Jump to content

Talk:Lesbian/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Some points to discuss

Hi, I'm translating some parts of the article into Spanish and have have been bothering Moni3 with couple of points. So she has kicked me out of her talk page and told me to come here to bother other people ;)

These are points that I didn't want to bother Moni3 with, but I think might be interesting:

Of course, this is just a proposal, and, as Moni3 says, the article is already long enough, so I don't know what might be worth including.

Cheers, --Ecelan (talk) 20:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI. I got hold of Norton and have been having a veritable information-adding orgy to this article. See the last 10 edits or so. Still not finished. --Moni3 (talk) 20:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Great!
Just one point. Norton talks about the "Sect of the Anandrynes" as if it had existed in reality. Most other information I have found says that it never existed, that it just was a construction from literature. Just in case you decide to add it to the article.
--Ecelan (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to learn more about these random groups or salons from the 18th and 19th centuries. I have access to Emma Donoghue's book, so I might check that out for more info. I'll take a look for one also about lesbian life in Berlin. --Moni3 (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The best LGBT history book about Europe in the 1920s and 30s is A history of homosexuality in Europe: Berlin, London, Paris, 1919-1939 by Florence Tamagne. I haven't read it myself, but I have consulted it a couple of times at GoogleBooks and read a review in Invertito. It has 476 pages, so it's not something to read in a weekend. --Ecelan (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Score! Even better. I have access to that in electronic format. No late fees. Yay. Will begin on that fairly soon, I hope. I am also trying to start a rewrite of Jane Addams soon (if only to stop the edit warring over the LGBT category) and the construction of a new article for a book by Harriet Beecher Stowe. I used to have a statement on my user page that I am ADD, but like Thomas Jefferson who read 4 books at a time--on a device he invented. Ha. Right. At any rate, I'll be reading the Tamagne book over the next few weeks. --Moni3 (talk) 16:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I envy you. I have to buy the books if I want to read them. Enjoy the reading! --Ecelan (talk) 09:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey, it seems I'm not the only one trying to translate this article :) I'm totally aware of the great work you've done Moni3, because I know what the french article looked like before the beginning of the translation : it was a list of women, half of them not lesbian, and a section about "sexuality" and wheter or not lesbians use their vaginas -_-". I have some books at home in French about lesbianism, I think I'll use them for the French article. If I find some useful stuff, should I add it here too ? Léna (talk) 13:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

<reset>To Lena: I'm not trying to own the article, but I am really cognizant of this article's length and how easy it would be to degrade the content. I would be interested in your sources and a discussion of what to add here on the talk page. The article simply cannot contain every reference to every lesbian, so I do not think we should try. I know this leans toward English-speaking sources and issues, and I consciously made that decision when I wrote it. The issues surrounding the term "lesbian" are different with every culture, as explained in the article. But if this one is neglecting a significant concept or idea, or is flat-out wrong about something, I would like to fix that as quickly as possible. So in short, I welcome discussion.

I think it's awesome, however, that the article is being translated. Just by clicking on each different language is instant insight into the way lesbians are perceived in each culture. --Moni3 (talk) 13:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments from 72.229.171.64

This article is very poorly written and has an agenda.

1. referring to Gladys as "stout" in the description is unnecessary re: the content of the article. Once again women are judged solely on their appearance even in a picture description (!?) It needs to be changed ASAP

2. Please stop trying to create a connection/similitude between the African American experience and homosexuality. it is offensive to the church based African American experience and begs the question if it was another minority group if you would take license with their history in such a manner. Would you do this with Muslims? I think not? It is a form of racism and irrelevant to the crux of your article. Those sentences need to be removed.

3. The lead picture of two women's behinds holding Motorcycle helmets is stereotypical and offensive. Finds some lesbians with faces.

This is a pis poor article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.171.64 (talk) 14:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Let's concentrate on improving the article and dial down the hyperbole a bit.
  • Gladys Bentley is described accurately per WP:ALT#Portraits. The description is for the visually impaired who are unable to see the image and use screen readers. Provide a different description if you think this one is lacking.
  • As the writer of this article, I am not trying to create connections between anything. The sources have done that. Please read the section above this one Talk:Lesbian#Identity_and_ethnicity where two sources have discussed the connection between homosexual identity and ethnicity.
  • I do not know if any single image could represent the variety of women who represent the word lesbian, and who have had the word directed at them. For this reason I chose the image of women from behind. One or two faces would come to represent those by which the concept of lesbian would be defined, as in: I don't look like that? What a relief. I'm not a lesbian. Or conversely: I don't look like that? I am offended and this image is a stereotype. And of course: I look like that! I'm not gay! I welcome discussion on how to achieve this: one image or several that represent what the concept means to the English speaking world. --Moni3 (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Another "I'm just a passer-by..."

