Talk:Sexual orientation

Sorry, that last edit was me. --Brody

Incorrect data
I just added all of the percentages together on the Kinsey scale chart because I was thinking about making a cumulative frequency table for it or something, but I found that the percentages only add up to 97% when they should add up to 100%, so could we correct this please? Thanks.

Shia 17:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's just because they've been rounded down (like 12.9 -> 12). I'll add in the decimal points. --GreenReaper(talk) 07:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

FAOD Poll
Is a web-poll with 44 responses statistically solid? Granted it's always difficult to get well-sampled and unbiased results about highly personal topics, but with fewer than a hundred or so responses and the fact that polls within a community tend to be unavoidably self-selecting there's so much potential bias in either direction that they could arguably be considered anecdotal. --Riismo 22:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Some observations
Here are a few observations and speculations I've made regarding homosexuality in furry fandom. Feel free to mull over these and offer any suggestions on whether you think they're accurate or not, and if so, whether they should be incorporated into the article (I am using the term "gays" throughout to represent both genders): --mwalimu 20:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The polls quoted here, and at least one other I'm aware of, suggest that the proportion of gays in furry fandom is approximately three times the proportion of gays in the general population;
 * If that figure seems low, I can think of a few reasons why it might seem to be much higher:
 * Gays are much more likely to be open about their sexual orientation among their fellow furry fans than they are in other areas of their life, such as school and the workplace. Statistically it may be true that 5-10% of the people at my workplace are gay, but I seldom find out who they are.  The proportion of gays among furries may only be 3x what it is in my workplace, but the proportion of gays that I know about is far greater;
 * Having a non-furry S.O. and having children (whether natural, adopted, or foster) are two factors that often result in a fan having less time and money to devote to things furry, and having to limit one's involvement due to other priorities. Gays are more likely than straight folk to have an S.O. who is also a furry fan, and are less likely than straight folk to be raising children  (Granted, every individual's situation is different, but averaged over a large number of people I would be surprised if this is not the case);
 * Gays already have to deal with the idea that one major area of their lives goes against what is considered normal by a large segment of society. As such, the idea of having an interest that some would consider unusual or weird is not as big a leap as it is for someone who hasn't been down that road;
 * How much greater is the awareness of the existence of furry fandom among gays compared to straights? I honestly don't know, but if more people among any demographic (such as gays) knows of the existence of furry fandom, it follows that more people from among that group would become furry fans.

Some thoughts

 * Wouldn't it be nice if the table had each row color-coded? With the top one a certain solid color, the bottom one another solid color, and the middle row a blend of the two? I suggest a red-blue or a yellow-blue pattern.* I have no idea how to do this, but the syntax might be on this wiki help page.


 * Dr.Kinsey's Sexual Behavior in the Human Male found that "46% of the male population had engaged in both heterosexual and homosexual activities, or "reacted to" persons of both sexes, in the course of their adult lives". In addition, "Kinsey said in both the Male and Female volumes that it was impossible to determine the number of persons who are "homosexual" or "heterosexual". It was only possible to determine behavior at any given time"- "10% of males in the sample were predominantly homosexual between the ages of 16 and 55". See this page.


 * Am I arguing that furry fandom is represenative of the general population? No. However, I think that the article really needs some necessary context. In the world that most people live in, someone with the genetic background/social background of a 1/2, 1, 2, or a 2 1/2- et cetera- would probably self-identify as 'straight' throughout their life. The same might not be true for furries.**

* One could argue that the color red signifies 'bad' or the color yellow signifies 'sickly'. I don't know. It's just a suggestion.

** I say "might" because, well, how would I know? Boingo 05:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Gay->Sexual preference?
This use to be the Gay article (?.) Why try to overwrite the original entry with another subject instead of starting a new one ("Sexual preference",) and migrate the pertinent ("Gay") data to it?.

Now, you got an article with several subjects/ideas/opinions trying to make a (several) point(s) while making none (i.e "the term 'sexual preference' is more broad and includes personal attitudes in between the three general categories defined as sexual orientations,..." Three, but the following paragraph now lists five,)...

