Talk:Sodomy

The contents of the Buggery page were merged into Sodomy on 3 April 2019. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

LGBT studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles Sexology and sexuality High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

I think the article needs restructuring. The emphasis on Sodomy should be modern day definitions and connotations, with a section on historical usage. The article currently reads like a religious discussion. On another talk page an editor suggested spawning off a new article called Christian views of anal sex which seems logical. The religious views of Sodomy should be only a small portion of this article. Atom (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the rationale for this article as written is dubious. There already exists an article on sodomy law and an article on anal sex, each of which is superior in quality to this one. The French article, except for its exclusive focus on anal sex, Sodomie would seem to me like an ideal template for this one to copy, yet the link to the French article is being repeatedly deleted from this one. The problem is not that the French article doesn't correspond to this one, but that this one is currently written as a limited overview of the cultural baggage which attaches to the word in certain limited western religious contexts. I am of the opinion that as it stands this article needs to be renamed, and an article broadly paralleling the French one in format, but broadened to include oral sex should use the title Sodomy. In the meantime I oppose deleting the link to the French article.

I couldn't agree more. As far as I am concerned, there should not be an article on Wikipedia called "Sodomy"; it lends validity to the vicious moral condemnation by Christian Fundamentalists and Arab Muslim extremists of sexual activity involving the anus, especially as enjoyed by gay men. The content of the article, particularly its strong indication that "sodomy" is an accurate, unbiased, and descriptive term, do nothing to redeem it. I will have to look through the French version more, but I trust your judgment that it is superior to this sorry mess.

Click here to see the French article in machine translation at google. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs) 16:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; I mean the first page starts by effectively labely the act as unnatural; an obvious opinion unsupported by any science I have read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.119.222 (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a very strong biblical and religious influence. The bible is not an adequate reference for historic facts and definitions. This article should be modified promptly. This article is of no use for research and information purposes. ARBoughton (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The introductory definition seems extremely odd to me. I have never heard of bestiality generally or oral sex meaning the same thing as sodomy. This may have been so in the past, but as a modern definition it is sorely lacking. Sodomy these days is simply the insertion of a penis into an anus (I suppose an animal's anus would count) and that's it. Furthermore it doesn't matter if it is a male anus or a female anus or whether the people involved are married or not. I'd be very curious to see the definition of sodomy in a recently published edition of the Oxford Dictionary. The inference of a term does evolve over time. The word "queer" may appear in the dictionary in its original context, but it has an entirely different meaning to contemporary ears. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 10:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it is important to insert the following text to show that the meaning has changed over time from its origional meaning.

The word sodomy acquired different meanings over time. Under the common law, sodomy consisted of anal intercourse. Traditionally courts and statutes referred to it as a "crime against nature" or as copulation "against the order of nature." In the United States, the term eventually encompassed oral sex as well as anal sex. The crime of sodomy was classified as a felony.

ref:http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Sodomy.aspx#1

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.239.207 (talk) 04:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I altered the lead to make it clear that the term originally only referred to anal sex, as seen with this edit (also fixed that edit; corrected a publisher field and made the publisher links work).

talk) 04:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

"Sodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/) is generally anal or oral sex between people or sexual activity between a person and a non-human animal (bestiality), " this is definitely wrong. Sodomy "may refer to", but "is", this is a big no no. Nowhere on this planet, nowadays, "sodomy" equals "oral sex" or "bestiality". This lead definitely HAS to be rewritten. Málåsgløbdük (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 23:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Just to be clear, were you arguing that nowadays "sodomy" equals oral sex or bestiality and not anal sex? Or were you arguing that nowadays "sodomy" does not equal oral sex or bestiality?

talk) 00:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

The latter, of course (i.e. nowadays "sodomy" does not equal oral sex or bestiality) Málåsgløbdük (talk) 10:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first citation in this article, supporting the definition of sodomy as including anal sex, oral sex and 'bestiality is a reference to the Word IQ website. That website cites the wikipedia article on sodomy law as its source. The sodomy law article provides no reference. I am removing this as a source and tagging it. μηδείς (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there scare quotes in the first sentence?

