Talk:Sodomy

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= 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)

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)

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. Pass a Method talk 20:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

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 #Rewrite section above. Both sources are referring to how the term sodomy originated and expanded; they are (at least the second source) quite clear, from what I see, that the term only referred to anal sex before being expanded to refer to oral sex and other non-procreative sexual activities. Though the second source does not state "only," it stresses that the term did not refer to any other sexual acts until it was expanded to include other non-procreative sexual activities. There are also several pages listed in the citation for the second source. I'm not sure where Pass a Method thinks that the term sodomy originated from, but it did not originate from any of these other countries Pass a Method may have in mind. Also in the #Rewrite section above, others address that the term sodomy has a much heavier emphasis on anal sex, even today (something I know from common discourse in addition to my studies on sexuality), and originally only referred to anal sex or at least sexual activity between two men (which seems to have most commonly been assumed to be anal sex between two men). A variety of sources, old and new, address this; for example this TheFreeDictionary.com source and this 1981 Psychology Press source. Because of this, I changed Pass a Method's edit that was meant to be truer to what the source states; perhaps I should have been truer to what that first source states. I can see what Pass a Method means by WP:Synthesis in that case. I may add different sources with regard to sodomy that make the "originally only referred to anal sex" matter clearer, but, then again, there has always been a bit of vagueness with regard to the term, even when a source states that it originally only referred to sex between two men; there is vagueness with regard to the "two men" aspect because "sex between two men" does not automatically equate to "anal sex between two men." Flyer22 (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

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. Flyer22 (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

Ericglare (talk · contribs), I reverted your change to this section's title, and moved your first post down ahead of your second post, since you did not start this section. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments. Your comment fits fine in this section without changing its heading. As for the vast majority of people associating sodomy with anal sex, do you have a WP:Reliable source for that? While I think that is true, and, as noted above, edited the lead to emphasize the anal sex aspect, it also refers to "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." Just about any modern dictionary source will show that to be the case, and so do plenty of legal sources. But it's better not to use dictionary sources, and so I cited scholarly sources. The three scholarly sources I used are WP:Reliable sources (read that page about what a reliable source is and isn't to Wikipedia). And as for accessing sources, see WP:SOURCEACCESS. The lead is for summarizing the article, including its definitions, per WP:Lead. The type of distinguishing you want can be addressed, and is already partly addressed, in the Terminology section of the article. We can change that section title to Definitions. Flyer22 (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

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." Flyer22 (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

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. Flyer22 (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Changeful (talk · contribs), I reverted you per what I stated above in this section. Despite you stating, "There is no source for the assertion that sodomy refers to oral sex.", there is, as a simple Google search will show; it is also supported by the sources for that WP:Lead sentence. And what do you think "but may also include any non-procreative sexual activity" means? That obviously includes oral sex. As for your assertion that "This is not a commonly held understanding. This is a very recent invention meant to arouse sympathies against the use of the word 'sodomy.'", see above. Where are your WP:Reliable sources for that? You can revert me, of course, but you will eventually be reverted again. And if I put this matter through a WP:RfC with WP:Reliable sources proving my point, I'm certain that "oral sex" will be staying in the lead, just like it will be staying in the lead at the Sodomy law article. If we find a WP:Reliable source stating that sodomy most commonly means anal sex, we can begin the lead that way, and then expand it with the other definitions afterward. Flyer22 (talk) 03:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

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)

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

"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)

The article is WP:Semi-protected because it is very much prone to WP:Vandalism and other unconstructive edits. Flyer22 (talk) 03:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

2.1 Hebrew Bible The connection between Sodom and homosexuality is derived from the depicted attempt of a mob of city people to rape Lot's male guests. 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.[13] This view does not take into account that before the "guests" arrived in the city Genesis 18:v17 and any "hospitality" could have been rendered, its destruction was already planned.

COMMENT: The highlighted part is weird.

