored repeated requests to clarify sections that are in dispute, making it impossible to edit them. Exploding Boy 09:48, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)

Questioned by several users? I know you have been discussing me with others (instead of bring the concerns to me ... that's not very constructive), inparticular, Next paige. But that isn't the point ... nor is my contributions.
[Snip personal attack (problem user)] Then bring it up to the appropriate ppl. I have (and will continue to) contribute constructively (see the various other topics I have contributed to and I can give you pointers to several articles if you want (the compass and Muhammad's timeline are 2 examples right off the top o' my head; and I just looked @ the timeline)).
Some Wikipedians may feel I cause "problems" on pages (Not just in sexual topics). This is primarily for accuracy and completness, which they either not want nor desire. As to the article related to sexuality, and in particular to homosexuality, it isn't to cause a "controversy" ... it was to make the articles accurate and complete. As to failing to return to answer the issues raised, some of the edits were removed (partially without explination) ... and re-edited from a pro-homosexual POV. So I noted it in my user page's notes and gave up (I'm not going to argue and fight ... for in the "long now" the truth will be edited in).
[Snip personal attack (knowledge)] Over the "internet searches", See CITE YOUR SOURCES! Wikipedia:Cite your sources ...
You removed information (also, primarily from a non-NPOV stance) ... what part of don't remove "information at the cost of completeness" do you not understand?
As to "ignored repeated requests to clarify sections that are in dispute"? What exacty do you mean? If it is on another article see above (or I have been doing otehr constructive edits; I don't like rv-wars). Here in this article, I have either edited them or explained why they are the way they are ...
I believe that you are making this article inaccurate and POV. I will try to find an appropriate place to post your actions. JDR 10:22, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I refuse to become embroiled in a revert war. Please stop arbitrarily taking it upon yourself to decide what is right on a topic in which you're clearly not well versed. Exploding Boy 09:59, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)
arbitrarily? Some don't see it that way I would presume (inparticular ones that have edited this page and NOT removed large tracts of info). [snip another personal attack]. JDR 10:22, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

re Neutrality and Facutal accuracy

This page has been in dispute limbo since February and it doesn't seem to have been worked on much since then. It needs some major work. I think someone should just go ahead and do it; at least it'll get a debate going again. Exploding Boy 00:24, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

Removed from article

I removed this sentece as it's both non-NPOV and untrue. Homosexuals and bisexuals also reproduce, sexually and otherwise. Exploding Boy 02:39, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

well your johnny on the spot now arn't you. Since your here, I'd be interested in any comments, as I am largely done with the carving, and am now moving on to reflection and additions. The article clearly has an excessive emphasis on homsexuality, but I don't see a need to remove NPOV, accurate material, but rather a need to exceed it with material entirely focused on heterosexuality. A focus on biology and the mechanism of reproduction would seem most benificial. Comments, complaints, musings or sass, if you will. Sam Spade 03:15, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Not sure what your problem is Sam, but there are many bisexuals who have reproduced quite well. For example, my bisexual partner and this bisexual male have reproduced 4 times and they are all doing well and in fact at the top of their respective classes in school thank you very much. Lestatdelc 21:38, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

After much thought I have decided to remove the following paragraph also.

  • "Heterosexualism is a system in which sexual attraction is to (or sexual relations with) persons of the opposite sex (ed. though other may not adhere to this system and this does not necessarily exclude them). [1] It is an ideology that specifies that arousal from members of the opposite sex is the valid expression of human sexuality (and has the capablility of functioning adequately). (Compare with Heteronormativity.)"

This paragraph was a major source of the factual accuracy disputes on this page, and I still believe that (a) it's not really correct and (b) it doesn't really belong there at all except perhaps as a link. In addition, the paragraph is so confusingly written as to be extremely difficult to understand. Thoughts? Exploding Boy 04:29, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

reverted. JDR

Reddi, I have reverted your edit. Please see your watchlist for rationale, and discuss the issues here on the talk page. Exploding Boy 04:33, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

Dispute, continued again

    • "Heterosexualism is a system in which sexual attraction is to (or sexual relations with) persons of the opposite sex (ed. though other may not adhere to this system and this does not necessarily exclude them). [1] It is an ideology that specifies that arousal from members of the opposite sex is the valid expression of human sexuality (and has the capablility of functioning adequately). (Compare with Heteronormativity.)"

Repeated unexplained reverts and refusal to discuss the dispute have resulted in the page being protected. The above paragraph was the major source of this dispute, which has been ongoing since February. Discussion below please, particularly from User Reddi (JDR). Exploding Boy 04:49, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

The paragraph needs a rewrite due to being difficult to understand, but I am ok w allowing it after that. I deleted it because I disliked the mention of Heteronormativity, which I find offensive and unnecessary, but which is validated by the use in contrast to Heterosexualism, something I was completely unaware of prior to some point in the future when I understand what it means ;). I see this as a point on which we an easilly compromise, simply writing the paragraph in a way in which we all find coherent and gramatical sounds good for a start. How about the rest of my rewrite? Sam Spade 05:05, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Hi, Sam. I made a few changes prior to the lock, what do you think?
As for the above paragraph, this was the subject of an ongoing disupte with Reddi (JDR) going back to February. Every time I made any changes he would revert them, so rather than becoming embroiled in an edit war I decided to take a break from the article (as, apparently, did he). I saw the "totally disputed" message on my watchlist so I came back and posted "re Neutrality and Facutal accuracy" above, which is when you did your rewrite.
The paraphraph in question is poory written and difficult to understand. I also think its frankly unnecessary and a link would suffice. Not only that, but I dispute the actual definition and the fact that it redirects to this page instead of to Heteronormativity where I think it belongs.
As for the rest of the article, I think it still needs a lot of work. There's still a lot about homosexuality that frankly I think is extraneous, but it looks better than it did.
Exploding Boy 05:17, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

cool, any progress is good progress. IMO if you and reddi simply agree not to revert one another, but rather to make subtle changes to test the NPOV, and discuss stuff in talk, we'll have no problems. Is anybody qualified to focus on biology, BTW? The article is sorely lacking an in depth discussion of the underlying biological science. Sam Spade 05:29, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Is there not already a thread on homosexuality and biology? Exploding Boy 06:13, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about homosexuaity, why does that keep coming up? I was refering to the biology of reproduction, coitus, and the other joyful pats of making a human. Buggery was the farthest thing from my mind ;) Sam Spade 06:20, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Woops, sorry. Was just working on the Homosexuality page and got a bit confused. Carry on! Exploding Boy 06:21, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Heterosexuality/Archive_1&oldid=96182416"