'Sodomy is a term used in the law to describe the act of "unnatural" sex...' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.30.151 (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose the reason is that any activity voluntarily undertaken by naturally occurring creatures in their natural environment is a natural activity. However the assertion that sodomy is "unnatural" is a common part of the rhetoric behind attempts to forbid it. It's unclear how to define "unnatural" so the assertion "sodomy is unnatural" is not obviously false, hence the scare quotes. TimothyFreeman (talk) 17:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"especially between males or between male persons" This makes no sense, unless anal sex between two male animals would be considered sodomy, which seems ridiculous, what has that got to do with a town in the middle east?

This whole article could definitely do with a dispassionate re-writeAdagio67 (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change "bible" to "Bible" in the second sentence of the article. The word, in this case, is a proper noun and should begin with a capital letter.

72.23.224.61 (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done AdamCaputo (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was listening to an article on BBC radio 4 last week and the historian suggested that sodomy was not understood as simply a case of same-sex relations during the medieval period. Rather it was promoted as a concept by Peter Damian and was understood as unnatural sexual relations that did not result in procreation (hence Dante's depiction of sodomites in a sterile envionment in his Inferno). This article focusses on homosexuality a great deal however. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you remember the name of the programme? Are you sure it's not this one?

talk) 13:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes it was - thanks! This article is rubbish. It needs a rewrite from start to finish. Are we to understand sodomy purely in religious terms? But where do we start? Contaldo80 (talk) 10:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I started by separating modern religious views from historical ones. The Hebrew Bible must not be presented in terms of modern religionist views but as a document of society in the Levant in antiquity. Modern religious views are of marginal interest, because they are just held privately, "sodomy" not being a criminal offense any longer, anyone is free to hold their own views and definitions. What this article must focus on is the historical period during which sodomy was a well-defined criminal offense. This basically covers the medieval and early modern period. It is the hallmark of an article ruined by religionists fighting anti-religionists that it goes on for unbearable lengths about the Hebrew Bible (of course without any sense of historical depth) and ignores the early modern era completely. At least we have a brief "18th century" section here, but what we need to do is give a coherent account of the changes in legislation throughout Europe during the 15th to 19th centuries: this is what the core of the article should focus on, snippets from the Old and New Testament merely provide the necessary background for this.

--

"was" should be "were" in "Laws prohibiting sodomy was seen frequently in past Jewish, Christian, and Islamic civilizations". TimothyFreeman (talk) 17:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change : In The Book of Judges, 19-21, there is an account, similar in many ways, where a city is almost totally destroyed in punishment for a mob of its inhabitants raping a woman.) TO In the Book of Judges, 19-21, there is an account, similar in many ways, where Gibeah, a city of the Benjamin tribe, is destroyed by the other tribes of Israel in revenge for a mob of its inhabitants raping and killing a woman).

88.65.251.148 (talk) 11:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks,

Rremoved duplicate. See next post. Pyro121psycho (talk) 07:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Requesting to have the first sentence in the article edited.

As it currently stands, it singles out gay men and beastiality. The beastiality is correct to be pointed out, but it is not correct to single out gay men.

Currently the sentence reads: Sodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/), refers to anal sex or other non-penile/vaginal copulation-like acts, especially between male persons or between a person and an animal.

The sentence should be read as follows: Sodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/), refers to non-penile/vaginal copulation-like acts such as oral/anal sex, or sex between a person and an animal.

