Talk:Gorean subculture

message: OK, I replaced all the PNGs of the quasi-Gorean symbols with SVGs, and since vector SVGs don't have any "natural" size, this gets around my previous reluctance to unnecessarily resize the PNG's.  So I reduced the size of the images on the Kajira page (and you can reduce them further, if you really want). AnonMoos 07:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: SVG conversion

message: If you bothered to read the books BDSM has nothing to do with the Gorean way of life, it not always consensual and in his writings it is say that BDSM is considered an earth sickness. I been trying to find the quote and when I do I will add it here. so please learn and understand the gorean way of life, it is none consensual where BDSM is consensual. 
pup  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.185.72 (talk) 14:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the original Gor paperbacks were published before the modern BDSM movement even really existed, but Gor does fall within BDSM in terms of Wikipedia categories and classification systems.  If you read the book Imaginative Sex, it might give you a different idea as to how Norman thinks people on planet Earth should live... AnonMoos (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: 2017

message: Say, 24.252.248.82, could you expand and explain your contributions some more?  You added "...(some are concerned these can also be dangerous in the cases of Gorean masters who take more than one kajira).." but without explanation of the danger or who is concerned.  The article could be more informative if you were more verbose on this.  I also think that the sentence would be better put in the second paragraph, where the BDSM style is addressed, but I won't fiddle with that now — I'll give you some time to revise it your own way.  Wyvern 21:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format & composition 

message: Organization again:  The page is accumulating quite a bit of verbiage, almost all referring to Gor fans/Earth Goreans/call them what you will.  Indeed, the Goreans in the Novels section is a tiny stub near the bottom.  I suggest not merely a reorganization of the text but a rethinking of the article's purpose: the Gorean article could refer specifically to Goreans as they exist on Earth, and could point readers to the Gor article for any information regarding the original novels.  This would help reduce the existing ambiguity and allow us more focus on the social phenomena that have spun off from the books.  Comments?  Wyvern 11:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2006 reorganization discussion

message: I understand that you feel strongly that (1) Gor is not just about sex (2) you dislike it to be described as "roleplaying" or "playing sex games" (3) you reject the accusation that the Gorean lifestyle is unmotivated cruelty or sadism.  However, the wording of the article has become so hedged around with qualifiers and defenses against potential accusations, that I'm not sure that it really conveys too much to the uninitiated.  In particular, I'm not sure I understand what "having nothing to do with Masters or slave" is supposed to mean.  Also, while Norman may well have said somewhere that there were 40 free women to one kajira, I don't know that too much emphasis should be placed on this, since there are a number of things elsewhere in the books which would seem to contradict it, and Norman has never really come up with anything remotely approaching a "sustainable consistent long-term demographic model for the population statistics of Gor".  The page could probably be improved by adding the direct perspectives of those trying to live the lifestyle (and/or links to websites containing the same), in addition to abstract discussion. AnonMoos 15:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll probably nibble around the edges a bit, with respect to certain things which I find unsatisfactory, but someone who was actually an adherent of Gorean philosophy or following a Gorean lifestyle, could probably speak with some personal authority about things which I would discuss in the abstract. P.S.  I didn't recognize you at first, since you're using a different name than on Usenet AnonMoos 03:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi, AnonMoos!  Yes, sometimes I'm known by name and sometimes by handle; it's no big deal.  (I'm wondering why there's so little activity on the Gorean newsgroups lately, though; doesn't anyone have anything to say?)  I see you've been busy today; I admit I take a similar approach to editing these articles, tinkering a bit here and there as the inspiration takes me.  Wyvern 11:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Maybe not too clear to ordinary people

message: Most of the secondary stuff has been cleaned up around the edges (at least as far as I'm concerned), and what this article now sorely needs is a solid explanation of what the Gorean lifestyle actually is (as opposed to various explanations of what it isn't).  Unfortunately, I doubt that I can write that section -- I gave the link to Kajira Hill's post, but don't really feel qualified to go too far beyond that. AnonMoos 00:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: It's ready for the next step (which I can't provide)

