Talk:Gay

Same-sex encounters

I changed the following sentence

If a person has had same-sex sexual encounters but does not self-identify as gay, terms such as 'closeted', 'discreet', or 'bi-curious' may be applied.

To say "if a person engages in same-sex sexual encounters" as I feel it's more accurate. A person who has had same sex encounters at some stage but no longer engages in them would IMHO not usually be described as closeted, discreet or bi-curious. Especially if the same-sex encounters were largely because of access reasons (e.g. in an all male environment). Even if a person has a few same-sex encounters early in life as a form of experimentation or whatever, but no longer engages in them and does not feel sexually attracted to people of the same-sex, they would not be called closeted, discreet or bi-curious either IMHO. Of course, a reference would be good Nil Einne 00:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Gay in filtering/blacklisting software

It appears having the surname Gay can be a problem due to filtering software. I don't know if this should go here or in a Gay (surname) page. Perhaps here since the reason it's

Request for updating

Hi I want to make a wiki style website for homosexuals in my area. Am I allowed to use the name wiki in the domain I register and am I allowed to ad google adsense to the site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.222.112 (talk) 01:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

bulgarian

Resolved

Hello :) I'd like to ask you if it's possible to update the part of the article "gay" where there is a list of the articles "gay" in other languages. Now there is an article in bulgarian language too, so I would like to ask you to add the bulgarian version to the list of languages. in bulgarian is: bg:Гей

Thank you in advance.

(Mahoujin 10:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC))

Done. - Gilliam 01:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Enola gay

Resolved

To support what's said in the history of the word Gay about being also a name, it should also be said the Enola Gay was named with the pilot's mother name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.90.237.74 (talk) 00:28, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

reposted to that article's talk page. Benjiboi 11:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

gay straitjacket

I would like to add this heading to the gay page. The term gay straitjacket was coined by Donald Black (q.v.) in his book Escape the Gay Straitjacket to describe the helplessness that (he claims) 90% of gay men are subject to as they repress their anger. This anger repression, he says, is caused by a neurosis which they acquire very early in life. Symptoms of repressed anger include: the inability to stand up for themselves, allowing themselves to be bullied, allowing themselves to be manipulated, being afraid of (imagined) "violence", being unable to express anger, having difficulty in reaching a sexual orgasm and the need to use amyl nitrite ("poppers") to overcome this, feeling depressed, feeling oppressed by society, the inability to find "Mr Right", being late for appointments, forgetfulness, making silly mistakes, and the inability to participate in body-contact sports that require the use of aggression, such as soccer, rugby, boxing, judo, and wrestling.Andrenapier 17:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Andrenapier

Well that sounds like a load of ol' baloney to me. Being late for appointments is someohw connnected to being gay? Cripes. However, the question is, how notable is this theory? How much discussion of it is there? Paul B 17:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any reliable sources for this right now, (don't have the time), but there is the term "gay time" in the LBGT community, in which one meaning is being late to things, as in fashionably late. Not to say it's notable. — Becksguy (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I've heard the same thing called drag time, diva time and tranny time. Benjiboi 11:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Fudge packer

I don't mean to be offensive but, I wanted to know what the insult "fudge packer" meant and it redirected to here, what does the term actually mean? 156.34.212.243 (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Never heard of it, but sounds like a reference to anal sex - implying the compression of bowel contents. Are you saying there is a redirect to here? Paul B (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Yup, there is a redirect to here, I wikified the title so you can see it. 156.34.220.245 (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I see that fudge packer redirects here but fudgepacker redirects to anal sex. The latter was once an article in its own right, explaining the meaning see here. We also have an article on that famous movie Billy's Dad Is a Fudge-Packer‎. I think it would be sensible to point both redirects to the anal sex article, since it appears from my extensive research that that is the best place for it. Paul B (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

