Talk:Women's erotica

[Untitled]

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)

I am having 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)

Copyright

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

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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

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

Even if "Women's Erotica" *was* a passing fad as a genre, passing fad genres are worthy of note. However, if you don't think that there isn't still a market and a nitch, you obviously haven't been in the right parts of the internet. Women's Erotica is usually a quiet genre, as it were, and if you don't know the right places to look you'll likely never know it exists. IsaacSapphire (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

Twilight

The addition of the Twilight series should probably be added under fiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.254.55 (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there a RS that calls it "women's erotica"? Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be my opinion that the Twilight series fits more into the realm of "romance". It's my understanding that there is no actual sex in those books.

I originally wrote this Wikipedia article as an attempt to define women's erotica as sexually explicit material aimed at women. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.76.159.122 (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC) By: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msnaughty (talk • contribs) 23:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there any reason why women's erotica has to be defined as 'sexually explicit' material aimed at women? I would've thought 'material aimed at women that intends to sexually arouse' would be more accurate to "women's erotica", rather than the explicit subgenre(?) often called Femporn. Although under my definition Twilight wouldn't count either unless someone can find a ref in which the author talks about her intention to sexually arouse women. Which seems unlikely given what is known of said author.Shapeofdolls (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

What is the line between romance and women's erotica? The 'hotter' romance lines are at least somewhat pornographic in detail, with some publishers seeming to see no difference between a long, plotty piece of erotica and a smutty romance. I'm in agreement with the definition of "material aimed at women intended to sexually arouse" partly because it seems slightly less a matter of opinion than deciding what counts as "sexually explicit material". IsaacSapphire (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Links

So, exactly what is Wikipedia's official stance on links or website names then?

This page is unable to give a decent amount of information on the topic without mentioning websites or giving links. These, however, seem to be quickly edited out. I notice that there are currently two links in the "External Links" section that could be considered to be commercial. The links I originally added in my first edit were removed and considered to be spam. If The Erotic Woman and Oysters and Chocolate can be in the external links, why not all the other free adult sites for women or my own blog at MsNaughty.com which constantly discusses the issue of Women's Erotica (which has been removed from the post)? Can we talk about what links do get to make the grade without being considered spam? Msnaughty (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The best places to look are WP:EL, WP:Spam, and WP:RS. The page can give a "decent amount of information" by sourcing its statements with reliable sources. Websites that do not meet RS reqs are not going to provide information we can add to the article. Websites that are fairly good, but not up to RS standards, can be linked in the EL section. Personally, I'd say Oysters and Chocolate is too commercial. It should be removed. The Erotic Woman is questionable. I'd also remove Jane's Guide. The thing is, ELs are supposed to give information about the page's topic. They're not supposed to try to sell you things. People are not supposed to add their own sites to promote them. Moreover, WP isn't a link farm. We don't need, we don't even want, long lists of ELs at the bottom of a page. And the EL guidelines clearly discourage linking to blogs. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that Jane's guide is easily good enough to be linked. It's old, informational and doesn't sell anything too badly. --Zache (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I won't throw a fit if it's included, but I still don't think it ought to be. It has reviews of other websites, from a woman's perspective. I just don't think that meets the "what ought to be linked" ideals. It isn't commercial, you're right, but I don't think it is pertinent enough to be included. I'd say the relevant part of the links to be considered is #4: "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." In my interpretation, reviews of websites through the lens of women's erotica is not information about the subject of women's erotica from knowledgeable sources. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, i guess that it has done it reviews etc.. "through the lens of women's erotica" over ten years make it also more or less knowledgeable source least in the context of the external links. :) --Zache (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

OK I'm now going to go in and remove the Oysters, Erotic Woman and Jane's Guide links. There are numerous other sites that could be considered equivalent to those sites and if we can't link them all, then we shouldn't link to any. I consider myself to be an expert on this topic but Wikipedia doesn't, so no link for me either. Msnaughty (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Filament magazine and categorising magazines as in publication and now defunct

Two issues from discussion: I note that Filament magazine has recently been removed from the section "Other women’s erotica magazines include" - what was the reason for this? I also suggest categorising the magazines here into in publication and defunct. What do people think? Shapeofdolls (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to do this since no one seems to have an issue with it. There is now a lot more media around about Filament magazine so I think it deserves an include on this page. Shapeofdolls (talk) 14:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

