Talk:Lesbian until graduation

"Myspace bisexual"

That particularly made my day. I had no knowledge of, or have never even heard of this term before. Can someone expand this part of the article so stupid people like me can hear more about it? Thanks.

68.3.214.66 (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I wish I could, but I can't find Myspace.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Ha, that's a good one! I remember I created, and still have, an account on there, but I never ever use it. Apparently only artists have accounts on there now. --Historyday01 (talk) 13:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Revisions of May 25

I have made major revisions to the content of this page, which I consider to be improvements. If anyone would like to offer feedback on these changes, I invite them to do so, here. Joie de Vivre 15:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Good general expansion, but a few nitpicks:

• You took out a highly relevant quote from the New York Times, and now write that the article needs more references?
• "questioning" just links to LBGT, which is a link in the very previous sentence. Not too obvious or useful.

--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you think it's good.

• The NYT article requires you to purchase the article to view it. Per Wikipedia:External_links#Sites_requiring_registration: "A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the web site itself is the topic of the article."
• Questioning (sexuality) started as stub-class.

Thanks for the feedback! Joie de Vivre 18:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

A reference is not an external link. The guideline says that sites which require registration or paid subscription should be avoided ... Yes, references are exempt from that rule. I've tried making this explicit in policy before, but last time it was reverted by a person claiming that it was obvious and didn't need to be pointed out. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What good is a reference if it is only accessible to people who can afford to view it? This is "Wikipedia: the free encyclopedia". I think that "free" ought to apply to all the content used to build the encyclopedia. How is it "free" if a certain class of editors are placed at a disadvantage when discussing and reviewing content? Joie de Vivre 19:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Not at all. Just as the most obvious example, most of us pay for the internet access we use to build the encyclopedia, that's not free, and clearly more important than absolutely anything else used to build the encyclopedia. Only the end product need be free, not everything that leads up to it. We're not here to fix everything about the world, just provide the best free encyclopedia we can. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with AnonEMouse, but anyhow, in the meantime the NYT made their archives available for free, so I included the article as reference (I didn't find the right spot to put in the quotation). borp (talk) 09:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

is a Myspace bisexual a new way to say LUG/BUG?

I've been hearing the phrase around for a while now and it seems to be like a LUG/BUG except it's being used with younger (Jr. High/Hish-School) girls. So I put it in as a redirect to this article.

However it is also possible it more properly belongs with Bisexual chic or possible nowhere on Wikipedia at all. I'm not totally married to it and am more than open to discussing the entire thing. Cheers CyntWorkStuff 08:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this really disparaging?

I'm not entirely comfortable with the first paragraph after the Disparaging subheading:

===Disparaging===

In recent usage, the term is generally used to suggest that the woman's same-sex sexual activity is somehow illegitimate.[1] One negative suggestion is that the relations are consciously elective or temporary, or that they are primarily based on convenience. This usage suggests that the participants are:

• concentrating on studies without the distraction of "genuine" romantic relationships
• avoiding unwanted male attention
• avoiding the risk of unwanted pregnancy while remaining sexually active

An elective or temporary sexual orientation is not necessarily any less legitimate than a permanent and pre-determined one. As is explained (suggested?) later in the article, 'experimenting' is a totally normal way to express bisexuality. It is inherently temporary, and will often be consciously chosen to 'see what it's like.'

The three bulleted points all call for criticism also:

• study vs relationships ("genuine" or otherwise) is a value judgement;
• avoiding unwanted attention is totally rational, and;
• if "avoiding the risk of unwanted pregnancy while remaining sexually active" is disparaging, so is the suggestion that someone uses contraception.

I realise that by virtue of the paragraph's placement, it is not to be taken as gospel. But the implication does not sit comfortably with me all the same.

Hi to whoever put in the above. I'm afraid I don't understand which part/parts (?) you don't like. It looks like you just copied in large portions of the article, so your particular point has gotten lost (to me) in all the verbiage.

Also, are you saying that you are under the impression that being a bisexual person "by definition" implies always having short term relationships? If so you misunderstand the meaning of the word.

Being a bisexual person merely implies the capability to have a relationship with persons of different genders NOT that you MUST have them. As an analogy, it is possible to like both chocolate or strawberry ice-cream as an after dinner treat. But this doesn't then imply you must ALWAYS have both or you will be disappointed in your choice of a desert. CyntWorkStuff 01:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No no, I don't mean that at all. When I said "inherently temporary", I was only referring to 'experimenting' with sexuality. My point was that there is nothing wrong with that. An identity is no less valid for being adopted or temporary. So I can't really accept that it's disparaging to say that their bisexuality or relationships are temporary.

I realise it's a fine point, and maybe it's a lot less important than I thought. Oh well. --Matthew Proctor 03:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I would advocate taking this page down. It's just too cynical. Are people really that insecure that they need to insult people with silly terms like Lesbian until graduation? We should not encourage it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.224.120.56 (talk) 04:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Does it matter that this is a legitimate phenomenon? The tone of this article is very dismissive and never acknowledges that these things actually happen. I am 30 years old now and though this is just anecdotal, out of the actively lesbian group of females I knew in college, all but one of them are now married with children and some even refuse to acknowledge what they did in school. The tone of this article is entirely biased and really needs some serious looking into. I have strong doubts that my experience with this phenomenon is unique, or even the exception to the norm. Although I concur with the "Myspace bisexual." I canvassed the internet and found little mention of that term. I question it's relevance. "Lesbian Until Graduation" however has been a term used for as long as I, or my father, can remember. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.16.89 (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Mutable?

I think bisexuals, such as me, prefer flexible, than mutable, as mutable indicates a radical permanent change, whereby most would say the change is subtle and not possible to change on purpose. I think the term is more the indication that sexuality is more black and white, because these people go for same sex as well as opposite sex partners. I've changed it but if someone has a serious disagreement, revert it and we can discuss why they would think differently.CorviCorvus (talk) 08:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Male equivalent?

I go to a music school, and I've heard that there are jokes about guys who "go gay" when they come to music or theatre school and meet a ton of other gay guys. Sometimes it's used to make fun of guys who come bursting out of the closet when they get here, and partly I think it implies that a lot of people who "go gay" here don't continue to do so after they graduate. Anyway, does anyone else have any evidence of a male equivalent to LUG? 76.100.170.150 (talk) 09:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyone engaging in sexual activity that is uncharacteristic of them said is to be "sexually experimenting"...unless they are finally embracing their true sexuality. But I don't believe there is a male equivalent to LUG. There's heteroflexible. Flyer22 (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Cracked

Cracked has a link to this study that question this thing. Maybe it should be included somehow?85.55.197.146 (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)