First Gay Baby (Embryo) is here

I suggest adding a topic on gay reproduction... as the really Gay baby is here! Two men's dna became a live embryo, which could be implanted in a woman and growup to a really gay child. 2 men (or 2 women) could have a genetic baby which is their own genetically, which was not possible until now. I guess this is a big step for "gayvolution" and raises interesting questions... Will evolution now leave regular folk behind? I really feel for the pope. He has to explain this life not born of a man and a woman all over again. And what will the prolifers do? Will they divide into 2 camps: pro-killing the gay embryo vs. keeping both types of life alive? Interesting questions ahead... Article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/18/us/18embryos.html AnilN 66.191.69.114 (talk) 06:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

They aren't really saying anything about a gay baby...or whether the two men are gay. But if they were, I wouldn't say that just because a baby has the DNA of two gay individuals...that that baby will necessarily be gay. But, anyway, I read an article in a newspaper some years ago where a few scientists stated to having created an offspring from the DNA of two female mice. So I knew that it would only be a matter of time before the combination of DNA from two women would be possible to create a child. I didn't think about the combination of DNA from two men, mainly because men cannot become pregnant (well, not naturally anyway). But if the the combination of DNA from two women can create a child, it certainly doesn't seem off that the combination of DNA from two men could as well. However, the above cited article also stated this: It is not clear whether the embryos would have been viable if implanted into a womb. Stemagen did not test whether the embryos had the correct number of chromosomes. But Dr. Wood, who also is a fertility doctor, said, “We’ve seen reproductive blastocysts that look like this or worse and they implant.”

I'm not really for scientists tampering with nature like this, if it's just to create children. Or specific type of children. But I have written about something that touches on this, and it reminds me of the film Gattaca. But, yeah, we'll see how to add this new information to this article. Flyer22 (talk) 07:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It has nothing whatever to do with the article, which is about the word "gay". Paul B (talk) 11:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's settled. Hey, I was very sleepy that early in the morning...and had an "off-moment" in suggesting that we'd find some way to add that information to this article. I'm clear-headed now, and agree, of course, that it really has no place in this article. As I mentioned above, it doesn't mention a thing about being gay (or the word "Gay", for that matter). Flyer22 (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

homosexuals have imbalanced amount of hormons estrogen and androgen,so it is then a illnes.It has nothing to do with gens.--Vule91 (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Babylon

Sorry this is probably not directly related to this article.

but out of curiosity...does anyone know how did the name 'Babylon' (which is supposed to be a town/village in the US) become assosiated with gay ?

thpsycho feb 13 2008 (Thpsycho (talk) 15:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC))

UNESCO document on masculinity

User:Masculinity has inserted[1] a link to a UNESCO document on masculinity in boys. This contains good information and is a reliable source, but I am going to remove the link for a couple of reasons:

• That document as a whole does not primarily relate to the term or the concept of Gay. That's simply not the document is about. If there are one or more specific passages in the UNESCO document that are relevant to a specific idea expressed in our Gay article, we should cite specific pages of the UNESCO document using footnotes.
• The "See also" section generally shouldn't contain external links. "See also" should contain links to other Wikipedia articles. Links to other websites can go in an "External links" section

On the other hand, that document is highly relevant to the masculinity article, but you will see that that article already contains the link (aee Masculinity#Further_reading).--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing it for the first bulleted reason above is fine with me. I restored and fixed the problems with it because it looked like it had been removed simply for being a "bad link". Mike R (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Well, I agree, the entire unesco site does not talk about the 'gay' issue, but there are specific chapters in it that talk about the problems and frustrations that develop in Indian young men, because of the western concepts of 'sexual orienation', 'homosexuality' and 'gay', which are imposed upon them by a westernised media as 'universal truths'.

The Wikipedia article on 'gay' is silent about this violation of rights and attack on the identity of Indian and other non-western men when such concepts are imposed upon them by a westernised media as universal truths. This issue has been raised several times by people working with men on sexual health, especially HIV/AIDS and STDs. (Masculinity (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC))

Sexual Orienation is a western concept and should not be seen as universal

The entire idea that people, especially men, can be divided on the basis of their 'proclaimed' sexuality is a concept peculiar to the modern west, and to discuss the concept as a universal phenomena, and to judge or study other sexuality, men and masculinities in other cultures and in other times on the basis of these concepts not only distorts and misrepresents their reality, but also is seen by oppressive by people on whom the west enforces these identities, often through the one-sided process of globalisation.