This article seems to be in a dire need of a top to bottom cleanup/revamp =P Spirou 01:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * ...And, why so many redirects for a single article? ¬_¬ Spirou 01:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I merged 'heterosexual' and 'bisexual' into 'homosexual' since the two articles were one-/two-sentences stubs with little hope of future content. None of the information that was in the original 'homosexual' article has been removed. Boingo 01:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see what specifically needs to be cleaned-up besides the lead paragraph, which I fiddled with a little bit. What sections need revising? Boingo 02:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In very simple terms:


 * Lead paragraph: What Sexual preference is (very brief initial description of a mainstream term/concept.) "Gay" and "Lesbianism" is homosexuality. The addition of "Asexuals" is splitting hairs, and going beyond the furry point of the article (specially if we are making the initial point of only "three" types of "sexual preferences.")
 * Sexual preferences and furry section: An explanation of how does "Sexual preference" related to furry, with the "Gay" topic the most discussed/best known angle. The initial article ("Gay") covered the concept, myth and stereotyping of homosexuality in regard to the fandom from this point on, but that point broke when the article moved to cover "sexual preference," so we get directed immediately to the established gay views of "Non-furries" and fandom, and a lack of studies on "homosexuality" in it, and the general populace. By the end of this article there's still no explanation or correlation between "Sexual preference and furry."
 * Categorization section: All related (exclusively) to the "gay" sexual preference, but nothing to tie it to it's relation to the furry fandom, or "sexual preferences" in general for that matter.
 * Social attitudes among furries: Again, solely concentrated around the social and religious attitude of "gay sexuality" within the fandom (the "heterosexual," "bisexual," and for that matter, "asexual" sexual preference views have yet to make an appearance, if you noticed.)
 * Why does it seem that many furries are homosexual or bisexual? (or Homosexuality within the fandom) section: A good section to follow after establishing the types of "Sexual preferences" in furry. Move the "non-furry" opinion to it under, maybe, A non-furry view of Homosexuality and furry.
 * General surveys section. Why?. This can easily be integrated inside the Fandom surveys section (we are still trying to show the furry's angle on this article, no mainstream's.)
 * So, as it stands right now, we are not presenting how "Sexual preference" relates to furry fandom accurately right now. Plenty regarding "Gay" sexual preferences, but that's because that the article was originally about it and furry, before it being renamed. Spirou 03:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good points all. The article still needs expansion.
 * Some thoughts:
 * The Sexual preferences and furry section was intially part of the introduction. I don't know how the stuff in the lead section that's about the furry=gay idea got moved into it's own section. If it was a edit done by me, it was a mistake.
 * I added 'asexual' to the description after finding out that at least three popular furries are 'asexual'. But if it's rare, it shouldn't really be mentioned in the article at all.
 * I know that gay means homosexual, but the term gay is also used a lot to describe all non-straight people-- homosexuals and bisexuals alike.
 * The categorization section is 'furry'-relevent since some furries believe that the gay\straight and male/female dictomy is false and think that people can express a variety of attractions throughout their life. The section does need rewording to make this clear.
 * Social attitudes among furries: Furries are people, and- like people-, some furries are homophobic. This should be mentioned. The section does have a weak title, though. A clearer title would be homophobia among furries, but I didn't use that because I really hate stamping the pejorative political label 'homophobic' on furries who are just exercising their sincerely held religious beliefs.
 * Why does it seem that many furries are homosexual or bisexual?: I agree that this belongs right below the introduction. I also think that the general surveys subsection about non-furries should be seperate from the fandom surveys subsection since the entire point is to illustrate the contrast. 24.32.208.58 07:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Why not have a lot of redirects? The words being re-directed- Sexual orientation, Sexual orientations, Sexual Preferences, homosexuals, homosexuality, gay, gays, et cetera- all fall clearly under this article. Boingo 02:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Gay, makes sense, Homosexual, yes, Homoerotic, kind of redundant, but...; Gays, uh, that's covered by "Gay," just enter it on the search box, it will come up; Homosexuals,... all right, getting to "Redundant City" pluralized territory. In other words, we don't need to cover with redirects such a well known, mainstream term. =P Spirou 03:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that 'homoerotic' redirects here is news to me. That should be changed. The plural redirects are redundant, yes, but I guess I'm used to it from having done it in Wikipedia editing when plurals might generate unhelpful searches. 24.32.208.58 07:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I edited the lead section so it is now structured more simply and more logically. It mentions the three orientations, then it describes those three orientations, then it describes the term 'gay'- which has three different meanings-, and then it describes the rare exception to all orientations. Boingo 02:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * ...Which still presents this article as one about "gay" sexual preferences, not about "sexual preferences" and its relation to furry. This breakdown of the definition of "Gay" would be more at home on the Why does it seem that many furries are homosexual or bisexual? (or Homosexuality within the fandom, or simply, Homosexuality and furry) section. Spirou 03:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Which still presents this article as one about "gay" sexual preferences How so? The intro defines the term 'sexual preference' in detail, then it notes the multiple definitions of 'gay', and then it says what the sexual preferences in the fandom are (or at least it did, until those sentences were moved for some reason).
 * So, as it stands right now, we are not presenting how "Sexual preference" relates to furry fandom accurately right now. Plenty regarding "Gay" sexual preferences In real life, 95% of people are straight. In the fandom, it's between a low of 13% or a high of 53%. The article is gay-centric because, well, most furries are gay. 24.32.208.58 07:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Regardless, your central point about the sections being jumbled up is definately right. 24.32.208.58 07:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I moved around the sections. I think that the article flows better now. Boingo 00:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, no, the plurality are bi according to the stats. "Most" (the majority) are not straight, but that's different to being gay. :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 05:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes, I meant not straight. Anyways, do you think the sections are in proper order or do you think they need to be moved around? Boingo 03:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Preference or orientation?
Should this article be retitled Sexual orientation? The reason I ask is because certain anti-gay factions prefer the term "sexual preference" over "sexual orientation" because the former carries a stronger implication that being gay or lesbian is a choice. --mwalimu 14:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * To be honest, it seems like nitpicking to me. I don't think that the term 'sexual preference' implies choice. My very-liberal college president recently used the term in a speech before our diversity department. Still, I don't have much of an opinion on it.
 * The reason why I used the title 'sexual preference' for this article since I wanted this article to prominently include the survey that mapped furries on the Kinsey scale, which measures preferences rather than orientations. Boingo 00:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "Sexual orientation" is by far the more standard term, I believe. I have a copy of The Kinsey Institute New Report On Sex (Copyright 1990 The Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction) to hand, and it refers to the Kinsey scale of sexual orientation. -- Sine 07:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's kind of a moot point since I don't oppose renaming the article, but how does that report define 'sexual orientation'? Is 0-1 considered straight, 2-4 bi, and 5-6 homosexual; or is each number given it's own definition? Boingo 03:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This particular book doesn't go into detail, stating only that "The scale classified person with only heterosexual behavior as 0, only homosexual behavior as 6, and persons with mixtures of male and female sexual partners as 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5." (p. 140). -- Sine 07:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it too far out...
For the article to mention the theory that the sexual orientations of furries is reasonably similar to the general population? I know that the Kinsey survey-- 46% bisexual and 10% homosexual-- sort of parallels the Rust survey-- 19% homosexual and 48% bisexual, but the other surveys don't. And, of course, this is all original research. Boingo 04:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

