Jump to content

Talk:Erotica

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Student erotica (talk | contribs) at 04:23, 16 October 2007 (→‎Issues with Greek). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconSexology and sexuality Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Votes for proposed merger of erotica with erotic art

Please vote. --Jahsonic 19:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Against: As stated in the LookWayUp online english dictionary definition to the Erotica term: "creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire". It speaks for itself. Ricardo 23:34 GMT -3:00 São Paulo - Brazil 11 August 2006
Against: erotica page should be dedicated to the etymology of erotica and include erotic fiction. Erotic art is then reserved for the visual arts.--Jahsonic 20:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Against: It would be fine to include a short description of Erotica Art on the Erotica page, however, merging them would be a mistake, as erotica art is part of the realm, yet big enough to exist on it on. It's kind of like Hip Hop. You have Emceeing, Deejaying, Graffiti, and Breakdancing as the elements that make it up..but most parts have lives of their own.
Oppose - I also wouldn't merge modern art with modernism. -- Solipsist 19:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erotica is what I like. Pornography is what you like, you pervert!

Its even more simple than that. Erotica is pornography for women. Changing the name allows women to feel as if they aren't violating taboo or committing a sin. Check out a standard erotica romance novel. It would make porn stars turn white and steady themselves on the furniture!

The difference between erotica and pornography is simple. Erotica is what I like. Pornography is what you like, you pervert! -- Stephen Gilbert

Dear Mr. Gilbert, did you call me "pervert"? OK, I'd prefer suicide rather than to be labelled so badly and to be arrested by police for having written that nonsense. -- Egr, 14/3/2006

That's exactly the point I was trying to make with that little change, but you can't write it just like that in an encyclopedia article -- Robert Merkel
  • Not sure that line is NPOV... Going to delete it since I don't see any way to make it NPOV myself and it doesn't seem very.. encylopedish. Rgamble
the way to make it encyclopedish is to make the erotica and pornography articles be the same, and simply point out that some people like to use the term erotica and what distinction they are trying to draw. That realistically separates the terminology from the objects, and does not attempt to arbitrarily change the nature of the objects.

Once while musing with a friend about the difference between erotica and pornography we decided this - the difference is the audience. --JvaGoddess

I always thought that the difference was "lighting." Babbage


It sounds like a quote from someone; if so, attribute it and leave it in--I think it's right on the mark and not at all out of place. -- Lee Daniel Crocker

BTW, what's with all the [[:X|X]] links? It's the same as [[X]], but twice as much typing and harder to edit.

  • Hmmm, I'll put it back though I don't know the reference since I tend to trust your judgement. I may just be in a nitpicky mood tonight. Rgamble

Discussion regarding unidintified photograph

Take the photo off please, think of the children that use this page, remove the photo or blur it out

A child reading this page? In case you haven't noticed the article is titled Erotica. Not Hello Kitty.
Problem being, in many regions, the law states that a child is anyone under what is called "age of majority" which is to say, under an age where the accumulated experiences are not deemed sufficient to make decisions for themselves with all dangers considered.
We can't dumb down all of Wikipedia, or all of the Internet to the least common denominator, or the least controversial version of whatever we describe. It is a parents responsibility to keep their children off of the freeway, not the role of the state to lower the speed limit to five miles per hour because a child may wander onto the freeway. The Internet, and Wikipedia are about facts and reality.
Besides the picture is innocent enough -- of a woman in a bikini. It seems to me less suggestive than many daytime TV commercials. Atom 19:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the difference between erotica and porn is aesthetic

Actually, it appears to me that the difference between erotica and porn is aesthetic, depending on moral philosophy at present. Near future outlook will probably swing more towards a difference in personal offerings to specific and known individual/individuals (porn) or cultural/commercial offerings (erotica), but this will be decades in change and definition of porn as "bad" and erotica as "good" will doubtless remain within religious communities and cliques that hold to "old fashioned" moral doctrine. Regardless of where change takes us, porn seems a direct attempt to sexually sooth those who are in sexual want, while erotica seems to serve many purposes, in some cases inclusive of accompanying self-gratification.

Vintage erotica

Discussion regarded merge with erotica archived here --Jahsonic 19:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit

I went through and did a copyedit on the page and removed the box for it. If anyone feels further editing is needed or a future revision requires work again be my guest to put it back or contact me on my talk page. Greets! skrshawk 17:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the difference between erotica and pornography is entirely subjective - but it does not need to be judgemental (. . . . you pervert!!) :-)

Both are intended to induce sexual arousal - both seem to find commercial outlets (making profits for their creators) - both deal with sensuality and sexuality.