Wikipedia, should take into account this fact when discussing modern western concepts such as 'sexual orienatation', 'homosexuality', 'heterosexuality', 'gay' and 'straight', etc., and it should clearly mention this fact, because, although it is an English site, it is meant for the entire world, and not only for the western world. Only that will make it a truly relevant and global site. (Masculinity (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC))

I have copied these comments to WT:LGBT for wider view of WP:LGBT participants. Aleta (Sing) 16:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone is sabotaging the discussed changes to the 'gay' article

As per the discussions on the LGBT project talk page, I had twice or thrice added a small abstract linking to a new article "Non-western concepts of male sexuality". Someone has deleted the addition everytime, without assigning a reason. Can this page be semi protected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masculinity (talk • contribs) 03:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Masculinity, they are not "discussed changes". You have simply added acres of text on the homosexuality article talk page justifying your assertions, and somehow think that gives you the right to add the statements which you claim is "agreed" there to this article. But this article is not about the definition and practice of homosexual acts around the world. It is about the changing usage of the word "gay". Your additions said nothing about that whatsoever, and yet were added upfront in the lede, which is the place to summarise the content, not to add new content that is then never discussed in the article proper. See WP:MoS. As it happens your text was also unreferenced, and made sweeping assertions about "Western" and "non-Western" cultures, as if both thse large-scale categories were unprblematic and internally identical, which is highly dubious. There are many variations within "Western" cultures and even more in "non-Western" ones, which make such generalisations problematic at best. Paul B (talk) 11:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Paul Barlow... first of all, if you are really serious about an issue, like you are on this one, you should not shy away from discussing loads of texts, and if you don't want to waste your time, well, don't mess by deleting materials. Otherwise, it seems to me to be nothing but cultural chauvinism.

Second, it does seem you're quite out of touch with what is happening. Not only has there been a whole lot of discussion on this, I have also submitted 21 references from published materials all around the world. the discussion is on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homosexuality#Same-sex_relations_in_non-western_cultures

Now, for god's sake, if you have to say anything, say it there, discuss the various references that have been provided, but don't just go about deleting stuff.

Did you even care to go to the link that I've provided? Please keep your personal feelings about the gay identity to yourself, and try to be more broad based here. (Masculinity (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

Agree with Paul B. This article is about the word "gay", not about relationships. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 15:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have every right to delete offtopic, unreferenced text. How can I be "out of touch" with what is happening when I actually referred to your text on homosexuality talk page, a fact which makes your suggestion that I did not go to "the link that I've provided" nonsensical. Did you understand what I said? I shall repeat it. What you say on that page relates to that article, not to this one. Discussions on that page - which by the way show no sign of any clear consensus or agreement - do not imply any consensus with regard to this one. Paul B (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Again Masculinity, you are arguing about the inclusion of your text in this article. While the text may be appropriate for other articles, discussion about the appropriateness for this article should appear *here*. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 16:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Neil and Paul, I am sorry to say, that as editors you are supposed to be more professional than this. You should have told me upfront that I am supposed to redo the entire discussion on this page. I was under the impression that the entire LGBT project is one. I have been shunted around from the main discussion page to another back to the homosexuality page. And now, you want me to do the same discussion here.

That is fine. But you should be more responsible about this. Your task is not just to remove something you don't like. You must also inform the person whose content you have deleted and give proper guidance. I expect that much courtsey from your side, in order that people are saved unnecessary harrassment. (Masculinity (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

No, ample reasons were given in the edit summaries and on this talk page. It is up to you to read them and respond if you wish. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 16:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Plese do not tell us we should be more "professional". No-one here is a professional. However, there is no requirement to personally inform an editor that text has been removed. Also please do not cut and paste your epic text from homosexuality to here. Instead, make a case for the relevance of what you are saying. Paul B (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, I would appreciate if any of you could help us improve Masculinity's contribution by participating in the discussion at the new page he's created, Non-western concepts of male sexuality. There are some obvious problems with the page that need to be addressed with the input of the broader community.--Agnaramasi (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

In fact Masculinity seems to have created two near-identical pages, one of which should be redirected (Non-western concepts of male sexuality and Modern same-sex relations in non-western cultures. Paul B (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

1. I swear I did not create the page Modern same-sex relations in non-western cultures. I don't agree that the concepts that we are talking about are modern, in the sense that although they are present today, but they have been there since at least the medieval times. Although, I am open to any discussion about anything. This sure would lead to confusion. Why not just work at one page?

