Talk:Lesbianism in erotica

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Pornography (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Lesbianism in erotica:

lot of moralising ideologically inflected claims in the discussion of mainstream pornography[edit]

It strikes me that there are many ideologically inflected, ex-cathedra claims (phrased in moralising terms) in the section on contemporary mainstream pornography. You want to make claims like this, you need to source them, and my - admittedly partial but fairly extensive - experience suggests that they are not actually defensible. The comment about performers being 'gay for pay' is reductive and patronising: it suggests that these performers are mercenary and uninvolved, and does not admit any more sophisticated analysis of motivations. It is also inconsistent with many statements that I am aware of by performers themselves, as well as by significant female producers/directors who make use of mainstream performers, such as Nica Noelle or Kathryn Annelle. Even the statements about male preferences are problematical, on the basis of comments that are easily accessible on bulletin-boards and review sites. For both points, let us not even mention the evidence provided by review of the primary materials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.169.1.57 (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment[edit]

I have moved material on pornography here from the lesbian article. It is a separate topic, and (in addition to ongoing edit wars) there are serious, unresolved questions as to what the proper treatment of contemporary and historical pornography is for Wikipedia. In particular, there is ongoing controversy regarding the use of pornographic images to illustrate such articles. I am of two minds about this, and it is not my fight.

However, it is abundantly clear to me that such material does not belong in articles such as lesbian because it violates the Wikipedia:Principle of least astonishment. Moreover, it may limit the readership of the lesbian article by people who either find sexually explicit imagery objectionable themselves or who may be viewing or editing the article in an environment where such imagery may be awkward if viewed by others.

Accordingly, I leave the content here, where others may continue the debate over what images, if any, to include.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad to see this change. I've always been uncomfortable with the inclusion of the pornography section in the broader lesbian article. CKarnstein 02:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Show me more of her pink pussy so wet right now Makedah stewart (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

This article has been restored[edit]

In reviewing my image uploads (as a result of Jimbo's recent push to get all images properly tagged as to copyright status) I discovered that User:Ed Poor had unilaterally redirected this article to one called Views on lesbian porn, a dreadful title, and stripped out the image with zero discussion. I've restored the article here and redirected EP's orphan article back to this. Please use this talk page before making major changes to the article in the future, thanks. Wyss 19:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Citation[edit]

"Due to sexual brain differentiation (the subject of numerous studies)" This needs to be sourced.

Especially as it's referencing some unnamed studies, seemingly for the sole purpose of giving weight to the claim. --Scandalous 23:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

", most women, even lesbians prefer written erotica to visual erotica."

"most women, even lesbians"?? Does anyone else find that offensive?

Offensive or no, I'd like to know where that data is coming from. I know that it's a pretty common perception, but has it really been looked at, and has sexual orientation ever been taken into account in any such study? --Scandalous 23:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Generalizations[edit]

I find a lot of the generalizations in the article offensive, as a straight male uninterested in (even turned off by) lesbian porn, I think a lot of the generalizations in the article need to be fixed. Not only of this generalization, but other ones that I think are demeaning to other groups as well. I also think that there's (as far as I can tell) a changing of trends where male gay porn is becoming more accepted and sought after by straight women, as well as a change with visual erotica being more accessible and thus growing in popularity in the lesbian crowd. I'm not certain of that, but I believe that to be the case. I think that the things in the article (as well as what I believe to be the trend) should be affirmed by citations. -Ashi 20:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


I also find the generalizations disturbing. This is one of the more poorly written wikipedia articles I've seen. One thing I think would be relevant would be linking to homosexual acts in non-human primates. I mention this because such behavior in males is often dominant in nature, which could explain some heterosexual men's aversion to gay porn (though not all hetero men are disturbed by it, there have been studies). Also, the author of this article seems to think there is some irony that heterosexual men would enjoy lesbian porn but not gay male porn. Umm, if you want men who like gay male porn try asking homosexual men. Shockingly, you'll find they are less interested in lesbian porn than gay male porn! Such hypocrisy! I'm also curious what kinds of actual studies have been done on male response to lesbians. Obviously sales dollars tell part of the story, but how ubiquitous is it? Lastly, plenty of lesbian porn viewed by men has butch women.


