Talk:Erotica

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Votes for proposed merger of erotica with erotic art

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

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


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

[edit] Erotica is what I like. Pornography is what you like, you pervert!

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

[edit] Discussion regarding unidintified photograph

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

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

[edit] the difference between erotica and porn is aesthetic

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

[edit] Vintage erotica

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

[edit] Copyedit

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

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

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

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

Is the dabate "erotica or pornography?" worthwhile?

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

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

[edit] Student publications

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

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

[edit] "Student erotica" edit war

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

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

It is sourced. It is more sourced than any of the other genres or themes. I would say that it may one day deserve its own article, but until the information in that section grows, it should should just stay put. Deleting it again is just driving the edit war.151.197.111.178 20:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
As stated before, sources do not make this appropriate for this article. Sourcing Family Guy doesn't make him worth adding to History of art. If you create a student erotica article, it would be worth linking from this one. But this is not the place for it. / edg ☺ ★ 20:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
That's putting the cart before the horse. the information here should be given time to gorw beofre splitting it off on a new article. 151.197.111.178 21:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Only if this is where Student erotica belongs. This is the wrong place. A stub would be much better. / edg ☺ ★ 21:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Update: this section has now been removed 4 times by 3 different editors[1] [2] [3] [4]. Interestingly, the anon editor, who has inserted this section at least three times (perhaps all 4), threatens to report the removing editors for "edit warring" (having just previously made this threat on my talk page for my making 1 edit ever to this section). I propose the anon is editing against consensus. / edg ☺ ★ 21:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Seconded. You're going against consensus, and are about to violate the WP:3RR. Please, stop. Gscshoyru 21:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Consensus is two against one, and it isn't forced in the course of an hour. A stub would get nominated for not being notable. that's why the information is appropriate here. 151.197.111.178 21:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Consensus is something you build, not something you enforce. 151.201.155.166 16:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • when it gets above 1000 characters I'll create the new article. Student erotica 16:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
The section belongs. Removing it was done without consensus. The people who keep removing it without having first sought consensus are driving an edit war. South Philly 01:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it really is the other way around. Changes to the original structure of the article should not be made if someone is opposing without consensus -- see WP:BRD -- and the addition is the change. Please explain why such a narrow topic is notable enough to be in the article on the general topic, or make a seperate article with that information. Making the seperate article would be much, much better. Gscshoyru 01:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • No, you have it backward. It used to be in the article, until it was summarily removed without seeking consensus. I'm just restoring the article to what it was. The information should remain here until it is big enough for its own article. That's the way thinsg work in wikipedia.Student erotica 02:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
You've been abusing tools, using sockpuppets, and making disingenuous accusations. This is not how Wikipedia works. / edg ☺ ★ 02:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Gscshoyru has been edting, claiming consensus, against another user, driving an edit war and getting another user blocked. I joined into the argument today, and now I get attacked too. South Philly 03:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, the section needs to be removed, since it stinks of promotion (i.e. it solely uses first-party referencing). If anything, it does need to be placed in a separate article, and third-party sources would be needed to back up any notability issues. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 04:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

  • The section needs to be rewritten and expanded. Only once it has grown should it be spun off into its own article. Student erotica 03:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
    • To be honest, your insistence in making this whole "student erotica" thing part of this article isn't logical to me. You know, you can make an article on "Student Erotica", but it'd only be a stub. Even if it's not in the main article namespace, you can still make it a sub-page of your user page (i.e. User:Student erotica/Student Erotica), that way you can develop it until you feel comfortable in releasing it into the article namespace. With those options open to you, I find the whole edit warring a bit ridiculous. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 07:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm adding the infomation back in. It is sourced and relevant. There was no consesnus to remove it in the first place. Student erotica 21:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
It isn't relevant enough. You're giving it far, far too much weight. With that section added, half of the article is a about student erotica, which is far, far too much, as student erotica is not that important in terms of erotica. If you really want, you can probably make a seperate article, and link to it in the see-also, though I'm not sure if it's notable enough for inclusion there. Additionally, your idea that articles grow inside other articles before being moved off into others, which you keep mentioning, is wrong. I'm not sure where you got that idea, but very few articles start that way, and those that do happen because the original article was far too long and some of the sections were split off. Most articles start as stubs, not in other articles, ok? Gscshoyru 21:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Incorrect, there was consensus to remove it from this article. The fact you are still illogically obstinate regarding this issue indicates to me that you are more than likely deliberately trying to evoke an edit conflict. Frankly, I am losing good faith in your edits, so I am going to repeat my suggestion in strongly recommending that you create a separate article for "student erotica" -- or don't. The choice is yours, but you cannot put the content back into this article. And a repeated attempt to do so will likely resort in your being blocked, because you're really starting to disrupt this article to prove your illogical point. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 00:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Isn't "relevant enough?" Please cite your precedent. It is about erotica, it is sourced. It is not large enough to be considered its own article. If I wasn't worried about an AfD, I would write a Student erotica article. At this point, let's go for an RFC or for mediation. I think I'll win. Until then it belongs in the article - it is sourced, more so than any other part of the article. Student erotica 14:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
It's too narrow a topic for inclusion in an article about the general topic. And there's a perfect precedent, an analogy, up at the top of this section. Would you put a section on family guy in the article on modern art? It's cartoons, it's modern. But it's not notable enough for inclusion. The article is plenty large enough to be a WP:STUB, so make one instead of adding it here, please. And there is no "winning" WP:RFC's, but be my guest and make a request there. Gscshoyru 14:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a lot of sympathy for the editor who has created this section: it's a documented and rather surprising phenomenon and it's in this general area. The editor is trying to improve the Wikipedia. But then so are their opponents. Unfortunately the section does unbalance a small overview type article like this. Either a new article should be created or perhaps a section in History of erotic depictions (though there might be problems even there). One thing that should be noted, both in this debate and the new article is that this is a US trend, so perhaps it could be called US student erotica. --Simon Speed 16:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I can change the name of the section. South Philly 21:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Look, the problem is not the name of the section, or the fact it's the fact that that a section on Student Erotica, which is a very specific facet of the subject, does not merit anywhere near the amount of weight you've given it in the article. The fact that it's "sourced," as you put it, does not make it notable. All the rest of the article is about erotica in general, a specific section is out of place and does not belong. I ask specifically, what is wrong with moving it to a seperate article? It's plenty notable enough to be in a seperate article, but since it's not about erotica in general, and not specifically notable enough a phenomenon for inclusion in a general article, why are you so opposed to it being moved? I don't think anyone has a problem with it being made a stub, but in the current form, it cannot be included in a general topic article. Gscshoyru 04:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Another, additional problem with this section is that it consists almost entirely of 1st party sources. In general, an article or section should not rely on first party sources, and should only contain them to supplement third party sources -- see WP:V, please. Gscshoyru 04:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Changing the name does not address the abovementioned problems. This has been discussed at length, and you have been offered alternatives to this sustained, aggressive editing. Even the editor who expresses "sympathy" for you suggests you place this material elsewhere. You are inserting this material entirely against consensus, and you are edit warring. / edg ☺ ★ 09:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image