The different ways lesbians have been portrayed in the media suggests that Western society at large has been simultaneously intrigued and threatened by women who challenge feminine gender roles, and fascinated and appalled with women who are romantically involved with other women. Women who adopt the lesbian identity, however, share experiences that form an outlook similar to ethnic identity: as homosexuals, they are unified by the discrimination and potential rejection they face from their families, friends, and others. As women, they face concerns separate from men. Lesbians may encounter distinct health concerns. Political conditions and social attitudes also continue to affect the formation of lesbian relationships and families.

This whole paragraph is loaded and biased. This is clearly an upper-middle class, radical, libral white(women) interpretation of the lesbian intersection with greater society where personal and social divestiture in one's culture is seen as a 'good;' but only from those members. I come from a lower-class background, but I am upwardly mobile and now can be considered a member of the middle/upper middle class culture of US society. I am also bi-sexual but to be fair also a male. My perspective is on this matter, I would conjecture, closer to the truth as I have seen how homosexuality interacts with every strata of the US. Only in Western society have we seen the greatest fulfillment of the 'gay dream' where LGBT members can live in peace and prosperity. In virtualy, every other society, in this case then non-Western, I and others would have been stoned, burned, mutilated, and, naturally, murdered for our sexuality. So my point here is if you are going to mention different cultures then make sure you mention everybody elses culture and how they are so...yes inferior to Western civilization on this matter. By pointing out Western civilization, although it needs to still improve on this matter, makes it seem like it is the problem when, as I have said, it is the only civilization that welcomes us.

Since this is about sexuality, I find it virtually impossible to conjoin ethnicity with lesbianism despite it being used as an analogy here which, in that case, I would call it for what it is- a false analogy. Even if homosexuality as a whole was used and not a particular flavor of lesbanism which I'm also betting could be further described as upper-middle class white lesbanism (i.e., black lesbians, asian lesbians would then be able to argue their 'own' ethnicity using this paragraph's logic), you could not seriously convert the idea of homosexuality into an ethnicity. That's why we have sub-cultures. The use of subculture here would be the appropriate term to use. All subcultures experience the same problems lesbians are claiming a specialness to. Sadly only the successful subcultures can then redact history and ensure an exceptionalism.

It is precisely this forcing of agenda that caused the mess in California. As an aggregate, the US LGBT community is the most prosperous, intelligent(arguably), and progressive community on the planet. This is quite unlike other ethnic groups: African Americans, Jews, Native Americans, etc. Those groups have had experiences that dwarf anything in the US LGBT community and all except for perhaps Jewish people(only in the US) have still yet to achieve the success of the LGTB community. Phail Saph (talk) 02:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

