Talk:Gorean subculture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Gorean)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Science Fiction (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Anthropology (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Culture  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

French article[edit]

In response to the late May media coverage, an article has been added to the French wikipedia which is really quite full of nonsense (it's fr:Goréanisme , where even the article name is rather dodgy). If anyone has reasonably good French, they might want to take a look at it (my level of French is such as not to give me great confidence when writing anything beyond a simple declarative sentence). AnonMoos 07:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. It finally got deleted after several months... AnonMoos 14:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Goreans on the Internet[edit]

I removed the following reference as just a self serving link to an obscure group claiming to be Gorean. "A strong Gorean society has grown in the community of Linden Labs' "Second Life", an online virtual world. There is little contact between Gorean and other users." I added comments about Gorean email lists and forums. Malkinius 12:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Obscure roleplaying groups advertising their places of play will continue to be removed.
Malkinius 11:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I added a "citation needed" tag after "Many of the virtual Goreans have only online knowledge and have not actually read the books." While it may be obvious to anyone who has actually read the books that this is so, I believe that this statement is opinion, rather than fact. SkyRich 18:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

How about "Some virtual Goreans are much more concerned with the conventions which have developed among role-players than with fidelity to the Gor books"? AnonMoos 17:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know. Certainly "Many of the virtual Goreans have only online knowledge and have not actually read the books" is true, and all too many examples wander the online channels, but is this something for which a citation is needed? You could google for variations on that statement; I know I've said it online more than once. Also, maybe there should be a mention of online conventions, but I'm not going to write it tonight. Wyvern 09:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
It is entirely true, and since this quote refers to online forums, these forums can be used as a reference, as they are primary sources. I don't participate on any of them, since I'm not a Gorean, and the people at such forums tend to be rather hostile and confrontational, but someone who does can probably add a source.
In my opinion, the citation needed tag can safely be removed.
As a side note, this article portrays a rather "rosy" picture, in that it may well describe a silent majority of the Gorean community (which should be cited, however), but it certainly does not describe the rather vocal Goreans very well, many of which even verbaly attack posters for requesting further information about the lifestyle. CollarMe may be a good reference for that segment of the Gorean population, as well as demonstrating the great variability between them. It should also illustrate the fact that if Gorean lifestyle is to be considered anything other than a subset of BDSM (particularly D/s or TPE), then a very large segment of the BDSM population needs another word to describe them, as "total" slavery, absence of safewords, rituals, et cetera are nothing new to a significant portion of the BDSM community. Zuiram 00:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


I don't know where this AnonMoos came from with their Chinese symbols but there was never any Chinese symbols, characters or even cultures in all 26 books. There were a few people mentioned as "Oriental" but one mention in Kajira, they were noted as living in the area of the Tahari. The section and graphic removed as having nothing to do with Gor or Gorean in the slightest. I left the comment about the kef which is correct. Malkinius 12:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't come from the Gor books, and was never claimed to come from the Gor books, but it IS used as a symbol by a number of Goreans or Gor-influenced individuals nevertheless. AnonMoos 15:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
As you say, it has nothing to do with Gor or Goreans. It therefore has no business here. It will continue to be removed as off topic to the subject. Something that is used by almost no one has no business on this page.
Malkinius 11:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Whatever, dude -- it doesn't come from Norman, so it would have no place on the Gor page, but Goreans don't always define themselves exclusively by what is narrowly Norman-canonical (in fact, that's part of what the "Gorean" article is actually about). How come none of the Gorean-knowledgeable editors who have come through this article before, such as Scott Sanford and Dreamstrike, have ever raised any objection to it? Recently Qabalkar even praised my "Gorean and Pseudo-Gorean Symbols font"[1] precisely for including a number of variations of "everyone's favorite written Chinese"![2] Your ignorance on this subject doesn't accord very well with your rather dogmatically arrogant pose as the supposed expert of all experts on an all things Gorean... AnonMoos 15:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I have brought this up in the past; Chinese character U5974 is not Gorean but it is used by Gor fans, and I'd like the symbols section to more clearly explain that. My wiki-fu is not strong enough to format an elegant display of moderately large pictures with only a small amount of text around them (and the graphic arts challenge is greater than the coding one), but a moderate rewriting of the paragraph would not be out of line. If I tackle that, I'll probably include the dina brand, too. Wyvern 23:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we discussed on the Kajira talk page whether the U5974 image might not be most appropriate for that page, but that's very different from saying that U5974 is "nothing to do with Gorean in the slightest" (as Malkinius implausibly claims). I have no objection whatsoever to saying that U5974 is not from Norman, but I do have an objection to it being deleted. If we expand the symbols section, and you're worried about the images overwhelming the text, then maybe we could use the "gallery" feature (see below). You could look at the material in the documentation file for my "Gorean and Pseudo-Gorean Symbols font" and see if you want to use any of it for expanding the Symbols section.... AnonMoos 15:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, nicely done, AnonMoos! I think that the positions of U5974 and the dina should be switched to follow the order in which they're mentioned in the paragraph, but that's a very minor thing indeed. The graphics box probably should not be exported to the main page until we have a dina graphic that's going to stick around. Malkinius' comments to the contrary, I think that U5974 is reasonable here on the Gorean page when discussing symbols used by real-life Goreans, although not on the kajira page (which is more tightly focused on kajirae rather than all things Gorean and doesn't really need symbol from Earth fandom) -- until we reach concensus on this, however, I'm loathe to remove it, as we really don't need an editing war on the Gor pages. Wyvern 11:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It's nicely done, except that the captions on the gallery images are a little too brief and non-specific for my pedantic soul. I'll probably expand them a little before long. And anyone who would take the Kajira article in hand and really make something out of it (from it's current semi-sorry state) could do whatever they wanted with the images on that page, if it were up to me. AnonMoos 19:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry that I don't check in here more often. AnonMoos now has his Chinese characters gone again. If you want to post a page about fan perversions of what is Gor and Gorean, go ahead and put them there. Until then, they will go away every time I find them because as was admitted, they have nothing to do with Gor or Goreans and no, connecting to people who also "do Gor" sometimes doesn't count as being Gorean. Malkinius 02:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Dude, you are not the sole authoritative judge of what is and is not to be considered a "perversion" of Gor, and it's a little arrogant to try to set yourself up in that role. If it has "nothing to do with Goreans", then why has Vanion used it in his art? Etc. etc. AnonMoos 16:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

SVG conversion[edit]

OK, I replaced all the PNGs of the quasi-Gorean symbols with SVGs, and since vector SVGs don't have any "natural" size, this gets around my previous reluctance to unnecessarily resize the PNG's. So I reduced the size of the images on the Kajira page (and you can reduce them further, if you really want). AnonMoos 07:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Malkinius problems[edit]

Sorry AnonMoos but as much as you want to add the Chinese symbols, they should not be part of a page about Goreans especially as almost all Goreans, on and offline do not use them and yes, when I get back here I will keep removing them. Norman NEVER used them in the books and therefore they have no place here no matter how much you want them to justify your use of them. (Which is a presumption on my part but the only explanation I can think of for your including them.) Malkinius 17:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Dude, much as you may be respected in certain particular niches of Gorean or quasi-Gorean communities, you are not the end-all and be-all and know-all of everything that other people may bring to or take from Gor -- so it would seem to involve a certain arrogance on your part to cast yourself in the role of the one single personal arbiter of everything which is and is not Truly Gorean™.
Furthermore, you seem to have problems reading, since I clearly explained above more than once that the Chinese character doesn't come from the Gor books, and was never claimed to come from the Gor books, but is nevertheless relevant to a significant number of Goreans and/or Gor-influenced individuals. So your premise is counterfactual, since "Norman using them in the books" is simply NOT the "only explanation" for why they might "have a place here". AnonMoos 06:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
See above. Thanks for the admission that I do have status and respect among Goreans tho not much amongst the role players and various sorts of gamers and BDSMers claiming to be Gorean. I am well pleased to be disliked by them. If you would deign to identify yourself and what your background is, you might be taken seriously. Yes, among Goreans you do need to prove yourself. Malkinius 02:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you may be well-respected among your own coterie, but unfortunately, that doesn't translate into a role as sole authoritative Wikipedia arbiter of what is and is not a "perversion" of Gor (as I explained above). I have never made any attempt to hide the fact that I'm a fan of certain aspects of the Gor books, but not a Gorean philosophy adherent or lifestyler (in fact, I said it many months ago right on this very page, if you had bothered to read it...). AnonMoos 16:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The difference is, that I do live as a Gorean. As a Gorean and one who for years has been working at defining what is and is not Gorean, yes, I am very pleased that you admit you have no standing when it comes to what is and is not Gorean. Correcting errors and taking out the non-Gorean garbage is part of what I do. I am told that the business cards for the president of Wizards of the Coast has his title as 'Head Janitor'. That does seem to be what I am doing here. <grins> --Malkinius 20:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Whatever, dude -- I painstakingly provided a reference for the assertions in the symbols section (a reference to a site which I know that you yourself frequent), so I regard your removal of relevant information to be borderline vandalism. If you were consistent, you would demand that Pantheus either remove page from his site, or threaten to leave the Pantheus boards in a petulant snit. Meanwhile, I'm not too impressed with the way in which your edits to "Kajira" left an unfinished sentence hanging in the middle, and your edits to "Gor" resulted in a redundant sentence which repeated the same thing twice. I wouldn't know about Wizards of the Coast, since I'm not really into that kind of role-playing... AnonMoos 11:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