I couldn't agree more than this article is not well-written. Almost everything here is uncited, and some soundsl it is the product of some stereotypes, rather than verifiable studies. I'll try to cut this article down to verifiable essentials in the near future. -- Pierremenard 09:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The article is still pretty bad.
[rant-ish]In response to the question about men finding lesbian sex attractive: It's not the lesbianism that's attractive to these men, it's the fact there's two attractive women engaged in sexual activities that's attractive. I prefer straight pornography myself, but I would rate lesbian scenes about the same as female "solo" scenes -- it's really just the same thing times two, maybe plus the factor that the women are pleasing someone else AND being pleased by someone else, rather than going entirely solo.
Watching two GUYS having sex OTOH is about as non-stimulating as it can get. Few men who'd consider themself straight are turned on by gay sex -- because considering yourself straight usually means that you are not particularily turned on by the same sex (yourself probably excluded). But nobody can seriously say they didn't know that, of course. It was just a provocative strawman to make men enjoying depiction of lesbian sex look hypocritical if not stupid.
Likewise, if you believe the public opinion, straight men are more likely to find sex between their own gender repulsive whereas women are almost expected to swing both ways or at least not mind lesbian sex if not enjoy it. But that's only a bunch of stereotypes. I'd wager to say there's a little bit of truth in it because there are traces of strong homophobia in our western culture, just as their are traces of patriarchy, but it's still mostly a stereotype.
Pornography isn't about politics, no matter how much conservative or feminist movements attempt to colour it that way. Just as action movies didn't invent mindless violence, pornography didn't invent the stereotypes most of it portrays.
Quite to the contrary of most criticism, in our day and age there is more "niche" porn and thus a broader variety, rather than just the one kind of mainstream porn you tend to see people complain about. There are movies with butch lesbians, dominant women, passive men, etc etc. They aren't typically non-mainstream because the system suppresses them, they are because they just don't sell as well, because there is a smaller market for it and there are only so many movies you can sell to a market within any span of time.
You can't blame all the failures of humanity on porn. Despite the increased availability of that atrocious, mysogynic porn feminists criticize so heavily women's rights are far stronger than fifty or so years ago when porn was hard to come by. I just don't buy that masturbation aids are capable of influencing what kind of person you are. Tell me what you whack off to and I tell you who you are? I don't think so. [/rant-ish] -- Ashmodai 20:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed material[edit]

I removed some of the unsourced material that was extremely speculative or potentially wrong. I also added citeneeded tags to all the rest of the unsourced statements. Please, either replace citeneeded tags with citations, or re-insert material I deleted with citations. Please do not re-insert material I deleted as uncited WITHOUT citations. This article needs to conform to WP:CITE. -- Pierremenard 00:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

State of Article[edit]

I think this article needs a lot of work and rewriting, but its a worthwhile subject. Lesbian sex has been a major theme in erotica/pornography for many centuries and some exploration of that theme is warranted in Wikipedia.

Some issues with the article -

The quality of writing, of course, needs improvement. A total rewrite would not be uncalled for. Also, the Thomas Pynchon quote is overly literary to the point of being obscure and probably not needed.

The title: Is "Depictions of lesbian sex in pornography" the best we can come up with? Its awfully long and unwieldy. How about simply "Lesbianism in pornography", "Lesbian sex in pornography", or "Lesbianism in erotic art"? (Unfortunately, there is no neutral term that covers both "erotica" and "pornography", even though the division between the two is largely subjective.)

Sectioning needs improvement: it should really follow the pattern of a historical survey of lesbianism in erotica an porn, from early erotic literature to present-day internet porn. There should be a section on "Reactions to lesbianism in pornography" which would subsume the present "Reactions to" sections, as well as ideologically and religiously-based critiques of this kind of erotica.