History, Slash, Non-western Cultures, Lesbianism, and Overlap with Gay Porn

I'm rather surprised to see no mention of slash fiction or yaoi. Although neither are precisely mainstream (but nothing catering to women's sexual wants and needs is), they are both well-known within their respective circles (fandom and anime fans respectively). Newtype (magazine) USA (a major anime magazine) had a centerfold in every issue that was usually of a female character, but on at least one occasion featured two male characters disheveled and in a suggestive situation that was clearly intended to be for the benefit of the female readers, as the letters section later reflected (the characters from GetBackers, if you were wondering). Fanfiction.net and AdultFanfiction.com are both filled with thousands of examples of amateur erotic writing by women for the amusement of other women. Livejournal and other journal sites are similarly rife with erotic, female oriented fanfiction.

On art hosting sites such as Deviantart there is similarly a massive amount of visual material (drawings, paintings, CG images and so on) intended for the enjoyment of women, usually involving depictions of unclothed males or suggestive touching, partly because more explicate works are often censored (even when male-oriented works are not. In some cases female nudity is so common as to be not worth mentioning but even "artistic male nudity" is forbidden. Double standard anyone?)

I mentioned yaoi above. Yaoi is a Japanese phenomenon (not to imply that there aren't lots of other flavors of female audience directed explicit material made in Japan). This article is currently painfully Western in focus and would greatly benefit from the addition of some non-western (or heck, even some non-Anglo, although there's at least a little of that already.

Also, all the examples in this article are quite recent, with the Cosmo nude centerfold of 1972 being the earliest thing mentioned, but the vast majority is from the nineties or oughts. Surely there are earlier examples that should be added? (early slash would definitely count, as it came into prominence with Classic Trek.)

Also, the link for "lesbian erotica" currently leads to "lesbianism IN erotica", which is a much different thing than erotica FOR lesbians. At this point, I think that ANY erotic material targeting women as the audience should fall into this article, regardless of the sexes of the people depicted. I know that lesbian groups in the seventies (I think I've got the era right) made some films intended for enjoyment by lesbian women. If I find the references I'll add the info.

At this point, the vast majority of photographs that I see being recommended to women as depicting sexually desirable men in attractive ways are either fashion photographs (often fashion photography that originally was run in gay magazines I might add), some celebrity photographs, and select gay porn. The overlap goes the other way as well a bit, with English language editions of yaoi being marketed to gay men and there seems to be an influx in gay male influence in the style of the works put out by Yaoi Press, even though it ostensibly produces "English language original yaoi". IsaacSapphire (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I personally think that a mention of Slash, Yaoi and FanFic illustration and photography is relevant and significant here, however, their written forms aren't 'women's erotica' as this article defines it.Shapeofdolls (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Cancel that - I didn't check - the page does actually refer to fiction so yeah, definitely slash, yaoi and other man-on-man stuff seems as relevant as some of the commercial publishers mentioned.Shapeofdolls (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I also think that Lesbian erotica is worthy of its own page, or at least a section on this page. There are actually currently as many examples of lesbian erotica magazines in print world, and websites (On Our Backs and Slit magazines, the Cyber-dyke portal) as there are genuine examples of erotica for heterosexual women (most of it is simply re-packaged gay or straight porn).Shapeofdolls (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Syzygy Mag is another thing that it's difficult to classify here without a reference to slash and yaoi, it being a man-on-man publication for women. Although they haven't released their first issue yet, so I'm not sure if they qualify as an 'in print' women's erotica magazine yet.Shapeofdolls (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Purve website (+Ladylynx +Kara's Links)

While processing the Italian translation of this article, I couldn't find any reference about this issue.

Any suggestion?

Thanks in advance. Filippof (talk) 11:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

PS, the same consideration should be expressed about Ladylynx, as well as Kara's Links.

Teens' Love as Womens Erotica

I would suggest, Teens' Love to add in anime and manga. The Other Karma (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Seminar in Human Sexuality

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 4 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Msoto6 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Zy175311460 (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)