Wikipedia

[dafydd]

Do people on the forum generally agree with the Wikipedia entry for bisexuality?
Wikipedia is not renowned for its facts. I was forced to quote from the site the other day to a straight friend, when she accused me of being just down right gay, and i was lost for words

d
:flag4:

[Skater Boy]

Wiki can be edited by ANYONE, so take anything you read with a pinch of salt. Not saying some of it ISN'T true, but you can't rely on it 100% I think some of the Bi celebrity names on the list are questionable, anyway.

Btw, give your straight friend a slap... I find people who speak FOR other people (or try to tell them who they really are) quite offensive.

[Tygress75]

I agree with Skater.. including the "slap the straight friend" part. People who judge other people like that aren't *friends.* If you want a great source to quote things bisexual, I recommend you grab a copy of "Bi-America" by William E. Burleson. His approach of trying to define us as a group is sensible.

Just my :2cents:

[Vuarra]

Yes, wiki can be edited by anyone, and it is possible that some facts are wrong. Having said that, some encyclopedias can be wrong, too, and more for professional malice than errors or stupidity.

Having said that, I know people that would argue that wiki is wrong, no matter what, even if wiki says the sky is blue and water freezes at 32*F.

[ghytifrdnr]

I just got back from reading the first half of the Wiki-pedia listing for Bisexuality (it's long), and didn't find anything that I thought was wrong or objectionable. Does the OP have something specific in mind?

I did find this part interesting:

"Nevertheless, it should be noted that the terms heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, and the concept of "sexual orientation" itself are all modern sociological constructs, and may not be appropriate in historical contexts."

:2cents:

[Skater Boy]

I just got back from reading the first half of the Wiki-pedia listing for Bisexuality (it's long), and didn't find anything that I thought was wrong or objectionable. Does the OP have something specific in mind?


On wiki there is also a list of "supposedly" bisexual celebrities. It has been said that some of the names on the list are questionable.

[Doggie_Wood]

I did find this part interesting:

"Nevertheless, it should be noted that the terms heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, and the concept of "sexual orientation" itself are all modern sociological constructs, and may not be appropriate in historical contexts."

:2cents:
"......modern sociological constructs .......... not be appropriate in historical contexts."

Could it be that this is why the Romans and Greeks (and others of their era) wore kilts or skirt like dressings? Easier access and flow thru ventilation?
Hmmmmmmm. One could wonder :bigrin:

[TaylorMade]

"......modern sociological constructs .......... not be appropriate in historical contexts."

Could it be that this is why the Romans and Greeks (and others of their era) wore kilts or skirt like dressings? Easier access and flow thru ventilation?
Hmmmmmmm. One could wonder :bigrin:

According to the dudes @ Utilikilts (http://www.utilikilts.com/) The answer is for comfort of the danglies. ;)

*Taylor*

(Not to take it OT, but they'll be at San Diego Pride. <shrug, FWIW> )