  • The lead is a summary of cited information in the article.
  • The article discusses in several places recurring cycles of acceptance and demonization of lesbian relationships or behavior, which has not been the same with male homosexuality through history. This article is centered on Western culture because most of the sources are written in English, and the concept of lesbian is a Western one, but the article also highlights instances of female homosexuality in other cultures.
  • The issues with ethnicity are cited. They are also discussed above/in the archives. The goal of Wikipedia is to summarize reputable sources. It sounds as if your argument is with the sources. One is a book and one is an article. I suggest reading those and digesting their points and returning to discuss if the passages that discuss lesbianism and ethnicity should be revised. I look forward to entertaining suggestions. --Moni3 (talk) 03:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the quick feedback...will do what you suggest(although I have an issue with the equivocation of it being an "English" article somehow 'magically' meaning that Westernism should be included)...take care. Phail Saph (talk) 08:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I am unaware of any magic involved. Rather, I think it quite logical that the concept of lesbian is a Western one, and the sources that discuss this concept concentrate on what documentation is available: diaries, letters, documents, etc. They are almost all in English.
Writing this article certainly pushed my boundaries. This topic is not like thermodynamics, where it is defined the same way throughout the world. You commented on the lead. If you have not read the entire article, please do so. --Moni3 (talk) 15:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Phail Saph is correct. The summary at the lead of this article is bias opinion loosely based on fact. Source Fact: "Lillian Faderman argues that Western society was threatened by women who rejected their feminine roles." Bias Summary: "The different ways lesbians have been portrayed in the media suggests Western society at large has been simultaneously intrigued and threatened by women who challenge feminine gender roles." The lead been challenged multiple times for a lack of citations and bias undertone. This could be avoided if facts were not summarized in a manner that changed the meaning. --Elephanthunter (talk) 08:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue of lesbian/homosexual identity being modeled on ethnic identity has been challenged in the lead, not the actual sources or the authors' statements about that, but the existence of it in the lead. As I have explained before, this is cited in the article twice from articles or books written by two authors. Per WP:LEAD, citations are not required for the lead. That has not been challenged to my knowledge.
The statement Western society at large has been simultaneously intrigued and threatened by women who challenge feminine gender roles, and fascinated and appalled with women who are romantically involved with other women is supported by the entire Media, Origin and transformation of the term, and Re-examining romantic friendships sections, all cited. The article makes clear points that lesbianism goes in and out of vogue, that women who adhere to more traditional female roles and participate in homosexual behavior are more likely to be accepted (and lesbianism tolerated/praised/accepted/used as fantasy) than those who reject feminine roles. The early medical descriptions of lesbianism and the declarations of insanity by sexologists was more based on some women dressing like men and reporting they did not want to get married, have children, and lead a traditional life than on their homosexual behavior.
I am willing to discuss suggestions to make the prose more accessible or comprehensive in the lead without adding too much detail. However, I am concerned that most of the commentary is about the lead and not the article. It is essential that to make suggestions about the lead the entire article needs to be read as the lead simply summarizes the main points of the article. In my experience on Wikipedia, people are willing to argue about a sentence or paragraph but are less likely to read the entire article, and much less likely to read the sources cited. So please make any suggestions you think are appropriate, based on all the material in the article. --Moni3 (talk) 13:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Please Avoid Sexist POV

From the article:

Women's sexuality throughout history has largely been constructed by men, who have limited acknowledgment of lesbianism either as a possibility or a valid expression of sexuality due to the absence of males in a lesbian relationship.

Statements like these sabotage the wealth of factual information in this article.

I've taken the liberty of removing the offending text and posting here for further explanation. The word "largely" is of questionable factual origins, and when grouped with "by men" forms a blatantly sexist accusation. Even with citations (which this statement had none) it is an unverifiable and controversial broad generalization which has already already been challenged.

