Talk:The Way of a Man with a Maid

Naughty Book Update

Just to say that, looking on Amazon, I notice that the latest edition of this book has been published this year (2009) by Harper Perennial in their "Forbidden Classics" series. Might be worth checking to see if it has an informative intro. Btw I am very amused by the censorious, moralistic, shock-horror tone of this article in discussing a work of fiction/fantasy. Colin4C (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad it's not just me. Check the history, and you will see that the majority of the current version was pasted in whole in one revision. An anonymous user with the IP address 79.180.114.52 got on a tear on August 21, 2009 and quadrupled the amount of text and drastically changed the tone of the article in one fell swoop. There is a happy medium to be found, and this book deserves an even tone like the article on Fanny Hill. K8 fan (talk) 02:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. This bit in particular seems to be very tendentious:

"The underlying assumptions which Jack takes for granted, and which form the basis for the book's plot, are:

A man has the right to have sex with any woman he wants, at any time he wants, with or without her consent;

A woman rejecting a man's advances has committed a sin for which she deserves to be punished by being raped and subjected to particularly humiliating sexual acts

All women "want to be raped". However strong and persistent their protest and resistance, should the rapist ignore these protests and go on with his acts, they would (typically, on the moment of penetration) come to enjoy the sexual act enforced upon them. Afterwards, they would likely "come back for more"."

From this it seems the 19th century fictional character "Jack" does not conform to the sexual politics agenda expected in 21st century colleges of higher learning and worse than this has evolved his own detailed (politically incorrect) programme on these matters (no where described in the text of the book btw.). If we must talk in these ludicrous terms could we also not posit Jack's "new man" credentials in recognising the existence of lesbianism and the female orgasm...Jack, no doubt, is a monster, in his attitudes to women, but maybe the anonymous author (who is not Jack btw...) has a satiric intent in attacking the sacred cow of (Victorian) pure womanhood and death before dishonour code...Colin4C (talk) 12:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

References

I'm wordering why the individual words "sadistic" and "pornography" are seperately referenced in the intro: "The Way of a Man with a Maid is an anonymous work of sadistic[1] pornography,[2]". Does the ref to the word "sadistic" refer to the book in question or does it merely refer to a definition of the word "sadistic"? If the latter, the ref is redundant as we don't need refs to ordinary English words. The wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a dictionary. The book in question is: Katchadourian, Herant A.; Donald T. Lunde (1972). "Fundamentals of human sexuality" which seems to me to be a textbook about sex, and not about the book "The Way of a Man with a Maid". Colin4C (talk) 13:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The reference is specifically for the fact that "The Way of a Man with a Maid" is a sadistic work, not a definition of the word "sadistic". Phil Bridger (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Are we to understand that Katchadourian and Lunde describe "The Way of a Man with a Maid" as a sadistic work, rather than just talk about sadism in general? If its just the latter than the ref is illegitimate. It would be the same if a book on excellence was given as reference for the supposition that Shakespeare's Hamlet was "excellent". I.e. a reference to Boggs and Boggs (1902) Excellence in Literature would not be sufficient grounds that "Hamlet is "excellent"", if Boggs and Boggs do not mention Hamlet. Logically the supposition that "The Way of a Man with a Maid" is sadistic must be original research of the editor if Katchadourian and Lunde do not mention that it is. Colin4C (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought I had made myself clear, but, yes, Katchadourian and Lunde describe "The Way of a Man with a Maid" as a sadistic work. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Colin4C (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Not OK !! Do we need a reference to 'prove' that a book is sadistic or pornographic, any more than we need one to confirm that it is thick or red ? Can we not form our own judgement about this, or perhaps we could trust the author of the page to recognise sadism when he reads it ? Where does this nonsense stop ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.49.157 (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we do. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

A link was added, then quickly removed, to the full test of the book on Wikisource. That would seem to fulfill the verifiability requirements. Any idea why it was removed? I thought this book was very clearly in the public domain. The entries on Fanny Hill links to the full text on Project Gutenberg. What is the issue? K8 fan (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The link was presumably removed because it duplicates the link that is already in the article, in the box on the right under "bibliography". Phil Bridger (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Making the text available does not verify an assertion about the text. A secondary source making the assertion is required. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

POV

I have removed some POV pushing and redundant bits from article. For instance this bizarre unreferenced bit of moral indignation at how a fictional character is flouting the law:

Though British courts at the time of writing dealt severely with rapists, Jack has no hesitation in again and again raping women who know him and then setting them loose with not the slightest apprehension that they would complain and lead the police to him - feeling completely and arrogantly sure that once having been forced to taste the "charms" of his love-making they would not do anything of the kind.

Rape is wrong, but this book is er...a fantasy...It didn't really happen... Colin4C (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Stub?

I really can't see how this can justifiably still be called a stub. It looks more, to me, like C class. But I'm no expert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DewiMorgan (talk • contribs) 02:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Image inclusion

I added an image request template, because generally images add to the overall quality of articles. User:Prosfilaes disagrees with this position for this particular article. (Take a look at the revert rational to see his exact statement). It's a valid point of view of course, I know some articles don't have need of an image but I thought this one would benefit from some type of graphic representation. I'm just wondering if there is a consensus either way. Nicoli Maege (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

note – btw when searched in google the novel has graphic results including these paintings, just a thought. Nicoli Maege (talk)

But what connection do those images have with the book? We should only put relevant images up, and I don't know where we'd find those.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

No you're right they aren't inherently or intrinsically connected, I was just pointing out that google connected the topic with several images, these two happen to have been used as covers of different published editions of the book, and are in the public domain. So they are relevant in a manner of speaking. However, I agree your earlier suggestion of a first edition would be far superior if something like that is available. Nicoli Maege (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• 
•