Talk:Lesbian/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

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)

I'm just a passer-by...

...but when I saw that lead-in paragraph I was felt required to challenge it. I have had a couple of comments left on my talk page, quoted below, so I'll explain myself here:

Hi ! I'm from the Wikipedia in French, currently translating this article. I've seen your last diff and it really goes with the feeling I had with with intro. Are all the information in the intro developped further in the article ? I can't imagine an article becoming a good one with so much in its intro. Léna (talk) 09:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I'd been thinking about doing the same as you for a long time. But Lena is right, we don't cite in the intros, the article below is the citation for the intro. A slightly different approach is needed, but I don' t know what it is. Chrisrus (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, that's just too long and detailed for an intro.

From WP:LS:

While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article.

I think the paragraph in question most certainly 'teases'. Especially the claims about Lesbianism as an ethnicity. Note also 'carefully sourced as appropriate'. Obviously the argument for sources within the article are valid to a point, very, potentially controversial points such as these stand alone, I think.

WP:LEADCITE sums it up very well in saying:

The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. Contentious material about living persons must be cited every time, regardless of the level of generality.

Anyway, I'm just a passer-by, shocked by that lead section and challenging you, the editors of this, otherwise pretty well formed article! My own opinion, (I am not very well read on this subject and being a man with no sexual desire towards women am probably as far from a lesbian as you can get) but my two cents is, just cut it down to a few sentences: "Lesbians have been affected by various societies' attitudes towards gender, gender issues and sexism in a way specific to female homosexuality. Sociological aspects of Lesbianism, including the concept of Lesbian identity have been extensively discussed by numerous authors and scholars.".

But like I said, just my two cents, I'll leave you all to it! -- Fursday 17:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand the issues in WP:LEAD, but I do not understand your objections to this one. Are you saying it's too long? Too short? Needs cites? Needs something else? Please be specific. Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think his worry is that the lead is lacking citations. I must say, it would likely be helpful to bring them up there so that readers don't think they're reading unsupported text. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

This article has not really received much scrutiny, so if there are suggestions to improve it, then I welcome them. However, I just want to make sure that those who are doing to suggesting know what they're addressing. Some of what was tagged certainly needs no tag: claims that are likely to be questioned need citations. Does Women's sexuality throughout history has largely been constructed by men honestly need a cite? Which one? The article is like a mantra of this claim from multiple sources. As women, they face concerns separate from men This needs a cite? Really? And this Lesbians may encounter distinct health concerns has an entire section to itself with multiple medical sources.

The lead is a summary of what is covered and should be cited in the body of the article. This article, as had been pointed out on this talk page (and may be archived) is quite long. This is really a very short and broad lead for an article so long. As such, it mentions only wide areas of research that have been compiled from multiple sources. I do not wish to add more than three cites to any issue in the entire article; that makes it seem as if the sources alone are insufficient.

Thoughts? --Moni3 (talk) 18:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm no expert, so I am not going to touch the article (my addition of cites was just to draw your attention to these issues and that's now done). But I will explain in more detail, from an 'outsider's perspective' my specific objections. Sorry for not going into more detail before.

"Women who label themselves as lesbians, however, share an identity similar to ethnicity" I take issue with this most - as with the following in the body of the article: "Lesbians in Western cultures generally share an identity that parallels those built on ethnicity; they have a shared history and subculture, and similar experiences with discrimination which has caused many lesbians to reject heterosexual principles. This identity is unique from gay men and heterosexual women [...]".

That comparison to ethnicity to me looks like an enormous sweeping statement. Worst of all, it implies it is true for all women who label themselves as Lesbian, which is a very bold assertion for an encyclopaedia to make. The part about it being unique from gay men is also lacking an explanation. The only citation I can see is one book (not having the book I cannot comment on the context of the reference). Surely it would be much more appropriate to say "some academics argue that..." then give the reference of the academic(s) making that argument?

Elsewhere in the article, Lesbianism as an identity is covered far more responsibly. Surely the lead should talk about the variety with which Lesbianism is used as both a term for sexuality and as an identity, meaning different things to different social groups and individual women.

"Feminist historians assert that the primary motivation for sexologists to describe lesbians was based on their wariness of women's growing independence from men; women who challenged their strictly prescribed gender roles were considered mentally ill." I don't object to as a statement and it is referenced elsewhere, but I feel that statement is only done justice within the body of the article because social attitudes are a very complex subject. In my opinion, that statement goes from being completely true, partially true to not true at all based upon what society and what point in history one is referring. In the lead-in, it is therefore potentially a problem without further explanation.

