Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 February 27

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 27

Why would a human brand a human with a 'heart' back when slavery was still, y'know, legal?

So I was doing some research into the aspects of slavery, more specifically of female slavery during the 18th and 19th century, for my own benefit when I came across the particular topic of human branding. I was reading up on this specific page, Human_branding#Branding_in_American_slavery, when I noticed something rather interesting about the associated image to the right. It contains two letters, which I assumed to be the name of the slave owner, but more than that it contains the shape of a heart.

What is the historical reason someone might brand their slave with a heart? As far as I can tell this was not explained on the page, and I suspect it may be relevant to my research topic. As is the nature with history, theories are acceptable; this is mostly food for thought.

Image below for reference

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.85.2 (talk) 02:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC) 

You say that "theories are acceptable" but I don't think they are. I think such "theories" would constitute original research. Bus stop (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Historical theories are generally supported by evidence and published sources much like scientific theories. They remain theories because of the nature of history, not a lack of proper documentation. Sometimes the answer to what happened in history is unfortunately unclear, I'm just clarifying that I'm willing to accept multiple answers as per the need arises based on multiple substantiated theories, not that I am looking for 'original research'. 76.111.85.2 (talk) 03:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

All theories remain theories. What else would they become, olive trees? --Jayron32 10:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I have a theory. The initials (inverted on the branding iron) seem to be S.V., and I bet that last name was "Valentine" (or some variation thereof), and they thought having a heart as part of the brand would be a cute way to indicate that. Somehow I doubt if the branded slaves appreciated the humor, though. StuRat (talk) 04:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes but slaves were not "people"...voting rights, citizenship et al. Dred Scott decisionLihaas (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

An interesting point, the image is apparently of a replica held in the Liverpool museum. There is a similar brand here [1], also a replica, but seemingly not a mirror image. Was it copied directly from a branded slave or just made like that to show what the brand would look on the slave? Then again source suggests it was copied from a branding iron but it also suggests it was supposed to be VS which since it doesn't seem to be a mirror image is questionable even without the Liverpool version. Of course, one possibility is the person making the original brand screwed up (corrected in a different version) and the person writing the description just didn't notice it's not a mirror image.

Anyway, the fact we have two different replicas showing the same brand make me wonder if it's was common somewhere (but then why isn't it know what SV stands for?). Or just something that UK? museums started displaying for some reason? In any case, it's probably worth asking the two museums if they know anything about the heart symbol, the name/initials, or where the brand came from if no one can find more info here if you're interested.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Our own image has a metadata section indicating that it was a photo taken directly; while it is possible that the photographer mirror-imaged it and reattached this data, neglecting to mention he did so, I find it easier to believe a blog image is reversed "for clarity". Wnt (talk) 13:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting point, the possibility either photo was mirror reversed wasn't something I really considered. Nil Einne (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Keep in mind that the heart symbol didn't always stand for "love or affection." Here's our article on Heart_(symbol), and some coverage at cracked [2]. Note the use in heraldry as a charge, and as a sign for contraception. The cracked piece even asserts "Hallmark cards and industrial-scale slavery have the same origin." - though they don't really explain their position. I'm not sure that Cracked would be a WP:RS, but they aren't just some joke site, they usually do some real research on the topic. Not sure if it helps, but my main point is, it didn't necessarily have anything to do with our modern use of the symbol. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, playing devil's advocate a bit, how to you know which end is "up"? If you reverse the up/down orientation from the picture, you get $\Lambda S$ with an "upside-down heart", which supposedly was used by the Romans as a symbol of testes. So it could even have something to do with declaring that the slave was "intact". SemanticMantis (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd have to say that I really enjoyed this answer. What if it was a warning totally /not/ to bang the slave instead of a mark of love? I find this somewhat more plausible than my original suspicion that it marked an enslaved love interest.76.111.85.2 (talk) 18:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I considered this particularly in light of StuRat's comment, but our article (the one you linked to) claims it had already established an association with Valentine's day and romantic love by the 19th century (although this statement is unsourced) although admitedly there's no real reason to assume this could have come from well before the 19th century, particularly if the below is true (although my assumption which may also be incorrect is that there was a fair degree of association even late in the 18th century if it was already established in the 19th). Nil Einne (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