re-add jpg?
Re-add "Furry Fandom-Kinsey Scale distribution.jpg" to article? --EarthFurst 08:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I added Pansexuality and Asexuality...
...and quite frankly, I'm surprised there wasn't a mention of these yet. Well, I take that back, I'm not really surprised asexuality wasn't mentioned, but I was shocked about Omnisexuality. Equivamp 20:16, 25 May 2011 (EDT)
 * I had always understood a pansexual to be one for whom sexual attraction to another is not dependent on the other's gender. A bisexual may be attracted to both genders but has a clear delineation in their mind of same sex vs. opposite sex attraction, whereas for a pansexual, it's unimportant.  Though I could be wrong...  --mwalimu 08:51, 26 May 2011 (EDT)
 * I have already changed the article to reflect such, a few minutes ago. Equivamp 08:54, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

November 2012 edits
Removed mainstream data not related to the sexual orientation within Furry Fandom, just padding to acerb the stereotype of "furry=100% gay" (and even so, it covered more mainstream than fandom cultures). Trimmed portions of the The Sociology of Furry Fandom as the "end all" scientific source to assert the "gay furry" bias. Moved sections around to direct it back to the article's intended informational point. Moved "homosexuality" to a more appropriate information flow path. Most links are dead, will revisit later.

As it stood, the only other option was to move the "Homosexuality" section+links to its own standalone Wikifur article. May still need to be an option. It easily can stand as a viable, educational/informative article as such - Spirou 02:40, 26 November 2012 (EST)

Terminology Update
Is it really proper to keep using the term 'homosexual' throughout the article, to describe gay people, when that term is still consistently used in the context of dealing with gayness as if it's a curable condition/mental illness (largely by the conversion therapy/fundamentalist Christian cohort)? A shift to using 'gay' in place of 'homosexual' would maintain legibility, without throwing around a term that treats us as something to be cured/pruned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PanBelacqua (talk • contribs) 16:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC).


 * Aside from in the bulleted list of orientations, the article uses the word "homosexual" only when referencing a poll that uses specifically the word "homosexual"; when the poll uses the word "gay", the article uses "gay". --Equivamp - talk 18:35, 26 March 2017 (EDT)

Why does LGBT redirect here?
It seems weird for the LGBT page to redirect here, when this page does nothing to cover the T part. Seems like it'd be better for there to be a page about LGBT stuff and then have that provide a section with a "see more" to here. fluffy (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2021 (EST)
 * Temporary redirect until such time a possible article is created. - Spirou (talk) 05:31, 8 March 2021 (EST)