Citations: I know that in theory, all statements in Wikipedia articles need proper citation, but keep in mind that most Wikipedia articles lack this, and marking up the entire page with "citation needed" tags is less than helpful. Certainly, a statement like "Some lesbians dislike lesbian pornography targeted at men" can and should be cited. However, a statement like, "Depictions of lesbian sex are relatively common in Western pornography" is simply common knowledge and it would be difficult to actually find a definitive source to back it up.

Generalizations - I agree, there are way too many, especially concerning lesbians. I don't know what era the prior authors are living in, but I can assure you that most lesbians today are not radical feminists who spend an inordinate amount of time getting peeved off about pornography or about what men might be thinking about them.

I'd be happy to rewrite this article when I have time, but if anybody else wants to take a crack at it, go ahead. - "Iamcuriousblue" 69.12.241.39 02:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm interested in seeing a somewhat more balanced view of the topic, and would like to help. As you've stated not lesbian is necessarilly a feminist. Also not all feminists are anti-porn. --Scandalous 23:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the good word. If you want to help out, the "Reactions to lesbianism in pornography" needs a complete rewrite, preferably something referencing actual sources. Views of lesbians, straight men, and even straight women should be addressed. Other than that, I want to add something on lesbianism in erotic literature, and I could use a lot of help with that, since I'm not real literary. Also, I want to expand the "In contemporary pornography" part. Iamcuriousblue 18:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

This material was previously moved out of the Lesbianism article into this separate article. However, the article has been given a horribly unwieldy title. I propose a simpler title, plus one that could be expanded to broader content. Lesbianism in erotica is a clear and concise title. The reason I propose "erotica" in the title (as opposed to "pornography") is so that the article could be expanded to discuss depictions of lesbianism historically in both erotic art and literature and pornography. "Erotica" is, arguably, the most general category I could come up with. I'd like to see what the consensus is. Also, I know the article needs a lot of work - see my comments above. Iamcuriousblue 18:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Moved Iamcuriousblue 09:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

State of Article, 29 June 2006[edit]

I finally completely rewrote the awful "Reactions to lesbianism in pornography" and retitled it "Views about lesbianism in erotica" (there's probably a better title, but that's the best I can come up with at the moment). I also scanned in a boxcover from a Japanese rezu adult video, since I wanted to give an example of current girl-girl porn, but keep it fairly tasteful.

The article is looking much better than it did when I first started working on it. It still needs at least three more sections – "Lesbian erotica in literature", "Lesbian erotica in cinema", and "Lesbian erotica in other media", which should about cover the topic. The literature part is the part I anticipate having most trouble with – there's a very rich tradition of lesbianism in erotic literature right up through the present, but I'm not terribly literary, so I don't really know any important figures beyond Anais Nin, nor much about literary trends in lesbian erotica.