FWIW: the description at The Museum of Liverpool (where the photo originated,[3]) is not helpful:  1 — Slave Branding Iron (replica) — Slave dealers' initials were burned into Africans' skin before they began the 'Middle Passage' journey to the Americas.    71.20.250.51 (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm where did you find that? I had a look at the uploaders site but didn't and still can't find anything more than the image. Anyway I don't think this is quite as useless at it may seem. It actually reenforces a point I was thinking based on the description in our article. This seems to imply it was done before passage, not after. So it's possibly a marker of a slave trader (whether company or person) rather than a simple slave owner. I wonder if the slave trader was British based hence why it's in two British musems. Of course this idea somewhat conflicts with the description from other image but I trust the Livepool one more. Both the pecularity with the non mirror image for the Hull museum and the fact I'm not sure if the description in the site I linked is from the display or from the person making the website. Nil Einne (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

That description is from the placard with the exhibit at the museum - from link above (scroll about halfway down) → This photo   ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Autism Anorak

Matthew Hesmondhalgh wrote the book Autism, Access and Inclusion on the Front Line: Confessions of an Autism Anorak.

How is the addition "Confessions of an Autism Anorak" to be understood? ( Anorak (slang) ): Provocative, pejorative, ironic, marketing gag ..??? I appreciate comments. GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 11:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

All those things. It's a joke, obviously, since mildly autistic people often have behavioural characteristics that make them "anoraks" in the slang sense. The author is identifying as an "anorak" (i.e., obsessive nerd) on the topic of autism. Paul B (talk) 12:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but it's unclear whether he means that he himself is on the autistic spectrum or not, and unclear whether he's describing himself as an anorak generally, or an anorak about autism. Or both. --Dweller (talk) 12:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a book title, not an essay. Why should it be clear in the title whether the author is or isn't autistic? Paul B (talk) 12:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

According to his author profile "Matthew Hesmondhalgh is Teacher in Charge at The Integrated Resource, established in 1994 within a mainstream secondary school in Sheffield, UK, and offering secondary educational opportunities for pupils with ASDs. Matthew Hesmondhalgh has also managed a charity-funded, supported employment scheme for adults with ASDs since 1996. He is the author of Access and Inclusion for Children with ASDs - Let Me In, also published by Jessica Kingsley Publishers." Paul B (talk) 12:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I've no idea. It's not my question. --Dweller (talk) 12:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Um, yes it was. The OP asked whether it was "Provocative, pejorative, ironic, marketing gag". You wrote "it's unclear whether he means that he himself is on the autistic spectrum or not", as if that should be an issue. Paul B (talk) 12:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

It's hard to know whether any irony exists, without understanding the context of the comment. The same goes for the other descriptors the OP mentions. --Dweller (talk) 12:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd guess that reading the book might give the best answer. In the absence of reading it, it's hard to say. But book titles are often designed to provoke the interest of the reader, so in that sense you could class it as marketing. --Dweller (talk) 12:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I would say it's British self-deprecating humour. He's saying that he's far too absorbed in the subject of autism and really ought to get out more. The "Confessions of" construction comes from a series of very bad 1970s British films which were considered rather risqué at the time; the first being Confessions of a Window Cleaner I believe. Alansplodge (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a masterpiece of cinema. But the phrase dates back to the Confessions of an English Opium Eater. Paul B (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, quite so. From the ridiculous to the sublime. Alansplodge (talk) 09:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the easiest way to think about the title is to treat it as a sort of joke. When someone describes himself as an "anorak" he usually means it in a positive but self-deprecating way. (This is different from when someone describes someone else as an "anorak", when the term may be more pejorative, depending on context.) So here the author means to say that he is very interested in and knowledgeable about autism spectrum disorders and the people who fall onto this spectrum. Because some people who fall onto this spectrum but are able to function reasonably well in normal society may also be called "anoraks" he is also making a kind of joke. A lot of people on this spectrum have areas of special interest, so he's implying that he's very interested in and knowledgeable about a group of which he himself is a member. A lot of people would find this funny because they find self referentiality funny (I don't know why, because I don't, but I have observed that a lot of people do). Overall, the author wishes to imply that he himself has some characteristics that would place him "on the autism spectrum", but also wants to imply that because he has a sense of humour that matches most NT people he is pretty normal, and people can treat him like someone who isn't on this spectrum. This might be good for book sales. Also, by putting a joke in the title of the book, the author tells the prospective reader that his book is not a serious technical volume, but something that anyone can read. RomanSpa (talk) 02:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments which are very helpful! GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 07:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Which 2013 Major League Baseball pitcher had the best batting average?

