This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
It can also mean a person who isn't actually lesbian but pretends to be, for various reasons such as pornography. The term can also be applied to bisexual females.
HOW DEROGATORY TO BISEXUAL WOMEN-THE PRETEND TO BE Lesbians! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.164.73 ( talk • contribs)
Not necessarily, a number of women who do not identify as bisexual will perform girl on girl scenes in pornography. Porn is acting. The same is true of many men who perform in all male scenes. This is quite well documented in porn documentaries.
An interesting "folk" etymology I've come across for "lipstick lesbians" is that it's a reference to women who "put on" same sex attraction as they would put on lipstick. The implication being that they can then wipe it off when they wish to. Again this is acting, for whatever purpose, without genuinely being bisexual or gay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.240.94.168 ( talk • contribs)
Currently (August 2006) this article is highly self-contradictory. In the opening sentence: "Lipstick lesbian is a slang term for a feminine homosexual woman who is attracted to another feminine woman, rather than a lesbian who is attracted to a more masculine woman"
Then later: "A lipstick lesbian is a homosexual (or bi-sexual) woman who exhibits feminine gender expression... ...The term applies to a multitude of women, regardless of their preferences in partners. A lipstick lesbian may be attracted to more 'butch' or masculine women or may be attracted to other femmes but is not solely attracted to feminine women."
Any sources or similar stating when the expression was first used, or how it is most widely used now, to help clear this up? -- Justynb 16:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I think the statement that lipstick lesbians are mainly attracted to other feminine women is completely wrong. Not all butches like other butches, and the other way 'round applies too. Dramaleo94 ( talk) 00:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The beginning of the article says:
> A lipstick lesbian, sometimes referred to as a chapstick lesbian
I thought the two phrases were different concepts, i.e. chapstick lesbians are less feminine than lipstick lesbians.
In the 30 years I've been a lesbian I have never once encountered the definition of Lipstick Lesbian given here. Where I'm from (and everywhere I've been) Lipstick Lesbian is simply another term for a "high femme" lesbian. These are lesbians who wears lots of makeup, mostly wears dresses and skirts, high heels, long hair (or extremely fashionable well styled shorter hair), sometimes prissy and almost always very high maintenance. They very very rarely are read as lesbians. It has no connection to her attraction to other women, butch or femme. It is a descriptor of personal style, manner of dress, wearing of said lipstick and other makeup and bears no meaning to her adherence to any kind of butch/femme dichotomy. Lipstick Lesbian is basically the opposite of Diesel Dyke (which again has nothing to do with partner choice, but is a descriptor of a "look")
The article does state
A distinction is sometimes drawn between the phrases "lipstick lesbian" and "chapstick lesbian" and the older phrases butch and femme by suggesting that the former phrases simply refer to appearance, whereas the latter imply mutual attraction of the two types. "Chapstick lesbians" are often considered soft butch.
Which I would say is the only correct part of the whole article. And even then it is flawed. I will refrain from doing any editing, as I would vote to re-write the entire thing, swapping the two definitions around (the one I describe becoming the major definition, and the major one up there now becoming the minor definition) and it would just get changed back. What's the point. 71.193.228.220 ( talk) 00:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it's a right shame, and reflection of misogyny that also within and outside the lesbian community, that the term 'lipstick lesbian' can be used to mean a feminine lesbian, and simultaneously a performance of lesbian sex for the viewing pleasure of men as well as a heterosexual woman pretending to be gay. A right shame indeed! -Mog (14.06.09) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.150.145 ( talk) 22:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
...and now the artical might be deleted??? I really am trying to understand and do this correctly. I only added info on another type of lipstick lesbian. I am a Lipstick Butch, I am FtM, trangendered, I dress as a female, I am a lesbian. I did try to follow the rules, I may have missed something????. lipstick butch is also mentioned on the external links at http://belladonna.org/lipsticklesbian.html on the glossery page, Habitstock22 ( talk) 10:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
If the reason for wikipedia having an article on lipstick lesbians, is to provide information on the subject.. Then how does the inclusion of the existance of male ID'ed butch women, who dress as lipstick lesbians present a problem? What is confusing about the pharagraph? Why should this small section of the GLBT (etc) be denied representation on Wikipedia? Ending confusion... and the opinions that this just one persons experience is a reason for leaving the infomation, not deleting it. Does anyone here really think I am the ONLY FtM transgendered person in the world who dresses as a female? Maybe the bias that real lesbians are suposed to look like guys is too thick? Let the paragraph stay. Is the purpose of the artical to inform on the subject or only to represent the girly girl/porn star/fake lesbian stereotypes? If you would like the passage to be structured better, tell me what would help you understand it better. Someone's personal confusion should not be a reason to remove content. Habitstock22 ( talk) 19:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Kso...Am I the only one who thinks Chapstick lesbian should be a redirect to Soft butch, not here? As a chapstick lesbian myself, I find this strange. Chapstick lesbians and soft butches are lesbians that fall in between butch and femme, lipstick lesbians are very feminine lesbians (and often attracted to other lipstick lesbians). There's a bit of a difference. Stealthy ( talk) 02:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
In the intro it describes a lipstick lesbian as "lesbian and bisexual women who exhibit extremely feminine gender attributes, such as wearing make-up (thus, lipstick), wearing dresses or skirts and having other characteristics associated with feminine women".