So far, I've pretty much worked on this article on my own for the last several months without feedback. If anybody wants to help edit this article or even give me some feedback as to how I've been doing, feel welcome! Iamcuriousblue 01:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're really welcoming help, why did you immediately revert my edits? It's not like I was vandalizing the article; most of my changes were only meant to make things more clear. While I appreciate that you've done a lot of work to improve this section, some of your writing was awkward and overly long, and the material on heterosexual women's opinions of gay male porn is irrelevant. CKarnstein 19:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I've tried to keep the stylistic changes you've made without wholesale deletion of relevant points. I've moved the stuff on gay male porn to gay pornography, but have provided a link here. This material was in the article even before I started editing the article, however, I feel its partially relevant since the question of whether there's an analogous attraction to gay male porn among women often comes up in discussions of this topic.
The part on presence or lack of homophobic attitudes among heterosexual viewers of girl-girl porn specifies heterosexual men for a reason. Generally, homophobia is more common in men and women who are homophobic generally don't go anywhere near girl-girl pornography or anything else indicating same-sex attraction. Hence, your gender-neutral language is kind of artificial. The part on some lesbian and bisexual women liking mainstream porn is factual (I don't have a reference offhand, unfortunately) and is a necessary statment to contextualize the preceding sentance (which otherwise would state that lesbians and bisexual women univerally dislike mainstream porn, a false overgenralization).
I value your edits and especially the clarification of the writing style; the only thing I take exception to (and have partly reverted) is the wholesale throwing out of content – if you're going to do that, its best to come on the talk page and explain why that information is either irrelevant or wrong. Iamcuriousblue 02:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the parenthetical remark about some lesbian and bisexual women enjoying mainstream porn needs a cite, but I do think it is unecessary. The preceeding sentence does not, in fact, say that lesbians universally dislike mainstream porn. "Even lesbians who do not reject pornography per se often dislike what they perceive as the inaccurate and stereotypical depiction of lesbianism..." does not suggest that no lesbians at all like mainstream porn, it says that there are lesbians who are not outright opposed to pornography but that many of these women are still bothered by inaccuracies and stereotypes in porn. There's no need to follow this with a statement that some of them like it anyway, it's redundant and looks tacked on. If the problem is that the "Even lesbians who do not reject pornography..." sentence seems too strong, then that's what we should change. I'll give it a shot and you can see what you think. CKarnstein 14:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Its a good edit – thanks! Iamcuriousble 19:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I forgot to add – based on your edit history, it seems like you know a bit about erotic literature – if you have time, consider contributing a "Lesbian erotica in literature" section sometime. Iamcuriousble 20:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


Narrow Minded/Insecure Straight Men[edit]

This section from Lesbianism in erotica shows how narrow minded straight men are and how they don't have the balls to except that their own sex can have a kiss but if its two of the opposite sex then its all fine, "However, several studies (Louderback & Whitley 1997, Whitley et al, 1999) suggest that men who perceive lesbianism as erotic may have less negative attitudes toward lesbians than they do towards gay men."

Absolutley gutless. I mean woman have more balls because they are much more tolerant and accepting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by You Are Here! (talkcontribs) 11:17, 10 August 2006

And this is relevant to the article how exactly? This statement says nothing except about your own clearly bigoted opinions. "Tolerant and accepting", indeed! Iamcuriousblue 06:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Lesbians less likely?[edit]

"Since the end of the 1980s "Lesbian Sex Wars", however, lesbians are less likely to identify with radical feminist opinions on sexuality and are more likely to have positive views about erotica and pornography."

Regardless of the need for a citation, a rephrasing of this is also necessary. I don't think it's encyclopedic to say what people are more or less likely to do. Demographics, or a rise in articles and op-eds from certain viewpoints, are a better way to demonstrate (what appears to be) the point. Can anyone quote articles from before, during and after the LSW to demonstrate the change? LeaHazel : talk : contribs 19:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Renaming article[edit]