2007 discussion[edit]

The Chinese symbols on this page have nothing to do with Gor and should be removed from this page. It has no relevance to anything Gorean. I am sure that a fair amount of people that call themselves Gorean eat quiche, play checkers and watch NASACAR but that doesn't make these things Gorean. - Xertog

That seems like a rather weak argument, since it's reasonably clear that character U5974 is the most widely-used tattoo/brand/marking among Goreans which is not directly a version of one of the brands described in the books (Kef, Dina, etc.) -- and I think that such marking is a slightly more central part of the Gorean experience than eating quiche! AnonMoos 09:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
You say "reasonably clear that character U5974 is the most widely-used tattoo/brand/marking among Goreans" Where do you get this from? What is the source of this information? Your reason to add the Chinese symbols is rather weak and is lacking any real connection to anything Gorean. - Xertog
You could start by looking at the link which was already provided as a citation in the article. Meanwhile, I can't say that I'm too impressed that your main motivation for removing this information from the article seems to be to get personal revenge against me for opposing your efforts to add a promotional link to your website. I'll add some further comments at User talk: AnonMoos 20:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
It is unfair for you to assign a motivation of revenge to me. I think this page is lacking in certain areas and does not represent what Gorean is to people unfamiliar to it. As you can see from the comments of others I am not alone in feeling that the Chinese Symbol doesn't belong on the page. I also think the the BDSM comparison is poorly done and could use changes which I plan to address at another time. I think you are rash and show poor judgment and do this page a disservice. If I was being vengeful I would have removed the Chinese Symbol, but I have not done so. - Xertog
Some anonymous IP certainly did so... Meanwhile, the Gorean Voice seems to be the closest thing to a professional magazine or scholarly journal which has existed in the Gorean community. AnonMoos 17:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The anonymous IP that did so wasn't me. You can see my IP number and should be able to verify it was NOT me. I read the article at the Gorean Voice and was left unimpressed. - Xertog
Actually, all that the IP numbers tell me is that the edit was not made directly from the same computer with the somewhat static IP which you commonly use. I have no way of knowing whether or not that edit was made from your work computer, while your other edits were made from your home computer (or vice versa), etc. etc. If you actually got a Wikipedia account, and were always logged in when you made your edits, then this problem would be somewhat avoided. AnonMoos 21:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Goreans at have recently discussed this issue and most agree with me and there seems to be a list here of other people here that disagree with you. What you lack in substance you make up for in immutable stubbornness. - Xertog
I didn't claim that if something was in the Gorean Voice it must be true, just that the Gorean Voice has a level of credibility one step above random unverified stuff that one encounters on the Internet. Character U5974 appears also appears in some works of art by Vanion, in some real-life brands that I don't really want to link to from here due to quasi-privacy concerns (I will e-mail the link to you if you want), etc. It seems to be moderately well-established in some Gorean circles (not all, of course) as the most common symbol used by Goreans which does not originate from the Gor books. AnonMoos 21:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Here is a link to a web page that does a good job covering Gorean brands: - Xertog
How condescending of you -- I already intensively researched both the descriptions of the brands in the books and the web-pages out there discussing Gorean symbols, in preparation for devising the shapes of the symbols in my font. I could point out several ways that the image doesn't match the description of the Kajira Kef symbol in the Gor books, while image seems to be a copyright violation of a symbol shape devised by JonRhus (as discussed elsewhere on this talk page)... AnonMoos 21:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


That chinese character is not an official Gorean symbol. Create another section for things that are associated with Goreans if you wish, but I will continue to remove it each time. - Orion 22:46 11 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by OrionTheWolf (talkcontribs) 03:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there are no "official" Gorean symbols in the sense of a particular concrete visual form which has been endorsed by John Norman himself. All that exists are various people's individual interpretations of the verbal descriptions contained in the Gor books. Meanwhile, the Chinese character U5974 is not from Norman's Gor books (and was never claimed to be derived from the Gor books -- see above), but it has been used moderately prominently in various contexts by Goreans or by those who have been strongly influenced by the Gor books (even if they might not describe themselves as being strictly or only "Gorean"). And this article is actually the place on Wikipedia for the discussion of "things that are associated with Goreans"... AnonMoos 13:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I will be incorporating wording from various essays, done by Goreans from around the world, according to fair use copyright law. I will also be adding references when doing such. - Orion 22:46 11 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by OrionTheWolf (talkcontribs) 03:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't "incorporate wording" in the sense of taking passages from websites and cutting and pasting them as part of the main article content! In a textual context, Fair Use mainly applies to direct quotes which are presented as direct quotes. AnonMoos 13:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Most of this will be my original writings, derived from the series and how it relates to Earth based philosophies. I am well aware of the quotation and fair use policies, as I have authored several articles in other mediums. Your semantic arguement does not hold much weight with me, based upon your reasoning that many Gorean use it, I could also create pages of foods that Goreans eat. If this article is about Goreans, then it should have some direct correlation from the series, as per guidelines established in most academic circles.:: OrionTheWolf 04:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Xertog made the same "Quiche" argument above, and I'm not sure that I was greatly impressed by the similarity in Gorean significance between food and brands/tattoos then either. Furthermore, regardless of what one's position on the inclusion of the Chinese character may be, your edits are inadequate in that they use the word "official" in a very misleading way...
Also, please don't remove the Kaotian section. Kaotians and Goreans both ended up agreeing that Kaotians are not Goreans, and we can make that as clear as necessary (as well as the fact that the "Kaotians" consisted of exactly two core male members). However, this incident was still the most prominent mainstream media coverage that Goreans have received ever (and probably the widest mainstream media coverage that the Gor books have received in about twenty years or more), so it definitely should have a place on this article.
And if your writings express your own personal individual opinions, then their usefuleness for the purposes of this article may be rather limited... AnonMoos 11:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
My writings use quotes from the series, and then how they link to the philosophy that Lange uses, such as Nietzsche, Plato, Socrates, etc. The are expansions and explanations of Home Stone, sociology of Gor, and how Living Goreans apply the philoshies from the series into their own lives. They will be as much of an opinion, or less so than most of what is on this page. Do you believe there needs to be another page, for Living Goreans, and how these philosophies apply to every day life? OrionTheWolf 04:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