I feel a similar argument can be levied against the statement "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". The coverage of Lesbianism and the Media is exceptionally broad and for the most part very well covered in this and its sister article. That statement doesn't really do it justice as a summary, though, and makes Lesbianism in the media seem like it can be explained in one sentence, rather than conveying the point that this topic is so complex that it is worthy of an article of its own!

-- Fursday 19:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It is for clarity's sake only that I will be asking questions about your objections/observations, Fursday. I constructed most of this article. I can respond to some here, but I also have many of my sources in another location and will have to respond in parts.

1. Identity → ethnicity is mentioned twice in the article: once in the Construction of lesbian identity section: Homosexuals began to draw comparisons between their newly recognized minority status and that of African Americans per historian Lillian Faderman. And another in the Sexuality and lesbians section. That cite matches Schlager, p. 93. If you wish, I can reproduce those paragraphs here for greater context and you can make suggestions on how to make it clearer.
2. Please clarify this, I do not understand what it means: Worst of all, it implies it is true for all women who label themselves as Lesbian, which is a very bold assertion for an encyclopaedia to make
3. Variety of Lesbianism: the lead states the different aspects of what the term has been used to mean, both by lesbians and others. The result of such discussion has introduced three components to identifying lesbians: sexual behavior, sexual desire, or sexual identity. This is a very brief summary of the issues that are presented throughout the article that attempt to explain a very complex idea for many Westerners. We tend to have a very binary and solid view of sexual expression: either you are homosexual or you are not. It is hardly ever that simple. I hope the article makes it clear that women portray themselves differently than what they actually do. All people do this. Some women who participate in homosexual behavior take on the identity of a lesbian. This is also discussed throughout the article. If you have suggestions about how to make that clearer, please make them. If I have misunderstood your point, please clarify.
4. Regarding the second sentence in the 3rd paragraph of the lead, Feminist historians assert that the primary motivation for sexologists to describe lesbians was based on their wariness of women's growing independence from men; women who challenged their strictly prescribed gender roles were considered mentally ill. a simple phrase can be added Feminist historians assert that the primary motivation for sexologists who first described lesbian characteristics was based on their wariness of women's growing independence from men... Or perhaps I have misunderstood your point. Please clarify if so.
5. Are you suggesting an expansion for the lead regarding media portrayals? --Moni3 (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, well done on what is by and large some excellent work, you have my admiration for putting together and co-coordinating what is a very complex article. I am not an expert on this subject, but I am happy to clarify my points:

Identity and ethnicity

1. Identity → ethnicity My issue was in part with the wording within the Sexuality and lesbians section and in part with the use in the lead.
   
   In Sexuality and lesbians section—it seems to me to misconstrue the ethnicity analogy as being fact. It also implies, (due to poor wording) that this applies to all Lesbians. "Lesbians in Western cultures generally share an identity that parallels those built on ethnicity; they have a shared history and subculture, and similar experiences with discrimination which has caused many lesbians to reject heterosexual principle"
   
   'generally' - what does that mean? Are we talking about all, most or some lesbians here? The article in general is good in that it makes the distinction that the Lesbian identity means different things to different people, including different things to different Lesbians. From the one extreme of 'just' female homosexuality to the extreme used by the political 'militant Lesbians'. This sentence, lets it down. I think it should say "Some Lesbians in Western cultures share an identity". or "Some commentators have written that Lesbians in Western cultures share an identity".
   
   Furthermore, as Chrisrus points out, ethnicity is only a limited analogy when talking about the complexities of a shared, community-like unity based around 'Lesbianism' in its various definitions. It is like ethnicity, but it isn't ethnicity, with that in mind there is a danger in taking this too far.
   
   With regards to the lead itself, I think the reference to the ethnicity analogy is completely out of place because it is contentious. It does not apply to all people's definitions of Lesbianism or to all commentators interpretations. The article already says it has a geo-social restriction inasmuch as it refers to Western cultures. As an analogy, it has its limitations that need further explanation. Without being able to qualify all of these things in detail, as is done elsewhere in the article, the statement doesn't work on its own. Therefore I think the lead should limit itself to pointing out that the article will go on to discuss the different ways in which Lesbian identity can manifest itself and go no further.

