"Sexuality is a social construct?" WTF? No, sexuality is a biological construct. If sexuality was a social construct then non-social animals (e.g. angler fish) wouldn't reproduce. Daxus the Harbinger of Lameness (talk) 18:50, July 10, 2015 (UTC)
1 - I'm not done yet.
2 - Yes, sexuality is a social construct, not a universal and unchanging set of standards. "Marriage" didn't even begin to resemble its mid-20th century forms until about 800 years ago.
I need to explain the sex/gender/orientation divide..--The Dragon Demands (talk) 20:21, July 10, 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but literally the first sentence in this article is incorrect.File:Sexualitydef.png
No, sexuality is not a social construct. How do you think biology and evolution work? If it was a "social construct" life and organisms would not exist as we understand them. It's absolutely ludicrous and baseless to say that sexuality is a social construct. Saying that sexuality is a social construct would also mean that one is not born with their sexuality, and that if you found a creature that had never met another of its kind it would have to be asexual. Sexuality isn't a universal or unchanging set of standards, you're right, and that's because sexuality doesn't have anything at all to do with standards of anything of anysort, it's a PHENOMENON observed in organisms in NATURE, thus making it a NATURAL OCCURENCE, NOT A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT. Also, marriage doesn't even have anything to do with this; marriage and sexuality are completely different subjects. Daxus the Harbinger of Lameness (talk) 03:19, July 11, 2015 (UTC)
It makes sense when you think about Dorne. Because they are much more tolerant of non-heterosexual relationships, you see a much higher prevalence of said relationships. That the Dornish are somehow genetically predisposed to non-heterosexual couplings compared to the rest of Westeros makes little sense. Lksdjf (talk) 23:24, July 10, 2015 (UTC)
"I recommend you read what I asid on the talk page of the Gender and Sexuality page, and then amend the mistakes in your article. Daxus the Harbinger of Lameness (talk) 02:03, July 12, 2015 (UTC)"
Please don't post this to my personal Talk page instead of discussing it here.
Bother to read through the entire article carefully.
You are apparently convinced that I claimed the physical act of sex is a social construct.
"Sex" the physical action and "Sexuality" are two separate thing.
THE DEFINITION ALREADY PROVIDED IN THE ARTICLE is that "Sexuality" is the entire mental framework and set of concepts and meanings applied to gendered and sexual behavior. Which is why this page is titled Gender and Sexuality, and not just Sexuality.
As I said, "Sexuality" is broken down into three broad factors: Physical Sex (Male, Female), Gender (masculine or effeminate behavior, and what that means exactly), and Orientation (are you attracted to male bodies or to female bodies).
Animals don't have the capacity for abstract thought.
There is no "Sexuality" within "Nature", because Sexuality is a mental framework and set of values. Something like that men wear pants and women wear skirts...that's a concept. That doesn't exist "in Nature". And concepts are culturally subjective (a Scotsman would find wearing a skirt - kilt - to be masculine).
"Saying that sexuality is a social construct would also mean that one is not born with their sexuality, and that if you found a creature that had never met another of its kind it would have to be asexual."
A creature that never met another of its kind would have certain basic biological urges, but how it expressed and conceptualized them would be very different. A human raised from birth by the Na'vi from Avatar would grow up being sexually attracted to Na'vi - because it's kind of all they know.
But more importantly: people are not born with their "Sexuality" - you don't understand the specific meaning of "Sexuality" being used in this context: a combination of Biological Sex, Gender Behavior, and Orientation.
Someone may be born male, and their "Orientation" to prefer having sex with men may originate from birth (due to biological factors), but the Gender aspect of how these are expressed? Cultural context. You're not born knowing that "Men wear pants and women wear skirts".
You are referring to "Orientation", which is one aspect of "Sexuality" overall.
I'm not finished writing the article.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 03:25, July 12, 2015 (UTC)
Moreover, you insultingly posted an image of the dictionary definition of "Sexuality" as: "capacity for sexual feelings; a person's sexual orientation; sexual activity"
That is not the definition I provided, the definition used by MORE CURRENT scholarly articles on gender and sexuality.
For starters, "a person's sexual orientation" and "sexual activity" are, broadly speaking, sort of the same thing (who interacts with who, physically). Animals don't have a "capacity for sexual feelings"...they have instincts but "conscious thought and conscious feelings" are exclusive to humans.