This will give a much clearer depiction of what sodomy actually is without sounding like there is an agenda behind this article. My reference for this information is the dictionary. Pyro121psycho (talk) 09:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current version phrasing is appropriate. It correctly indicates that while sodomy is not restricted to the subset of homosexual/bestiality acts, in common usage those are the acts typically all that gets referred to as sodomy. It is very rare to see sodomy used to label heterosexual activity, even it is technically applicable. Monty₈₄₅ 19:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am myself a homosexual, and feel offended by this article for only the reasoning of the opening sentence. It is also for Wikipedia to be accurate. As you state that it is very rare for heterosexual acts to be labled as sodomy is highly inaccurate. It is just that it is a highly acceptable form of sodomy. Please make the changes to the opening sentence as it is a clearly set opinion and not a proven fact. You have not shown anything that actually backs your opinion. Pyro121psycho (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done It's not a matter of opinion. Read the article about the history of the word. Nevertheless, as there is nothing actually vanadalistic about your sentence, I will do it for you (that's my policy with edit requests, something I just started doing a few minutes ago) - I expect it to be reverted though. Egg Centric 16:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, the part of this section that notes "traditional interpretation sees the primary sin of Sodom as being homoerotic sexual acts" is incorrect as that it also views similar acts between men and women as also being a sin. Again, as stated above, I suspect that similar problems can be found with the other religious sections. Indeed, legally speaking, many countires (and states) view sodomy (normally associated with anal sex, though also oral sex) as illegal regardless of the biological sex of the participants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.15.55 (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, also straight relations were considered a sin, but not necessarily sodomia, as it could be adulterium instead. The distinction between the two was basically whether the relations were, in theory, fit for procreation or not. If they were not (for instance same-sex relations, but also manual, oral, or anal intercourse), it was sodomia, if you could use them for procreation, they were adulterium. However, nothing of the aforementioned changes anything about the fact that same-sex activities were considered the gravest of all sins of the flesh, and that it was what most people immediately thought of when they heard the word sodomia or any related vernacular terms. --80.187.110.67 (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In german language the word sodomy means sex with animals and has nothing to do with sex between people of the same gender. 188.96.230.207 (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's because of the original Medieval ecclesiastical definition of sodomia ever since the

Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals which conflated same-sex activities with bestiality. A conflation which, in turn, was based on traditional mythological Indo-European paradigms on putatively or factually deviant sexuality way older than the word sodomia itself. Now that same-sex activities are no longer considered the most deviant and abhorrent sexual activity of all, we have other sexual activities filling that role of being conflated with (or simply thought of as "just as evil") as bestiality. --80.187.110.67 (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Here is the page on the Oxford English Dictionary site [1].--Jcvamp (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a muslim I find the information provided in the the Islamic view, very derogatory and way off the truth. There is no reference cited and no proof that young men look to have sexual relationship or sodomy with males younger than themselves and that people like anal penetration more in muslim socities because of women segregation. Although there are instances of this happening in some places, however it can not be generalized and be applicable to the entire muslim world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.142.250 (talk) 11:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I think it would be reasonable in the second paragraph of the "Hebrew Bible" section to replace

Some say^[who?] the sinfulness of that, for the original writers of the Biblical account, might have consisted mainly in the violation of the obligations of hospitality.^{[citation needed]}

with

Some suggest the sinfulness of that, for the original writers of the Biblical account, might have consisted mainly in the violation of the obligations of hospitality.^[1]

where the note is "<ref>Boswell, pp. 92–98</ref>" referring to a book already in the bibliography.

Scware (talk) 23:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is bizarre that there isn't a section between medieval and the eighteenth-century. I am proposing a section that deals with Renaissance sodomy, charting the transition from a crime against god to a crime against the person. This would link with the reformation and the devalued significance of church courts. This has been widely researched by hundreds of respected scholars. Also there needs to be more on cultural representations of sodomy, e.g. in Shakespeare and Christopher Marlowe, for example. 26th Sept 2013. TheoryofSexuality (talk) 11:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The second source does not use the word only and is limited to talking about North American colonies - there are many other countres that use the English language. The first source uses the word "frequently" - there's a big difference between frequency and only.

Note: I changed the heading of this section from "

wp:synthesis

" so that the heading is clearer as to what this section is about.

This is the edit Pass a Method is referring to. I added both sources when tweaking the lead, as documented in the

talk) 21:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Update: I added different sources for the first line, and changed "usually" to "commonly" for the part about the term sodomy originally being restricted to anal sex, as documented here and here. I still plan to look over more sources on the matter and determine whether or not I should be more strict in my wording, instead of using the word usually or commonly in this regard. That sodomy most often refers to anal sex even today should be addressed in the lead, though.