message: Why is “culture” in quotes (see the last word in the Goreans on the Internet section)? It implies that the author does not consider Gorean culture to actually be culture. Also, why is it capitalised? -- unsigned comment by User:Felicity4711 06:03, 16 February 2006
:Could be a technical term as used within MMORPG SecondLife -- since I know nothing about "MMORPG SecondLife" (whatever that is), I couldn't say.  Anyway, the smartquotes should definitely not be used... AnonMoos 16:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Style manual at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Look_of_quotation_marks_and_apostrophes does not forbid directed quotes. Felicity4711 10:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't have to read too far between the lines to see that smartquotes are pretty much only grudgingly tolerated.  I'm going to post a more technical  explanation on your user talk page, but meanwhile, please ask yourself the following question: Who are you to unilaterally impose smartquotes on this article, if we (the active editors of this page who know something about the specific subject matter) don't want them?? AnonMoos 08:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: &lsquo;Culture&rsquo;

message: Wait a minute, you're the one who changed the whole article to use smartquotes throughout.  Sorry, but that's pretty much a Wikipedia no-no: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Look_of_quotation_marks_and_apostrophes --AnonMoos 16:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Style manual at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Look_of_quotation_marks_and_apostrophes does not forbid directed quotes. Felicity4711 10:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't have to read too far between the lines to see that smartquotes are pretty much only grudgingly tolerated.  I'm going to post a more technical  explanation on your user talk page, but meanwhile, please ask yourself the following question: Who are you to unilaterally impose smartquotes on this article, if we (the active editors of this page who know something about the specific subject matter) don't want them?? AnonMoos 08:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Smartquotes

message: Does anyone have any information on who created this image?  It's been around for years and is used on many sites, but that doesn't actually prove that it is public domain.  Wikipedia requires more information on it than I have.  Can anyone here help? Wyvern 00:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's by Jonrhus http://www.jonrhus.com/gor/ and I bet it's very much not public-domain. AnonMoos 15:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S.  You could use the version in my font, which was loosely roughly inspired by the Jonrhus depiction, but completely redrawn from scratch using fivefold symmetry and circular arcs.  However, this of course hasn't been around for years or widely used among Goreans. AnonMoos 15:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good to me!  Can you upload it for us? Wyvern 11:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Excellent!  And you already patched it into the gallery above, so all I had to do was paste it in and write some captioning text.  How do you like the Symbol section now? Wyvern 11:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Who drew the dina?