--Elephanthunter (talk) 07:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted your removal of this statement. Women's sexuality defined by men is a recurring theme in this article and cited multiple times in multiple sections. You can find this in the Early Greece and Rome section, Middle East, Africa, Asia, Literature, Lesbian chic and popular culture, and Sexuality and lesbians. In fact, it's such a self-evident statement that your opposition to it is somewhat surprising. Clearly it is not self-evident to everyone. If it needs to be explained, I'm happy to do that, but it belongs in the lead. The lead is a summary of the most important parts of the article. The issue is cited to reliable sources. --Moni3 (talk) 13:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
The statement is an unverified generalization. It can not be assumed from the facts presented in the article and has been challenged on multiple occasions. While the article may reference to some men blotting out lesbianism for this reason, it also mentions women doing so, as well as men who do not. Please cite per WP:LEAD or remove the offending statement. In the mean time, since the neutrality of this article is currently being disputed, I am adding a POV tag linking to this discussion. --Elephanthunter (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
This is heavy-handed for a discussion. I do not understand your objections nor why a POV template was placed in the article.
Per Wikipedia:Lead_section#Citations, citations are not required. If a fact is likely to be challenged, it can be cited. In this case, the issues are mentioned so frequently in the article that it is unnecessary to cite them.
Women's sexuality throughout history has largely been constructed by men, who have limited acknowledgment of lesbianism either as a possibility or a valid expression of sexuality due to the absence of males in a lesbian relationship. can be cited to the following:
  • Origin and transformation of the term, paragraph beginning "The development of medical knowledge..." cited by Aldrich and Faderman (1981)
  • Female homosexuality without identity, paragraph beginning "Female sexuality is often not adequately represented..." cited by Rabinowitz
  • Ancient Greece and Rome, paragraph beginning "Women in Ancient Rome were similarly..." cited by Verstraete
  • Early Modern Europe, paragraph beginning "Ideas about women's sexuality..." cited by Jennings
  • Middle East, cited by Murray and Roscoe
  • Africa, particularly information about Lesotho, cited by Aldrich
  • Asia, specifically China and Korea, cited by Aldrich and Sullivan and Jackson
  • Mental health, beginning "Anxiety disorders and depression...", cited by Haines, Megan; et al
  • Media cited by Schlager, Foster, Faderman (1981), and Russo
  • Lesbian chic and popular culture, cited by Hamer and Streitmatter
  • Sexuality and lesbians, cited by McCormick
  • See also the Second wave feminism section, paragraph beginning "In 1980, poet and essayist Adrienne Rich..." for the alternate definition of lesbian defined at the height of the feminist movement: how women defined lesbianism in the absence of men.
Quite honestly I'm perplexed why anyone would be offended by this. Men have historically defined what sex means. They set rules about why sex is good, why it is bad, and under what circumstances. The typical example of this is Freud's declaration that the vaginal orgasm is the only orgasm possible. The view of what sex is in Lesotho is very similar to medieval views of sex: penetration was the focus because it affected a man's heirs--men had to be sure their children were sired by them. Without penile penetration, sex did not occur. Women are unable to penetrate other women, so the reaction to a lesbian encounter is either bemused tolerance, as in women play at this sex act pretending to do what real adults do, or being worried that women have these monstrously enlarged clitorises that are used to penetrate other women.
Clearly this issue is cited by multiple sources, so there is no way this is unverified. I don't understand why you are claiming it is debatable or why it needs to be cited in the lead. Which citation? Which source should be used?
Is this merely an issue of how it is worded? Would you like to suggest an alternative? Conversely, if it is your assertion that men have not constructed women's sexuality throughout history, please provide an authoritative source to state that. --Moni3 (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm with Moni3 here. The sentence is not only an evident truth, but confirmed by many sources cited on the article.
Elephanthunter, you say "It can not be assumed from the facts presented in the article and has been challenged on multiple occasions". Can you please cite the sources where the statment you deleted has been challenged?
--Ecelan (talk) 22:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'm going to remove the template for overwhelming evidence cited in the article, the lack of detail, source, or alternative provided by Elephanthunter, and his apparent contribution history of posting some every three months or so. I'm willing to discuss improving the article, but this just seems an arbitrary objection. --Moni3 (talk) 13:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

