Talk:Homoeroticism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of 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, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] personal letters

Is the inclusion of personal letters appropriate to this page? Homoeroticism is defined as a form of cultural expression not necessarily tied to homosexual identity--but love letters of course are about the writer's own relationship and sexuality, not a presentation of a particular form of eroticism to the world. I'm inclined to cut references to letters (although the quotes could perhaps be moved to a lesbian-history page or to a page about Virginia Woolf).

The above note was me logged out, as were the two recent changes to the page. DanB DanD 18:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag

This page's introduction presents Michel Foucault's controversial view of sexual identity as if it were fact, and doesn't cite the POV to its source, so I've added an NPOV tag. Dybryd 02:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Since this problem has been rectified with a quotation that refers to "the tradition of Michel Foucault", this tag is no longer needed. Welland R 13:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro:

I, for one, am confused by the introduction's differentiation between the terms "homoerotic" and "homoeroticism." Please clarify or delete. Or, if I'm just a retard, please ignore. -- 3/22/07

Why is the image of St. Sebastian so widely viewed as homoerotic? As I understand the term, homoerotic art means only art suggesting themes of gay/lesbian sexual attraction or sex. This would seem to exclude anything that's a single figure in isolation. Or is this a "male gaze" thing? Octopod (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Homoeroticist" links for possible ref

[1][2][3][4][5]Tom of Finland ref, (warning erotica)

[edit] In popular culture section issues

I would like to comment on the quality of the subheading "in popular culture". There is little linking the ideas together, and use of the word "largely" indicates a vagueness on the subject. Also, the idea that Emo is somehow related to homoeroticism is an opinion rather than a substantiated statement. While there is a link to the article on Emo, nowhere within the Emo article does it state that there would be some sort of connection between homoeroticism and the emo subculture. 221.100.187.166 14:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC) Mary C

Please suggest some wording that would work. As for the emo connection I agree that it should be clear to any general reader. Benjiboi 01:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attribution of "homoeroticism" by critics

I'm questioning the statement about defining homoeroticism solely as in terms of a work's likelyhood to arouse the homosexual portion of the audience. The presence of the slash fiction link in the "See Also" section, and the well-known interest of many hetero males in lesbian sexuality would seem to make that statement overly restrictive. There is a not-insignificant heterosexual interest in homoeroticism. DFDosflores (talk) 02:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original research tags

Several sections of this article have been tagged as original or unverified research. Before these tags can be removed, these sections require reputable citations. Queerudite (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the sections. They had been unreferenced since October 2007. Queerudite (talk) 12:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)