As promised I continue to remove the Chinese character. I have done some unscientific polling, and I am not sure what information is being used to say that it is the most widely used non-Gorean brand or tattoo. It has been mentioned in various places like the Gorean Voice, but what proof is there that it is the most widely used? If it is, then should we not create another section or sub section for "Living Goreans"? Now that section will be huge, because many do not even agree on what being a "Living Gorean" is. Merry Christmas OrionTheWolf (talk) 05:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The only two real arguments that have been given against it on this talk page are the fact that it's not included in the Gor books (which is somewhat irrelevant, since it was never claimed to be included in the Gor books), and the "quiche-eating" argument -- and I'm not very impressed with either one. And Chinese character U5974 is the only real non-Gor-book-based symbol which I've seen used by a number of separate individuals who are Goreans (or who have been heavily-influenced by the Gor books, even if they mayy not consider themselves to be strictly and only "Gorean"). AnonMoos (talk) 09:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
As I stated, I have asked well over 50 people that live by the Gorean Moralities, and none of them have used that symbol as a tattoo, or heard of someone that has. What are you using as the basis for saying it should be here? Now there was someone from the BDSM community I spoke to that said it is used often in their community. So if this is being used by those that just use Gorean as a backdrop to their BDSM activities, does it still qualify as Gorean?OrionTheWolf (talk) 01:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
It has been used by both non-Goreans and Goreans -- as well as by some who have been heavily-influenced by the Gor books, even if they may not consider themselves to be strictly and only "Gorean". As the only Goreanly-relevant but non-Gor-books-based symbol which has any continuing usage among a number of separated Gor-influenced individuals (even if such usage is admittedly far from universal), it would seem to have a place in this article. AnonMoos (talk) 04:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I am really trying to be open about this. Other than you feel it has a place in the article, and that you say that it is used by some Goreans, what else is there to substantiate it? We need to come up with some way to resolve this, otherwise the Gorean section is just going to keep flipping back and forth. OrionTheWolf (talk) 04:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Are you? You haven't really come up with any substantive argument against it other than that your personal circle of acquaintances haven't come across it -- whereas I've encountered it in a number of separate contexts, including on the Gorean Voice site, in artworks by Vanion, as part of the tattoo of someone who's a whole lot more Gorean than I am, etc. I never claimed that it was a defining characteristic of Goreans, or shared by all Goreans (or even a majority of Goreans) -- I said that it was the only symbol expressing a Gorean-related meaning (but not derived from the Gor books) which seems to have any continuing usage among a number of separate Gorean and/or strongly-Gor-influenced individuals. AnonMoos (talk) 05:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I guess we just keep going back and forth then. Apparently you feel your circle has more validation than mine, and other than menioning the Gorean Voice, you have little to substantiate your claims on. It is apparent that you are not a philosophical person, or you would understand why diluting Gor with symbols that are primarily used by the BDSM community, is not only insultive to many, but far from factual of the general embodiment. So what does it take? Give me a few months and I will create a Gorean site, have it spammed into all the Gorean communities, and then I will have as much validation as what? OrionTheWolf (talk) 05:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

What the heck is "insultive to many, but far from factual of the general embodiment" even supposed to mean?? Frankly, your comments sound pretty much like whining with some big words incorrectly used as an accompaniment -- especially since you have no real evidence that this is a "symbol primarily used by the BDSM community". AnonMoos (talk) 04:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering, if the Gorean Voice is one of your sources to support the chinese symbol, then find the area and add it as a footnote. If you can find it in the Gorean Voice, as stated that it is commonly used, then that would fit the criteria that Wikipedia has, and my or anyone else's opinion would not matter. (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The pre-existing version of the page already has a URL given ( ) which includes that statement -- one of the rather few references given in this article (I added two out of the total of three references, as a matter of fact). I don't know where the Vanion images can be currently found on-line, since several Gorean art sites have shut down since I encountered the Vanion images. And I don't want to directly link to the tattoo pic from a Wikipedia article page, due to quasi-privacy concerns. There may have been more, but those are instances of the Gorean or quasi-Gorean use of U5974 that I can now clearly remember (sorry that only one of them makes a good reference link for this article). AnonMoos (talk) 04:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I think we have found a compromise, and that is what it takes with collabertive efforts. I will keep my eyes open for support pro and con for the symbol, and depending on how things progress, allow the references out there to determine if it should be included. Does that sound like a good way to approach this? OrionTheWolf (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I added a little onto the Caste portion, and have a document I am working on, supported by the series, and backed with references from the philosophies Norman used, but unsure how everyone would like to incorporate this. Any Suggestions? OrionTheWolf (talk) 04:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what the reference to Caste is supposed to mean in that context, since while some Gorean individuals do identify themselves somewhat with one particular caste mentioned in the books, I don't think this functions among Goreans in anything like the way that caste functioned in the books. I'm not sure I can help much with philosophy, because I'm really not a philosophy person... AnonMoos (talk) 05:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
By the way, in the Gor books, caste divisions seem to be somewhat of a feature of city-state civilizations and nearby settled areas -- there are some "tribal" societies in more peripheral zones which don't have caste divisions... AnonMoos (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes I am aware of the literal interpretations, and the exceptions that are in the series. If my statements sound inclusive, please assist me with some better wording. The Gorean Moralities are so varied, that most statements will have to be just generalizations. What are your ideas on a seperate section for Living Goreans, meaning those that adopt the lifestyle customs and/or the moralities into their everyday life? We would be able to leave the Gorean section as just literal items from the series, and the Living Gorean Section we could include the many variations (such as the chinese character) of the lifestyle. Also, you seem to be very involved, as I would loike to be, and possibly a few others. Would an email list assist in discussing these things before adding, to cut down on the number of edits?OrionTheWolf (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The symbol does not come from Norman or the Gor books, and was never claimed to come from Norman or the Gor books, and therefore obviously has no place on the "Gor" article. However, this is simply not the sole criterion for the "Gorean" article, as has been explained before. Please join the discussion on Talk:Gorean instead of edit-warring... AnonMoos (talk) 12:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Too bad for you that you prefer edit-warring to any form of rational or reasoned discussion. You also might be taken a little bit more seriously if you bothered to register for a Wikipedia account... AnonMoos (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

If the symbol does not come from Norman or the books it doesn't belong here. There have been a number of people over the years that have made this point. But somebody is too stubborn to let the edit stay. You give lame rational and reasoning for keeping. Show me real Goreans using this brand. Until then I'll keep removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that's simply not the case. This is not the Gor article, and if this article covered exactly the same topics as the Gor article, then it should be merged with the Gor article as an unnecessary duplicate. The fact that this article has not been merged with the Gor indicates that this article discusses slightly different things from the Gor article, or from a different perspective. Therefore things which are not suitable for the Gor article might be suitable for this article, or vice versa. Something which is moderately prominent among Goreans or significantly Gorean-influenced individuals, but does not come from the books, would appear to be precisely what should be on this article, but not on the Gor article.
Furthermore, the Chinese character is actually better-referenced than the majority of the other text in the "Gorean" article.
As for brands vs. symbols, of course they're mainly brands in the books, but they're also used as non-brand symbols in the books (consult near the beginning of chapter 8 of Fighting Slave of Gor, among other passages, if you're such a fanatical books adherent), and Goreans use them mainly as symbols. It might be good to add in the word "brand" in a relevant place, but doing it the way you did it (mechanically and indiscriminately substituting "brand" for all occurrences of the word "symbol") really doesn't work. AnonMoos (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The Chinese character is NOT moderately prominent among Goreans. The reference for the Chinese character is awful. You will likely find more Goreans into sky diving then have the Chinese character as a tattoo, brand or used in any other way. But that doesn't make sky diving Gorean either. Go back and read all the people over the years that have told you that you are wrong about this. With NOBODY else falling on your side of this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Whatever -- by itself it's not an important part of Gorean lifestyles, but as the only non-Gor-book-based symbol which which seems to have been used by a number of separate individuals who are Gorean (or who have been significantly-influenced by the Gor books, even if they may not consider themselves to be strictly and only "Gorean"), it definitely has a certain niche. And the "Gorean Voice" link is a better reference than much of material in the Norman- and Gor-related articles on Wikipedia has. Furthermore, your basic premise that nothing which doesn't come straight from the Gor books has a place on the Gorean article is simply wrong. Furthermore, while it might be good to add in the word "brand" in a relevant place, the method of mechanically and robotically changing all occurrences of the word "symbol" to "brand" (the way you did it) is extremely pointless, and serves no useful purpose whatsoever... AnonMoos (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

"which seems to have been used by a number of separate individuals who are Gorean" Seems to be? Based on what? What you show as proof is pathetic. What is extremely pointless, and serves no useful purpose whatsoever is representing something that as gorean that isn't. I changed the word symbol to brand because that is what they are. THEY ARE BRANDS!!! -- 05:08, 16 May 2012‎