One's Sexuality May Be Constructed by Others

Once again, the claim in the lead that one can "construct" the sexuality of another has been challenged. The defence that that one may get this impression from the article does not prove the claim that "one can create the sexuality of another". The common strategy of challengers of adding [citation needed] tags doesn't work; we don't cite leads, the body of the article is the citation for the lead. But the statement is not proven or justified by the content of the article because no one in the article makes that claim and it's only obvious to the reader if she comes from a personal point of view. I will remove the first sentence from the third paragraph of this near-perfect article so that it begins with "Early sexologists..." I do so on the grounds that it is a fringe point of view sythesized by the author's possibly correct, but highly controvertial reading of the facts in the article. Chrisrus (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry here. I don't understand what you are objecting to. Is this a matter of wording? If "construct" is objectionable, can you suggest another more appropriate word for the treatment of sexual ideas, roles, ideals, purposes, theories, etc. that women have been told by men?
Removing the sentence that summarizes the cited idea that men have formed and constructed or formed...or whatever...women's sexuality is not an appropriate action. This is obviously a significant part of the article. I am unable to tell if this is an issue about subtle difference in wording or a straw argument by driveby editors who have not read the article and only object to the lead. So, please...I need some clarity from editors who are invested in the article and are willing to treat it as a comprehensive set of ideas. --Moni3 (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
As you are probably aware, the consensus expert opinion is that one's sexuality is not constructed by others but rather innate. In other words, if one is heterosexual or homosexual or anything in between, or off the chart, is thought to be a result of that person's innate make-up and not "constructed" by others. This may actually not be true all the time, but the article has not proven otherwise. I would hope that before you undo my edit, you would consider either re-wording or re-thinking this paragraph, sentence, initial the independent clause, or at least the main verb so that it would more matter-of-fact. This extraordinary claim that some can construct the sexuality of others is highly likely to cause many readers to prematurely dismiss the entire article and all the value it contains. Chrisrus (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, ok. This is an issue of semantics, so help me out. It's not sexual orientation that has been shaped, which research indicates is fairly set before birth. It's ideas about sexuality: sexual ideals, roles, legal rights women should expect in marriage or a sexual relationship, and cultural expectations from women. The kind of baffling things like the aforementioned vaginal orgasm is the only legitimate orgasm a fully functional adult female should be having, and that any woman incapable of having a vaginal orgasm is frigid. It's defining sex by saying penile penetration must be present or it is simply not sex. Should women expect to be in love with their husbands? Should they expect sexual fulfillment that is centered on them? Is having children the most a woman can aspire to do? This is what is meant when the sources say that men construct women's sexuality: they write the books, they tell the stories, they draw the diagrams, they make the movies and tv shows that define what a good and normal woman is. Depending on the culture, she is virtuous and loyal, discreet in public, and a tiger in the sack. But most of all, she loves one man and depends on his penis for her spiritual, emotional, and physical fulfillment. Any woman who is not made whole by these things is abnormal. Women who do not want sexual fulfillment with the almighty penis must be neurologically or mentally impaired. This is obviously my very quick and crude summary of the cited points already in the article.
So taking my entertaining summary here, how would you rewrite the sentence: Women's sexuality throughout history has largely been constructed by men, who have limited acknowledgment of lesbianism either as a possibility or a valid expression of sexuality due to the absence of males in a lesbian relationship. --Moni3 (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
How about instead of "sexuality" you wrote "popular conception of proper and unproper roles of the woman in society" or some such? Because as it reads now, it comes across as "men caused women to have hetrosexual natures"Chrisrus (talk) 04:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Would using the word "defined" instead of "constructed" help? I know in sociology "constructed" has a particular meaning, but for general audiences I think "defined" might make more sense. Siawase (talk) 10:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
"Phallocentric" was used by a couple sources, but I thought that was more of a trigger than what is/was already in the article.
What about simply "Men have historically shaped ideas about what is respectable for women in love, sex, and family, frequently rejecting the possibility of lesbianism or disregarding it as a valid expression of sexuality." --Moni3 (talk) 14:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I donno if that's what you want to end up saying, but that's much better. Chrisrus (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I left out "due to the absence of males in a lesbian relationship". I'm not quite sure if that's blatantly obvious or not. But the general idea from source is no men in a relationship=no happiness/fulfillment.--Moni3 (talk) 14:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like an agreement, so I have made the change verbatim. --Elephanthunter (talk) 04:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

There has never been any conclusive evidence that sexuality and sexual orientation as being innate. The evidence that has been provided is suggestive, not conclusive, and has never been replicated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pat70 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that is explicitly stated in the article. Are you referring to a specific passage? --Moni3 (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Lucian's Dialogue of the Courtesans

I'm going to remove both mentions of hetaira for the following reasons:

  1. The source used is literature, not nonfiction
  2. It is one of many works involving Sappho. The Origin and transformation of the term section is a summary of the entire body of work on Sappho. This work does not need to be highlighted.
  3. Scholars do not agree on how the term hetaira was used. In most instances it refers to concubine, courtesan, harlot, or whore. It is a series of 15 rhetorical pieces, only two of which refer to same sex love. Even in these instances, scholars do not agree that Lucian is referring to lesbians as historical record, or that he's referring to lesbianism. I'm getting this from Rabinowitz (p. 286 - 303), in an essay titled "Lucian's 'Leaana and Conarium': Voyeurism or a Challenge to Assumptions?" by Shelley Haley. If there are other sources, I'll take a look at those too. --Moni3 (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Points to consider

I've copied the above from the archive page, because it seems to me that a number of points have been overlooked

