Talk:Lesbian

The meaning of words

Moni, Once again, you’ve done a great job with the article. I am very impressed with your objectivity, something I did not expect, I admit, from you. I didn’t think you wanted any information in the article that would not depict lesbians in a 100% positive light to everyone, and that making lesbians look good was your goal. I was wrong about you. Not that the article makes them look bad -- it’s just factual, as it should be.

My only objection is this:

As I see it, the article must state at the top and straight away that the word means “female homosexual”, using those two words. My argument for this is the same as the argument I compiled from the old article - and placed there by others in the process of arguing against those proud Greek islanders attempts to make the word mean what they wanted it to. “Female Homosexual” just simply is, has long been, and will continue to be the simple primary meaning of the word. For a citation of this fact, I point to any good dictionary, but please see the "terminnology" section I created just above for my full arguement. The word means what it does, period.

I am not saying this because I have any position on Lesbianism. My only bias is in favor of the simple meaning of words, and against any slipping into linguistic relativeism. It is no different from positions I have taken elsewhere in defense of the meaning of words. (“Organic” for example.) Individuals or small groups may not take a word and redefine it for the rest of the world‘s speakers. They may add new, secondary, definitions, which may someday become the primary ones, but they may not redefine words for the rest of the world.

Note that by simply stating that lesbian = female homosexual does not mean that there will not be cases where an individual is arguably both a lesbian or not a lesbian, or partly one and partly not one, or one today but not tomorrow, or any gray area you could think of. A person might be arguably not really female, or not really homosexual, depending on a person’s perspective. There is lots of gray area around almost any word or concept. The definition of “tree” is what it is, despite bushy trees or treeish bushes. You deal with the fuzzy edges around the concept very well in your article, as you should, further down, and all types of problems with the simple definition of the word. That‘s good; that‘s right; well done. But I insist (if you get what I mean by “insist”) that right at the top, simply stated, must be the accepted dictionary definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrus (talk • contribs) 21:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok. My first response to this is that I have some issues overcoming the fact that the first 2 sentences in the lead define what a lesbian is, and the rest of the article addresses how the definition of what a lesbian is has clearly been subjective since its broad use in English.

My second is that the way it reads now is redundant. "Female homosexuality" is used twice in 2 sentences, and that is not good writing. Further, Oxford uses both, so the previous wording is accurate:

2. (Freq. with lower-case initial.) [After the alleged practice of Sappho, the poetess of Lesbos; cf. SAPPHIC a. and n., SAPPHISM.] Of a woman: homosexual, characterized by a sexual interest in other women. Also, of or pertaining to homosexual relations between women.

B. n. A female homosexual.

Hence {sm}Lesbianism, female homosexuality.

Respectfully, the word does not mean what it does to all people in the Western world. It simply does not. I love the Djuna Barnes quote in the notes: "I am not a lesbian. I just loved Thelma." The article states many times, perhaps to the point of distraction, that lesbian identity and lesbian behavior are separate concepts for people. I also wrote Mulholland Drive (film) and was really turned around by that movie...let's say out of my tree insane, just so there are no misunderstandings. Laura Elena Harring got naked with Naomi Watts in the film and made out, clearly a sex scene which was noticed by Maxim and all kinds of disreputable publications, only to have Harring say to a reporter, "I don't think we're lesbians". She means the softball playing tool-belt wearing diesel dykes. She means the kind that aren't interested in attracting men. What a disconnect, to be caught naked in bed with another naked woman touching all over just say calmly and rationally, "Oh, I'm not a lesbian!" Wtf?

I'm not sure if we're saying the same thing and missing, or we have a significant difference in opinion here. Regardless, the issue with the repeated words needs to be addressed ASAP. --Moni3 (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for your opening comments. Lesbians almost always look good without my assistance. --Moni3 (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is ambiguity about the term. The same is true for almost every term that you can name. There is no doubt, in my mind at least, that Ellen is, but I’m not as sure about Ann. I suppose you could say that she both is and isn’t, or that she wasn’t, then was, and now isn’t again. Or maybe she never was, but said she was. Fine; whatever; I’ll leave that to you all to sort out and don’t want to get involved, other than to say “This is what the word means: female homosexual. Deal with it; if you feel you must.

I say the same is true for most words. Subjectivity is par for the course when dealing with words. A dog is a quadruped, that’s part of the definition. But some dogs have three legs, and for all I know some might have five. Think about any other word. House, police officer, road, city, star, movie, car. Definitions don’t have to be ambiguous just because individuals don’t always fit them perfectly, or even particularly well. We have to be comfortable with ambiguity sometimes. You have and continue to deal with it thoughout the article, as you should.

About the stylistic issues, I can try to rectify that, or you can. I am willing to wager, however, that perceived and proscribed style “rule” will turn out to be “simple definitions first; synonymous, wordier, re-phrasings later.”