Yeah...you're using "Sexuality" to refer specifically to "Orientation"...and at the start of this article I very specifically provided the textbook definition of "Sexuality" as incorporating BOTH Orientation AND Gender Behavior.
Yet even "orientation" is subjective, because not every society used the same categorization scheme. Or even the same basis for categorization (basically, the real-life Middle Ages people defined their Orientation based on the role they played in the sex act, Active or Passive, instead of Object Choice - whether they preferred having sex with male or female bodies).
...you do realize that in "Nature", animals often have what we would call homosexual sex? Male-male pair bonded penguins who have sex, etc?--The Dragon Demands (talk) 03:31, July 12, 2015 (UTC)
Your argument is totally wrong. Sexuality is the sexual aspect of an animal. Sexuality can be almost anything; if a dog humps a stuffed animal then jizzes it's an example of sexuality, not social constructs. You're literally just making up your own definition of what sexuality is. You can't just put up a article full of misinformation because you personally think it's defitinion is something else with no sources aside from one guy who died over thirdy years ago. Almost every definition of sexuality I could find disagrees with you (1 ,2 ,3, #2 is even in your article ). Let me break this down for you further:
Penguins have higher rates of pedophilia, necrophilia, and homosexuality than other birds; this is an aspect of penguin sexuality. These penguins don't need to invent social constructs to commit these sexual acts, they are sexual by defintion.
Another example: when many spiders mate the male is eaten by the female - this is, the male being eaten an aspect of sexuality in spiders. It's not a social construct, it's part of their reproduction.
Another example: ducks mate almost exclusively through rape that often leave females injured or even dead, often doing this in gangs. This is not because ducks have a rape culture, it's an evolutionary tactic, and this habitual rape in ducks is part of their sexuality.
Just because an animal can't define something doesn't mean it doesn't exist in nature. Animals feeling pain, much like sexuality, is naturally occuring, and thus natural, and not a "social construct." And you never proved a damn thing, you simply asserted your opinion as truth with no sources except for this guy who has been heavily crisized for his beliefs , with some saying his beliefs in regard social constructs are "affronts to the concept of truth."
Also, what's the problem with leaving a single message on your talk page? Perhaps it was inappropriate of me to do that, but your explosion was a dispraportionate response to a single message. Daxus the Harbinger of Lameness (talk) 03:48, July 12, 2015 (UTC)
Well you don't need to proliferate comments by trying to flag me down on my Talk page for a conversation I was already in. Please don't start tangents like that.
...as the article provides the textbook definition, "Sexuality" in this context means what I guess you might call "Sexual Identity".
An animal cannot have a "Sexual Identity" because it is not capable of truly conscious thought.
...I just namedropped Foucault. My source is actually the textbook on "Sexuality in the Middle Ages" that I read in my graduate school level History course. I haven't added all of the citations in yet. In real life I hold a Master's Degree in Medieval History and yes I took a course on Medieval Women and Sexuality. I didn't write my thesis on it and there are many more knowledgeable on the subject than me. But I've read a few of the major textbooks and these are broadly accepted points through academia.
Turning back to the animal analogy...
"a dog humping a stuffed toy" is not an example of "Sexuality" as in "Sexual Identity". That's just instinct or physical sensation. Dogs don't have the capacity for abstract thought to put their actions into some kind of social context.
A big analogy: animals have no concept of incest. "Incest" isn't a concept animals understand. When you breed dogs you have to separate the male and female pups after a certain point otherwise they'll start breeding with each other and inadvertently make inbred puppies. Animals have no conception of this.
"Sexual Identity"/Sexuality encompases Orientation and Gender behavior. A praying mantis female devouring a male after mating is not an example of either Gender or Orientation.
"Just because an animal can't define something doesn't mean it doesn't exist in nature."
Very specifically, no: concepts do not exist "in nature". Nature contains no concepts, as Nature is not capable of thought. Nature doesn't think of definitions.
While things such as "incest" or "male-male sex" occur "in Nature".....these are terms humans apply to Nature. They do not objectively exist. They're conceptual definitions we apply to them.
...I'm confused now exactly what you mean: if "Sexuality"/"Sexual Identity" is innate "in Nature" and not a social construct......and I said that "Sexuality" encompasses "Gender Behavior".....then is it innately in the Nature of female humans to wear skirts and not pants? Or is this a social construct?--The Dragon Demands (talk) 04:10, July 12, 2015 (UTC)