How is wearing makeup and skirts/dresses extreme? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.86.168 ( talk) 19:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
The lemma starts:
Next is:
which obviously is the first of the two very different meanings. Next is a section United States, which naturally again deals with the first meaning. And then: nothing. Unless I missunderstood something very basic, the second meaning, which seems to be valid outside the US, is entirely missing. It might help if someone in the know could add it (again?, I did not search previous versions).-- 130.149.205.108 ( talk) 16:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
As seen with this edit, an IP editor stated, "Bisexuals are not lesbians.", and I reverted, stating, "You are taking the term 'lesbian' too strictly; do read the Lesbian article." As seen with this edit, that person showed up again (but with a different IP), stating, "Lipstick LESBIAN refers only to LESBIANS, which is something completely different from bisexual. Bisexuals are not LESBIANS. Language about LESBIANS applies only to LESBIANS. It is extremely lesbophobic to claim otherwise.)", and I replied, "Again; read the Lesbian article; the term lesbian can refer to any female same-sex attraction. Stop WP:Edit warring and IP hopping, or I am likely to get this article WP:Semi-protected." I meant any female same-sex romantic and/or sexual attraction. As seen with this edit, the IP returned, stating, "It is lesbophobic to conflate lesbians and bisexuals.", and I replied, " WP:Dummy edit: You are incorrect, per the term lesbian not having one definition, much like the term bisexual does not have one definition. But I'll take care of this matter; I suggest you sign in if you are Saint91 WP:Edit warring." As seen with this edit, the IP replied with a WP:Dummy edit as well, stating, "'Lesbian' here refers to 'lesbian' as in 'women are solely attracted to other women.' Since it's a noun, it means only lesbians, and not bisexuals. This term has NEVER referred to bisexuals."
I questioned if the IP is Saint91 ( talk · contribs) because of edits Saint91 has made to the article, including this one about heterosexuality, and because Saint91 is often quick to WP:Edit war. Whether the IPs are Saint91 or not, the IPs are wrong. Yes, the term lesbian is commonly understood to mean a woman who is exclusively romantically/sexually attracted to women, but it is rare that the term is defined in that exclusive way in dictionary, scholarly or media texts; Googling it shows that. Like this this 1999 Current Assessment and Directions for the Future source (that I've used in the Lesbian article and argued with at the Lesbian talk page) from the National Academies Press, page 22, states, "There is no standard definition of lesbian. The term has been used to describe women who have sex with women, either exclusively or in addition to sex with men (i.e., behavior); women who self-identify as lesbian (i.e., identity); and women whose sexual preference is for women (i.e., desire or attraction). The lack of a standard definition of lesbian and of standard questions to assess who is lesbian has made it difficult to clearly define a population of lesbian women." And for a more recent source, see this 2011 The Lesbian Premodern source from Palgrave Macmillan, page 136, which states, "But even for scholars who are more comfortable with sexual diversity (such as the readers of this book), 'lesbian' can seem problematic, both for its instability of meaning and its supposed inapplicability to long-past worlds. No one these days is really sure what 'lesbian' means. Are lesbians born or made? Do lesbians delight in sex with women only or can the term encompass bisexuals as well?'" And like I mentioned at the Domestic violence in lesbian relationships talk page, "If it's a romantic and/or sexual relationship between teenage girls or women, it's usually called a lesbian relationship, regardless of sexual identity. This is similar to how if it's a romantic and/or sexual relationship between teenage boys or men, it's usually called a gay male relationship or a gay relationship. That is, if the couples are not termed same-sex relationships or homosexual relationships instead. That stated [...] the terms women who have sex with women and men who have sex with men exist."