I moved this article to Sex between women in erotica, which was reverted. I don't see this move as as unwarranted political correctness. Not all women who love other women or have sex with other women are lesbians. If two bisexual women have sex, is "lesbian" still an appropriate word? Is "lesbianism" an appropriate word to be using at all? What is wrong with referring to sex between women as "sex between women"? It's fine to use the word "lesbian" to describe lesbians, "lesbian literature", "lesbian culture", etc. Some women and some topics are exclusively lesbian. However, it's not acceptable to use the words "lesbian" or "lesbianism" to subsume bisexual women. The content of this article is not exclusively lesbian, so the title is inappropriate. Thoughts? Joie de Vivre 23:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand why you think your edits are necessary – arguments about bisexual invisibility and such – however, I still think your edits are entirely inappropriate.
First, yes, I understand very well that many women who have sex with other women are not self-identified "lesbians" – many are bisexual, and some even identify as heterosexual. However, like it or not, the adjective "lesbian" and the noun "lesbianism" has several connotations, broadly including any kind of same-sex activity between women. So yes, I think the phrase "lesbian sex" would be appropriate to describe sex between two bisexual women, and I think the vast majority of English-speakers would accept that definition. Your very narrow usage of the adjective "lesbian" is largely restricted to yourself and perhaps a few other LBGT activists. I don't think Wikipedia articles need to be entirely rewritten to reflect the cant of a small group, whatever that group is and no matter how noble their intentions.
Worst of all, in your attempt to expunge the word "lesbian" from this article, you've introduced some very clunky, repetitious, and tendentious language into the article. It doesn't read well at all.
I'm standing by my reverts to your edits, though I will reincorporate some of your edits back in, as some are useful and help break up repetitious use of the word "lesbian". If you insist on reverting my edits, I will counter-revert and ask for arbitration. However, I would like to get some consensus on this rather than just have it be an edit war between you and I. I'll try to get some input on these talk pages from members of other LGBT- and pornography-related Wikiprojects. Iamcuriousblue 23:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I have to say, I concur with Iamcuriousblue. The word lesbian can refer to all same-sex interpersonal acts and attractions. While the person may identify as something else, "bisexual sex", to my mind, conjures up something completely different to what is meant in this article. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I never inserted the phrase "bisexual sex" or anything like it. I used phrasing such as "sex between women" to describe what this article calls "lesbian sex". Joie de Vivre 15:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I was not at all trying to expunge the word "lesbian" from the article; as I said, there are certainly lesbian women, lesbian culture, lesbian relationships, and so forth. But I strongly disagree that the adjective "lesbian" should always be used to describe romantic or erotic relationships between women. And I am suspicious of the word "lesbianism". Does the word "heterosexualism" sound correct? How about "bisexualism"? Joie de Vivre 15:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
"sex between women" is incredibly clunky. "lesbian sex" is just as accurate and sounds better. It should be pointed out that just because the suffix "-ism" is different to "-ity", this does not render it less valid. As I have said before, lesbian sex is a perfectly valid way of describing sexual acts between women, and for teh sake of flow, it should be used. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

(undent) I disagree. "Lesbian" is used to describe individual women, their relationships, their culture. Usage of "lesbian" as an adjective to describe an encounter where the identity of the people is not known is a form of bisexual erasure. This is why the term "same-sex marriage" is used rather than "gay marriage". It's why the term MSM (men who have sex with men) is used in the context of health care and HIV awareness. The reasoning is that a sex act should not be used to define someone else's identity. "Lesbian" is not an appropriate adjective to describe any given sex act between women, any more than the word "gay" should be used to describe any given sex act between men. I know many men who would bristle at the suggestion that they were in a "gay relationship", and many women who would object to being described as having had "lesbian sex". People are gay, culture may be lesbian, but to define behaviour as such is erroneous. Saying that "it's perfectly valid" doesn't make it so. Please educate yourself at Bisexual Resource Center or at Bialogue before dismissing these concerns outright. Joie de Vivre 16:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You know what? I'm not going to argue with you, particularly as I find playing the "you're being biphobic" card utterly disgusting. I'm merely going to quote from dictionary.com's entry on the word "lesbian":
–adjective
1. of or pertaining to Lesbos.
2. (usually lowercase) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of female homosexuality.
3. (usually lowercase) erotic; sensual.
Homosexual acts between women are lesbian, regardless of how said women identify. You can't redefine the word because you don't like it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I would like to remind you of WP:CIVIL. You must certainly already be aware that dictionaries lag far behind what is appropriate, especially when it comes to LGBT issues. I base my arguments on the precendent evinced by the examples I've given above. You may not like the precedent, but it's plain as day. Joie de Vivre 17:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
And I would like to remind you that accusing someone of biphobia because they disagree with you is not openly incivil, but rude, patronising and reduces the impact against real biphobics. I'm noticing this precedent you quoted consists of "Well, I know this guy who doesn't like his relationships being called gay". Well, I know several bisexual women who are in relationships with other women, relationships they freely call "gay". Neither is a precedent, it's an argument from experience and irrelevant to this discussion. To claim that the online dictionary.com is behind on LGBT issues is nonsense - just because you don't like to use a word in a certain way does not mean that that is mainsteam opinion. It's clear as day that no-one agrees with you. I invite everyone else to assert whether two women having sex is "lesbian" or "same-sex sex". Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I think renaming this is unnecessary. As was said above, lesbian can refer to all same-sex acts and attractions between women regardless of how they identify. I don't think it's helpful to compare terms for 'sex between men' and 'sex between women' as almost every culture views them differently, with different stigmas attached.--ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 18:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Dev920. I am not anti-bisexual, nor do I think anybody else who has contributed to this discussion is. To accuse somebody of biphobia just because they don't happen to subscribe to your personal usage of language or your particular flavor of bisexual politics is an absolute cheap shot and amounts to a personal attack. Iamcuriousblue 19:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