This [2] says otherwise. But it's fairly easy to create articles so it was probably done by mistake. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I see what happened. You created an article actually called "Start new article" and someone else renamed it. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

2. Paul B. People come here and spend a lot of their valuable time because they want Wikipedia to be as accurate in documenting facts as possible. You are supposed to be professional in your approach so that people are not hassled, as you go deleting their stuff with a "I don't care, I don't like it" attitude. I never even recieved a notice saying my stuff is being deleted, and I swear I thought you're just a saboteur, chauvinist, who doesn't want any information that goes against the western gay identity. (Masculinity (talk) 17:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

"I swear I did not create the page Modern same-sex relations in non-western cultures." Yes you did. Here's the edit history [3]. However, Gwernol gave it its name [4], since you had not done so. Paul B (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Paul B. has never conveyed a "I don't care, I don't like it" attitude. He has given you valid reasons why he thinks your text does not belong in *this* article. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

<<<Yes you did>>> Well, in that case, that must have been when I was trying to learn how to create a new page. Sorry about that. (Masculinity (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

<<<:Paul B. has never conveyed a "I don't care, I don't like it" attitude.>>> Well in that case ... I'd like to rest the matter here ... as a big misunderstanding, and hope that we can all work in tandem from now on. regards. (Masculinity (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

I'm proposing the following additions and internal link to the article on Gay

As per the discussion on the homosexuality page, I have created a new Wikipedia page titled "Non-Western Concepts of Male Sexuality", and I wish to provide a short abstract on the 'gay' page, providing an internal link to this page.

Kindly, review this text, and if you wish to make changes to it, please discuss it with me here, before it is posted on the main page. But, please don't take forever. Say what you want to say in a reasonable period of time.

Proposed Addition

Non-Western concepts of male sexuality: There is a growing voice -- both from western and non-western world -- that claims that the notions of 'sexual orientation', 'homosexuality', heterosexuality, bisexuality and the sexual identities of 'gay', 'straight' etc. are peculiarly modern Western concepts, that have no relevance, and are in fact harmful to men, in the Traditional, non-Westernised, non-heterosexualised social spaces. Please refer to Non-Western Concepts of Male Sexuality)

References: (1) GAY AMERICAN “DEVIANCE”: Using International Comparative Analysis to Argue for a Free Speech and Establishment Clause Approach to Furthering Gay Marriage in the United States. Bijal Shah, Yale Law School; http://lsr.nellco.org/yale/student/papers/52/

Quote from the research paper:

“Sexual identity is not universally understood as solely located in the individual in the same fashion as lesbian and gay identity in middle-class Western societies.”

(2) The Changing social construction of western male homosexuality: Association with worsening youth suicide problems: chapter: Male homosexuality: from commonality to rarity; http://youth-suicide.com/gay-bisexual/construction/3-gay-youth-suicide-homosexuality-rare.htm

(3) Re-Orienting Desire: The Gay International and the Arab World, Review of Joseph Massad’s book: Desiring Arabs, University of Chicago Press, 2007; from the site: http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1679743

Quote:

“Massad's point, though, is this: In the Arab world, men who have sex with men are, for the most part, not "gay", and need no liberation from prosecution. They are not "gay" because "gay" is a Western identity that The Gay International has attempted to thrust upon them.”

“Western gay-rights groups are causing great harm to those they purport to assist by forcing them to either choose the Western "gay" label, or choose not to realize their true sexuality.”

“Like the Byzantines who viewed unveiled women as prostitues or lower class women and thus succeeded in creating the veiled Arab woman simply by implying they are a lower class if unveiled, Western literature of the last 1000 years referring to the Arabs as sodomites and pederasts and now, incredibly as homophobes, has imposed its mores and culture on their fluid concepts of Arab sexuality.”