I am having difficulty answering this for myself because the statistics sources I've come across are either only based on opinions, several or many years old, or do not include pitchers. I don't know why they don't include pitchers because more or less all National League pitchers bat, and some of them hit (and some of them score). Another problem at least in some years past was pitchers (presumably American League) stepping up to the plate only once for some trivial reason, getting a hit, and "averaging" 1000 for the season. While candidates for the batting championship need to average 3.1 base appearances per game, I believe the limit just for calculating any player's season average only requires ten appearances. So on that basis, which pitcher who stepped up ten or more times in 2013, had the best batting average? Hayttom 13:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I also asked a friend who found this story: For some hurlers, handling bat is serious business which points to Zack Greinke and List of Silver Slugger Award winners at pitcher.

So although I would love to read others' comments, I will mark this...

Resolved

Hayttom 14:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You can search at MLB.com's stats page. No pitcher had enough at-bats to qualify for statistical leaders, but you can search for ALL players (not just qualified) and set the position for pitcher (select 2013 AND regular season) here you can see that among pitchers with at least double-digit at bats, Zack Greinke is indeed the best hitting pitcher, with a 0.328 average over 58 at bats. You can peruse the list to find other good hitting pitchers. --Jayron32 14:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

O HENRY's The Romance of a busy broker

Please tell me the meaning of the phrase

"Clubbing the stuffing out of Union Pacific"

Context: Harvy Maxwel, the busy broker while proposing to his stenographer uses these words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.22.119 (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Clubbing in this context means to beat something with a club (stick, baton, cudgel, etc.). The stuffing is the insides of something, like a stuffed animal or pillow. Clubbing the stuffing out of something means to hit it hard enough with a club, repeatedly, so that the insides come out. Or, in simpler terms, to destroy it. --Jayron32 15:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

For a more visceral term, how about "Eviscerate Union Pacific" ? StuRat (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

That means Union Pacific stock is losing value fast. I remember the story. He's having a hectic day at the office. He's so preoccupied with what's happening on the stock market that he forgets he already married her and proposes to her again. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Pocket watches

Why are hunter case pocket watches called so? I mean, did hunters use them in the past, or something like that? Thanks. --Yashowardhani (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Presumably, yes. Here's a few history-of-pocket-watches pages that I've found [4], [5], [6]. This is one of those things that "just makes sense," so it's hard to find explicit mention of "it's called a hunter case because it is used by hunters and other active people" - though the second link pretty much says so. Anyway, hunter cases are also called 'consular case' according to the info above, and also sometimes 'savonette.' Apparently, savonette strictly refers to the orientation of the stem with respect to the clock face, but most hunter cases are also savonette. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm quite certain that the hunters were actually fox hunters, however the only reference I could find which says so is: "The name presumably came about from the need for more protection for your watch when you were riding in a fox hunt." The idea was that it prevented the glass from smashing if you fell off your horse (a fairly frequent occurrence, even for skilled riders) but allowed you to open the cover with one hand, while holding onto the reins with the other. There was also a "half-hunter" which had a small circular window in the centre of the cover, allowing you to see the base of the hands and tell the time without opening it. Alansplodge (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Did a higher % of Ancient Chinese works survive compared to Greco-Roman?

The wikipedia article on Lost work lists much more Ancient Greco-Roman works than Chinese. The vast majority of Classical works haven't survived, even of the Big Names like Aristotle and Sophocles. Although most Wikipedia editors are from the West and presumably more familiar with Western Classics, so its not necessarily comprehensive.

From my understanding, there doesn't seem to have been as huge of a loss of Chinese works, but this could just be that I'm less familiar with them. There could be reasonable conjectures as to why more Chinese works would have survived- superior printing press and paper technology, and a more stable polity would contribute.

