Talk:Sodomy

Rewrite

I think the article needs restructuring. The emphasis on Sodomy should be modern day definitions and connotations, with a section on historical usage. The article currently reads like a religious discussion. On another talk page an editor suggested spawning off a new article called Christian views of anal sex which seems logical. The religious views of Sodomy should be only a small portion of this article. Atom (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the rationale for this article as written is dubious. There already exists an article on sodomy law and an article on anal sex, each of which is superior in quality to this one. The French article, except for its exclusive focus on anal sex, Sodomie would seem to me like an ideal template for this one to copy, yet the link to the French article is being repeatedly deleted from this one. The problem is not that the French article doesn't correspond to this one, but that this one is currently written as a limited overview of the cultural baggage which attaches to the word in certain limited western religious contexts. I am of the opinion that as it stands this article needs to be renamed, and an article broadly paralleling the French one in format, but broadened to include oral sex should use the title Sodomy.

In the meantime I oppose deleting the link to the French article.

Click here to see the French article in machine translation at google. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs) 16:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; I mean the first page starts by effectively labely the act as unnatural; an obvious opinion unsupported by any science I have read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.119.222 (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

This article has a very strong biblical and religious influence. The bible is not an adequate reference for historic facts and definitions. This article should be modified promptly. This article is of no use for research and information purposes. ARBoughton (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The introductory definition seems extremely odd to me. I have never heard of bestiality generally or oral sex meaning the same thing as sodomy. This may have been so in the past, but as a modern definition it is sorely lacking. Sodomy these days is simply the insertion of a penis into an anus (I suppose an animal's anus would count) and that's it. Furthermore it doesn't matter if it is a male anus or a female anus or whether the people involved are married or not. I'd be very curious to see the definition of sodomy in a recently published edition of the Oxford Dictionary. The inference of a term does evolve over time. The word "queer" may appear in the dictionary in its original context, but it has an entirely different meaning to contemporary ears. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 10:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Circular Citation of Wikipedia by Wikipedia

The first citation in this article, supporting the definition of sodomy as including anal sex, oral sex and 'bestiality is a reference to the Word IQ website. That website cites the wikipedia article on sodomy law as its source. The sodomy law article provides no reference. I am removing this as a source and tagging it. μηδείς (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Scare quotes

Why are there scare quotes in the first sentence?

'Sodomy is a term used in the law to describe the act of "unnatural" sex...' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.30.151 (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I suppose the reason is that any activity voluntarily undertaken by naturally occurring creatures in their natural environment is a natural activity. However the assertion that sodomy is "unnatural" is a common part of the rhetoric behind attempts to forbid it. It's unclear how to define "unnatural" so the assertion "sodomy is unnatural" is not obviously false, hence the scare quotes. TimothyFreeman (talk) 17:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Huh?

"especially between males or between male persons" This makes no sense, unless anal sex between two male animals would be considered sodomy, which seems ridiculous, what has that got to do with a town in the middle east?

This whole article could definitely do with a dispassionate re-writeAdagio67 (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 72.23.224.61, 24 September 2011

Please change "bible" to "Bible" in the second sentence of the article. The word, in this case, is a proper noun and should begin with a capital letter.

72.23.224.61 (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Done AdamCaputo (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Medieval attitudes

I was listening to an article on BBC radio 4 last week and the historian suggested that sodomy was not understood as simply a case of same-sex relations during the medieval period. Rather it was promoted as a concept by Peter Damian and was understood as unnatural sexual relations that did not result in procreation (hence Dante's depiction of sodomites in a sterile envionment in his Inferno). This article focusses on homosexuality a great deal however. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you remember the name of the programme? Are you sure it's not this one? NotFromUtrecht (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes it was - thanks! This article is rubbish. It needs a rewrite from start to finish. Are we to understand sodomy purely in religious terms? But where do we start? Contaldo80 (talk) 10:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I started by separating modern religious views from historical ones. The Hebrew Bible must not be presented in terms of modern religionist views but as a document of society in the Levant in antiquity. Modern religious views are of marginal interest, because they are just held privately, "sodomy" not being a criminal offense any longer, anyone is free to hold their own views and definitions. What this article must focus on is the historical period during which sodomy was a well-defined criminal offense. This basically covers the medieval and early modern period. It is the hallmark of an article ruined by religionists fighting anti-religionists that it goes on for unbearable lengths about the Hebrew Bible (of course without any sense of historical depth) and ignores the early modern era completely. At least we have a brief "18th century" section here, but what we need to do is give a coherent account of the changes in legislation throughout Europe during the 15th to 19th centuries: this is what the core of the article should focus on, snippets from the Old and New Testament merely provide the necessary background for this.

--dab (𒁳) 09:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: change "was" to "were" in Legal Usage section

"was" should be "were" in "Laws prohibiting sodomy was seen frequently in past Jewish, Christian, and Islamic civilizations". TimothyFreeman (talk) 17:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 March 2012

Change : In The Book of Judges, 19-21, there is an account, similar in many ways, where a city is almost totally destroyed in punishment for a mob of its inhabitants raping a woman.) TO In the Book of Judges, 19-21, there is an account, similar in many ways, where Gibeah, a city of the Benjamin tribe, is destroyed by the other tribes of Israel in revenge for a mob of its inhabitants raping and killing a woman).

88.65.251.148 (talk) 11:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, Celestra (talk) 05:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Rremoved duplicate. See next post. Pyro121psycho (talk) 07:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 May 2012

Requesting to have the first sentence in the article edited.

As it currently stands, it singles out gay men and beastiality. The beastiality is correct to be pointed out, but it is not correct to single out gay men.

Currently the sentence reads: Sodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/), refers to anal sex or other non-penile/vaginal copulation-like acts, especially between male persons or between a person and an animal.

The sentence should be read as follows: Sodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/), refers to non-penile/vaginal copulation-like acts such as oral/anal sex, or sex between a person and an animal.

This will give a much clearer depiction of what sodomy actually is without sounding like there is an agenda behind this article. My reference for this information is the dictionary. Pyro121psycho (talk) 09:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the current version phrasing is appropriate. It correctly indicates that while sodomy is not restricted to the subset of homosexual/bestiality acts, in common usage those are the acts typically all that gets referred to as sodomy. It is very rare to see sodomy used to label heterosexual activity, even it is technically applicable. Monty₈₄₅ 19:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I am myself a homosexual, and feel offended by this article for only the reasoning of the opening sentence. It is also for Wikipedia to be accurate. As you state that it is very rare for heterosexual acts to be labled as sodomy is highly inaccurate. It is just that it is a highly acceptable form of sodomy. Please make the changes to the opening sentence as it is a clearly set opinion and not a proven fact. You have not shown anything that actually backs your opinion. Pyro121psycho (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done It's not a matter of opinion. Read the article about the history of the word. Nevertheless, as there is nothing actually vanadalistic about your sentence, I will do it for you (that's my policy with edit requests, something I just started doing a few minutes ago) - I expect it to be reverted though. Egg Centric 16:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for Rewrite for Christian views

Technically, the part of this section that notes "traditional interpretation sees the primary sin of Sodom as being homoerotic sexual acts" is incorrect as that it also views similar acts between men and women as also being a sin. Again, as stated above, I suspect that similar problems can be found with the other religious sections. Indeed, legally speaking, many countires (and states) view sodomy (normally associated with anal sex, though also oral sex) as illegal regardless of the biological sex of the participants.