I have a bit more to say later, and then I'll drop it.Chrisrus (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think having homosexuality mentioned in the second sentence is prominent enough. Putting it as the first sentence would not only be bad writing due to repitition (per Moni), but i think is less clear. As the homosexual and gay articles show, those terms can be very complicated, so defining lesbians initially with equally complicated and ambiguous words does not help the reader. I think the current first sentence is more concrete then "female homosexual", even if longer. Also lesbian is very often used as the adjective, so defining it only as the noun ignores how it is really used - i think pointing out both uses from the very start is a good idea.YobMod 10:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, it'd have to be re-written for style with this in mind. I'll try again soon.Chrisrus (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Any particular needs

I have limited staying power for reading major chunks but I can check over spot areas if it would help. Anything in particular? -- Banjeboi 11:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If the article is going to be nominated for FA, it needs a lot of scrutiny, a lot of questions. I think that's essential for an article that addresses a topic this divisive and abstract. It can't be that the article is so well-written and put together that there are no issues with why something is discussed or included. Uh, can it? --Moni3 (talk) 13:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright then. I'll start picking out major plot flaws and post them here. No promises on coherent reasoning, I simply can't think strait. Ba-da-ding! Thank you, we're here all week folks! -- Banjeboi 13:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Lulz. Benji for the win. --Moni3 (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Harlem buffet

Those slummers to Harlem went to rent parties called buffets where one could walk into any of a dozen scenes of various sexual acts. I'll see if i can dig something up on this but it's worth weaving in. -- Banjeboi 09:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Peer review

I've sent prods to the projects in hopes to rattle cages. -- Banjeboi 10:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, since you asked. How come the bit about lesbian relations in Sparta has been left out, and what do you mean when you say, about homosexual relations in Greece, "though they were strict"? Haiduc (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thank God. I have to say that the Greek thing is just...not the section I am happiest with. I need to revisit it with better sources. What's the best source on homoerotic relations between women in Sparta? --Moni3 (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

There is an interesting discussion of the topic in From Sappho to De Sade by Jan N. Bremmer, pp.27-28. He presents some late sources (Plutarch, Lives Lycurgus 18.4 as well as Athenaeus, XIII 602 d/e) that describe a custom where Spartan girls "had sexual relationships like the boys" and supports that with 7th c. evidence, a fragment from Alcman in which the term "aitis" (the feminine form of aites, or eromenos) is used. He also presents iconographic evidence, in the form of a vase with a pederastic topos where the protagonists are female, and points to similarities between the poems of Sappho and such practices.

As for the "strict" monicker that you use for ancient relationships, I would question that. It implies your own self-positioning in a non-strict culture. But our culture is just as strict, maybe even more so, just in a different way. Let me know if you want me to do any editing on that section. Haiduc (talk) 08:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Review

No shit. I just got this email.

I've finally had a chance to read your Wikipedia article. It's heroic! You cover so much ground and do it so well. My only other comments are quibbles.

For instance:

--You mention early in the essay the public lesbian communities that formed in Paris and Berlin, but only later the lesbian communities that formed in New York.

--I find your early statement, "Lesbians share similar physical and mental health concerns that are just beginning to be identified" troubling. There's such a diversity among lesbians and lesbian communities. The only thing of substance we can safely say they share, I think, is that they all love women. It's dangerous to try to make any other broad generalization about lesbians, the scientists and pseudo-scientists notwithstanding.

--Last comment: You go from classical Greece and Rome to the early modern period. There's a book, a collection of essays, that's coming out soon called THE LESBIAN PREMODERN. The authors reference numerous other works on women who loved women in the Middle Ages. I don't know if the editor would let you see any of the manuscript, but it might be worth asking her. Her name is Noreen Giffney. Email: (edited out)

Congratulations on a job well done!

Lillian Faderman

Thoughts?

Just FYI. I'm going to go over this article in another round, taking another shot at the Greek and Roman period, expanding the outside western cultures period, and now incorporating information from this suggested book. --Moni3 (talk) 01:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

...and then FAC? ;)

PS: I can see where she is coming from with the statement - "Lesbians share similar physical and mental health concerns that are just beginning to be identified" sorta comes across as odd and a bit redundant. I will have another (pre-FAC) look and be extra nasty...;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

PPS: Am highly intrigued by last comment on middle ages stuff - that would be fantastic sort of material to add. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hetaerae

I've hidden this addition from the first section until some discussion:

Lesbos is associated with female same-sex desire in the second century CE work Dialogues of the Hetaerae, by the satirist Lucian of Samosata. The hetaira Lenia tells a confidante about her experiences in the house of Megilla, a rich Lesbian woman. Lenia says she was initially asked to sing and play music for Megilla and a female guest. Later she was invited to share a bed with Megilla and the guest, and "embraced as though by a man" by Megilla. Megilla afterwards gave Lenia a necklace and several fine tunics. Early in Lenia's account, her confidante remarks that there are many women of Lesbos who avoid physical contact with men, and who actively desire other women.

The Origin and transformation of the term section was intended to illustrate succinctly where the word came from. I don't think this information should necessarily be removed from the article, but I don't believe it belongs in the section discussing how the term came about in English. It appears to have more to do with Ancient Greece and Rome or Literature. Thoughts? --Moni3 (talk) 12:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Majority?

The majority of lesbians (between 40% and 85%) report being in a long-term relationship.

40% is not a majority. I am changing this to:

Many lesbians (between 40% and 85%) report being in a long-term relationship.

RCNARANJA 17:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)