It seems to me that the difference between the two is the point (for each of us) at which erotica (stimulating, sensual imagery - be it visual, auditory or written) crosses over to being brash; explicit; and in poor taste (that we individually define as pornaography).

Is the dabate "erotica or pornography?" worthwhile?

Is legislation to distinguish the two of any use at all?

Mike Armitage 20:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Student publications

This section seems misplaced, especially with listing a bunch of publications. We don't list other publications featuring erotica, so I'm not sure why this should be different. DreamGuy 19:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added this section back in. The section is referenced, and it is a new movement among student publications. Rather than deleting it, it should be expanded or moved to another article. 151.197.111.178 20:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please create a new article for this. It is wrong here, for the reasons given above, and on your Talk page before you restored this section. / edg ☺ ★ 20:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The section belongs. South Philly 01:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Student erotica" edit war

Sections on "Student erotica" have been added three times now, and deleted twice.

Even if sourced, student erotica is too small and recent a genre to add to a broad article like Erotica, especially with details of known publications. If this is a notable phenomemon, consider creating a new article with this information. / edg ☺ ★ 20:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is sourced. It is more sourced than any of the other genres or themes. I would say that it may one day deserve its own article, but until the information in that section grows, it should should just stay put. Deleting it again is just driving the edit war.151.197.111.178 20:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As stated before, sources do not make this appropriate for this article. Sourcing Family Guy doesn't make him worth adding to History of art. If you create a student erotica article, it would be worth linking from this one. But this is not the place for it. / edg ☺ ★ 20:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's putting the cart before the horse. the information here should be given time to gorw beofre splitting it off on a new article. 151.197.111.178 21:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only if this is where Student erotica belongs. This is the wrong place. A stub would be much better. / edg ☺ ★ 21:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: this section has now been removed 4 times by 3 different editors[1] [2] [3] [4]. Interestingly, the anon editor, who has inserted this section at least three times (perhaps all 4), threatens to report the removing editors for "edit warring" (having just previously made this threat on my talk page for my making 1 edit ever to this section). I propose the anon is editing against consensus. / edg ☺ ★ 21:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. You're going against consensus, and are about to violate the WP:3RR. Please, stop. Gscshoyru 21:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The section belongs. Removing it was done without consensus. The people who keep removing it without having first sought consensus are driving an edit war. South Philly 01:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it really is the other way around. Changes to the original structure of the article should not be made if someone is opposing without consensus -- see WP:BRD -- and the addition is the change. Please explain why such a narrow topic is notable enough to be in the article on the general topic, or make a seperate article with that information. Making the seperate article would be much, much better. Gscshoyru 01:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, you have it backward. It used to be in the article, until it was summarily removed without seeking consensus. I'm just restoring the article to what it was. The information should remain here until it is big enough for its own article. That's the way thinsg work in wikipedia.Student erotica 02:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've been abusing tools, using sockpuppets, and making disingenuous accusations. This is not how Wikipedia works. / edg ☺ ★ 02:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image

It makes sense for an article about erotica, a primarily visual phenomenon, to have an image of erotica. Please don't remove it and call it "gratuitous". – Quadell (talk) (random) 05:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't illustrative of erotica. This was a spreee of omg I have a picture of a half naked girl, so I'm going to insert it everywhere. That is gratuitous. Note the article says "Erotica is a modern word used to describe the portrayal of the human anatomy and sexuality with high-art aspirations" - the picture is hardly aspiring to be high art. pschemp | talk 14:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I think this image is representative of "erotica", and the article is currently lacking images. I don't think its insertion was gratuitous. – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As stated elsewhere, this image adds no value to the article, and seems promotional in nature. You seem to be simply finding excuses to paste your favorite all over Wikipedia.[5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]
Perhaps you should make this your desktop wallpaper and leave Wikipedia out of it. / edg ☺ ★ 16:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll

Does the image Image:Michele Merkin 1.jpg belong in this article?

Yes, the image depicts contemporary erotica, and the article is lacking pictures without it.

No, the image is not erotica, and is gratuitous.

  • We don't need a poll Quadell. So far, two editors don't want it and one, you do. That isn't consensus to include it. Also, the wording of the poll is so skewed, I refuse to take part. pschemp | talk 21:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with Greek

As most people do, Eros is translated as 'love' when it should really be translated as 'desire'. Agapi is the word for sexual love.203.114.182.17 23:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Erotica&oldid=164885341"