Talk:Pseudo-homosexuality

Useful page?

Lionel Ovesey wrote a book on the subject, and articles in various publications. See Lionel Ovesey: 'Homosexuality and Pseudohomosexuality'. I've read the book and his notions make sense, supported by empirical material. I see no reason to remove this section. On the notion of innate bisexuality and its harmful consequences I would like to add the following citation, but as the page is locked I cannot. Sandor Rado: "A Critical Examination of the Concept of Bisexuality", in Sexual Inversion, Judd Marmor (ed.), 1965.) /Mats W

"pseudo-homosexuality may be claimed as a defense by heterosexuals who feel some insecurity or doubt concerning their own masculine role" shoudln't that read "claimed as a defense by heterosexual MALES who feel........their own MASCULINE role

I'd just call it homosexual feelings, no need to turn it into some kind of pathology, it's just how life is. People's fantasy life can be the same or different to the orientation they actually live..and who does that harm?

I really cannot see the point, value, or worth to this page. It seems to be somewhat discursive.--bquanta 12:08, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That makes two of us - neither can I. Homosexual sex is homosexual sex, there is no pseudo-homosexual sex, and no pseudo-homosexuality, either. (Well, I guess the latter is theoretically possible, but given the current situation, it is bound to be rare.) Either one uses the word "homosexual" to describe acts, in which case there is most certainly no "pseudo" or it denotes identity (a use somewhat out of fashion, I might add), in which case "pseudo-homosexuality" would be something entirely different, namely, a straight person pretending to be gay or lesbian.

I'd also appreciate if any references regarding transgender behaviour (yes, that includes cross-dressing) were based on facts, and not whatever mess is in the authors head. The articles in the Wikipedia might actually help. Cross-dressing is not foremost a sexual thing, no matter what gender a cross-dresser prefers (or what their own sex or gender is). And if one wanted to relate "pseudo-homosexuality" to transgender people, it would again mean something entirely different, namely, the transgender people who are attracted to diffent-gender persons and who might (or might not) have same-genital sex before transitioning/surgery.

All that would apply only, though, if "pseudo-homosexuality" were a term that actually makes sense. It seems to be doing absolutely neither. AlexR 17:52, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I added something to show that pseudo-homosexuality, after all, is an important term. MWi June 2005.

Please sign your posts by adding -~~~~ at the end.

I think that a good argument could be made for including this article if references to books, journal articles, etc. could be added showing where it is actually used. This sort of thing should be added to all articles anyway. -Seth Mahoney July 2, 2005 21:53 (UTC)

VfD Discussion

For the discussion relating to the (non) deletion of this page see Talk:Pseudo-homosexuality/delete -- Graham ☺ | Talk 23:30, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Proposed merger

This article is partially about duressed bi-curiousity, that is bi-curiousness that results not from a natural selection of free choice, but as a result of sexual tension due to the absence of the preferred opposite sex. Sometimes, the person goers back to heterosexuality after the absence is lifted, but more likely they become bisexual. A lot of it is fluff we don't need. 205.188.116.199 01:38, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. They are different topics. -Seth Mahoney 03:25, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

I removed the following from the article, while this is being discussed:

{{merge|bi-curious}} See also [[duressed bi-curiousity]].

I agree with Seth Mahhoney, that bi-curious is not the place to put this. I'm not sure where the correct place is. As no articles link here, it isn't very useful. So I support a merge, but not with bi-curious. --Samuel Wantman 06:01, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose - different topics. The problem that nothing links here should be solvable. AlexR 09:09, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My vote would be to delete, but some of it might be mergable with Situational homosexuality or Prison sexuality. Exploding Boy 21:58, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Situational sexual behavior would be a good merge target, actually. The text would need to be repaired. People keep using terms like "heterosexual" and "straight" without specifying whether they are referring to behavior, attraction/orientation, or self-identification, or assuming that one of these axes is the "true" one. That's fine for casual discussion, but when it happens in articles, it's quite confusing for the reader, and also seems to provoke edit wars. See e.g. the intro to homosexuality, or the sexual orientation article. -- Beland 08:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

I removed the cleanup tag for the time being - its not really helpful unless the person who adds it gives some reason for doing so, and since there is none to be found... -Seth Mahoney 03:33, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Accuracy tag

I tagged this article as potentially inaccurate...I mean, clearly there can be a mismatch between orientation and behavior. But then it goes on to talk about sexuality and masculinity, and it starts to sound like it could be based on clinical experience, or it could be pseudo-scientific nonsense. The bit about "passing" is just weird. I mean, are we just explaining a term here, or is there a novel phenomena to describe? The best thing to do would probably be to seek references to resolve the question of the accuracy of this content. -- Beland 08:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Time for VfD?

I'm gonna make a VfD and see where it goes from there. --TheDoober 00:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, the VFD template is currently linking to the previous VFD discussion, which is marked as closed. I'm not sure what's supposed to happen with re-nominations, but the current configuration seems unlikely to draw much participation. -- Beland 04:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]