• From the source (sorry it was Paula Rust, cite #11) The belief that essential differences distinguish homosexuals from heterosexuals became increasingly important to this movement, both as a defense against religious and legal proscriptions of homosexuality and as the basis for the notion of gay "ethnicity"' that transformed the identity-based gay and lesbian communities into minorities with political interests (Altman 1982; Epstein 1987; Herrell 1992). In spite of theoretical criticism by social constructionists, the concept of essential homosexuality retains currency, particularly among lesbians (Fuss 1989; Richardson 1981; Troiden 1988).
• The term "gay ethnicity" refers to the notion of gayness as a group identity analogous to racial or ethnic group identities. It involves, for example, the concepts of group heritage and group pride. Epstein (1987) and Herrell (1992) argue that the gay and lesbian movement, which is modelled after earlier racial and ethnic movements, is based upon the notion of gayness as an ethnicity.
• Finally, preservation of an essentialist and dichotomous construction of sexuality is critical to modern lesbian politics. The concept of lesbians as a minority group with particular political interests rests on the notion of lesbian "ethnicity" which in turn depends upon an essentialist view of lesbianism. Challenges to this view undermine lesbian identity politics by undermining the basis for lesbian "ethnic" identity. But the lesbian movement borrowed more than a form of identity from racial and ethnic movements; it also borrowed a liberationist ideology.
• Do all lesbians consider themselves part of an ethnic group based on sexual orientation? Certainly not. I would think hardly any of them do. What the sources say--and what the article should--is that the identity homosexuals acknowledge is most closely paralleled to an ethnic identity (perhaps because that is what westerners know, specifically in the US because we tend to base our social differences on race). Women who are active in the LGBT community and those who are more separatist feel as if their histories are all similar, being born as a minority of women, compounded with the further persecution when they fall in love with other women. The experience of growing up female in a world controlled by men is shared among women and made more poignant at the moment of realizing that men are essentially unnecessary in one's social future. This article makes the point that women have taken over defining their own sexuality (for the moment at least) and lesbians must continue to actively define who they are when men also continue to define what lesbians are, making their purpose related to men in pornography and fantasy, reducing it to a farce. Rejecting men's definitions of what lesbians are and should be is a unifying force.
• I posted text from the source to give you an idea of the context in which lesbian identity is addressed. I can make the wording in the article and lead clearer, but I feel the issue of lesbian identity must be addressed in the lead. At the present, lesbians are who they say they are, but they are also who everyone else says they are. (For an OR example, several years ago I participated in an extended discussion in an online forum for lesbians who say they hate the word "lesbian" because it sounds so ugly and is used so hurtfully. They did not hate homosexual behavior, but they hated the way "lesbian" was used by others to denote a flannel wearing mullet-sporting man-hating hairy-legged fat dyke. They believed themselves that this is what the word meant because they had been educated to believe it and could not see beyond this meaning as a social construct. They did not see "lesbian" as a term that defined their love, but rather defined their freakishness for the rest of the world.)

1. Please clarify this, I do not understand what it means: Worst of all, it implies it is true for all women who label themselves as Lesbian, which is a very bold assertion for an encyclopaedia to make = That was referring to 'generally' word above.
2. Variety of Lesbianism: The first two paragraphs of the lead, and the rest of the article do very well to get this across, I think this has been done very well, and doesn't need to be made clearer. It is just that the poor wording of these the two sentences, the one in the third paragraph and the one in Sexuality in lesbians, serve to undermine the excellent remainder of the article, which otherwise delivers this point well.
3. Regarding the second sentence in the 3rd paragraph of the lead That helps. But for a lead, it concentrates a lot on those original sexologists. Surely the emphasis should be on the progression of consensus in the field of sexology. Something like "academic description and study of Lesbians has varied substantially, early sexologists thought this, then they came to think something else, then feminism happened, and they thought that, then homosexual emancipation happened, now they think this." All in one or two sentences. The emphasis is then on the evolution of academic interpretation then, not on one phase of it.
4. Are you suggesting an expansion for the lead regarding media portrayals? No. If anything I think the lead doesn't need to touch media portrayal of Lesbians. It's a subset of societal attitudes and to surmise it in a way that does the subject justice is difficult to the point of impossible. At that point you should ask, does media portrayal really need to be in the lead? Surely the lead should concentrate on societal attitudes in general pointing out the substantial variation through time, perhaps just listing "the media" as one of many ways in which societal attitudes are demonstrated.