Sorry, but the Gorean Voice is really not "pathetic" (possibly inadequate, which can be discussed, but not pathetic). Furthermore, the character is not being "represented as Gorean" in the sense of being claimed to come from the Gor books (and never was). And they're primarily brands in the Gor novels, but they're also symbols in the Gor novels (consult the beginning of chapter 8 of Fighting Slave of Gor), and in their use by Goreans here on earth they're primarily symbols. Furthermore, just replacing every occurrence of the word "symbol" by the word "brand" is kind of stupid, and accomplishes nothing, since there needs to be much more rewriting than that for the sentences with substituted words to be meaningful and relevant in context. It's unfortunate that you're very good at automatically and quasi-robotically pressing the revert button, and at automatically and quasi-robotically doing word search and replace, but rather poor at doing much of anything for actual article improvement... AnonMoos (talk) 08:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

If it doesn't represented anything that is Gorean then it doesn't belong on the page. Why should anybody bother putting in any effort to improving the page when there is a very stubborn person that will just wipe away their work. Even when you are told by numerous people that they are wrong over several years nothing gets through to you. All of what is written above shows that people don't have the patients to deal with all your fallacious arguments and arrogance. You think you're the Ubar of the page. If you want the page improved the best thing you could do is get out of the way and then may be some folks might come forword to improve the page. Until then it just be an effort in futility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

As has been explained repeatedly here in excruciating and mind-numbing detail, what is relevant to Goreans on earth -- or to people who have been significantly influenced by the Gor books, even if they may not consider themselves to be strictly and only "Gorean" -- isn't limited to strictly what comes from the Gor books only. You seem to be perpetually rather confused and muddled on this point, which doesn't augur favorably for your suitability to make major changes to this article. As for ubardom, I've never claimed to be a Gorean at all, but only a Gor books fan, and I'm not remotely as pretentious as Malkinius (who has attempted to arrogate for himself the authority of unilaterally decreeing what is and what is not the One True Gorean Way™). In any case, even leaving the Chinese character aside, your edits to this article are still completely unacceptable, since introducing mention of brands simply CANNOT usefully be done by mechanically and robotically substituting all occurrences of the word "symbol" with the word "brand" -- a procedure which leads to a pointless and semi-stupid result. Significantly more rewriting would be required to produce something acceptable. AnonMoos (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Gor and BDSM[edit]

I see that the definition for Gorean is totally in terms of BDSM. Those of us who do call ourselves Gorean and who are not a part of BDSM find this very offensive and simply wrong. The part labled "See also" is much better from our point of view. The first should be labled as a BDSM view of Gor if it is included at all, which it probably should not be. Malkinius

  • I've put in a quick rephrasing to put a more neutral POV on the first paragraph, but the overall organization is in dire need of attention. I'll be back when I have more time, but anyone who wants to tackle it now should do so. The article badly lacks coherency. Wyvern 10:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Gorean lifestyle itself need not be defined in terms of BDSM. Their slavery practices, however, fall under the heading of BDSM, as this term is used to cover consensual slavery, unless one wants to back up a claim that they practice nonconsensual slavery.
Zuiram 00:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I've removed "Gorean Masters are also known for their cruelty towards their slaves." because...well, I don't know that they're known for that. I'd go along with 'strictness,' or if we can reach some consensus on the reputation it could go back the way it was. In the meantime, the paragraph seems to read better without that sentence so it's gone. Wyvern 09:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

On many forums, Gorean masters are indeed known for their cruelty towards their slaves. This includes forums that are generally populated by people who subscribe to "strictness". Some of the criticisms leveled at them include excessive use of mind-games (like making your kajira honestly think you are about to electrocute her, never mind what her choice to believe it actually states about how she has been treated), inattentiveness to the needs of their slaves (such as one kajira which pointed out that her master could not be expected to be present when she gave birth to their child, as that would constitute "coddling" her and wasting his time on "trivial things").
As far as I'm concerned, they can do what they like, and I've no objections to cruel and/or strict treatment as long as the slave has either consented to that up front, or given a blank-check consent. I've been accused of both myself. But this is an encyclopedic article, and it is lacking any full treatment of the criticisms frequently leveled at Goreans.
While I know there are plenty of sensible Goreans out there, and know that Sturgeon's Law can indicate that the vocal lot is a minority, the Goreans are generally not perceived to be a very agreeable lot. I would concur with that observation, based on feedback from someone I know who regularly participates on a forum that is crawling with them; she regularly gets bashed by them, despite being their most vocal supporter among the non-Goreans on the forum.
Zuiram 00:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I made a number of gramatical changes and word adjustments to either fix problems or to make things more clear to the average reader. I also reduced he BDSM emphasis in the middle section.
Malkinius - 10 November 2005

I think it bears clarification that a lot of the reason for the issues around BDSM/Gorean lifestyle would seem to originate with the fact that the BDSM community itself is split. This is exemplified by the archived statement about "BDSM best-practices" below. In fact, a subpopulation of the BDSM community do not subscribe to these "best-practices", and the same criticism about "trying and failing" to "live up to" these "best-practices" is frequently leveled at them. I've met this criticism several times myself, with "safe-sane-consensual" and YKINOK being thrown in my face much in the same manner as some Christians might make the sign of the cross if you told them you were a satanist (which I'm not). These "best-practices" are best regarded, IMO, as advice for the unsure beginner, along with the safe-sane-consensual rule-of-thumb; a kind of "safety net" while exploring and getting comfortable with something, which can validly be discarded later if one so chooses. Zuiram 00:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


If you bothered to read the books BDSM has nothing to do with the Gorean way of life, it not always consensual and in his writings it is say that BDSM is considered an earth sickness. I been trying to find the quote and when I do I will add it here. so please learn and understand the gorean way of life, it is none consensual where BDSM is consensual.

pup — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Most of the original Gor paperbacks were published before the modern BDSM movement even really existed, but Gor does fall within BDSM in terms of Wikipedia categories and classification systems. If you read the book Imaginative Sex, it might give you a different idea as to how Norman thinks people on planet Earth should live... AnonMoos (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

2006 discussion[edit]

Some goreans may find the association offensive. However, that vast majority of those who call themselves gorean with whom I have interacted have, despite some protestations to the contrary, been primarily focused on dominance/submission and master/slave dynamics as applied to intimate interpersonal (sexual) relationships. In other words they are BDSM. Wikipedia is not about defining people in the terms that they approve of. It's about describing the objective reality --- the facts that have been observed and documented. Trying to water down the article to focus some sort of "we aren't about sex and/or BDSM" view is contrary to NPOV because it ignores the predominant observable, objective and documented reality.JimD 20:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The thing is that there are people who come across this article who judge Goreans exclusively by BDSM standards, and come to the conclusion that Goreans are struggling to dimly approach BDSM best practices, but failing -- while other people have the point of view that "Goreans practice a noble philosophy of honor", and insist that being Gorean has nothing to do with mere "game-playing" or "role-playing" (you must imagine the word "playing" to be pronounced with ineffable contempt and disdain).
Neither point of view, if taken to extremes, would result in a very good Wikipedia article -- but this article kind of has to be written in such a way that neither side would be completely outraged on reading it. AnonMoos 19:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
You miss the point AnonMoos. Being Gorean is about taking an unpopular position and standing by it. It is not an "in thing" to stand by your ethics and say, "This is right and that is wrong." Goreans do that. The point here that you do not seem to want to make clear is that you can be Gorean without any BDSM, D/s, M/s, Masters, slaves, or even sex. Unless that is made the main point, and reemphasized Gor will be considered just another BDSM kink, which it is for many people. Note, many people, not many Goreans. Malkinius 02:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
What you wrote in the comment directly above is pretty much true, but it doesn't change the fact that the BDSM category is still relevant to this article. If being Gorean is not a mere subset of BDSM, but instead certain aspects of common Gorean practices overlap with BDSM, then this should be explained in the article (rather than just removing the BDSM category tag). AnonMoos 17:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear Malkinius -- we can explain as clearly as you like in the body of the article itself that those who take their Goreanness seriously don't consider much of what they do to be BDSM, and don't judge themselves by BDSM standards. However, that does not in fact mean that you're improving the articles when you erratically and often rather clumsily delete BDSM references and categories. AnonMoos 10:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Format & composition[edit]

Say,, could you expand and explain your contributions some more? You added "...(some are concerned these can also be dangerous in the cases of Gorean masters who take more than one kajira).." but without explanation of the danger or who is concerned. The article could be more informative if you were more verbose on this. I also think that the sentence would be better put in the second paragraph, where the BDSM style is addressed, but I won't fiddle with that now — I'll give you some time to revise it your own way. Wyvern 21:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

More Edits....

