Talk:Women's erotica: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:32, 10 November 2008

Pornography Start‑class High‑importance

	Erotica and pornography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please note: I have made extensive changes to this page because I felt the previous article was not actually discussing women's erotica at all. Firstly, the previous article was mainly a general discussion of women's sexuality throughout history rather than a look at sexually explicit material made for women. Secondly, it confused women's erotica with health and sexuality information and advice. I don't think you can fairly say that a women's mainstream magazine site like iVillage is women's erotica just because it features articles about sex. Msnaughty 13:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am having difficulty understanding how to link references from within my artical. All of the info in this came from the books that are listed in my references section at the bottom, but I am not clear on how to hyperlink the citations. Anybody have a url with instructions? I can't find one in the "help" sections". --Empowerment2007 19:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

Some sentences appear to have been borrowed from: this website MidgleyDJ 20:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Similar sentence removed. It would appear that the author of that web page was citing the same source, but removed to avoid any problems. --Empowerment2007 21:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence One can find a plethora of reading materials for women to enhance their sexual needs, from books on the art of the female orgasm, to learning how to enjoy masturbation remains identical. Authors need to ensure they right in their own words - even when using a reference. MidgleyDJ 21:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All set. Re-worded sentence. Thanks, Midgley!

Merge proposal

On anther note - I think this article should probably be merged with Erotica. MidgleyDJ 21:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with that, other than the war that is going on with this topic - erotica -vs- pornography - what a controversy! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Empowerment2007 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Woman's Erotica Worthy Of Its Own Page?

If the specific nature of woman's erotica can be defined in a way which throws up individual variables that clearly differentiates it's position from Erotica, it does deserve its own spot. It was a forceful genre which spawned in the late 90's, lasted through the early 2000's, but in my opinion is now merging with an expanded definition of erotica...erotica is evolving having swallowed up the women's only genre (just my opinion). Does anybody believe Women's erotica (Specific women's erotica) is a workable or definable niche anymore? Can someone provide a definition other than just "material written for women"? Interested to hear a debate.

- Madison H—Preceding comment was added at 02:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I originally wrote this article last year. I write regularly about women's erotica and strongly feel that it does need it's own article. Porn aimed at straight women is a legitimately different thing than the stuff made for men as it aims to present a female point of view and appeals to female sexuality. Given that the vast majority of erotic content is still made for men, it's worth making a distinction when it comes to erotic material that tries to appeal to females.

I'm also going to re-add the link to my blog as I feel what I write is relevant to this subject. It's the only blog that looks at women's porn from an industry and feminist perspective. Msnaughty (talk) 05:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Ms Naughty[reply]

Revert to earlier version

Hi,

I removed the 3 recently added sections on narrative since they were opinion presented as fact. The notion that women are inherently less visual than men and seek less explicit porn is highly contentious. Furthermore, I found the description of a narrative women might find appealing similar to 'soft porn' in its writing style and inappropriate for wikipedia. I also removed the rather dull and unsexy photograph of a naked guy, described as being visually appealing to women since its blandness allowed women to project their fantasies onto him. Again, this is opinion not fact.

Brightontina (talk) 11:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 I'm also going to re-add the link to my blog as I feel what I write is relevant to this subject. It's the only blog that looks at women's porn from an industry and feminist perspective.
 [[User:Msnaughty|Msnaughty]] ([[User talk:Msnaughty|talk]]) 05:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Ms Naughty
+== Revert to earlier version ==
+Hi,
+I removed the 3 recently added sections on narrative since they were opinion presented as fact. The notion that women are inherently less visual than men and seek less explicit porn is highly contentious. Furthermore, I found the description of a narrative women might find appealing similar to 'soft porn' in its writing style and inappropriate for wikipedia. I also removed the rather dull and unsexy photograph of a naked guy, described as being visually appealing to women since its blandness allowed women to project their fantasies onto him. Again, this is opinion not fact.
+[[User:Brightontina|Brightontina]] ([[User talk:Brightontina|talk]]) 11:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)