I was wondering if there was any truth to my impression or if it was just a biased sample. Were Chinese classical texts better preserved than western ones? --Gary123 (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Or does the Wikipedia article show a western bias. Or, does are more Chinese works unknown unknowns; that is we don't even know they existed to know they are lost. Too many possibilities and variables to give your question a meaningful general answer. --Jayron32 17:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Gary123 -- To get an idea of how much has survived, if there's a display of the Loeb Classical Library on shelves near you, go look at all the green-backed and red-backed books. Quite a lot by Aristotle has in fact survived. As for Sophocles, most of the ancient Greek plays were written for a very specific situation (a particular city in a particular year) and contained a lot of references to local current events. Since their survival depended on their being copied by a chain of scribes with very different cultural backgrounds, it's not surprising that relatively few Greek plays have come down to us. AnonMoos (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

P.S. For China, see Burning of books and burying of scholars -- AnonMoos (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

...and: Cultural Revolution #Historical relics.  ~:71.20.250.51 (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone has calculated the percentage of lost works, but scholars in China have discovered huge numbers of previously unknown ancient manuscripts and medieval printed works in tombs, both last century and this.

• Signpost article at Bamboo and wooden slips

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Cyrano de Bergerac in the digital age

Has anyone adapted the Cyrano de Bergerac story for the digital age? The letter-writing conceit would seem to translate really well to online interaction. Surely someone must have thought of this by now. --BDD (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

It has been, see The Truth About Cats & Dogs, although de Bergerac is a woman in the story. You've Got Mail is also similar in theme. CS Miller (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing especially digital about Truth; the cyrano hides by being a voice on radio. —Tamfang (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

My mistake, I thought they switched to email or atleast the 'phone after awhile. Cyrano is a veterinarian on a late-night talk show. CS Miller (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot the phone sex bit. (The last line of the movie may be a joke about it.) —Tamfang (talk) 09:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

How did Christianity spring from a not-so-proselytizing religion?

I don't get how Christianity sprang from a not-so-proselytizing religion. Why would a pagan care what ever happened to the Jews in the middle of nowhere? What made Christians convert everyone and anyone indiscriminately? How in the world did Christians plant a church in Rome? I even checked out this book, but I thought it was hard to distinguish mythology from actual history. Like the caption when they said the early Christians used this Roman road to travel from town to town in order to preach or something. Were they really active missionaries, or did Christianity spread by word-of-mouth only among the Jewish communities, which somehow got leaked into the pagan communities by intermarriage? 140.254.227.233 (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

140.254.227.233 -- in the Maccabean period, Judaism was sometimes in fact proselytizing (Edom was pretty much converted by force, which came back around to bite the Maccabeans when Herod overthrew them), the royal family of Adiabene converted etc. In the Hellenistic period, outside opinions were somewhat polarized between those who thought that Jews were insular asocial "atheists" (since they refused to participate in everyday civic rituals which involved acknowledging polytheistic divinities), and those who had great respect for Jews as severely monotheist "philosophers" who followed a strict moral and legal code. A disincentive to converting to Judaism was that it pretty much involved disowning your previous ethnic identity to adopt a new one, circumcision for men, and adopting a whole comprehensive code of ritual purity and dietary restrictions. For this reason, there came to be a whole sub-culture of "God-fearers", who were impressed by aspects of Judaism, but didn't take the plunge to fully convert.

In this context, Christianity emerged as an alternative which shared most of the moral/ethical/philosophical advantages of Judaism, but adopting which did not require changing ethnicity or getting circumcised, etc. Christianity was also not as closely associated with the Jewish revolts against the Roman empire (though many still thought that Christians were "atheists", since they refused to participate in everyday civic rituals such as worship of the "genius" of the emperor, etc.). In the second century A.D., Christianity came to have great appeal to the urban lower classes in several regions of the Roman empire... AnonMoos (talk) 18:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, AnonMoos. Understanding the historical background surely is helpful and provides an appreciation and respect for the religion. I even read this article from Princeton University about Evangelical Christians who somehow can't resist the impulse to evangelize. Since evangelism is tied to religious practice, I suppose that's OK. The non-Christian co-worker just has to pretend he's interested. 140.254.226.195 (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

AnonMoos makes a good point regarding Jewish proselytism in the ancient world, but I think even more important is the Great Commission. Jesus, whom all Christians claim to follow said: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you" (Matthew 28:19-20). No Jewish prophet before Jesus had said anything of the sort, so this is of course the most important reason for Christian missionary activity. - Lindert (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that explicit beliefs about proselytizing were necessarily the most important factor (though a welcoming attitude towards newcomers can certainly speed growth if the surrounding circumstances are favorable). If the environment is unfavorable, a religion can be militantly proselytizing and still not expand much, while if the environment is favorable, people can be attracted by the example of the adherents' way of life as much as by any overt proselytization efforts... AnonMoos (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