I removed the phrase about Gorean with multiple slaves being more dangerous. There is nothing to back this up. It is just more slams on Goreans. I also made a few more small changes of wording to make things more clear for those who are not Gorean.

Malkinius 21 August, 2005

Should we reorganize? Looking over the page as it stands now, I think it's just about time to slice it up into an introduction, a section about the novels, and another about Goreans in real life (the Internet being a subset of real life, at least for now). Not a great deal needs to be written to start these, but some things would move around. Comments, anyone? Wyvern 10:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that the Gor page takes care of some of that. This page should be more about who and what are called Gorean. Malkinius - 10 November 2005

I've added a header to explicitly differentiate BDSM Goreans from fictional Goreans, but the latter needs work, to say the least. There's no net.goreans section, but that can come. We're getting there. Wyvern 10:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Okay, the net.gorean section is added (and a paragraph on Goreans in the novels); it's a good start. Wyvern 12:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

2006 reorganization discussion[edit]

Organization again: The page is accumulating quite a bit of verbiage, almost all referring to Gor fans/Earth Goreans/call them what you will. Indeed, the Goreans in the Novels section is a tiny stub near the bottom. I suggest not merely a reorganization of the text but a rethinking of the article's purpose: the Gorean article could refer specifically to Goreans as they exist on Earth, and could point readers to the Gor article for any information regarding the original novels. This would help reduce the existing ambiguity and allow us more focus on the social phenomena that have spun off from the books. Comments? Wyvern 11:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe not too clear to ordinary people[edit]

I understand that you feel strongly that (1) Gor is not just about sex (2) you dislike it to be described as "roleplaying" or "playing sex games" (3) you reject the accusation that the Gorean lifestyle is unmotivated cruelty or sadism. However, the wording of the article has become so hedged around with qualifiers and defenses against potential accusations, that I'm not sure that it really conveys too much to the uninitiated. In particular, I'm not sure I understand what "having nothing to do with Masters or slave" is supposed to mean. Also, while Norman may well have said somewhere that there were 40 free women to one kajira, I don't know that too much emphasis should be placed on this, since there are a number of things elsewhere in the books which would seem to contradict it, and Norman has never really come up with anything remotely approaching a "sustainable consistent long-term demographic model for the population statistics of Gor". The page could probably be improved by adding the direct perspectives of those trying to live the lifestyle (and/or links to websites containing the same), in addition to abstract discussion. AnonMoos 15:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

  • You have a point. Would you like to take a shot at revising the existing text? As the first person to raise the issue, it seems reasonable to let you have the first opportunity at revising it to better suit your vision. Any of us who don't like it can re-revise; that's a wiki for you. Wyvern 01:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I'll probably nibble around the edges a bit, with respect to certain things which I find unsatisfactory, but someone who was actually an adherent of Gorean philosophy or following a Gorean lifestyle, could probably speak with some personal authority about things which I would discuss in the abstract. P.S. I didn't recognize you at first, since you're using a different name than on Usenet AnonMoos 03:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi, AnonMoos! Yes, sometimes I'm known by name and sometimes by handle; it's no big deal. (I'm wondering why there's so little activity on the Gorean newsgroups lately, though; doesn't anyone have anything to say?) I see you've been busy today; I admit I take a similar approach to editing these articles, tinkering a bit here and there as the inspiration takes me. Wyvern 11:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

It's ready for the next step (which I can't provide)[edit]

Most of the secondary stuff has been cleaned up around the edges (at least as far as I'm concerned), and what this article now sorely needs is a solid explanation of what the Gorean lifestyle actually is (as opposed to various explanations of what it isn't). Unfortunately, I doubt that I can write that section -- I gave the link to Kajira Hill's post, but don't really feel qualified to go too far beyond that. AnonMoos 00:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Kajira page[edit]

IP added the "Philosophy" section to the Kajira page, which probably needs work, but I'm not quite sure what to do with it. AnonMoos 01:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Nobody did anything with it, so I moved it to the talk page. AnonMoos


Why is “culture” in quotes (see the last word in the Goreans on the Internet section)? It implies that the author does not consider Gorean culture to actually be culture. Also, why is it capitalised? -- unsigned comment by User:Felicity4711 06:03, 16 February 2006

Could be a technical term as used within MMORPG SecondLife -- since I know nothing about "MMORPG SecondLife" (whatever that is), I couldn't say. Anyway, the smartquotes should definitely not be used... AnonMoos 16:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


Wait a minute, you're the one who changed the whole article to use smartquotes throughout. Sorry, but that's pretty much a Wikipedia no-no: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Look_of_quotation_marks_and_apostrophes --AnonMoos 16:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Style manual at does not forbid directed quotes. Felicity4711 10:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
You don't have to read too far between the lines to see that smartquotes are pretty much only grudgingly tolerated. I'm going to post a more technical explanation on your user talk page, but meanwhile, please ask yourself the following question: Who are you to unilaterally impose smartquotes on this article, if we (the active editors of this page who know something about the specific subject matter) don't want them?? AnonMoos 08:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Who drew the dina?[edit]

Does anyone have any information on who created this image? It's been around for years and is used on many sites, but that doesn't actually prove that it is public domain. Wikipedia requires more information on it than I have. Can anyone here help? Wyvern 00:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It's by Jonrhus and I bet it's very much not public-domain. AnonMoos 15:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
P.S. You could use the version in my font, which was loosely roughly inspired by the Jonrhus depiction, but completely redrawn from scratch using fivefold symmetry and circular arcs. However, this of course hasn't been around for years or widely used among Goreans. AnonMoos 15:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
That sounds good to me! Can you upload it for us? Wyvern 11:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, here it is -- "Submitted for your consideration", as Rod Serling used to say... AnonMoos 12:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! And you already patched it into the gallery above, so all I had to do was paste it in and write some captioning text. How do you like the Symbol section now? Wyvern 11:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The Gorean lifestyle from a Gorean point of view[edit]

I wrote the article on the Gorean page as a point of view of a Gorean it is tagged and I am wondering what to do and where to take it from here. What needs to be done? Basharr 7:50 PM 2 April 2006

You wrote the subsection "The Gorean lifestyle from a Gorean point of view".
I don't want to unnecesarily deprecate your efforts, but this is a rather sensitive area which demands delicate handling -- it would have to be based in, or be directly knowledgeable about, the daily life-experiences of those who try to live a Gorean life-style, but would also have to avoid overtly blatantly identifying with those people (since this could pe perceived as editorially endorsing what some people will definitely view as sick and twisted misogynistic practices), and instead should present a relatively detached viewpoint -- and it should also avoid making any broad sweeping statements or overgeneralizations about matters which are not immediately relevant to the subject at hand. Your contribution is a big indigestible lump of a paragraph which contains a number of grammar errors, spelling errors ("it's"), run-on sentences, and dogmatic declarations about what the "true" Gorean path is.
Maybe it would be better to start with a two or three sentence summary which people could easily collaboratively edit (without having to deal with a whole long thing), and build up from there... AnonMoos 20:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Moved section here[edit]

Nothing has been done with this for a month and a half, so I've moved it here until it can be pummeled into shape a little. My idea is still to start with a two-or-three sentence short paragraph, and collaboratively build up... AnonMoos 22:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