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

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

[edit] Straw poll

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

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

  • – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, it would be good to have an image.151.197.111.178 20:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

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

  • We don't need a poll Quadell. So far, two editors don't want it and one, you do. That isn't consensus to include it. Also, the wording of the poll is so skewed, I refuse to take part. pschemp | talk 21:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • No, it is not needed. Guardimp 16:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • No the image is like something out of a 'mens' magazine, hardly an art form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.134.67 (talk) 11:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Issues with Greek

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

Eros is translated as 'love' when it should really be translated as 'desire'.

Not according to Greek words for love. Remember that the etymology here is based on ancient Greek, not modern Greek. David-Sarah Hopwood (talk) 02:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war protection

I've protected this page so that no one falls in the WP:3RR trap or edit wars over the whole "student erotica" mess. The protection will be lifted in 72 hours, or maybe earlier, once we determine whether or not South Philly is using sock puppets to disrupt Wikipedia to make his (or her) point. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 05:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

The article currently has three images. All are apparently free, so that's good. But at least two are (fine art merit aside) just high-class piccies of women showing off their bosoms. Does this article really need more than one of those in the absence of other examples?

Also, I'm not sure what the Library of Congress image is depicting. Perhaps it is not sufficiently informative. I would propose keeping one of Thirdship's images and removing one or both of the others. / edg ☺ ★ 07:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Having 3 images is fine, but the range should reflect the range of the subject, to avoid POV and help the reader understand what is being discussed. The naked Maja is a great painting, was produced as porn and is now seen as pure art, so I think it should be kept. One other picture could have a male object of desire (Greek sculpture?) and the third should be something other than a pinup nude (maybe sexual activity). --Simon Speed 01:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Agelou22.jpg is a photograph, and Image:Francisco de Goya y Lucientes 011.jpg is a painting. Both are artistic, so "just high-class piccies of women showing off their bosoms" is POV. Two images were carefully chosen to illustrate text. But Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/South Philly's image don't do this. Image:LoC Barse Erotica.jpg is used on Thomas Jefferson Building article. Library of Congress image is not discussed in the text, and isn't connected to this article. Thirdship 09:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay. My apologies to any art museum curators who may be reading this. Both images are highly important works that would be a benefit to any article on Wikpedia, and if my words were hurtful to the families of the artists or in any way tarnished their legacies, I regret those words and acknowledge my ignorance in all matters pertaining to fine art.
Now, my point is that since the two images are similar in content and don't represent the breadth of the topic, one would be sufficient. I think Simon Speed sums this up well. / edg ☺ ★ 14:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

    ↑                 ↑

Well, left only shows the chest, but right side is stark naked. Though it says repeatedly, one is a photograph, and another is a painting. Two images are quite different. Therefore these images do represent the breadth of the topic. Both are indispensable. Wikipedia is not a place doing a childish argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thirdship (talk • contribs) 07:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Erotica/pornography debate

I re-added the "NPOV-section" tag even before I'd seen that there had been one there earlier and had been removed several days ago. The section clearly leans toward the POV that there is a clear difference between pornography and erotica and that the former is "bad" while the latter is "good". Also, the section (and the article in general) is wholly unreferenced, meaning that the section is simply the exposition of some editor's point of view on the topic. The section needs to be rewritten to be based on actual citable sources on this debate (this shouldn't be hard – there's been a great deal written over the last 40 or so years on this topic) and should be a balanced presentation on all major points of view on this topic. Iamcuriousblue 18:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I took out the old POV-soaked paragraph and replaced it with cited material. I think the writing is disjointed and it could stand to be fleshed out, but I think it's better to get some NPOV material in there than try to save what read like the musing of a college term paper.--David Shankbone 07:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)