Change title by deleting 'original meaning of' as that is not possible and the foremost problem is the page's definition and the telling of the diversity of meanings past and present.Ericglare (talk) 10:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re "Sodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/) is generally anal or oral sexual activity between people or sexual activity between a person and a non-human animal (bestiality), but may also include any non-procreative sexual activity.[1][2][3] " Most people would be utterly astounded to hear sodomy doesn't equate with anal intercourse and that oral sex alone or bestiality alone could be called sodomy (I'm an Aussie sexual health advocate). The page acknowledges ambiguity and interpretation but this first sentence is a complete fail of that and the word 'generally'. Importantly there is next to no text on the page that supports the claimed idea that non-anal sex alone has ever been a common or general meaning of sodomy. This page fails to distinguish meanings from current dictionaries, law text definitions and that from ancient texts and that makes it confusing and unreliable. Of the 3 books used as references, one isn't accessible (ref 1 = useless) and the other two (ref 2 & 3) are written from an USA perspective and then they only claimed this varied definition without any supporting detail or references. Reference 3 actually claims the definition of "any sexual act that does not result in procreation" (presumably generally rather than specifically) so that is a rather poor citation of the meaning described here. Ericglare (talk) 10:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 16:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Also, unless we are talking about sperm somehow being transported to the vagina during a sexual act that does not involve penile-vaginal penetration, I don't see how any sexual activity that is not penile-vaginal penetration will lead to procreation; in other words, I think that the phrasings "any non-procreative sexual activity" and "any sexual act that does not result in procreation" are clear. I don't believe that anyone is going to assume that we mean, for example, sperm leaking from the anus to the vagina during anal sex, or a person's fingers having sperm on them and being moved to the vagina. But it would be clearer to state "any sexual activity that does not involve penile-vaginal penetration."

talk) 21:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

For the first source, this Google Books link shows you the pages (three) that the word sodomy is addressed on. And the third source is addressing the topic of a worldwide perspective on sodomy, and laws regarding it throughout history.

talk) 21:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Please edit to show no specific sin is given in Genesis as reason. Jude 7 clearly states the reason: ″giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange (other) flesh.″[1] Let'sthinkaboutit (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at God and Sex or, even better, read the book. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"In those languages, the term is also often current vernacular (not just legal, unlike in other cultures) and a formal way of referring to any practice of anal penetration"

In English, at least in the U.S., sodomy is not just a legal term. It is part of our normal vocabulary and generally (in my experience, always) refers merely to anal sex. In fact, I did not even know until reading this article that there are some other cultures for which sodomy generally includes other acts as well.

Why do we not have an edit page for the article? At least, it does not show up for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.58.163.89 (talk) 03:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is

talk) 03:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

The sinning in Sodom was happening before the episode with the attempted rape of the two angels. So whatever or not it was for attempting to rape the male angels or the lack of hospitality, the sinning was already happening before the guests arrived, and it makes no point referencing that the destruction of the city was already planned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.73.79.55 (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article contained this text:

"has generally been replaced by the term deviant sexual intercourse, which is described as any form of penetrative intercourse or cunnilingus between unmarried persons."

Unfortunately the NY penal code definitions page (which was used as a ref for that sentence, has nothing on this.

It may be that this used to be a term, indeed it does seem to have been in use, but a search through NY databases finds very few (around 9) links to cases, and indeed a significant proportion of those use "deviate sexual intercourse".

As can be seen from their website, the terms defined do not include this one, either as "deviant" or as "deviate". I would also suspect that using either of those words would be tantamount to starting "normal" (hetero) and "deviant" (homo) name calling, something I would only have expected from more religiously based publications than an encyclopaedia (unless, of course, it is one written by such a religious "organisation")

We can wind back the clock to 1906 and pretend that this kind of legal religious birth control (no, they wanted MORE babies) is still a thing, but hey, let's go with the current NY legislation shall we?

Chaosdruid (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 21:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

In my personal editing I started looking at the article Sodomy law and found that, in a number of the references and despite its presentation in related point in the text, "sodomy" wasn't mentioned at all.

Coming from a UK background I was suprised at the extent to which sodom related terminologies were used and now appreciate that usage of these terminologies seems to be more common in the United States. Significant geographical locations called Sodom are all in the U.S. while the Sodom (seemingly unsignposted) in the UK's Shetland islands was named after the Norse "Sudheim". In this light I think that it would be worth keeping non U.S. usages in mind.