"Goreans as they are thought of in modern day society are followers of a philosophy laid down throughout a series of 26 books written by John Norman. The life they lead is not or should not be associated with various other things that would be considered in their eyes 'activities'. They are people from many walks of life who one way or another found a philosophy in life that they felt fit them better than the conditioning that throughout the years modern society has set as the norm. They seek to return to their rightful place where nature had intended they be. Very closely associated with natural order yet at the same time functioning still within the modern day. There is much talk by the unknowing about them having to own slaves, about Gor as a way of life being associated with some form of kink. This is wrong. Any true to this path in life will tell you that their Goreaness does not hinge on slave ownership (consensual ownership) nor does it involve any form of kink. They may however partake in various activities but none of those activities makes or breaks them as a Gorean. There is much talk of codes and standards and to a point these things are important. Standards that are important are many, accountability, integrity, strength among others. They are a proud people, often the ranks of Goreans are filled in with people who have lived by strict codes of conduct. Perhaps military or another way of life that required these standards daily. As well many have found that Gor is what they had been seeking throughout their life unknowingly. They are not to be confused with followers as in terms of a cult. Many would attempt to label them just that but could not be further from the truth. They are real people following a philosophy in life that has indeed opened their eyes and set them back on the path nature in all it's years had meant for mankind. Perhaps when it is removed from association with what some would call deviant activities many will see what they in fact seek is a truer, purer way of life. The Gorean respects nature, the Gorean respects life and the Gorean respects Natural Order. It is not a game and should not be confused with those that wish to live out the fantasy of the books in game form online. It is the understanding and then the application of the philosophy to the day to day life that is paramount to Gorean thought. It takes work for many and rightly so. Nothing of worth ever comes easy."

And again...[edit]

On 23 Sep 2006, we got this from TwoSpirits:

Much has been said about those who choose to live their lives based on the philosophy behind the books written by the pen name John Norman. Most of what is said, verbally or written, is said by those who have preconceived ideas. Real life Goreans live by the tenets of Honor and Respect. We treat each other as well as non-Goreans with dignity. To not do so would be to bring dishonor to our Homes. Goreans hold the Home as almost a sacred thing. We are lumped in with the BDSM crowd online because we live what is considered an alternative lifestyle but most of the behaviors found in that community we find disgusting, bordering on mental illness. Sex has very little to do with our lifestyle (outside of the normal urges between a man and a woman). The slavery issue is also not the defining characteristic of being Gorean. Our women choose to serve their men. Some choose to be Free Women while others choose to serve all Gorean men and call them Master. That is their choice. Even the Free Women will serve a man because it is the natural order of things. No true Gorean abuses his property and one is only called Master by those who choose to serve him. The thing is, there are many different ways to "live Gorean". Some Homes are one man and many slaves. Some are a man and either his free companion and slaves or a man and his "first girl" (head slave) and his "mat and kettle girls", who care for the Home at the direction of the first girl. There are also Christian Goreans as well as Atheists. The Gorean community even has its share of lesbians and gay men, although purist Goreans do not agree about this. I don't walk around calling myself Gorean. I know that Gor does not exist. I am just a man who believes in the Natural Order of life.

Bluntly, I think we can do better. Much better. This not not qualify as NPOV or as encyclopedic; rather, it is personal commentary. There's a place for that, but not in Wikipedia articles, so I've chopped it out. Wyvern 08:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything that can be done here. Firstly these are all personal anecdotes and not encyclopedic, and secondly it doesn't not appear to be possible to de-POV the concept of the Gorean POV. I've been asked to provide constructive input rather than just boldly removing the header and therefore my input is that it should be replaced with a section entitled Gorean beliefs as the current section header cannot avoid POV problems. MLA 08:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
The personal direct unfiltered experiences and idiosyncratic broad sweeping generalizations are hopeless, but on the other hand (as has been explained before, on your user talk page and elsewhere), this article really needs a section of this type (whether under the name "The Gorean lifestyle from a Gorean point of view" or another name) if it is to become a good article -- since much of the article is now occupied with defining what Goreans are not, and what other people think of them (rather than how Goreans define themselves, and what they actually do). It's not "PoV" to factually report on how a group defines itself and its beliefs and activities -- many of the religion articles currently on Wikipedia are effectively devoted to reporting the "Christian view of Christianity" and the "Muslim view of Islam", etc. and they aren't labelled "PoV". "Gorean beliefs" is not adequate, since this section would need to include the Gorean self-definition of what being a Gorean is, as well as the practices which are commonly part of a Gorean lifestyle. Furthermore, your comment on my user talk page of a "clear POV problem that appears to have been unable to be rectified for at least six months" is a little out of touch, since the section has actually been blank for the majority of that time! If you want to change the wording of the header out of a desire to improve its wording (understanding why the header is there), then that would be very welcome, but if you're changing it merely out of a simplistic knee-jerk reflex aversion to the words "point of view", one which is not particularly appropriate in this case (since factually and neutrally reporting on the points of view which others hold is not itself "PoV"), then I don't know whether you're really in a very good position to improve the article. AnonMoos 13:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
It is approximately six months since the POV issue was raised and you have not been able to resolve this during that time and that there is a blank to be written phrasing is in no way helpful. I suggest that the reason you have not been able to reach a resolution is because the header has been set up in such a way that it explicitly encourages POV additions and makes neutral writing more difficult. That the rest of the article is about what Goreans are not is not a strong position from which to start, and suggests that the article needs a re-write (which I think it does) rather than the addition of further POV. Self-perception is not necessarily an encyclopedic addition to an article, and drawing parallels between religion and Gor isn't a direct analogy. I would suggest that it makes more sense to have a what Goreans are section ahead of the what Goreans are not. The intro paras discuss Norman's philosophies but there is nothing in this article about how that impacts a Gorean's lifestyle - this is what I would suggest as the Gorean beliefs section and would preclude the need for an inherently POV self-perception section. MLA 16:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Dude, you really have no idea what the heck it is you're talking about... It's been almost 11 months since I raised the issue of the need for such a section in the article (00:49, 8 December 2005), and nobody who has come along since who actually knows comething about the subject-matter of the article has disagreed with me on that point. There has been no alleged "overhanging POV issue" on the article for six months, just various attempts by different people to fill in the missing section, all of which were ultimately rejected as being of low quality. I just now changed the name of the header to "Gorean self-identity", which I regard as being basically the same as "The Gorean lifestyle from a Gorean point of view", except slightly more obscure, and not not including the magical words of mystic occult potency "Point of View" -- which you seem to dread and fear with a primitivistic fetishistic totemistic taboo (whether the words are actually appropriate or inappropriate in any particular context). Now please run along and go try to work on articles where you are equipped to make a positive contribution... AnonMoos 20:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Media links[edit]

If this story is notable I'm sure there'll be more links from larger papers, but...

This article was linked to by Dagbladet as a source to learn more about Goreans. --Nnp 08:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The Times of London took the "Kajira Hill" Usenet post link from the external links section of this article, but didn't bother to cite Wikipedia... AnonMoos 15:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't really look at it in detail, but it seems that the Kaotian frontman appeared on the "World of Gor" public boards, and is taking a shellacking from the Goreans. AnonMoos 07:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The Kaotians tend to be annoying. We're unimpressed. Scott Sanford/Wyvern 09:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I corrected the Kaotian information slightly based on more information that has come out in the news and from lee Thompson, who with his teenage follower seem to be the only Kaotians. Malkinius 17:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Can someone clear up the facts about Kaotians here? Do they exist or is it just Thompson making it up, there is a good article in this months (August 06) Bizzare magazine about Thompson for those interested...I'm just wondering as Wyvern seemed to be posting a reference to them. Kenscanna

From what I've seen, they exist if you call having exactly two core male members "existing". Someone who is closely following the foofaraw might be able to say more... AnonMoos 18:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It is well known that the fantasist Lee made up the Kaotian 'group' after he blundered his 24/7 BDSM/Gor, since then the media has seen him as some sort of Gorean spokesperson. His imaginary group is not gorean in philosophy, differening in the way women are treated, he even says it is not gorean, having wash his hands of Goreans (see his posts on the (World of Gor), so why is it even included in a Gorean article?. If you read some of the WOG posts by him you will see what I mean. The Bazarre articles was funny, they even had to provide him with slaves to be photographed with as he didn't have any. WE who are in a 24/7 Gorean Based lifestyle, and I'm speaking for 300 people in my group and countless BDSM/Gorean contacts who enjoy the same lifestyle as myself who I have spoken to since the story broke, find the constant advertising of Him and his pretend group quite irritating and wish he would stop being quoted as a Gorean as all it serves as is an advertisement for his group. BG T-T-G_uk