  1. Lucian's narrative about Lenia and Megilla is not "one of many works involving Sappho". It actually doesn't mention Sappho at all, unless the translaton in front of me is incomplete. It does mention the island of Lesbos, and a woman who desires a woman.
  2. It was written about 7 centuries after Sappho, and 17 centuries before Krafft-Ebbing.
  3. The Lenia/Megilla narrative is a short story in its own right. True, it is also part of a series of pieces, most of which don't refer to same sex love. How does that make it less notable?
  4. Meaning of the word "hetaera" is discussed in the WP page hetaera. Whether we think of them as courtesans, companions, entertainers, whores or something else, the fact remains that they were women.
  5. True, it is a literary statement rather than a historical one. If this is reason for excluding it, are we also going to throw out the references to twentieth century pulp fiction?
  6. Moni3 has mentioned that Nancy Rabinowitz et al include an essay on Lucian's narrative in their historical study about the homosocial and the homoerotic. Does that really constitute a reason for not mentioning it here in WP?? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I tend to agree with you that this should be mentioned, but the original text was a bit marginal and long. It seemed tangental. It could introduced as evidence that in ancient culture Lesbos was linked with female-female sex long after Sappho herself. Paul B (talk) 01:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Edit in question, for my bad memory.
The source for your edit, Kalidasa777, was the work of fiction itself. It was placed in the Origin and Transformation of the term section that discusses how "lesbian" in English came to be used widely to refer to female homosexuality. None of the sources I used about the period between 1880 and 1920, when the word caught on in English to mean what it does today, mentioned Lucian as a factor in this connotation.
I don't think it should be excluded if a reliable nonfiction source can speak to its importance as a work of literature about female homosexuality. If the sourcing is improved, it should probably go in the Literature section. However, the only mention I saw of Lucian was the one you copied up there: that the translations about just how much it refers to homosexuality is debated by historians. What I included in the Literature section were what sources highlighted as milestones or parts of trends. There are dozens of works that were not mentioned because it's impossible to mention them all. Is there a source that can state that Lucian's writings were extraordinary in this way? I wasn't comfortable with the potential inaccuracies from the source I had, so I removed it. This can be easily solved with an authoritative source. --Moni3 (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
A google books search reveals quite afew references to Lucian as a figure in the historical construction of Lesbianism [10]. Paul B (talk) 15:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
And following that books search link, I find an essay by Kate Gilhuly, with the title "The Phallic Lesbian", in which she writes that ""Although Lucian never answers the question that drives the dialogue -- how do women do it? -- he presents a fuller depiction of love between women than any of his literary predecessors." [11] How is that for a reliable nonfiction source? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Gilhuly does state that Lucian's work is an "unprecedented portrayal of a female homosexual", but I was hoping to see why she states this. I dislike GoogleBooks for cutting out pages. Kalidasa, do you have access to this source in full to be able to explain why this work is so notable? My first inclination is that it should belong in the Literature section, but Gilhuly is approaching it in the same way the Ancient Greece and Rome section is presented. --Moni3 (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
No, I'm afraid I don't have immediate access to it. Another point that may be relevant, is that Louis Untermeyer, whose anthology I cited in my edit, translated the Lenia/Megilla story under the title "The Lesbian". That is what originally drew my attention to the way it associates Lesbos island with female-female sex. I've been looking at the WP page about Louis Untermeyer himself -- he was born in 1885, only 26 years after Havelock Ellis, and died in 1977. He seems to have enjoyed a considerable reputation as a writer and editor, except in the eyes of the McCarthyist right wing.
Have also found that there is another translation of the dialogue available online at [12]. It differs in various respects from Untermeyer's translation. For instance, the characters' names are different, I think they are Latinized rather than rendered from the original Greek. E.g. "Leaena" rather than "Lenia". But the substance of the story, and the references to Lesbos, are the same.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 03:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
One of my favorite books as a child was a collection of poetry edited by Louis Untermeyer. Ironic that I tend to froth at poetry now, unable to appreciate it in almost any form... At any rate, my library does have this book, but it is unavailable until April. Homosexuality in Ancient Greece is not my forte, so most of my knowledge base is what I read for this article. I got the impression that dozens of authors from Ancient Greece to the modern age have written about Lesbos or Sappho, causing confusion as to who Sappho really was and much speculation about the social life on the island. So it is not clear to me why this work among all the others deserves a mention. Do you mind sharing your experience with this work, Kalidasa? It might help form a better picture of where it should go and in what direction we might go looking for sources. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 14:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Do I mind sharing my experience? I'm not heavily into self disclosure, Moni; but I will say that I have a life-long interest in attitudes to sexuality outside the Judeo-Christian tradition, including in ancient Greece and Rome.
Story of Megilla and Lenia (dialogue V) caught my attention because:
1. It impressed me as an early and unmistakeable reference to sex (rather than romance) between women. True, certain details are withheld on the grounds that they are "shameful" (Untermeyer's translation) or "not very nice" (Loeb translation)...
2. The woman who initiates this "not very nice" female-female activity is from Lesbos, and it is said in the text that there are many women from Lesbos who have similar preferences.
3. She isn't Sappho.
Regarding the 1st point. I know you've said that scholars have questioned whether the 2 dialogues of Lucian that might seem to mention lesbianism actually do so. Have they raised that question in relation to dialogue XII or dialogue V or both? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll have to return to the library to re-read the essay about this particular work. I'm flying a bit blind here. My library has dozens of mentions of Lucian in Greek, Latin, Italian, and English from the 17th century to 2007. This is a needle in a haystack. I suppose I was enormously lucky to have found the essay in Rabinowitz. I'm approaching this, however, with the notion that Lucian's works are inescapably obscure to a 21st century encyclopedia article about lesbianism.
I was hoping you had a background with Greek language or literature and access to sources. I can't imagine spouting a Lucian quote at a dinner party and expecting anyone to know what the hell I was talking about. But one source, half-read from GoogleBooks, says it's important to lesbianism. Another says it's not really.
So in searching for sources (which you can do, too...in fact, please help), if we are looking to add this information to the article, the source(s) should say that Lucian's Dialogues specifically address female homosexuality, or have been interpreted to do so. What was their impact: how did Lucian portray female homosexuality? Positively or negatively? Did this affect how women were treated in Greece or Rome? How was it an "unprecedented portrayal of a female homosexual"? All this just so we can figure out how to integrate this into the article. The reality will probably be that it will get a sentence in total, possibly with a footnote. However, Lesbian literature kinda stinks, and it can certainly be improved. Homosexuality in ancient Greece can also use some help. --Moni3 (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
That haystack of references to Lucian at least confirms that western thinkers have been reading his works in the last few centuries, and thus makes it seem more likely that he influenced modern thinking on the topics he wrote about. Even if he doesn't get mentioned at every 21 century dinner party. I know less about Greek language and literature than I know about Sanskrit, but perhaps enough that it doesn't seem "inescapably obscure"; though certainly there are cultural differences between then and now. E.g. role and status of a "hetaira" such as Lenia seems to have been rather different from that of a modern "whore". Anyway, I will try to search out secondary source material when I can. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