(undent) I'll point out that on Wikipedia, the precedent is very much against replacing common English usage with linguistic activism of various kinds. A good example is the rejection of Joie de Vivre's earlier proposal to move "Sexual intercourse" to "Vaginal intercourse". There have been a similar rejection of proposals by others to retitle Sex-positive feminism (a term that's in common use, but one that radical feminists don't like) and Anti-semitism (commonly understood to mean Jew-hating, but a usage that's disliked by many Arabs). The reason, of course, is that to go from common usage to a usage favored only by a particular political or religious group flies in the face of WP:NPOV.

I'll also point of that the kind of campaign that your on to favor anti-sexist and anti-heterocentric usage or common usage is change that would need to take place at the level of Wikipedia policy and you really should be directing your energies there. Your approach of imposing your particular linguistic usage article by article is highly disruptive and strikes me as disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Iamcuriousblue 19:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Putting all arguments about the cultural relevancy of these words aside, it seems to me that it is reasonable for a referential source like an encyclopedia to take its cues for definition of terms from other established and valid referential sources. The day the dictionaries change is the day that the changes from lesbian to the new accepted term could logically be inserted here. Otherwise, you are promoting an agenda to pertetuate that change, which may be admirable, but is not appropriate in this forum.
As a copyeditor, I think that word choice should be based on the correctness of the term in the context of the article. As was mentioned above, "lesbian" can be used as a noun defined as "a woman who is a homosexual" (Merriam-Webster) or "a woman whose sexual orientation is to women." (American Heritage Dictionary) As an adjective with a lower-case l (as opposed to Lesbian, of the island Lesbos), it is defined as, "of or relating to homosexuality between females" (Merriam-Webster). The noun "lesbianism" is defined (yes, it is a valid word) as "sexual orientation of women to women." (American Heritage) or "female homosexuality" (Merriam-Webster). Furthermore, the word "homosexual" is listed as "1) of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex; 2)of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex" (Merriam-Webster). Note that none of these definitions list the word "exclusive " in terms of that sexual orientation. Therefore, the use of these terms should be acceptable for any type of sexual contact between women. Galena11 14:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Girl-girl redirect[edit]

Until recently, the term "girl-girl" redirected to this page, logically in my opinion, since one of the major topics of this article is depictions of lesbian sex in contemporary pornography.

User:Joie de Vivre has been changing the redirect to Pornography, using the rather strange reasoning that since this article also covers lesbian-oriented erotica in art and literature, the redirect is not appropriate. Her reasoning can be seen at the history page for Girl-girl. My contention is this article is about lesbian depictions in both historical erotica and contemporary pornography, the redirect is appropriate. (I authored over 90% of this article, BTW, and specifically wrote such a broad overview deliberately.)

And honestly, I have to question JdV's motivations for doing this. This user is noticeably upset at my reversions to some of her edits and has been acting in a retaliatory manner since then. Also, the changes JdV proposed to this article didn't go his or her way, and now JdV is directing links away from this article. That strikes me as pretty questionable.