Contrary to what the IP editor asserts, the term lipstick lesbian, though commonly referring to lesbians, refers to lesbian and bisexual women. And sometimes to heterosexual women. The following sources show that: This 2009 Encyclopedia of Gender and Society, Volume 1 source from Sage Publications, page 524, states, "A common depiction of lipstick lesbianism includes conventionally attractive and sexually insatiable women who desire one another but only insofar as their desire is a performance for male onlookers or a precursor to sex with men." This 2012 Intersectionality, Sexuality and Psychological Therapies: Working with Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Diversity source from John Wiley & Sons, page 67, states, "Likewise, more recent iterations of feminine forms of lesbianism such as 'femme' (e.g. wears dresses/skirts or form-fitting jeans, low cut tops, makeup jewellery), or 'lipstick lesbian' (e.g. a lesbian/bisexual woman who exhibits 'feminine' attributes such as wearing makeup, dresses and high heeled shoes), are an attempt to define as both lesbian and feminine." And this 2013 Bisexual Women: Friendship and Social Organization source from Routledge, page 55, states, "Young women exposed to mainstream media outlets are seeing expressions of the same-sex desire between women much more frequently than ever before. However, mainstream images of same-sex desire between women are very specific, meaning they are often of hyper-feminine women ('lipstick lesbians')." In 2009, SheWired commented similarly on this topic; see its " Hollywood's Obsession with Lipstick Lesbians and Bisexuality" article. And this Wikipedia article's Criticism section currently isn't even focusing on lesbians. And there is a debate above on this talk page about the term lipstick lesbian referring to bisexual women: #Derogatory to Bisexual Women.
I know that the above is WP:Too long, didn't read for some people. But if you can bear reading all or some of that, what are your thoughts on this dispute? NinjaRobotPirate, since you recently helped out with a different LGBT definitional matter, would you mind helping out with this one? I will also go ahead and alert WP:LGBT to this matter. Flyer22 ( talk) 22:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Update: See the archived discussion about this at WP:LGBT, where I provided more WP:Reliable sources. With this edit (followup edit here), I expanded the article. I will expand it further at a later date. And Bosstopher, regarding your removal of this text (which had a WP:Claim issue), I understand why you removed it. But keep in mind that, as noted in discussions at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard and WP:BLP noticeboard, use of the Daily Mail as a source on Wikipedia is not banned. It can be used on a case-by-case basis, such as regarding a video game, popular culture, or an exclusive interview. Viriditas has commented on this times before. The text you removed was simply referring to a cultural matter. Since I've expanded the cultural material, the text would no longer come across as WP:Undue weight if added to the Definitions and society section. That stated, I'm not pressing for the text to be re-added. Flyer22 ( talk) 03:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
There are several people who track the emergence of such terms, so we should be able to nail it down to a time and place. I was in San Francisco throughout this decade, and I recall first hearing it around 1993-94, but I suspect this might be later than when it first emerged. Viriditas ( talk) 21:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lipstick lesbian. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
The lesbian flag applies to all lesbians not just lipstick lesbians when you take away the lipstick mark. -- Vexthesmol ( talk) 16:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm wondering if it's worth adding the controversy over the flag as there has been a significant amount of push back against this flag now because of the creator making racist and biphobic comments. BeffyNicole ( talk) 16:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi! I am working on adding to this page! This page does not have many reliable sources or considerable content, and what content is there is threadbare.
In order to improve upon the page, I am planning on adding more specific content on the defition of a lipstick lesbian- what is currently there is not very extensive. I also want to add in more about representation in media and general view of lipstick lesbinans.