-- Fursday 02:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

A rewrite of the third paragraph in the lead, split into a third and fourth paragraph:

Women's sexuality throughout history has largely been constructed by men, who have limited acknowledgment of lesbianism either as a possibility or as a valid expression of sexuality due to the absence of males in a lesbian relationship. Early sexologists based their characterization of lesbians on their beliefs that women who challenged their strictly prescribed gender roles were mentally ill. Lesbians have often reacted to their designation as immoral outcasts by constructing a subculture based on gender role rebellion. Lesbianism has sometimes been in vogue throughout history, which affects how lesbians are viewed by others as well as how they view themselves; some women who engage in homosexual behavior may not identify themselves as lesbian or bisexual.

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 label themselves as lesbians, however, share an identity that parallels ethnicity: 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.

Per WP:LEAD, it should summarize the most important points of the article. The medial portrayal section is pretty big because most folks come to the article with ideas based on what they see or read in the media. Media portrayal also permeates the other sections as well. The dichotomy of how lesbianism is perceived--both shameful and titillating--should be included in the lead. Male homosexuality is treated much differently. Most of society are more threatened by the idea of male homosexuality while they are either mildly tolerant or amused/aroused by lesbianism. --Moni3 (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on lead by Chrisrus

First of all, I’d like to say that, while I did say on his talk page that I’d been thinking about doing the same as Fursday, that may not have applied to each of the points where he said “citation needed”, exactly. Thinking about it now, it’s not citations that are needed in all cases, but clarification, or even re-thinking. Sometimes it’s not clear what the sections is saying. I’ll be specific below.

But first if I could just address myself to Fursday and Lena, I’d like to say that, if you had seen the way this article was before Moni started laboring on it, it was a bloody mess. What happened was there was a rebellion of editors from Lesbos Island that wanted their word back, and the article read like a battlefield strewn with back-and-forth POV balancing. Also there was a fight I got in the middle of about the Health section that tattered it up some more. It lay like that for a while, and then I was in the midst of picking up the pieces and trying to cobble something together from what was left over despite the fact that I don’t know anything about the subject myself, but I was doing an ok job of it if I could say so myself but then:

Moni stepped in. I had my doubts at first because I thought she going to be a POV-driven “rainbow patrol“ type of editor ready to do battle, if you know what I mean, but I’ve been really impressed, you know, she’s gone out of her way to let the facts speak for themselves and balance between factions. So anyway, I’m really impressed by not only her scholarship but her ability to hide any bias she might have from the article itself. I think that what happened with the paragraph in question is that she wanted to allow some people with different points of view get theirs into the article, not that those are her biases.

If I could just address myself to Moni, um…, about just this one paragraph, it’s a little bit much at times, for people like Fursday and me and likely readers who come to it from the outside. May I try to help?

“Second, Women's sexuality throughout history has largely been constructed by men [citation needed]”

What does “constructed” mean here? How can one person construct another person’s sexuality? It’s just a weird thing to say, we don't understand. I don’t think “constructed” is the word you want here. I’ve read the article so I think I know what you mean, but unless you have read it really doesn’t seem possible or true. Surely you admit that, at least to a certain extent, depending what “constructed” and "sexuality" mean, men never construct women’s sexuality.

“who have limited acknowledgment of lesbianism either as a possibility or as a valid expression of sexuality due to the absence of males in a lesbian relationship“

This clause identifies the men who constructed women’s sexuality. It comes across as if it’s saying “what the hell would they know”. It’s a good point, why quote male psychologists or male anybody on the subject of lesbianism? What would they know? But later on we’ll hear from Freud and Kinsey and others, the intro apologizes, but we we'll let you know to take it with a grain of salt. We could say “most of the early literature on the subject were men, who as men, were biased against lesbians because men don’t want women to be lesbians, they want women to be heterosexual or bisexual. It goes on in the same vein:

“Feminist historians[who?] assert that the primary motivation for sexologists to describe lesbians was based on their wariness of women's growing independence from men; women who challenged their strictly prescribed gender roles were considered mentally ill.

So these historians are able to tell that the real reason psychologists used to think of lesbianism as a pathological condition was because they were scared of lesbians, not for the reasons they might themselves have given. Actually, we can somehow know if we read what these historians say, Freud and the others just didn’t want their wives leaving them or something.