It deserves a mention in this article because it received prominent media coverage in which Goreans were prominently mentioned (even if both Kaotians and Goreans agree that Kaotians are not Goreans). We can rewrite the article to make it as clear as possible that Kaotians are not Goreans (if you have any good ideas about how to achieve that), but the whole incident is still going to be mentioned... AnonMoos 15:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
We also need to rewrite the article so that the source of "Goreans are not Kaotians" is made clear. Without citations, the only actual source available is the bbcnews article, which DOES refer to him as a Gorean. Reyemile (talk) 03:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Article was a relatively good "heat of the moment" news story about the beginnings of the Kaotian affair, but it was written by a journalist who didn't necessarily understand all the fine details of different communities, and the Kaotian saga dragged on for long months after the "mainstream media" had lost all interest, including an appearance by the leader of the group on the British equivalent of the Jerry Springer show, and long forum discussions on the website which was then the official John Norman author website. The few agreed conclusions of all this foofaraw are relatively well-known to people who care about these things.. AnonMoos (talk) 07:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but 'relatively well known' is not an acceptable wikipedia standard. Can someone find a source for this, even if it's a Gorean website explaining the differences of something? Reyemile (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know -- it was all originally documented in excruciatingly painful detail in the comments area of the then-official Norman site , but that area is no longer publicly accessible (see ). Google searching on the words "Kaotians" and "Goreans" turns up a lot of third-hand rehashes of the original BBC article, and I haven't hit upon a search pattern which will single out material useful for our purposes. What I do know is that if we omit the one single thing which was eventually agreed upon between Goreans and Koatians (that Kaotians are not Gorean), then the article will give a false impression, and we're bound to receive complaints (in fact, "BG T-T-G_uk" already complained directly above). AnonMoos (talk) 02:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the wording «All Goreans believe that Thompson was a radical nutcase looking for his 15 minutes of fame» should be rethought. First, there is no such thing as a census of all Goreans, so hardly could anyone claim that all think that way. Second, "radical nutcase" is rather unobjective and unscientific wording. Something along the lines of "Elements of the Gorean community have rejected Thompson's actions", with a quote to the source of those rejections, would be better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

That sentence was obvious semi-vandalism, and I gave it the summary boot. Anyway, the more prevalent reaction seems to have been that he was a shameless publicity seeker, and that those who take Gorean ideals seriously didn't want him sensationalistically misrepresenting such ideas to the media... AnonMoos (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Norman's own views[edit]

It might bear mentioning that John Norman, who wrote the Gor books, is rather upset and confused by the very existance of Gorean lifestyle practicioners who sometimes go as far as to refer to his books as "The Scriptures". (I kid you not. Google for "gorean ~scripture" or somesuch.) Zuiram 00:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they more often call them the "scrolls"... AnonMoos 01:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually a letter dates april of 2007 says quite a bit about what Norman calls the "Gorean Experiment". Here is a small snippet "And so, what would be the great harm if, here and there, there might be occasional enclaves of rationality, and honesty, a few scattered pockets of health and sanity?

That does not seem so terrible.

So let the Gorean experiment continue."

The rest can be found at :

OrionTheWolf (talk) 13:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Magicians of Gor sentence[edit]

Somone added the following sentence to the article (but commented-out, so that it wouldn't display):

<!-- The latest book, ''Magicians of Gor'', takes a more tolerant stance, implying that a man of honor will overlook homosexuality as a minor character flaw no more serious than guilibility or impulsiveness -- a character flaw that a man of wit may honourably exploit. -->

I don't think that this can stand in the article as-is. First, Magicians is of course not the "latest book" anymore. And I don't know that Norman's attitude is really "tolerant" as such -- it's certainly true that Magicians shows that if an upper-class male on Gor who is politically influential in his own locality engages in semi-discreet homosexual activities, then in many cases there's not much that anyone can do about it (and a lot of people probably wouldn't care all that much anyway). But that's different from Norman considering it to be a curable "anti-biological" perversion (which it seems that he does, though he doesn't get indignant about it). I'm not sure that there's any real reason to mention the subject in this article at all -- if it goes anywhere, it would probably be best under John Norman. AnonMoos 15:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

A note on linking "Slavery"[edit]

I made some links. "Slavery" could link to Slavery or to Domination and submission (BDSM) ("Sexual submission" redirects to that article.) In the context of Gorean lifestylers in the real world, Domination and submission (BDSM) would seem to be the better choice. However, the fictitious cultures of Gor itself practice literal slavery, with people being captured and held (frequently) against their will. (I am not a Gorean, but I assume that this doesn't affect my views on this question.) -- 11:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"Serious Goreans"[edit]

. . . are serious business. Seriously, only on Wikipedia could this sort of nitpicking subjectivity be considered proper encyclopedic content. This whole article should be purged and rewritten. 08:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not you particularly respect or esteem either side, it's still a relevant basic fact of Gor fandom that those who try to live out Gorean philosophy in their real lives generally look down their noses at mere on-line chat-room roleplayers... AnonMoos 17:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

To meet Wikipedia's standards better, this article should separate out and make distinction between Gorean as a culture illustrated in the books, and how that culture and philosophy may be practically applied in real life. I see someone has made an attempt to inject Lifestyle Gorean between the paragraphs, but it seems based too closely on personal testimony, and I detect an underlying agenda to establish a personal interpretation of that culture. This distorts more than clarifies. (talk) 13:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

That section has been kind of a graveyard of good intentions (as can partly be seen in previous discussions here). AnonMoos (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The word serious, when describing Goreans should be reworded or removed. There are many different opinions on what Gorean is, and to seperate a group by saying they are "serious" implies the other groups that disagree with that view are not serious. Not a very objective word to use. Does anyone have a problem replacing the word serious with the word some? OrionTheWolf (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not particularly attached to the word "serious" itself, but there should be some way of indicating that there's a spectrum of people who might call themselves "Goreans", from those that are having fun in internet chat-rooms (but who might toss the whole Gorean thing aside for "World of Warcraft" tomorrow) to those who are strongly committed to Gorean ideals, and base their lives and relationships around them. AnonMoos (talk) 10:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree again, but there does not seem to be a consensus on what each group of Goreans should be called. The only way I can think of is to include a section on Role Playing Goreans and Lifestyle Goreans, but that is likely to cause an uproar. Let me think on it some. I am just wanting to see the page improved, but when dealing with a alt life sub-culture is difficult. Thanks for your comments! OrionTheWolf (talk) 01:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


Other graphic[edit]

Here's a generic collar icon, but but it's probably not specifically-Gorean enough to be included in this article... AnonMoos (talk)

It would be, if it had a Kef symbol drawn on it somewhere...  ;) Evening Scribe (talk) 03:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Not sure that a Kef symbol is very frequently included on collars in the Gor books; the typical main purpose of a collar inscription is to identify the owner. AnonMoos (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
P.S. For a different collar symbol, probably more appropriate to the Gor page than to this article (Gorean), see Talk:Gor. AnonMoos (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Kajira-kef (alternate).svg

Alternative kef graphic[edit]

Drew an alternative form of the Kef symbol which is not as faithful to the some of the descriptions in the books, but which better depicts the decoratively floral and "open" aspects of the Kef fronds... AnonMoos (talk) 21:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It may not be as faithful but looks great! Looks so good I had my girl marked with it. OrionTheWolf (talk) 01:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'd be curious to know exactly what design for the Kef Norman originally had in mind when the Gor paperbacks were published, but perhaps it's best to "let the mystery be". The full range of symbolic shapes I've come up with are in the font (not all such symbols are suitable for upload to Wikipedia / Wikimedia Commons...). AnonMoos (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


Honest there any evidence that this movement or fringe lifestyle or whatever you want to call it is big enough to deserve its own article? Like, is there another press mention that describes it as more than, say, a thousand people or something? No offense to anyone, but based on what I can find with and through the article, the whole thing consists of (the populations of) a couple of message boards. For normal media, there's one police blotter-type article, which features persons who specifically deny being Goreans, so it seemed a weak source in terms of its numbers of actual Goreans (I don't know where those come from). Don't kill me--just askin'--but are you certain this shouldn't just be a couple of sentences in the main article about the books? (talk) 07:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Goreans actually punch well above their weight in terms of on-line presence. It's not that there are one or two on-line message boards, but that there have been dozens of on-line message boards (among other things). On "Second Life" the Gorean subculture is extremely prominent (some would say infamous). BDSM people sometimes express the view that there are way too many Goreans infesting general BDSM sites... AnonMoos (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Natural Order[edit]

I believe it is time to tackle "Natural Order" as presented by Norman in the Gorean series, and is a basis for being Gorean. To start this off I offer the following from a noted Gorean philosopher

"Natural Order, on the other hand, is simply evidence of the process of biological evolution at work, based on the idea that there is a functional system in nature which uses survival pressures to equip different living creatures with specific traits, and that those traits determine how best we function in relation to one another. " Name witheld upon request.