I’d love any suggestions or advice! Here are some relevant sources I've gathered. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Wanhedalegend ( talk) 01:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)wanhedalegend
___
References
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 02:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
The one reference being used to support the flag is this, which is a dead link. Furthermore, this is an example of citogenesis, unfortunately. The flag was added in this edit and then it began appearing elsewhere on the internet (and in that presumed SDGLN article) after that point. It's inclusion here was used as reason for it being the "official" flag for the term, which was never the case. It is being included here completely as a self-promotional activity. Silver seren C 03:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Pyxis Solitary: per the revert summary, the lipstick lesbian flag is WP:CITOGENESIS. From information online, the flag was created by Natalie McCray in 2010, who then shortly thereafter added to the article in this diff along with a link to her own blog. It's entirely improper for it to appear here, even when considering the royalty free rework done by The Anome in December 2019. I agree entirely with everything else @ Silver seren: has said on this. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 14:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
where in Wikipedia does it say that an image cannot be used in an article if it is an illustration or imitation of an art work?That is not, and has not been the issue. The issue is WP:CITOGENESIS. If you think that the issue is one of rights and attribution per Creative Commons I would suggest that you take a refresher in WP:CIR. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 15:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
the source of the flag's notability is because of Wikipedia" -- this is strictly your opinion. You have no evidence to support your statement. Your POV is irrelevant. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 15:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
this is strictly your opinion. You have no evidence to support your statementIncorrect. Please see the diffs dating it to Natalie McCray adding it to the article in 2010, as well as multiple sources which state that state she was the original creator. It is not OR, nor my POV to state that Natalie added the flag to Wikipedia, and that it only spread after she did so. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 15:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
the flag was taken down by the original creator". Where is this idea coming from? The creator of the lipstick flag did not remove the flag from her weblog, This Lesbian Life. The weblog expired -- which is what happens with many weblogs. The accusations made against Natalie McCray and the flag she created were slung in a Medium personal blog in 2018 -- and the Medium blog was deleted after the defamatory imputations were circulated on Twitter and Tumblr, and after the response by McCray. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
because the flag was inserted on Wikipedia at the same time it was created, all sources about it can be declared invalid. The issue is that it's notable stems from the fact that it was added to Wikipedia at the time of creation.
Clearly, those are not citogenesis - they must have researched that themselves.I would direct you in this instance to the rather sizeable list of examples on the WP:CITOGENESIS page, in particular the examples for Eleagnus, Joseph Bazalgette, and Playboy Bunny, as they show how even reliable sources doing independent research, without mentioning Wikipedia, can still be citogenesis, because the root source is eventually Wikipedia. Your strawman anecdote is meaningless.
...it appears that the flag in question isn't used by the lipstick lesbian community and there is in fact a new flag, shown in that same article, that is used." There is only one "lipstick lesbian" flag, and it is the original design with the red kiss on the left corner. The colors of the lipstick flag were copied and used to create a lesbian pride flag, and because the derivative design uses the same colors some people have conflated it with the original (lipstick) flag. No one knows who created the stripes-only flag. Incorrect information about the stripes flag has been circulated and regurgitated by multiple sources that have not bothered to research the difference between the two flags. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 12:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Ooooh, now I know why you two are here....I was wondering why you both showed up on this article and were so adamant about keeping this flag, since it's not the usual topic area you're seen in." – What a foolish thing to say. You don't even have the wherewithal to find out the editing history of Wikipedia editors before putting your foot in your mouth, as you just did.
Upon more reflection, as well as re-reviewing the history and sources, I don't think any pride flag is DUE here. This article is about a term that refers to a specific subset of lesbians and its history. That history in particular goes back well before McCray created her version of the flag in the 2010s. Any version of the flag, whether the disputed citogenesis version by McCray or the more recent orange/purple flag are supposed to be representative of the wider lesbian umbrella, and not the narrower subset of lesbians that the term "lipstick lesbian" refers to historically or presently.
MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE would apply here Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding.
Despite the flag being known as "the lipstick lesbian flag", I don't think there's been any evidence put forward linking the flag and the term, beyond the shared nature of the words "lipstick lesbian", and certainly not within the three sources that have been used to cite for it recently.
Sideswipe9th (
talk)
00:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. The sourcing for this doesn't really satisfy that - SDGLN is newsblog-ish, and I'm not understanding why it's being cited at all when better sources exist. What the other sources say, though, makes it more clear why it can't be the lead image - people referenced them above, but the controversy over the flag (mentioned in higher-quality sources here and here) makes it hard to interpret them as presenting it as a natural and appropriate portrayal of lipstick lesbians as a whole, especially when the sources also emphasize that it is not widely-used. I feel it could be mentioned in the body (where we could mention the controversy surrounding it which, again, is part of what higher-quality sources mention when bringing it up, and therefore fairly inseparable from discussing it if we're going to mention it at all), but it seems hard to justify presenting in the lead as if it is the
natural and appropriaterepresentation of lipstick lesbians as a whole when higher-quality sources than the one we're using currently specifically note that it is controversial. Also note that the flag is also present on Lesbian flag, though since it is not the lead image there it may not be as pressing; if we do determine the whole thing is citogenesis then it probably needs to go there, too. -- Aquillion ( talk)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2019 and 7 November 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wanhedalegend.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 02:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
It can also mean a person who isn't actually lesbian but pretends to be, for various reasons such as pornography. The term can also be applied to bisexual females.