They were and are the justification for it, though. And that philosophy, bundled with the military might of the Roman Empire, spread the word quickly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

There are those who think that Jesus taught for Jews. It would be Paul of Tarsus, a Jew and a Roman citizen, who took this Jewish sect and turned it into a Gentile-ready religion. There was conflict between the Church of Jerusalem and the Pauline churches. The official version of most Christian churches does not believe so. --Error (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

One interpretation is that the Council of Jerusalem involved the recognition of Jewish and gentile branches of Christianity, with gentile Christians required to obey a few minimum rules, but not the full panoply of Jewish purity and dietary restrictions, circumcision, etc. After the disruptions of the First Jewish revolt, the Jewish branch of Christianity faded away at a time when the gentile branch was strongly expanding, though groups such as the Ebionites survived for a while... AnonMoos (talk) 04:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'd strongly reccommed the works of Geza Vermes and the relevant books: Paul, and Jesus, a Life, by A. N. Wilson on this subject. Miller's The Complete Gospels is also very helpful. As is Robinson's Essential Judaism. There's also our article, Birkat haMinim. μηδείς (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Military artists

For years, I've seen drawings of various US military soldiers which are all very similar in style. They are done in what I would call pen and ink. So, not water color or oils or things like that. I'm in the US and all the examples that I've seen were of US military. Many of the pieces I've seen were of soldiers and helicopters and such from roughly the Vietnam era to the present day. Are there any big names in this area that someone can point me to? I imagine there are a lot of people who do similar work but is there a leader in the field? I'm just trying to put a name to the images. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 20:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Military art has many names. The article Military art contains links at the bottom to national lists of war artists. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Since WWI there have been official or sanctioned war artists, who document conflicts. If they are working and travelling with troops they obviously can't set up easels and get out oil paints, hence the fact that many of the images are sketches or drawings. Back in the 19th century when newspapers had to use engravers to make images, artists would travel with armies and make sketches which were reproduced in illustrated newspapers. There are many British and American illustrations of that period depicting scenes from the American Civil War, Crimean War or conflicts in the British Empire. Many well known artists have been war illustrators, including Winslow Homer, Remington etc. Nevinson, Orpen and others were officially sanctioned by the British government in World War I. In earlier periods artists rarely documented conflicts, but rather produced grand narrative paintings of Glorious Victories. More realistic images were created by engravers like Jacques Callot. Paul B (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

"A different kind of gay"

Do any straight men have sex with men because they're masochists? I've always wondered this. 184.152.47.209 (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Because the straight men themselves are masochists, or because the men they want to have sex with are masochists? Please note that gay sex is legal in Queens. μηδείς (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The straight men themselves are masochists. 184.152.47.209 (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You need to rent a copy of The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Why would straight masochists have sex with men to act out their masochistic tendencies? It does not hurt... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's not exactly appealing for straights, so I imagine some males might like metaphorically drinking vinegar, want to prove their manly indifference to negative stimuli, or desire a hard-to-get ejaculation, for some reason. Some people like hard-fought, even suffering accomplishments like winning Olympic endurance races, right? Why not a c*m that's hard to do because you're straight? 184.152.47.209 (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

So you mean like Alpa Chino in Cruising. Kind of like proving your self control with credit-fueled drunken food binges? μηδείς (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

If you want your mind expanded, read Two-Spirit. Not all societies are aware of the theoretical model they're supposed to be following! Wnt (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

A straight, submissive (masochistic) male, in a relationship with a dominant female, may be forced by her to have sex with another man, for her pleasure and entertainment and as a means of humiliating him. --Viennese Waltz 14:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Good to finally know I have permission, VW. μηδείς (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Any sexual act you can think of has probably happened, many times. Some of them happen enough to have subcultures based around them, complete with their own sets of terminology. Google is your friend here, you might include terms from our related articles Cuckolding#Cuckoldry_as_a_fetish, and Feminization_(activity). See also the "see also" sections in those articles. I would think that any "straight" male who willingly and repeatedly engages in sex acts with another male (no matter their psychological motivations) would be bisexual. But what I think doesn't matter, everyone gets to describe her own sexual identity, using whatever words he wants. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Any words? I am particularly fond of splunge. μηδείς (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)