So Fursday says “who”, but what he means, I think, is that, ok, maybe it’s a fact that someone said that, but it doesn’t sound like a simple fact, because many people, psychologists maybe, may look at lesbianism as pathological for other reasons, how would a historian know, for sure, what was their real motivation to think that way about it, unless the psychologists said so themselves?

“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[citation needed], and fascinated and appalled with women who are romantically involved with other women.[citation needed] ”

Well, how can you say that based on what is in the article? There are some Lesbians in the media, but not really all that much, really. I don’t see the media as “intrigued and threatened” by masculine women, really. Like, as soon as Ellen came out, her sit com got great ratings, but then as people continued watching it, they found they didn’t like it so much anymore. I don't think they were appalled, they were perplexed and finally bored. But they love Ellen herself, not because or despite the fact that she’s a lesbian, but because she’s just so likable as a person. Meaning, we don’t care that she’s a lesbian anymore, we just like Ellen. So it doesn’t look to me that people in general are really threatened or particularly interested in who’s a lesbian based on the pop culture section of the article about KD Lang or The Indigo Girls or Ellen or any of the others. I don’t see what’s in the article as supporting that statement. The History section seems to bear this out, too, your article shows, people don’t seem to get as upset about lesbian sex as you might think they might, though sometimes they do.

“Further discourse on women's sexuality affects how lesbians are viewed by others as well as how they view themselves; some women who engage in homosexual behavior may not identify themselves as lesbian or bisexual. “

Outsiders do not see the connection between these two independent clauses.

“Further discourse on women's sexuality affects how lesbians are viewed by others as well as how they view themselves;

Discourse on lesbians affects how lesbians are viewed. I think I maybe know what it means, but it’s not clear. So we look to the other side of the semi-colon for a restatement, a clarification. “some women who engage in homosexual behavior may not identify themselves as lesbian or bisexual. “ This doesn’t seem to be a restatement of the first clause, so what is it, a reason? Some girls say that they’re not lesbians because of “further discourse"? Does it mean they actually just don’t want to “identify” that way? I think so. I think you're trying to talk about the modern problem of the meaning of lesbian, that a person might be lesbian community-wise, but not really female homosexual-wise, and vise-versa.

“Women who label themselves as lesbians, however, share an identity similar to ethnicity[who?][citation needed]. “

This is pretty good in my opinion, but may I suggest “sense of community”? I know that many out-lesbians have a sense of community and call it as such. Of course it is similar to ethnicity in that many people think of their ethnic group as their community, but around here not so much. I don’t have any sense of community based on my ethnicity and can be suspicious of those who do sometimes if they take it too far, because I’m a non-ethnic American and don’t understand about that stuff. So "sence of community" is more what they share, that's the point, you don't need to get into the ethnic stuff. Thinking about the wider context, it seems what you mean is that the lesbian community was influenced by things like the Civil Rights Movement and such, in the 60s and 70s. But that's not clear.

“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.[citation needed]”

Yes that’s true. I don’t know why Fursday thinks it needs a citation. I think it’s not likely to be challenged and wouldn’t ask that it be cited even in the main article. Self-evident, I’d say. The problem is, what's the point? I think I know what the point is, but a stumbleupon might think it sounds like a plea for sympathy. That feeling would mistakenly be dragged into this:

“Lesbians may encounter distinct health concerns.[citation needed]”

No, I don’t agree that a citation is needed. But I do think that it does need to be clearer that what you are doing by saying these things is talking about why there is a lesbian community, and that is appropriate to do because this is an article at least in part about the word, and even though there are these women over hear that might be lesbians in one sense of the word they might not be really “lesbians” in another sense, which might be “member of the lesbian community”. That is, if I understand you correctly.

Hope this helps. Chrisrus (talk) 23:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hm. That's a lot. So much that I'm not sure how to address all of it.

An RfC was called to shorten the lead on Harvey Milk, which I wrote, and because it was an RfC I did it, but I rather regret doing it now. The RfC put quite a bit of misplaced pressure to do it.

However, to get to the rewritten lead, I basically listed the most important points in the article and put it into prose.