HOW DEROGATORY TO BISEXUAL WOMEN-THE PRETEND TO BE Lesbians! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.164.73 ( talk • contribs)
Not necessarily, a number of women who do not identify as bisexual will perform girl on girl scenes in pornography. Porn is acting. The same is true of many men who perform in all male scenes. This is quite well documented in porn documentaries.
An interesting "folk" etymology I've come across for "lipstick lesbians" is that it's a reference to women who "put on" same sex attraction as they would put on lipstick. The implication being that they can then wipe it off when they wish to. Again this is acting, for whatever purpose, without genuinely being bisexual or gay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.240.94.168 ( talk • contribs)
Currently (August 2006) this article is highly self-contradictory. In the opening sentence: "Lipstick lesbian is a slang term for a feminine homosexual woman who is attracted to another feminine woman, rather than a lesbian who is attracted to a more masculine woman"
Then later: "A lipstick lesbian is a homosexual (or bi-sexual) woman who exhibits feminine gender expression... ...The term applies to a multitude of women, regardless of their preferences in partners. A lipstick lesbian may be attracted to more 'butch' or masculine women or may be attracted to other femmes but is not solely attracted to feminine women."
Any sources or similar stating when the expression was first used, or how it is most widely used now, to help clear this up? -- Justynb 16:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I think the statement that lipstick lesbians are mainly attracted to other feminine women is completely wrong. Not all butches like other butches, and the other way 'round applies too. Dramaleo94 ( talk) 00:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The beginning of the article says:
> A lipstick lesbian, sometimes referred to as a chapstick lesbian
I thought the two phrases were different concepts, i.e. chapstick lesbians are less feminine than lipstick lesbians.
In the 30 years I've been a lesbian I have never once encountered the definition of Lipstick Lesbian given here. Where I'm from (and everywhere I've been) Lipstick Lesbian is simply another term for a "high femme" lesbian. These are lesbians who wears lots of makeup, mostly wears dresses and skirts, high heels, long hair (or extremely fashionable well styled shorter hair), sometimes prissy and almost always very high maintenance. They very very rarely are read as lesbians. It has no connection to her attraction to other women, butch or femme. It is a descriptor of personal style, manner of dress, wearing of said lipstick and other makeup and bears no meaning to her adherence to any kind of butch/femme dichotomy. Lipstick Lesbian is basically the opposite of Diesel Dyke (which again has nothing to do with partner choice, but is a descriptor of a "look")
The article does state
A distinction is sometimes drawn between the phrases "lipstick lesbian" and "chapstick lesbian" and the older phrases butch and femme by suggesting that the former phrases simply refer to appearance, whereas the latter imply mutual attraction of the two types. "Chapstick lesbians" are often considered soft butch.
Which I would say is the only correct part of the whole article. And even then it is flawed. I will refrain from doing any editing, as I would vote to re-write the entire thing, swapping the two definitions around (the one I describe becoming the major definition, and the major one up there now becoming the minor definition) and it would just get changed back. What's the point. 71.193.228.220 ( talk) 00:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it's a right shame, and reflection of misogyny that also within and outside the lesbian community, that the term 'lipstick lesbian' can be used to mean a feminine lesbian, and simultaneously a performance of lesbian sex for the viewing pleasure of men as well as a heterosexual woman pretending to be gay. A right shame indeed! -Mog (14.06.09) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.150.145 ( talk) 22:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
...and now the artical might be deleted??? I really am trying to understand and do this correctly. I only added info on another type of lipstick lesbian. I am a Lipstick Butch, I am FtM, trangendered, I dress as a female, I am a lesbian. I did try to follow the rules, I may have missed something????. lipstick butch is also mentioned on the external links at http://belladonna.org/lipsticklesbian.html on the glossery page, Habitstock22 ( talk) 10:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
If the reason for wikipedia having an article on lipstick lesbians, is to provide information on the subject.. Then how does the inclusion of the existance of male ID'ed butch women, who dress as lipstick lesbians present a problem? What is confusing about the pharagraph? Why should this small section of the GLBT (etc) be denied representation on Wikipedia? Ending confusion... and the opinions that this just one persons experience is a reason for leaving the infomation, not deleting it. Does anyone here really think I am the ONLY FtM transgendered person in the world who dresses as a female? Maybe the bias that real lesbians are suposed to look like guys is too thick? Let the paragraph stay. Is the purpose of the artical to inform on the subject or only to represent the girly girl/porn star/fake lesbian stereotypes? If you would like the passage to be structured better, tell me what would help you understand it better. Someone's personal confusion should not be a reason to remove content. Habitstock22 ( talk) 19:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Kso...Am I the only one who thinks Chapstick lesbian should be a redirect to Soft butch, not here? As a chapstick lesbian myself, I find this strange. Chapstick lesbians and soft butches are lesbians that fall in between butch and femme, lipstick lesbians are very feminine lesbians (and often attracted to other lipstick lesbians). There's a bit of a difference. Stealthy ( talk) 02:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
In the intro it describes a lipstick lesbian as "lesbian and bisexual women who exhibit extremely feminine gender attributes, such as wearing make-up (thus, lipstick), wearing dresses or skirts and having other characteristics associated with feminine women".
