Talk:Philosophy in the Bedroom
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
 |
Philosophy in the Bedroom is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses. | |
I don't think the dichotemy in the first paragraph is acurate. de Sade clearly intended his work to be considered pornographic and it is certainly not erotic in the traditional sense. Some people like Simmone de Beauvoir (Mrs Jean Paul Satre as Eric insists) have seen philosophy within the pornography but I don't think there is a serious argument that it is not pornographic.
The piece is 200 years old, so many of the cliches of modern pornography were not really cliches at the time. There was not a lot of pornography in circulation at the time to compare it to.
The other aspect of the work that should be brought out is that until authorized se-ed became part of the curriculum in the mid 60s/70s a large number of kids (and adults for that matter) were reading de Sade for sex-ed as it was one of the few places where it was considered.
Neil Fletcher, in his biography of Sade, made a good case for the work to be considered as satire. There have been other writers who have argued the satirical nature of many of Sade's works.
- It is most definitely a very theoretical work, pornographic though it may be. --71.235.81.130 03:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Play? No
Boudoir is not a play. Not even close. It's a dialogue. --71.235.81.130 03:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Biology???
Can we do away with the section on biological acurracy? It is merely a pedantic point of information a product of our enlightend age. While the infomation in this section is correct and the Sarde is wrong, he was coveying accepted knowlegde at the time and which like much 18th century sicence has subsiquently found to be wrong. This section provides no intelligent comment on the literary content of the work, nor is it an appropriate or relivant critique. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.62.56 (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