I've taken this matter to mediation. In the meantime, I wouldn't mind having some more input on the Girl-girl redirect issue. Iamcuriousblue 02:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know this term was porn-specific, so I'm not the best judge, but as they are currently written, the Lesbianism in erotica article as covers this type of material better than does Pornography, so given the choice, I'd say here Lesbianism in erotica.
Is there going to be a proper RfC section? The request is not linked to one that I can find. / edgarde 03:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I've created a proper RfC section here: Talk: Girl-girl#Request for Comment. Further discussion should go there. Iamcuriousblue 04:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

List[edit]

I think there should be a full list, or at laest a sample list, of lesbian porn movies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PoidLover (talkcontribs) 04:44, 20 March 2007

A full list???? Do you have any idea of how many thousands of videos you're talking about? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Iamcuriousblue 05:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Literature[edit]

This badly needs a literature section. Can't do it myself though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.177.196.114 (talkcontribs) 09:53, 10 June 2007

I agree. And even if you can't contribute a whole lot, every little bit helps. Iamcuriousblue 05:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments by 67.77.184.202[edit]

This message for "Iamcuriousblue" ----

You wrote me a message saying "one of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. It appears you have not followed this policy at Lesbianism in erotica. Please always observe our core policies. Thank you."

I'm sorry to tell you - these viewpoints that WERE expressed here were those of a straight male viewpoint, and were not neutral, either. THAT is why I changed them, to represent the OTHER SIDE, and therefore, be more neutral. I notice that you are male - and therefore are biased to the opinions that were originally stated here. You cannot possibly understand views from a lesbian point of view, and therefore, cannot possibly make the judgment that my comments were anything other than neutral - one has to have a neutral standpoint to do so, eh?

I will take this issue up with Wikipedia. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.77.184.202 (talkcontribs) 01:57, 28 August 2007

First, comments about articles go here on the talk page, not in the article itself – the latter is considered vandalism.
So basically you're arguing that anything I write on the topic is inherently invalid because I'm a straight male and your editorializing should be uncontested because you're a lesbian. Whatever. That's a fantastically ad-hominum argument, and flies in the face of the Wikipedia rule to assume good faith. I'll also note that Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your pet opinions on pornography and erotica. If you have verifiable and citable references to writings that back up your POV, they can be incorporated into the section on "Views on lesbianism in erotica".
You can go ahead and "take it up with Wikipedia", which presumably means taking it through the dispute resolution process. I don't think you're going to get anywhere with it, however, since so far, its been you who have not even begun to adhere to Wikipedia guidelines for article writing, which is why I've reverted your edits. Please take the time to learn the basic rules and guidelines of Wikipedia if you're confused about them. Iamcuriousblue 05:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

lesbian pornography[edit]

Lesbian pornography dwarfs gay pornography and makes the latter seem miniscule. It needs an article in its own right.--Old Bella (talk) 07:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:People appearing in lesbian pornography is up for deletion[edit]

And probably it should be, unless anyone can figure out criteria for inclusion that would be practical. Шизомби (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


photograph of couple poor quality[edit]

it is sepia tinted and one of them looks too masculine. It should be replaced with one of better quality and in full color--Nsgaw (talk) 03:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think its of poor quality, really, but what does it represent? Its basically a public-domain photo posted to Flickr. Is it given here as an example of lesbianism in erotic photography? This needs some clarification. Oh, and the "too masculine" part is a non-issue – plenty of by-lesbian, for-lesbian erotica and porn has far more butch women than the one in this picture. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I boldly removed it as not relevant to to cinema. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I learned nothing[edit]

This article is completely uninformative. I am doing a report on the history of lesbian images in pulp literature, and erotica and there is nothing here that sheds any light on this peculiar phenomenon.

It may be obvious to the straight men who wrote the article as to why lesbianism is so erotic to men, but this article doesn't provide any context.

Some questions that I would like to be answered by any experts on the subject:

Why is female homosexuality so acceptable in the west when it comes to pornography? And yet male homosexuality is absent from most erotica aimed at straight men. The answer of course to so many of you seems OBVIOUS but there is much more historical basis for men participating in homosexual acts in all cultures (see the article on Pederasty) than women participating in the same acts. So why is it that after Christianity became dominant in the west that male homosexuality became so taboo and yet female homosexuality began creeping into erotic works?