How is wearing makeup and skirts/dresses extreme? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.86.168 ( talk) 19:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
The lemma starts:
Next is:
which obviously is the first of the two very different meanings. Next is a section United States, which naturally again deals with the first meaning. And then: nothing. Unless I missunderstood something very basic, the second meaning, which seems to be valid outside the US, is entirely missing. It might help if someone in the know could add it (again?, I did not search previous versions).-- 130.149.205.108 ( talk) 16:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
As seen with this edit, an IP editor stated, "Bisexuals are not lesbians.", and I reverted, stating, "You are taking the term 'lesbian' too strictly; do read the Lesbian article." As seen with this edit, that person showed up again (but with a different IP), stating, "Lipstick LESBIAN refers only to LESBIANS, which is something completely different from bisexual. Bisexuals are not LESBIANS. Language about LESBIANS applies only to LESBIANS. It is extremely lesbophobic to claim otherwise.)", and I replied, "Again; read the Lesbian article; the term lesbian can refer to any female same-sex attraction. Stop WP:Edit warring and IP hopping, or I am likely to get this article WP:Semi-protected." I meant any female same-sex romantic and/or sexual attraction. As seen with this edit, the IP returned, stating, "It is lesbophobic to conflate lesbians and bisexuals.", and I replied, " WP:Dummy edit: You are incorrect, per the term lesbian not having one definition, much like the term bisexual does not have one definition. But I'll take care of this matter; I suggest you sign in if you are Saint91 WP:Edit warring." As seen with this edit, the IP replied with a WP:Dummy edit as well, stating, "'Lesbian' here refers to 'lesbian' as in 'women are solely attracted to other women.' Since it's a noun, it means only lesbians, and not bisexuals. This term has NEVER referred to bisexuals."
I questioned if the IP is Saint91 ( talk · contribs) because of edits Saint91 has made to the article, including this one about heterosexuality, and because Saint91 is often quick to WP:Edit war. Whether the IPs are Saint91 or not, the IPs are wrong. Yes, the term lesbian is commonly understood to mean a woman who is exclusively romantically/sexually attracted to women, but it is rare that the term is defined in that exclusive way in dictionary, scholarly or media texts; Googling it shows that. Like this this 1999 Current Assessment and Directions for the Future source (that I've used in the Lesbian article and argued with at the Lesbian talk page) from the National Academies Press, page 22, states, "There is no standard definition of lesbian. The term has been used to describe women who have sex with women, either exclusively or in addition to sex with men (i.e., behavior); women who self-identify as lesbian (i.e., identity); and women whose sexual preference is for women (i.e., desire or attraction). The lack of a standard definition of lesbian and of standard questions to assess who is lesbian has made it difficult to clearly define a population of lesbian women." And for a more recent source, see this 2011 The Lesbian Premodern source from Palgrave Macmillan, page 136, which states, "But even for scholars who are more comfortable with sexual diversity (such as the readers of this book), 'lesbian' can seem problematic, both for its instability of meaning and its supposed inapplicability to long-past worlds. No one these days is really sure what 'lesbian' means. Are lesbians born or made? Do lesbians delight in sex with women only or can the term encompass bisexuals as well?'" And like I mentioned at the Domestic violence in lesbian relationships talk page, "If it's a romantic and/or sexual relationship between teenage girls or women, it's usually called a lesbian relationship, regardless of sexual identity. This is similar to how if it's a romantic and/or sexual relationship between teenage boys or men, it's usually called a gay male relationship or a gay relationship. That is, if the couples are not termed same-sex relationships or homosexual relationships instead. That stated [...] the terms women who have sex with women and men who have sex with men exist."