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)

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)

Chaosdruid, the reference you cited above was not used for this text; instead, this book was used for that text. That book is dated to 1996, and what it reported might be outdated. That stated, Wikipedia is not concerned with being "tantamount to starting 'normal' (hetero) and 'deviant' (homo) name calling" in this regard. If it were, it wouldn't be reporting on the topic of sodomy at all. Such terminology already exists, and has existed for a long time, which is why Wikipedia reports on it. As far as this topic you've brought up goes, Wikipedia is concerned with reporting on what the penal codes state, and even what they used to state; Wikipedia is not taking a stance on the matter, and Wikipedia hates WP:Activism. Flyer22 (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

While acknowledging that Sodomy is a commonname applying to a variety of activities such as anal sex, oral sex and acts related to zoophilia it also seems to me to be a profoundly POV term. Instead of directly describing the actions themselves the description is given via reference to a name given in a biblical story to a city which we are told was destroyed by the angels of an almighty god. I note that the article beastiality acts as a redirect to zoophilia, following a merge conducted by FT2 and was wondering about the extent that similar work might be applied to this terminology. It certainly seems apparent that a term such as "Sodomite" is used less commonly used than a term such as "homosexual" or descriptions such as "gay" or "lesbian".

In many cases I think that it would be beneficial, in situations in which two encyclopedically relevant words may be used, that reference to "sodomy" might be replaced with a more neutral term.

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)

Sodomy is actually a term that has crept into the US legal code. One cannot eliminate it without therefore participating in POV: 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)

SusunW I wasn't neccessarily thinking as much of calling down fire from heaven on the use of the term as to question the extent that its use is 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)

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)

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 gender dysphoria vs. gender identity disorder, including in cases that I felt were inappropriate; see this link (that's a 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 WP:Content fork. I don't see what that matter has to do with this one, or how either of those two terms is less offensive than the other. They are commonly synonyms, both very stigmatized, and are only differentiated in certain contexts (as made clear in the Zoophilia article). Flyer22 (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The last part of this article on the section on Islam it is written "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.[64] 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.[65]", seems to be entirely based on personal analysis, does no reflect the view of majority Muslims, is inconsistent and has weak sources. No valid data to argue this exists and seems to be an attempt to promote homosexuality in the Muslim world, which is OK but can't be Wikipedia standard as it has unreliable, unproven and invalid information. Also this article is based on sodomy, not just homosexual sodomy so the discussion of gender based sexual preferences seems invalid here. I request this part be removed.

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)

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

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= 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)

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)

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)

Gracefool, regarding your proposal, you didn't start a discussion for it. I've gone ahead and created this section for the merge discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

Since you have not yet received feedback on this, you might want to leave a message on some related WikiProjects, such as WP:Law, about the merge. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

*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)

*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)

*Support: I think it doesn't make sense to have a separate article for this, because it leads to duplication. Merge into Sodomy and Sodomy law#United Kingdom. Catrìona (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

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

  Y Merge completed Klbrain (talk) 11:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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)

Sodomization redirects to sodomy, but there is a difference. Sodomy is a retrograde term for anal sex, referring to the alleged practice the of the Sodomites of anal sex between males which, legend has it, invoked God's wrath and led to the destruction of Sodom by fire and brimstone. Sodomization is the forceful insertion into another's anus of an object, which could be a penis but is more often something like a stick or bottle. See, e.g., Urban Dictionary ("To insert a foriegn object into someones anus"), WorldJustice.org ("to commit an act of sodomy, and more specifically to turn a man into a homosexual by inserting some objects into his anal passage"), Gawker ("idea to use a wooden broomstick to sodomize John Doe was abandoned"), Death of Muammar Gaddafi ("The video shows Gaddafi being sodomized with a bayonet"), etc. Separate article?--Rajulbat (talk) 20:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

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)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= 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)

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)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= 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, 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.^[2] 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.^[3] " The source mentioned is about marriage and morals not about sodomy, as "Sodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/) or buggery (British English) is generally anal or oral sex between people or sexual activity between a person and a non-human animal" mentioned in the article. So this should be deleted it gives misinformation.

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)

 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)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= 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)

 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)

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)

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]

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)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= 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". MOS:CONTRACTIONS. 2600:100E:B039:872F:35CC:DF41:525B:1D64 (talk) 00:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

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

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)

@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)

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)