"Precious Metal Star" Ranking

The article needs information on this controversial subject. "Gold Star" for instance, is a lesbian who has never slept with a man and has no intentions of ever sleeping with one. It was apparently coined on MTV's "A Shot At Love With Tila Tequila".

The Lesbian community sees it as offensive, like suggesting that some are better or more "pure" than others.

http://community.feministing.com/2008/12/lesbian-star-rankings.html

http://www.urbandictionary.com/iphone/search?term=gold+star+lesbian

http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/comingout/g/GoldStar.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.58.140 (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It was not coined by MTV. The article makes it adequately clear that women's labels, such as "gold star" to mean a woman who will never sleep with a man, often does not match women's actions. This gold star is a neologism, and until a much better source is provided to indicate its origin and widespread application to the lives of women, I don't find it necessary to place in the article. --Moni3 (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Photograph

What on earth is with that picture of the helmets and combat pants? Anyone would think being a lesbian had something to do with extreme sports, not sexuality. If it really needs a picture, what's wrong with a picture of two women facing one another, kissing or hugging? This kind of picture would work fine: http://modobs.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/hug.jpg 90.218.61.129 (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I did not see this until today. Several complaints about this image have been registered on this talk page. An image at the top of this article will be nearly impossible to justify and I believe no matter what is there, it will receive complaints. For instance, people have commented that the image implies that lesbians are white, slim, sporty, as you said, and young. I predict that people will complain regarding the image you posted that lesbians are white, slim, and out of focus, meaning that they don't photograph well, are unattractive, or ashamed. No single image will please everyone. --Moni3 (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The Kinsey study

The Kinsey study should NOT be used or considered. The women that were interviewed or studied consisted on mainly women who already identified themselves as lesbians. Most women interview were lesbians and/or women who did not represent the majority. Therefore the study was/is bias. Bias studies and research should be null and void. The fact that the masses doesn't recognize this or is not aware of this about Kinsey and his "research" is ignorance at it's highest degree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pat70 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

What is your source for this, please? I need you to be explicitly clear. And please do not remove other editors' questions or comments.--Moni3 (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lesbian/Archive_10&oldid=384162712"