Contrary to what the IP editor asserts, the term lipstick lesbian, though commonly referring to lesbians, refers to lesbian and bisexual women. And sometimes to heterosexual women. The following sources show that: This 2009 Encyclopedia of Gender and Society, Volume 1 source from Sage Publications, page 524, states, "A common depiction of lipstick lesbianism includes conventionally attractive and sexually insatiable women who desire one another but only insofar as their desire is a performance for male onlookers or a precursor to sex with men." This 2012 Intersectionality, Sexuality and Psychological Therapies: Working with Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Diversity source from John Wiley & Sons, page 67, states, "Likewise, more recent iterations of feminine forms of lesbianism such as 'femme' (e.g. wears dresses/skirts or form-fitting jeans, low cut tops, makeup jewellery), or 'lipstick lesbian' (e.g. a lesbian/bisexual woman who exhibits 'feminine' attributes such as wearing makeup, dresses and high heeled shoes), are an attempt to define as both lesbian and feminine." And this 2013 Bisexual Women: Friendship and Social Organization source from Routledge, page 55, states, "Young women exposed to mainstream media outlets are seeing expressions of the same-sex desire between women much more frequently than ever before. However, mainstream images of same-sex desire between women are very specific, meaning they are often of hyper-feminine women ('lipstick lesbians')." In 2009, SheWired commented similarly on this topic; see its " Hollywood's Obsession with Lipstick Lesbians and Bisexuality" article. And this Wikipedia article's Criticism section currently isn't even focusing on lesbians. And there is a debate above on this talk page about the term lipstick lesbian referring to bisexual women: #Derogatory to Bisexual Women.
I know that the above is WP:Too long, didn't read for some people. But if you can bear reading all or some of that, what are your thoughts on this dispute? NinjaRobotPirate, since you recently helped out with a different LGBT definitional matter, would you mind helping out with this one? I will also go ahead and alert WP:LGBT to this matter. Flyer22 ( talk) 22:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Update: See the archived discussion about this at WP:LGBT, where I provided more WP:Reliable sources. With this edit (followup edit here), I expanded the article. I will expand it further at a later date. And Bosstopher, regarding your removal of this text (which had a WP:Claim issue), I understand why you removed it. But keep in mind that, as noted in discussions at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard and WP:BLP noticeboard, use of the Daily Mail as a source on Wikipedia is not banned. It can be used on a case-by-case basis, such as regarding a video game, popular culture, or an exclusive interview. Viriditas has commented on this times before. The text you removed was simply referring to a cultural matter. Since I've expanded the cultural material, the text would no longer come across as WP:Undue weight if added to the Definitions and society section. That stated, I'm not pressing for the text to be re-added. Flyer22 ( talk) 03:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
There are several people who track the emergence of such terms, so we should be able to nail it down to a time and place. I was in San Francisco throughout this decade, and I recall first hearing it around 1993-94, but I suspect this might be later than when it first emerged. Viriditas ( talk) 21:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lipstick lesbian. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
The lesbian flag applies to all lesbians not just lipstick lesbians when you take away the lipstick mark. -- Vexthesmol ( talk) 16:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm wondering if it's worth adding the controversy over the flag as there has been a significant amount of push back against this flag now because of the creator making racist and biphobic comments. BeffyNicole ( talk) 16:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi! I am working on adding to this page! This page does not have many reliable sources or considerable content, and what content is there is threadbare.
In order to improve upon the page, I am planning on adding more specific content on the defition of a lipstick lesbian- what is currently there is not very extensive. I also want to add in more about representation in media and general view of lipstick lesbinans.