It would look like this:

• Define lesbian
• There is a difference between the identity of a lesbian and female homosexual behavior: sometimes they merge and sometimes they do not.
• Through history and in different cultures, women's sexuality has been formed/constructed by men, in their understanding of how women should relate to men.
• When characteristics of homosexuality were compiled in the middle of the 19th century, it continued the practice of making lesbianism invisible. What was written was based on men's constructs of normal female behavior. Women who challenged what was considered normal feminine behavior and values were labeled mentally ill. Lesbianism fell within this because women were expressing themselves sexually in the absence of men, rejecting a woman's traditional role to marry and have children, and some lived and dressed as men.
• Lesbian identity was formed by women who embraced their labels as different or perverted. It was also formed by women who participated in homosexual behavior yet hid or denied it when it was related to mental illness and social ostracism. It continues to change and be based on shared experiences for women in the West.
• When women began to form their own sexuality, they changed the definition of what lesbian means. This has caused historians to reconsider how they view historical aspects of women's sexuality.
• Lesbians/WSW share similar physical and mental health concerns.
• Media portrayals of lesbians have in turn addressed them as freaks, predators, prostitutes, and unnatural. Yet the public -- men, mostly -- have been fascinated with female homosexuality and continue to use lesbians as fantasy objects.
• Cycles through history have favored lesbianism and historians connect these cycles with more freedom for women to be sexually adventurous. Within the past 30 to 40 years women have reclaimed their own sexuality. This addresses the political issues in the LGBT community for lesbian couples to seek the right to form family units, marry, adopt, and raise children.

Per my regrets at Harvey Milk, I want to make sure that the folks who are commenting on a lead aren't drive-by critics. Chrisrus, I'm not saying you are, but I would like input from others who watch this article. Your comments are of course welcome as well. --Moni3 (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand. What do you think about this edit? Is this what you were trying to say?:

Although female homosexuality has appeared in many cultures throughout time, use of the word “lesbian” to distinguish a group of people is not found until the late 19th century. sexologists published their observations on female same-sex desire and behavior. Later, homosexual women calling themselves lesbians formed subcultures in Europe and North America. In the 1970s, lesbian schools of thought within the second wave feminism appeared, culminating in it‘s most extreme form in Lesbian Separatism, a philosophy upon which social groups were formed, some of which exist to this day. Other groups and communities of lesbians have come together as simply out of mutual affection, acceptance, and shared interests in activities such as softball. Historians since have re-examined relationships between women in history, and have endeavored to define individual women or a relationships as lesbian. The result of such discussion has introduced three components to identifying lesbians: sexual behavior, sexual desire, or sexual identity.

I'm having a harder time with this paragraph. I don't know how helpful this will be, but for what it's worth, this is what I've done tonight:

“Women's sexuality throughout history has largely been constructed by men"

I’m sorry but I just don’t understand this clause. What can it mean? What does it mean to say that a person or persons “constructed” the sexuality of others or another? I see human sexuality as “constructed” first by biology, then by individual physiology, i.e.: hormones and organs and such, then by nurture, i.e.: stuff that happened to you, things you saw on TV, etc, and then even by personal force of will, possibly, in some cases, even choice. I’m skeptical how much the latter can really affect personal sexuality in most cases, but am open to the possibility that, what with all the bewildering variation among people, I suppose it can happen at times. Would you object to discussing synonyms or other alternatives to this word? Or perhaps, barring that, merely prefacing it with something like “(particular school of thought) has seen women’s sexuality” yadda yadda?

“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. “

How about a “perhaps because” or something? I mean, who knows why they thought that? Where in the article does it say that this is the case? Lose this part, I think. Start the paragraph with “Early sexologists…

Early sexologists characterized lesbian sexuality as a form of sexual pathology or mental illness. Since then, many lesbians have naturally reacted to their designation as immoral, insane out outcasts with rebellion. This contributed to a rebellious aesthetic characteristic of some lesbian subculture.

Lesbian subcultures have appeared and disappeared throughout history, which affects how lesbians are viewed by others as well as how they view themselves. Some female homosexuals may reject the “lesbian” identity entirely, refusing to identify themselves as “lesbian” out of a lack of identification with characteristic tendencies associated with prominent members of lesbian subculture. As such, it is possible to be “lesbian” in the sense of “female homosexual” but not “lesbian” in the sense of “member of the lesbian community and any expectations that might come with that membership”.

