Talk:Erotica

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)

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 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

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)

the difference between erotica and porn is aesthetic...or is it?
The difference between erotica and porn is denotative, actually: the former being defined generally as "material intended to provoke sexual stimulation", the latter, "stories inclusive of sexual themes, where sexuality is secondary to a major plot". Also, "pornography" in many legal circles is defined as that which is dehumanizing or degrading. To claim that the only opponents of porn are religiously-motivated, or that their morals are "old-fashioned" is wholly ignorant of a significant portion of its objectors, whose repulsion stems from progressive, humanitarian values and advocacy of what they feel are more honest, respectful depictions of sexuality unhampered by themes of degradation and conformity to a caricature-esque paradigm.


 * There's nothing "honest" about this position. There's a great deal in our culture that is degrading or dehumanizing, some of a sexual and some of a non-sexual nature, that is never considered pornography, and a lot of what is called pornography is simply raw sexual acts, sometimes caricaturized and sometimes not, but mere exaggeration or role performance does not make something degrading or dehumanizing -- these are ideology-based judgments more than they are facts. An honest approach would be to identify and remedy individual cases of degradation or dehumanization, whether of a sexual nature or not, rather than try to use the legal system to block imagery that one finds distasteful. -- 98.108.206.178 (talk) 20:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

"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  . 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)

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.
 * Perhaps you should make this your desktop wallpaper and leave Wikipedia out of it. / edg ☺ ★ 16:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

My concern is that we have three images, all female, implying that the male form is somehow anerotic. NPV would seem to encourage a broader selection. 208.102.58.109 (talk) 04:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll
No

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)

There should be more images to view and see, naked and sexy original and homemade! Thanks cut!!!! Zeshan Sial (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

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)
 * Your point being? Student erotica 04:23, 16 October 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 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)

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:Fernande (nude photograph by Jean Agélou).jpg is a photograph, and Image:La Maja desnuda por Goya.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 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)

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)

Erotica is softcore pornography. Besides, if child erotica is child pornography, than erotica in general is pornography in general. Oct13 (talk) 01:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

lol @ wikipedia trash -- the wannabe encyclopedia
I started laughing at the article and at Wikipedia after seeing the absurd image (apparently self-taken) of the naked man. Note xkcd's comic at http://xkcd.com/631/ -- there is a reason universities don't consider Wikipedia a valid source: it isn't one, calling itself an encyclopedia but having no standards. Seriously, if Wikipedia wants to be considered a valid encyclopedia -- as its icon in the top corner suggests -- it should remove stupid and absurd images like that naked guy. But I suppose part of Wikipedia is to make its editors feel important, so whatever. -- Newagelink (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).   Chzz  ►  02:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Ukrainian "criteria on how to distinguish pornography from erotica"
The last paragraph of the section entitled "Erotica and pornography", which deals with a certain Ukrainian policy, seems unnecessary for a number of reasons. All of the information in this paragraph is cited from a broken link. The explanation of how an image is determined to be erotica based off of percentages makes no sense whatsoever; it is badly explained and, since the link is broken, there is no way to fix it. The definition of pornography as dealing specifically and exclusively with "group and homosexual intercourse, scenes of sexual violence, and/or sexual perversions" does not reflect any sort of widespread consensus. UranianPoet 08:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Examples
It seems that it would be helpful to compare and contrast specific clear-cut examples of Erotica, Pornography, and Ribaldry across artistic mediums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConnerFields (talk • contribs) 23:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Distinction from nudity
Are there some objective criteria for distinguishing between erotica and simple nudity? I think this aspect is a good addition/inclusion to the article.--82.137.8.97 (talk) 13:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Presumably this comes from the definition of erotica as sexually arousing. Simple nudity does not have to be erotic, and the erotic does not have to feature nudity. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Erotica
Hello sir the iditer of this page ! Here I want some more erotically written works in history and the latest as well for which I request to Erotic Literature page to enhance their categories and eritic novels and books and the other things that might entertain the audiences and page viewers ! Very Hopefully waiting for new inclusion......! Zeshan Sial (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Aesthetically beautiful,
"Aesthetically beautiful" has found its way into the lead section. Whilst some subjects depicted are certainly "aesthetically beautiful", I would disagree that it's a pre-requisite or even the 'norm'. In fact in some genres beauty is drawback. Beauty and erotic are two distinct concepts, sometimes they overlap, often they don't. The term is also subjective; of the 3 illustrations on the page two are defiantly not beautiful in my opinion. --John B123 (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Another editor added the term "aesthetically beautiful" to the definition today and I re-arranged the sentence to stop it saying:"Erotica is any artistic work that deals substantively with aesthetically beautiful, erotically stimulating or sexually arousing subject matter."