I’d love any suggestions or advice! Here are some relevant sources I've gathered. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Wanhedalegend ( talk) 01:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)wanhedalegend
___
References
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 02:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
The one reference being used to support the flag is this, which is a dead link. Furthermore, this is an example of citogenesis, unfortunately. The flag was added in this edit and then it began appearing elsewhere on the internet (and in that presumed SDGLN article) after that point. It's inclusion here was used as reason for it being the "official" flag for the term, which was never the case. It is being included here completely as a self-promotional activity. Silver seren C 03:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Pyxis Solitary: per the revert summary, the lipstick lesbian flag is WP:CITOGENESIS. From information online, the flag was created by Natalie McCray in 2010, who then shortly thereafter added to the article in this diff along with a link to her own blog. It's entirely improper for it to appear here, even when considering the royalty free rework done by The Anome in December 2019. I agree entirely with everything else @ Silver seren: has said on this. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 14:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
where in Wikipedia does it say that an image cannot be used in an article if it is an illustration or imitation of an art work?That is not, and has not been the issue. The issue is WP:CITOGENESIS. If you think that the issue is one of rights and attribution per Creative Commons I would suggest that you take a refresher in WP:CIR. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 15:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
the source of the flag's notability is because of Wikipedia" -- this is strictly your opinion. You have no evidence to support your statement. Your POV is irrelevant. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 15:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
this is strictly your opinion. You have no evidence to support your statementIncorrect. Please see the diffs dating it to Natalie McCray adding it to the article in 2010, as well as multiple sources which state that state she was the original creator. It is not OR, nor my POV to state that Natalie added the flag to Wikipedia, and that it only spread after she did so. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 15:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
the flag was taken down by the original creator". Where is this idea coming from? The creator of the lipstick flag did not remove the flag from her weblog, This Lesbian Life. The weblog expired -- which is what happens with many weblogs. The accusations made against Natalie McCray and the flag she created were slung in a Medium personal blog in 2018 -- and the Medium blog was deleted after the defamatory imputations were circulated on Twitter and Tumblr, and after the response by McCray. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
because the flag was inserted on Wikipedia at the same time it was created, all sources about it can be declared invalid. The issue is that it's notable stems from the fact that it was added to Wikipedia at the time of creation.
Clearly, those are not citogenesis - they must have researched that themselves.I would direct you in this instance to the rather sizeable list of examples on the WP:CITOGENESIS page, in particular the examples for Eleagnus, Joseph Bazalgette, and Playboy Bunny, as they show how even reliable sources doing independent research, without mentioning Wikipedia, can still be citogenesis, because the root source is eventually Wikipedia. Your strawman anecdote is meaningless.
...it appears that the flag in question isn't used by the lipstick lesbian community and there is in fact a new flag, shown in that same article, that is used." There is only one "lipstick lesbian" flag, and it is the original design with the red kiss on the left corner. The colors of the lipstick flag were copied and used to create a lesbian pride flag, and because the derivative design uses the same colors some people have conflated it with the original (lipstick) flag. No one knows who created the stripes-only flag. Incorrect information about the stripes flag has been circulated and regurgitated by multiple sources that have not bothered to research the difference between the two flags. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 12:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Ooooh, now I know why you two are here....I was wondering why you both showed up on this article and were so adamant about keeping this flag, since it's not the usual topic area you're seen in." – What a foolish thing to say. You don't even have the wherewithal to find out the editing history of Wikipedia editors before putting your foot in your mouth, as you just did.
Upon more reflection, as well as re-reviewing the history and sources, I don't think any pride flag is DUE here. This article is about a term that refers to a specific subset of lesbians and its history. That history in particular goes back well before McCray created her version of the flag in the 2010s. Any version of the flag, whether the disputed citogenesis version by McCray or the more recent orange/purple flag are supposed to be representative of the wider lesbian umbrella, and not the narrower subset of lesbians that the term "lipstick lesbian" refers to historically or presently.
MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE would apply here Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding.
Despite the flag being known as "the lipstick lesbian flag", I don't think there's been any evidence put forward linking the flag and the term, beyond the shared nature of the words "lipstick lesbian", and certainly not within the three sources that have been used to cite for it recently.
Sideswipe9th (
talk)
00:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. The sourcing for this doesn't really satisfy that - SDGLN is newsblog-ish, and I'm not understanding why it's being cited at all when better sources exist. What the other sources say, though, makes it more clear why it can't be the lead image - people referenced them above, but the controversy over the flag (mentioned in higher-quality sources here and here) makes it hard to interpret them as presenting it as a natural and appropriate portrayal of lipstick lesbians as a whole, especially when the sources also emphasize that it is not widely-used. I feel it could be mentioned in the body (where we could mention the controversy surrounding it which, again, is part of what higher-quality sources mention when bringing it up, and therefore fairly inseparable from discussing it if we're going to mention it at all), but it seems hard to justify presenting in the lead as if it is the
natural and appropriaterepresentation of lipstick lesbians as a whole when higher-quality sources than the one we're using currently specifically note that it is controversial. Also note that the flag is also present on Lesbian flag, though since it is not the lead image there it may not be as pressing; if we do determine the whole thing is citogenesis then it probably needs to go there, too. -- Aquillion ( talk)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2019 and 7 November 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wanhedalegend.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 02:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)