Why does so much lesbianism in vintage pornography usually deal with an older woman raping or seducing a young naive girl?

Why do straight men not feel threatened by depictions of women enjoying sex with other women?

Could lesbianism in porn be a way for heterosexual men to safely explore homosexuality without having to think "gay" thoughts? Could lesbianism in porn be a way for heterosexual men to safely explore being another gender without being considered a sissy?

Come on so-called experts! I am not an expert here but this article does nothing to educate or enlighten. Why is this form of sex so popular in the west but considered a fetish in Japan and the East?

And if heteroseuxal men are more comfortable with images of two women than a man and a woman why is it that (in spite of the cited source) that Gangbang and extreme pornography often dealing with large penises, black men with white women, gangbang porn etc outsell lesbian porn. (Ok it doesn't help that I cannot cite a source other than my time working as a clerk at an adult video store. Our all girl porn section was very very small and none of the titles where ever on the best seller list...in fact I found that most straight men seemed to like seeing women being degraded by men or seeing women with incredibly hung men rather than seeing women alone based on what titles where being bought and what magazines where the most popular)

This is a very fascinating subject and this article does not do it justice. Can we get a true expert writing here please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.59.228 (talkcontribs) 12:50, 15 April 2009

I think you need to have a look at WP:NOR and WP:NOT#OR. It sounds like you're looking for an original essay on the topic that gives novel views on the subject by a self-proclaimed "expert" on the topic. That's really not the job of Wikipedia – WP only summarizes published work on a topic. On this topic, there isn't a whole lot of research out there on the underlying psychology and motivations of viewers and producers of this kind of erotica. OTOH, there are certainly a lot of opinions about this kind of erotica and its role in society, as the sources in the "Further reading" section are testament to. These sources need to be incorporated into this article at some point, but so far, neither me nor anybody else has had the time to peruse these sources and offer summary here. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"Some questions that I would like to be answered by any experts on the subject:.." - well can see your slant pretty clearly from the questions you ask - doesn't sound like a neutral paper you are planning to write - men who like lesbian porn are weirdos, repressed and probably really gay (and should get on and be gay and stop perving over lesbains) sounds like the gist of the agenda there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.150.127 (talk) 00:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I want to know more about "Cream" live sex show[edit]

title says it all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.77.12 (talk) 08:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Mathematical proof that lesbian porn is better than female solo porn![edit]

--64.114.196.114 (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding study [1][edit]

I wouldn't give this outcome such a weight and even begin the article with the claim that heterosexual men are more aroused watching women on women.

The number of subjects in this study was really small and statical significans for this part of the outcome wasn't enormous. Not to speak of a questionable setup (just 2 films of 2 minutes out of each category/subject) and other important psychosocial aspects weren't taken into account.

I don't want to judge this study, but I'd think that it's far too little evidence as to give it such a weight right at the beginning of the whole article. The article reads as if it was a "fact", which it isn't (yet at least)

85.127.29.120 (talk) 04:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to add new sections[edit]

I would like to add new sections under the Lesbian Pornography section. Please see my sandbox for details. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rachbohm/sandbox Rachbohm (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2014‎ (UTC)

Rachbohm (talk · contribs), be WP:Bold and add the material. But make sure that you fix the headings; per MOS:HEAD, headings are in sentence case, not title case (unless of course it's an official title, like the name of a book). Also, remember to sign your username when commenting on talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. I signed your username for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 06:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed edits to the Lesbianism in erotica Page[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lana519/sandbox Lana519 (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2014‎ (UTC)

Lana519 (talk · contribs), your sandbox pieces need work before being added to the article. Make sure that the references are right up against the sentences they are supporting, no space between the sentences and references. And when it comes to references such as "(Ziv 2014)," it's usually better to have them in reference format (Wikipedia:Citing sources) instead of in text format. Also, remember to sign your username when commenting on talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. I signed your username for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 06:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lesbianism in erotica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)