Hope this helps, I’ll try to look more at it again sometimes soon. Chrisrus (talk) 07:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Lesbian for Dummies

Ok, but in parting, may I say, do you know what I think most readers want? They want to learn the answers to questions they are shy to ask because they think they will seem dumb, maybe because they are dumb, or at least ignorant, or at least ignorant-sounding. I envision a sort of “lesbianism for dummies” or something. I’d look for inspiration to the “stupid” questions posted by people that obviously don’t know what their talking about, and there are many of these in the talk page archive, mostly ignored or scoffed at or shouted down. But these are precisely the questions that Lesbians tend to hate, I know, and think that‘s why they might still remain unanswered. You know the ones I mean: “Did you have a bad experience with men early in your formation?” “What can I do, my daughter is lesbian!” “Lesbianism, how is that suppose to work? I don’t get it.” “What is the cause of lesbianism?” “Why does it seem that so many gym teachers/social workers/dog groomers/etc. are lesbians? How true are the stereotypes about lesbianism?” And all the great athletes/comedians, is there something hormonal going on here?

Are you offended by these questions? If I knew you personally I’d never ask, but here on the internet I feel safer asking. Ok, I’ll fade back into silence now. But you have become, if you weren’t already, quite an expert and like many experts might have a hard time predicting what common readers are looking for. I hope that I have succeeded in getting you to put yourself in the mind of the average readers maybe a little bit more as you continue to improve this excellent article basically without much help, Kudos again. Chrisrus (talk) 01:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

When I was an undergrad I participated in speakers' bureaus for sociology and human sexuality classes. I counted once how many students I had spoken to. It was around 700 in all the classes I attended. I was asked all that and more. I answered just about everything. Very little offends me. I tend to agree some with Mrs. Roosevelt: we allow ourselves to be offended.

Writing this article stretched my own perceptions of what lesbians are and why. All the articles I have written I have done so because I am naturally curious. What I learned while writing this one--as an out lesbian for nearly 20 years--pushed my boundaries, and sometimes not in pleasant ways.

While it would be great to have a Wikipedia article for parents who are confused and disappointed--not unlike my own at one time, and the teenagers or 40-year-old women who are themselves questioning what they are, along with drunken frat guys who get here for obvious reasons, this article is still restricted to presenting facts summarized from the absolute best sources available. They say that the ideas we have about what lesbians are are pretty much built on foundations of sand. Women pretty much always have fooled around with each other. We're forced for political reasons to make strict definitions of what lesbians are and are not. The article should make people think about their assumptions of what women should be and how they should behave. Not because I think it should, but because those are the points the sources have made.

It wasn't my intention to drive you away from discussing improvements to the lead. I am always eager to improve articles. It's quite difficult for me to see sometimes what needs to be improved since I constructed the article and I can remember why I wrote something the way I did. I'm open to changes; I work through them collaboratively and conversationally, discussing why things should be changed. I already know why I wrote what I did. I need to understand why you disagree with it. --Moni3 (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Caption is funny

It would be nice to have an infobox that provides more information quickly. In any case, "The word lesbian can mean a woman's identity, desire, or activity between women." seems odd. I don't know if it means "woman's identity", "woman's desire", and "woman's activity" or "woman's identity", "desire", and "activity". Or maybe "woman's activity between women"? It needs work, although I like the picture in spite of the fact that it could be the backsides of two men, or a man and a woman. ;) - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind working to make sure the language is accessible, but what is presented in this article and the reason for infoboxes seems to be at odds. Infoboxes are for black and white indisputable information, or at least easily cited information such as dates, names, places, etc. The information in this article keeps reminding the reader that ambiguity and individual interpretation is the primary theme of this subject. Even the definitions do not agree.

As for the caption, suggest away. --Moni3 (talk) 13:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read much of the article, so I'm not sure what its trying to say. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Male lesbianism

The article should maybe mention the concept of male lesbianism, which might be worthy of a stub article. [1] [2] ADM (talk) 04:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting links, I suppose, but this article is supposed to be about real lesbianism, at least under some stretch of the imagination. If you think you'd like to write a short article summarizing this man's theory and coinage of this term, feel free. If anyone gives you any trouble about notablity standards, please ask them why an article about "male lesbianism", which at least some people might actually read, isn't notable enough for Wikipedia standards, but this little speck of dust and eventually millions more such main belt asteroid stubs are notable enough. Chrisrus (talk) 06:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would venture to say if there are honestly journals or some kind of reliable sources that treat male lesbianism academically, that it should receive its own article. --Moni3 (talk) 12:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

If this term has shown up in academic journals, or widely so in reliable but non-academic publications, it can have its own article. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I am sure that this concept does exist within the realms of psychology, but I highly doubt that 'Male Lesbianism' has universal consensus as a description. -- Fursday 00:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)