(4) Distorting Desire: The Gay International and the Arab World, Review of Joseph Massad’s book Desiring Arabs University of Chicago Press, 2007; http://www.al-bab.com/arab/articles/text/massad.htm

Quote:

“The central thesis of his 25-page polemic was that promotion of gay rights in the Middle East is a conspiracy led by western orientalists and colonialists which “produces homosexuals, as well as gays and lesbians, where they do not exist”.

(5) Homosexual behaviour without homosexual identity: The case of Chinese men having sex with men (MSM); Winkelmann C.; Int Conf AIDS. 2004 Jul 11-16; 15: abstract no. WePeD6407; http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/102284322.html

Quote:

"Historically homosexual behaviour was wide-spread in China and tolerated by society as long as the men were married and had children. "Homosexual behaviour - as distinct from a gay" identity, which is a Western import that didn't hit China until the late 20th century - was an ordinary part of Chinese life." Lessons: As a result the majority of MSM do not consider themselves as either homo- or bisexual."

(6) GAY CULTURES IN MANAGUA, NICARAGUA; http://www2.fmg.uva.nl/gl/mana.html

Quote:

"There is no strong feeling of identity or community for men involved in homo-sexual behavior, except for the maricones who have a strong sense of identity and for the western style gays who have a sense both of identity and community."

(7 ) Masculinity for boys: A guide for peer educators; Published by UNESCO, New Delhi http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001465/146514e.pdf

Page 102 "Terms like "sexual orientation", 'heterosexual', and 'homosexual' distort and misrepresent the truth about male gender and sexuality. Sexual Orientation is not a valid concept. The basic assumptions behind it are wrong."

“But the basic drawback (of the scientific discourse on male-male sexuality) is that they conveniently assume that the modern socio-political ‘gay’ identity constitutes a distinct biological group, which is an absurd and unscientific assumption.Men of different genders came together on a common platform ‘homosexual’ in the west only because of their oppression under heterosexualisation and not because of any biological affinity.”

Page: 102 "When these heterosexual terms (gay, homosexual) are forced upon a traditional society like India, their meaning and connotation changes. E.g., the sexual identity ‘homosexual’ becomes a gender identity (transgender)."

Page 63 "Case Study: In a series of workshops on masculinity conducted by an NGO with men of all ages in several cities of North India, the men described a famous TV character Dilruba as a ‘homo’. Dilruba is a limp-wristed, extremely feminine person, but his sexual interest is only in women. On the other hand, two masculine men who have sex exclusively with each other (and not with women) were not identified as ‘homo’."

Page 100 “Case Study: The HIV/ AIDS intervention programme being implemented in India, which is heavily funded by foreign donors, is being used by certain vested interest groups to divide the Indian male society along the lines of sexual orientation, and create a homosexual identity. Although, it has not worked and the only takers for the homosexual identity have ben the English speaking feminine gendered males, the entire social machinery — including the media and the government — has put its weight behind this endeavour.

After the failure of the homosexual identity amongst Indian men, some 'gay' activists introduced a clever term ‘MSM’, i.e., ‘men who have sex with men’ which, being a technical term, was difficult to avoid. However, this has become another third sex identity, and is used only by / for feminine males. Ironically, the indigenous feminine gendered males (e.g. the Hijras) too reject this identity, since they do not consider themselves ‘men’.”

(Masculinity (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

Can you please explain how your proposed addition would help a reader understand the history and usage of the term "gay"? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

What this addition will do is basically link to a page that will help the reader understand that the concept of 'gay', which seeks to divide men without reference to their gender (masculinity/ femininity) is not universal, and that half of the world sees things in a different way -- it classifies people according to sex and gender first, any other division can only come after that. The concept of Gay stands diagonally opposite to that.

I could add a lot of stuff here, with mainstream references to explain my point, but I'm adding just a small abstract primarily because I understand that this is prmarily a western space, and particularly this page belongs to the strong gay lobby which does not want to accomodate any point of view, however prevalent in the world, that doesn't agree with its own. I know, that even to add this much, with all the references in the world, would be a grand achievement, and I'm saying this out of experience.(Masculinity (talk) 03:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC))