Talk:Yuri (genre)

equivalents of fujoshi and fudanshi
腐女子 (rotten girl) and 腐男子 (rotten boy) are are the terms for female and male fans of yaoi.

Are there terms like these for denoting fans of yuri? WakandaQT (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, but there are likely equivalents out there. --Historyday01 (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "Himedanshi" for men, but it might be hard to find an RS on it. Sandtalon (talk) 23:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Possible article to cite on main page
It reviews the development of yuri from 1910 to present, titled "Beyond The School Cathedral: How Yuri Grew Up" if you are interested and was published published on Anime News Network! Historyday01 (talk) 01:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up; I've revised the History section to incorporate this article. Morgan695 (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Great! Yeah, I thought the article was a pretty good overview. ANN is starting to do more articles like that one, which is great, and diversify those who write reviews, so its not just a bunch of men. --Historyday01 (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Terminology
On 2nd January 2022, I edited the Yuri (genre) artcle to replace 'lesbianism' with 'lesbian relationships'. This is because 'lesbianism' is a word used primarily by homophobes to imply that lesbians have an ulterior motive. Although I do not think that is the intent of its use in the article, many people take offence to the term because of how it is used without being any more encyclopeadic than 'lesbian relationships', which gets the point across without being associated with homophobia.

Another user has reverted this edit with the default edit summary for use of the 'Undo' button. I am starting this topic to avoid getting into an edit war with the other user, discover why my edit was reverted, and whether or not it was a good edit. This is the difference in revisions of my edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yuri_%28genre%29&type=revision&diff=1063365120&oldid=1060675438

Sunrise Minecraft (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and a claim such as "'lesbianism' is a word used primarily by homophobes to imply that lesbians have an ulterior motive" needs to be backed up by more than your own assertion that this is indeed the case. I'll let other editors weigh in, but personally the claim that "lesbianism" is some kind of homophobic dog whistle and not a widely used term to describe individuals with a specific sexual identity seems spurious on its face. In any case, this article talk page is not a productive avenue to litigate this issue, given that "lesbianism" is a term used widely across the encyclopedia (see Radical lesbianism, History of lesbianism, Media portrayal of lesbianism, etc.) I would recommend starting a discussion at WikiProject LGBT studies or the Teahouse. Morgan695 (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Seems to me, 's edit was an improvement. "Lesbian relationships" is inoffensive, "lesbianism" sounds a bit weird, and reminds me of Auberon Waugh's humourously offensive remarks about "homosexualists". Maproom (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Morgan695's argument is perfectly valid. If there are articles that have "lesbianism" in their title, then this a larger issue than should be taken up in this one article. The issue should be taken up with WP:LGBT at the very least to try to form a consensus as to whether lesbianism is in fact considered offensive or not.-- 十八 00:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Nominal Sexual Content Update?
The "Nominal sexual content" section is entirely based on one source from 2010 and doesn't reflect the more recent changes in the yuri genre. As mentioned in the section "2010s-present: Genre diversification", yuri works have grown a lot in recent years and included in this is changes in sexual content. Some of these include very popular works like Bloom Into You and Kase-san featuring their main couples reaching the stage of sex (Bloom Into You 's sex scene is very de-sexualized but explicit, Kase-san 's is more of a fade to black scenario), others such as My Lesbian Experience With Loneliness, Even If It Was Just Once, I Regret It, Looking Up To Magical Girls/Gushing Over Magical Girls, How Do We Relationship?, and Asumi-chan Is Interested In Lesbian Brothels, are all popular and more heavily focus on the sexual aspects of lesbian relationships. Along with Even If It Was Just Once, I Regret It, many others of the recent influx of adult oriented (as in of adults/working people) yuri works don't shy away from sex. I don't know how common the sexual aspects are in relation to yaoi or het works if that's the basis of this section, but I do think it could use updating to better reflect the current state of yuri. Orangechrisy (talk) 21:22, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hmm. The "2010s-present: Genre diversification" cites an Anime News Network piece and Mary Sue piece, but neither specifically talks about sexual content beyond, in the Mary Sue piece saying "...yuri isn’t supposed to capture adult sexual relationships", "she tells the reader about her codependent desire for a mother figure and its sexual manifestation" (in reference to My Lesbian Experience With Loneliness/"Sabishisugite Lesbian Fuzoku Ni Ikimashita"), while the ANN piece just talking about the genre generally, not about any sexual content. The piece on Japanpowered (by Chris Kincaid) linked in the Mary Sue piece, does the same, in terms of talking about the genre.
 * While saying all of that, I'd support updating the section as long as there are reliable sources (i.e. authors which have talked about sexual content in yuri in recent years), to support those changes. There might be something about this within By Your Side: The First 100 Years of Yuri Anime and Manga. Historyday01 (talk) 12:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Should we seriously discuss this? Even if we forget that as a genre describing lesbian relationships, yuri is quite wide and varied (not to mention the platonic yuri), I thought that the ignorant division of yuri into sexual and not died back in the late 00s. I think it won't be a problem to just replace it with more up-to-date sources (or more neutral ones from resources like Yuricon), or even remove it if it supports legacy assertions. Solaire the knight (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. I also think it wouldn't be a problem to replace it with more up-to-date sources. Historyday01 (talk) 13:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)