Talk:Gorean

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] French article

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)

[edit] Goreans on the Internet

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)

[edit] Symbols

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)

caption for first gallery image

caption for second gallery image

caption for third gallery image

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)

[edit] SVG conversion

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)

[edit] Malkinius problems

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 http://www.pantheus.com/TGV/archive62001/TGV/lifestyle.shtml 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)

[edit] Gor and BDSM

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)

[edit] 2006 discussion

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)

[edit] Format & composition

Say, 24.252.248.82, 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)

[edit] 2006 reorganization discussion

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)

[edit] Maybe not too clear to ordinary people

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)

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

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)

[edit] Kajira page

IP 68.100.115.182 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

[edit] ‘Culture’

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)

[edit] Smartquotes

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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Look_of_quotation_marks_and_apostrophes 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)

[edit] Who drew the dina?

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 http://www.jonrhus.com/gor/ 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)

Dina-gor.png

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)

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

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)

[edit] Moved section here

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."

[edit] And again...

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 afrticle 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)

[edit] Media links

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)

[edit] Norman's own views

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)

[edit] Magicians of Gor sentence

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

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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/o/r/Talk%7EGorean_afd1.html"