 * which would leave aesthetic beauty, erotic stimulation or sexual arousal as three equal alternatives. Personally I'm quite happy to drop the words "aesthetically beautiful". That said, I think it would be useful to have some indication in the definition as to why erotica isn't pornography, something that is discussed in more detail in the "Erotica and pornography" section. The lead para cites erotica's "high-art aspirations". I can't find this in the Encarta reference cited (and of course we shouldn't technically be citing encyclopaedias anyway). Additionally the use of the term "aspirations" would allow pornography produced by someone who unsuccessfully aspired to high art to be called erotica, which would be a bit weird. Do you think we could simply end the definition with "...but is not pornographic."? - Polly Tunnel (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I notice the phrase has now been removed. I agree about the 'high art' definition. It reminds me of the early days of the Windmill Theatre, if the nudes stood still it was art, if they moved it was obscene. As you point out, the difference is discussed later, so "...but is not pornographic." is ideal for the lead. --John B123 (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've just added "...but is not pornographic" to the definition. Do you think we should remove the sentence about "high-art aspirations"? Indeed, do you think we should remove the Encarta citation as well? Otherwise it would be left supporting a deleted sentence. In any case the Encarta article doesn't appear to cite any references and its text seems to be of low quality. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 11:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Well done. I think both the "high art aspirations" and the Encarta reference should be drooped. Looking at the Encarta section "PORNOGRAPHY VERSUS EROTICA", it looks more like a political item by a radical feminist than an encyclopedic entry, no wonder Encarta died a death. --John B123 (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. I've removed them both. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I reverted the "aesthetically beautiful" aspect. Regarding this and this, however, I'm not sure that I agree with adding "but is not pornographic" since that is a debate that people have (as noted below in the article). So to state the matter as "not pornographic" in Wikipedia's voice is where we consider how WP:YESPOV factors in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help with this article. If I understand it correctly, the answer to this issue depends on the sources. The question is presumably whether sources say that there is a distinction between pornography and erotica, or whether sources disagree over the issue. The sources cited in this article appear to be of the opinion that the two are distinct and that those who disagree are making a mistake. A Google search on the subject brings up many articles saying the two are distinct, but I can't spot any articles claiming they are the same. What would be useful are sources which say that they are indistinguishable or that erotica is, for example, a specific type of pornography (or vice versa). Do you know of any such sources? Polly Tunnel (talk) 11:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I feel I ought to return to this point as I have myself added the Dworkin quote which classifies erotica as a subset of pornography. The current definition, containing the statement "Erotica... is not pornographic" is of course inconsistent with this. I don't think Dworkin's writings should in any sense be regarded as WP:FRINGE, which is why I added her to illustrate the breadth of views on the subject. However, as most of the commentators I can find do not agree with her on this point, I wonder if we should modify the definition to something like "Erotica... is not generally considered to be pornographic". Polly Tunnel (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea to me. --John B123 (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ as no objections have been raised. Polly Tunnel (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedian concept of Erotica and Pornography
The distinction between pornography and erotica is largely subjective and reflects societies standards. . I believe that the separation of both goes against WP: UNCENSORED and WP: NPOV.Guilherme Burn (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Dependent discussions:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography
 * Template talk:Pornography


 * Comment: Eh? What is the question? That the two articles should be merged? It is not WP:POVFORK to have both articles. Keep the separation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , if you're going to cite Britannica in support of merging pornography and erotica, it's worth pointing out that britannica has an article on Erotica, https://www.britannica.com/art/erotica Vexations (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , actually I did not want to merge the articles, I wanted to merge the inner wikipedia concept, like the wikiproject and the template I proposed above. This Rfc was to draw attention to these discussions, I do not believe it is just a simple title issue, many editors do not accept linking erotic art articles with pornography.Guilherme Burn (talk) 10:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Eh? No, we should not have an article titled "Erotica and pornography" or "Pornography and erotica." And if you want a title change like that, you need to start a WP:Requested moves discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Fernande is underage, remove picture
The girl Fernande (Fernande Barrey 1893) is a child prostitute and should not be the introdution to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.112.127.160 (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * She was an adult at the time the picture was taken. I don't see how her past is relevant. --John B123 (talk) 21:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Definition proposal
The first sentence currently says: "Erotica is (in a broad sense) literature or art that deals substantively with subject matter that is erotic, sexually stimulating or sexually arousing but (in a strict sense) is not generally considered to be pornographic."

I propose this alternative: "Erotica is literature or art that deals substantively with subject matter that is erotic, sexually stimulating or sexually arousing. Some critics regard pornography as a type of erotica, but many consider it to be different."

Any objections? - Polly Tunnel (talk) 12:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

No one seems particularly concerned after a couple of weeks so I'll try it in the article. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 12:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Seminar in Human Sexuality
— Assignment last updated by Zy175311460 (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)