GregKaye 11:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sodomy is actually a term that has crept into the US legal code. One cannot eliminate it without therefore participating in POV: [2] [3] [4] Throughout the Caribbean (where it is mostly illegal to have anything but penile/vaginal sex) the statutes usually read "unlawful carnal knowledge" with no further specificity as almost all the codes in the former British colonies were based on British wording. SusunW (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DUE. I certainly think that there are less POV terms that could be used in various locations. GregKaye 18:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

GregKaye I don't disagree with your rationale in the slightest nor in using terms that are less associated with various religious practices. I was only pointing out that in the case of law, one cannot assume that another term can be utilized. If one is convicted of the crime of sodomy in a state wherein that is a defined legal term, using something else to refer to it changes the meaning. (For example, if one has committed the crime of statutory rape, it changes the meaning for the press to report that the child had sex with an adult. Having sex, in many circumstances is consensual, whereas rape is a legally defined crime.) In most instances, a more neutral term can and should be used. SusunW (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GregKaye has already gone about making these sorts of changes, as seen here, here, here and here. I noticed that before he started this discussion. He did similar with

WP:Permalink). I agree with SusunW on this matter. In some cases, the term sodomy should be used. Furthermore, one cannot simply replace the term sodomy with, for example, anal sex, since sodomy can mean more than one thing... That is, unless the topic is specifically about anal sex and is not being used in a "he was charged," legal way. If the legal context means "the law is against sodomy," then the term sodomy should be used; that obviously includes historical matters (it's simply a "was against" instead of "is against" case). If the source specifies what type of sodomy it is, then the text should as well. In any case, GregKaye alerted three WikiProjects to this discussion, as seen here, here and here

, and I'll leave this discussion to others.

On a side note: Bestiality and zoophilia are supposed to be merged into the same article (as they are now), per

talk) 22:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Why does the article mention that Sodom was planned to be destroyed beforehand as if this negates the previously mentioned hospitality argument? I have only three things to say on this. Why destroy a town of homosexuals, if, without surrogacies, in one generation they would do it to themselves? This is because the words we tacked on to this did not even exist. But the concepts did. Josephus said Sodom increased their numbers. Again. How did a town of complete and 100% gays, go about achieving this!? No critical-thinking. None. Is it a "Biblical" anti-gay-argument? Turn it upside-down, and there you will find the truths. Can't put them here because that would be meandering. And; why offer your daughters to "known homosexuals"? It's ironic. Stuff like "grab em" and pride in the fall of mankind. And not understanding glory of God and glory of man. And shunning. And unrighteous hypocritical superiority complexes. Are the real and actual sodomy. The straw men on this are dying. The shekinah hoax and complete bias against Serpent Seed are being discovered. Those weren't Adam and Steve. All we need to do is read these pages. Their sources. And see how easy it is to confirm how wrong they are in John and other Biblical sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:6A0:E1DE:D1D8:53DE:7184:3AE3 (talk) 08:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:ScwarebangUser talk:Scwarebang 20:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is strange to suggest that the predestiny of destruction is an argument against inhospitality being the fatal sin. Inhospitable people generally have a history of inhospitality. Plus, there's the whole God seeing everything business. I agree that this much discussion in the article would be meandering, but maybe there's good reason to strike the sentence "This view does not take into account that, before the "guests" arrived in the city Genesis 18:17 and any "hospitality" could have been rendered, its destruction was already planned."

Okay, I edited this paragraph, and connected it to the previous one, mostly to improve the intelligibility of the discussion. I also moved the sentence about the predestiny to the end and said it applies to both views.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sodomy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080227001854/http://www.sldn.org/binary-data/SLDN_ARTICLES/pdf_file/2309.pdf to http://www.sldn.org/binary-data/SLDN_ARTICLES/pdf_file/2309.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080512090559/http://www.westernsem.edu/files/westernsem/gagnon_autm05_0.pdf to http://www.westernsem.edu/files/westernsem/gagnon_autm05_0.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There are two inaccuracies on the Islam section of the page: The passage given from the Koran (Sura 4:16) is part of a larger passage which is related to extramarital affairs and does not mention homosexuality so it is irrelevant and misinformative. As it is incorrectly given on this page, it should be removed.