I have decided not to add anymore to this article unless I can provide verifiable citations and sources. I have some concerning Natural Order, but await further input from others that have been contributing to this article. OrionTheWolf (talk) 14:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I would be a little hesitant about this, considering that the phrase "natural order" seems to only occur twice in the Gor books (book 13 "Explorers", chapter 14, and book 18 "Blood Brothers, chapter 3), as far as I can determine (and in book 13 the full phrase is "natural order of nature"). Norman mentions evolution a lot, but the only form of evolutionary theory which he ever specifically discusses in any detail at all seems to be a very limited partial and selective version of sexual selection (and he undercuts even this by having Gorean slavery be a partial version of hetaerism, and by having slaves only relatively infrequently bear children, and rarely to their owners).
I realize that the main purpose of this page is to document Goreans, not the Gor books themselves, but it seems to me that abstract theorizing which goes significantly beyond what Norman wrote in the books, and which doesn't have a direct practical relationship to real-world Gorean lifestyle practices, could be problematic here, unless such theorizing could be known to be relatively uncontroversial and accepted by a fairly broad range of Goreans. AnonMoos (talk) 09:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Completely agree and that is what I was planning on doing, making it the general consensus. In the event that there are more than one perspective that seems to have a large amount of support, I was going to offer both perspectives. The parts of "Natural Order" as explained in the books, that I was going to include, is the ones concerning inter personal relationships so it does directly relate to Gorean Lifestyles. OrionTheWolf (talk) 01:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by OrionTheWolf (talkcontribs) 01:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Revision (phrases)[edit]

While the phrase "natural order" only occurs a very few times in the Gor books _(as far as I was able to determine), the phrase "order of nature" in fact seems to occur dozens of times in the books. I would highly recommend that you use "order of nature" instead of "natural order"... AnonMoos (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

A number of "Citation needed" tags occur within the Natural Order section, specifically when talking about aspects seen within the world of Gor as being truths or part of the natural order et al. As these points are viewpoints within the books rather than a notation that they are in fact thus (and it is worded as such, so that there is no ambiguity that it is how it is percieved not how it undeinably is) should the citation tags be removed? I don't see a need for them, personally (Note: Non-gorean here, just was curious about the books and didn't see an issue with it stating an assertion within the story, is all).KainYusanagi (talk) 16:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


What on earth is "pockmarking"? Verifiability is a non-negotiable Wikipedia policy - if you think this makes the article looks ugly, then the burden is upon you to find sources, or remove it. A single general tag for the section lacking sources is inapproprate, as there is one source. If you prefer, you could place the single tag Template:Weasel section, but surely more specific references are more helpful to editors, so they know which bits need fixing?

In addition, no explanation is given for reverting my removal of:

because of the frequent lack of a safe word between Gorean master and slave

Which is unsourced, but also unclear, as the argument could be made about BDSMers who don't use a safe word. What is the justification for its reinsertion?

The fact that you think tags are ugly is not a reason to remove them. That it looks ugly should be an incentive to fix the problems! Please do not remove tags until the problems are fixed. Mdwh (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Pockmarking is pointlessly and uselessly adding in-line tags to the majority of sentences in a section -- something which in this case serves no observable function with respect to actual practical article improvement, as I previously explained in detail on your user talk page: If an article section is worthless (with no significant salvageable content), then it should be deleted outright; if it has overall issues, then a tag should be added up at the top of the section (as you also did); and if there are one or two problematic assertions, then they should be tagged in-line -- but redundantly and repetitively adding a large number of in-line tags serves no meaningful useful purpose, as far as I can tell. The section actually becomes more difficult to edit after you've finished pockmarking it up (which is one reason why I reverted your edits as a block, while leaving the overall tag at the top of the section in place). AnonMoos (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Since I am not interested in edit warring, I have removed the material altogether as you suggest. If anyone wants to reinsert, they should find sources - or be willing to have it tagged so that other people can find sources. Mdwh (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
It's rather unfortunate that you were unable to work in meaningful cooperation with others to edit this article, but instead attempted to impose on others a false choice between either you leaving your heavy-handed personal "mark" on the article, or deleting a whole section. It's hard for me to believe that if you had been motivated purely by a desire to improve the article, then you wouldn't have found some way to validly express your concerns using less than 3 or 4 inline tags per paragraph... AnonMoos (talk) 11:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
And what does any of that have to do with the reinsertion of "because of the frequent lack of a safe word between Gorean master and slave"? Mdwh (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I did some research on the internet just now, and find many in the BDSM area (non-Gorean) that do not use safewords either. Though I know through personal exposure that not having a safeword is frowned upon, in the five or six different articles I read, I did not find mention of it being frowned upon. I agree the section should be removed, even if it is contrary to my personal exposure, since we cannot find any verifiable source for it. OrionTheWolf (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Back in the early 1990's, when the BDSM ethos was being formulated, I think it was generally pretty much frowned upon (among those who took BDSM seriously) not to have a safeword; but now the whole BDSM thing has broadened and diffused, so generalizations are more difficult these days... Anyway, BDSM'ers may not always use safewords themselves, but many of them may still find the lack of safeword use among Goreans to epitomize what they most dislike about the whole Gorean thing. I never said that snobbish disdain was always strictly consistent and logical... SFriendly.gif AnonMoos (talk) 11:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Kaotian leader now has video blog[edit]

The kaotian leader mentioned in this article now has a blog at — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I went to that site using a simple browser with advanced features and plugins disabled, as I frequently do (since it's convenient for quickly checking a site out), and couldn't tell that it was him. Don't feel like bothering to investigate any further... AnonMoos (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


Is it pronounced Gorean as in Korean or Gorean like Corey-in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The usual way to pronounce it would be [ɡɔrɪən] or [ɡɔriːən] (depending on how traditional "short i" vowels before another vowel, or at the end of a word, are pronounced in your dialect). This would rhyme with the usual pronunciation of "Korean". I really don't know what pronunciation is intended to be indicated by "Corey-in", so I can't say anything about that. AnonMoos (talk) 07:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
P.S. If you were actually mainly asking about stress position, then I missed that, sorry. "Korean" is of course pronounced with stress on the second syllable of three. I'm not sure whether it would be more common to pronounce "Gorean" with stress on the first syllable or second syllable. Among non-fictional words, "Caribbean" is pronounced with both penultimate and antepenultimate stress by different speakers... AnonMoos (talk) 23:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Gender orientation[edit]

Why say that "Slave ownership in Gor is not necessarily gender-oriented, i.e., a kajira can be owned by a free man or a free woman (or a family, or even a city, then being referred as "city slave")". Types of owner is nothing to do with the gender of the slave.Royalcourtier (talk) 04:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

First off, the sentence you quote does not in fact use the phrase "gender orientation" (which would suggest a rather different meaning). The wording is a little awkward, but what it's intended to mean is that (contrary to what some people who only know a little about the books might expect) a male slaveowner owning a female slave is not the only possibility on Gor...
P.S. Slaves owned by a city government are actually commonly referred to as "state slaves" in the Gor books. AnonMoos (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)