Secondly, the sentence "In practice, few modern Muslim countries have legal systems based fully on Shariah, and an increasing number of Muslims do not look to shariah but to the Quran itself for moral guidance." which references "Jivraj & de Jong, p. 2" is misleading. This is because the Jivraj & de Jong is talking specifically about the acceptance of homosexuality in minority communities in the Netherlands. So, this cannot be used to state that most muslims are looking to the Koran instead of shariah as it only talks about muslims in one country. This reference also doesn't provide any information about the legal systems in modern muslim countries which makes its first part incorrect as well. So this sentence should be removed or revised with appropriate references. Kaan1000 (talk) 03:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide

reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 21:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

clear bias in attitude towards islam. what the above has mentioned is true. The Quran itself is a source and verses have context, chapters were not pre written, they were revelations that came in varying order. In fact the Quran strongly supports the notion that Luts people were punished due to their homosexual behavior and as well other illicit activity. author seems to ignore legitimate criticism and opts to keep in opinion. and for the claim on shiite portion, what you cited failed to include the entire point and statement. the scholar clearly points out the inconsistency in the viewpoint chosen to be represented here and concludes it to be totally prohibited. this part was not included, by keeping the incomplete statement and pushing it as an accepted viewpoint in the community despite the very cited source contesting it I believe a certain narrative or bias is being kept. seeing as how other criticisms were ignored I believe this is intentional. revision of the entire islamic portion is necessary. whoever has written is cannot seem to stay objective. the opinions expressed are not consistent with the Quran and what others have pointed out. removal of islamic portion is best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralvi (talk • contribs) 11:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I've added the proper link in the merge templates. Also I've realized some of it may belong in Sodomy law#United Kingdom. So here's how I should've started this section:

I propose we merge this page to Sodomy and Sodomy law#United Kingdom; buggery is a different name in the UK for the same thing. ··gracefool 💬 03:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have not yet received feedback on this, you might want to leave a message on some related WikiProjects, such as

talk) 21:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

*Support The two are the same thing, for all intents and purposes; buggery is just the Commonwealth equivalent... Veryproicelandic (talk) 10:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose It's helpful to have an article that is clearly on sodomy as historically conceived in UK law. I suggest that the general entry for sodomy would benefit from more sub-articles specific to different countries/legal systems/historical contexts rather than less. Alarichall (talk) 08:42, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Support: I think it doesn't make sense to have a separate article for this, because it leads to duplication. Merge into

Complete the law part of the merge; the rest is still to do. Klbrain (talk) 19:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 11:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Sodomy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070704130716/http://www.sodomylaws.org/ to http://www.sodomylaws.org/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121120003411/http://madelinehunter.com/history10.html to http://www.madelinehunter.com/history10.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110906123507/http://www.uib.no/jais/content4.htm to http://www.uib.no/jais/content4.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080704144443/http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/sodomy.html to http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/sodomy.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find enough well-sourced material to write about. Still, it's probably easier to instead start with a section here, to later expand to a full article if necessary. ··gracefool 💬 01:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The use of a zoophilia picture as entry illustration is non-neutral and seems to establish an automatic correlation between the terms "sodomy" and "bestiality" while those two terms are not synonymous. 92.143.197.84 (talk) 20:00, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is an automatic connection between them. It's right there in the first sentence of the article. ··gracefool 💬 11:21, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hey In the arcticle about sodomy Islam part : " For sodomy within marriage, the majority of Shiite interpreters hold that (1) anal intercourse, while strongly disliked, is not haram (forbidden) provided the wife agrees; and (2), if the wife does not agree, then it is preferable to refrain.^[1]

Despite the formal disapproval of religious authority,

The last section starting with "Despite the formal disapproval..." have no link or title for the source. If the source can not be found how can it be true? If there is a real source with data representing a hole population then it is fine. Sm1387 (talk) 07:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done I have reviewed the Al-Islam.org source and it does indeed discuss anal intercourse. Although the article does not seem to represent the source very accurately. Secondly, the titles for the sources in the last section can be found in the Bibliography. MPS1992 (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This paragraph is completely inaccurate with poor sources. I recommend to remove the paragraph all together due to biased writing:

Despite the formal disapproval of religious authority, gender segregation in Muslim societies and the strong emphasis on virility leads adolescents and unmarried young men to seek alternative sexual outlets to women, especially with males younger than themselves.[72] Not all sodomy is homosexual, but for many young men heterosexual sodomy is considered better than vaginal penetration, and female prostitutes report the demand for anal penetration from their male clients.[73] Hamadamad (talk) 08:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Jack Frost (talk) 10:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

to the above, the author themselves failed to show this through consensus, have to provide proof of this claim as well, the best solution is the removal of this bit altogether. if not this is a clear sign of supporting opinion over fact. unless you've spoken to all some odd millions of muslims this 'fact' can be seen as derogatory and biased especially since it highly smells of a western lens on mainly eastern people. in short this seems like some westerners head cannon on why sodomy might exist in predominantly 'muslim' countries. not very factual if its not highly agreed upon the very people under scrutiny here. this islamic portion of this page needs to be removed altogether. not consistent with Quran or islam. if want to tackle muslim communties and their attitudes well that is a whole other area separate from the religion itself.to not admit this is dishonest and erasure of nuance and history and stereotyping. any criticism seems to be met with 'provide proof' despite the original statement not being able to stand up to criticism and not factual itself, being at best an opinion of some guy who heard about this stuff from some other guy who watched a video online by some other other guy. not objective. it is necessary to remove Islamic part if relaying of misinformation is a big deal to you or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralvi (talk • contribs) 11:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Existing text: The first use of the word "buggery" appears in Middle English in 1330 where it is associated with "abominable heresy"; though the 184.155.166.48 (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)sexual sense of "bugger" is not recorded until 1555.[16][reply]

This can't be correct because the Buggery Act of 1533 specifically condemned 'buggeri committed with mankind or beest' [See https://www.bl.uk/lgbtq-histories/articles/the-men-killed-under-the-buggery-act]

"The Buggery Act 1533, passed during the reign of King Henry VIII, moved the issue of sodomy from the ecclesiastical courts to the state. The act did not explicitly target sex between men, as it also applied to sodomy between men and women and a person with an animal. Convictions between men for sodomy were by far the most common and well publicised. Convictions under the Buggery Act 1533 were punishable by death."

Text transcribed from a printed edition of 1535: For as moche as there is not yet sufficient & condigne punishment appointed & limitted by the due course of the lawes of this realme for the detestable & abominable vice of buggeri committed with mankind or beest. It may therefore plese the Kings Highnes, with the assent of his lordes spiritual & temporal & the Commons of this present parliament assembled, that it may be enacted by authorite of the same, that the same offence be from hensforth adjuged felony, and suche order and fourme of proces therin to be used ageinste the offendours, as in cases of felonie at the common lawe. And that the offenders being herof convict by verdicte, confession, or outlaurie, shall suffer suche peynes of dethe, and losses, and penalties of their goodes, cattals, dettes, londes, tenements, and heredytamentes, as felons benne accustomed to do accordynge to the order of the common lawes of this realme.

184.155.166.48 (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the section "Abrahamic religins", replace "believing and teaching that such behaviors are forbidden because they're considered sinful" with "believing and teaching that such behaviors are forbidden because they are considered sinful".

 Done Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 01:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Twice the article states that the men of Sodom intended to rape the angels. That is a common belief but not universally accepted by scholars. The Hebrew verb yadda (“know”) is used in the Bible several times, both as simply to know & also as sexual congress. It would have been the practice for strangers to be presented to the town elders, so they may have been wanting to know who these people were & hostile that protocol wasn’t followed by Lot, who was related to Abraham, a powerful man outside of the city. 2600:1700:B280:BBD0:3DCF:38C6:348B:395D (talk) 01:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@2600:1700:B280:BBD0:3DCF:38C6:348B:395D Could you provide a source for this? It's difficult to verify what you say and, therefore, adjust the article without a provided source. It's on you. —Panamitsu (talk) 01:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have always been confused by this term which seems like a catch-all term for any sex that is non-procreational in nature. The definition of it as anything that is anal sex, oral sex, or bestiality sort of proves how outdated the term is, and its use remains an outdated term found within old laws as is alluded to a few paragraphs down: "the term has little modern usage outside Africa, Asia, and the United States."

Sexual assault and rape are forms of assault but because they are sexual in nature, they too have at times also fallen under the umbrella of this term. Ultimately though, this term's open ended definition is why the term is no longer widely used and that should really be noted in the first paragraph to some extent yet no modern day context is provided. One can read the first paragraph and think this term is still in colloquial use despite laws being overturned. Drocj (talk) 07:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]