message: On 23 Sep 2006, we got this from TwoSpirits: 
::Much has been said about those who choose to live their lives based on the philosophy behind the books written by the pen name John Norman. Most of what is said, verbally or written, is said by those who have preconceived ideas. Real life Goreans live by the tenets of Honor and Respect. We treat each other as well as non-Goreans with dignity. To not do so would be to bring dishonor to our Homes. Goreans hold the Home as almost a sacred thing. We are lumped in with the BDSM crowd online because we live what is considered an alternative lifestyle but most of the behaviors found in that community we find disgusting, bordering on mental illness. Sex has very little to do with our lifestyle (outside of the normal urges between a man and a woman). The slavery issue is also not the defining characteristic of being Gorean. Our women choose to serve their men. Some choose to be Free Women while others choose to serve all Gorean men and call them Master. That is their choice. Even the Free Women will serve a man because it is the natural order of things. No true Gorean abuses his property and one is only called Master by those who choose to serve him. The thing is, there are many different ways to "live Gorean". Some Homes are one man and many slaves. Some are a man and either his free companion and slaves or a man and his "first girl" (head slave) and his "mat and kettle girls", who care for the Home at the direction of the first girl. There are also Christian Goreans as well as Atheists. The Gorean community even has its share of lesbians and gay men, although purist Goreans do not agree about this. I don't walk around calling myself Gorean. I know that Gor does not exist. I am just a man who believes in the Natural Order of life.
Bluntly, I think we can do better.  Much better.  This not not qualify as NPOV or as encyclopedic; rather, it is personal commentary.  There's a place for that, but not in Wikipedia articles, so I've chopped it out.  Wyvern 08:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's anything that can be done here.  Firstly these are all personal anecdotes and not encyclopedic, and secondly it doesn't not appear to be possible to de-POV the concept of the Gorean POV.  I've been asked to provide constructive input rather than just boldly removing the header and therefore my input is that it should be replaced with a section entitled Gorean beliefs as the current section header cannot avoid POV problems. MLA 08:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The personal direct unfiltered experiences and idiosyncratic broad sweeping generalizations are hopeless, but on the other hand (as has been explained before, on your user talk page and elsewhere), this article really needs a section of this type (whether under the name "The Gorean lifestyle from a Gorean point of view" or another name) if it is to become a good article -- since much of the article is now occupied with defining what Goreans are not, and what other people think of them (rather than how Goreans define themselves, and what they actually do).  It's not "PoV" to factually report on how a group defines itself and its beliefs and activities -- many of the religion articles currently on Wikipedia are effectively devoted to reporting the "Christian view of Christianity" and the "Muslim view of Islam", etc. and they aren't labelled "PoV".  "Gorean beliefs" is not adequate, since this section would need to include the Gorean self-definition of what being a Gorean is, as well as the practices which are commonly part of a Gorean lifestyle.  Furthermore, your comment on my user talk page of a "clear POV problem that appears to have been unable to be rectified for at least six months" is a little out of touch, since the section has actually been blank for the majority of that time!  If you want to change the wording of the header out of a desire to improve its wording (understanding why the header is there), then that would be very welcome, but if you're changing it merely out of a simplistic knee-jerk reflex aversion to the words "point of view", one which is not particularly appropriate in this case (since factually and neutrally reporting on the points of view which others hold is not itself "PoV"), then I don't know whether you're really in a very good position to improve the article. AnonMoos 13:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is approximately six months since the POV issue was raised and you have not been able to resolve this during that time and that there is a blank to be written phrasing is in no way helpful.  I suggest that the reason you have not been able to reach a resolution is because the header has been set up in such a way that it explicitly encourages POV additions and makes neutral writing more difficult.  That the rest of the article is about what Goreans are not is not a strong position from which to start, and suggests that the article needs a re-write (which I think it does) rather than the addition of further POV.  Self-perception is not necessarily an encyclopedic addition to an article, and drawing parallels between religion and Gor isn't a direct analogy.  I would suggest that it makes more sense to have a what Goreans are section ahead of the what Goreans are not.  The intro paras discuss Norman's philosophies but there is nothing in this article about how that impacts a Gorean's lifestyle - this is what I would suggest as the Gorean beliefs section and would preclude the need for an inherently POV self-perception section. MLA 16:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, you really have no idea what the heck it is you're talking about...  It's been almost 11 months since I raised the issue of the need for such a section in the article (00:49, 8 December 2005), and nobody who has come along since who actually knows comething about the subject-matter of the article has disagreed with me on that point.   There has been no alleged "overhanging POV issue" on the article for six months, just various attempts by different people to fill in the missing section, all of which were ultimately rejected as being of low quality.  I just now changed the name of the header to "Gorean self-identity", which I regard as being basically the same as "The Gorean lifestyle from a Gorean point of view", except slightly more obscure, and not not including the magical words of mystic occult potency "Point of View" -- which you seem to dread and fear with a primitivistic fetishistic totemistic taboo (whether the words are actually appropriate or inappropriate in any particular context).  Now please run along and go try to work on articles where you are equipped to make a positive contribution...  AnonMoos 20:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: And again...

message: If this story is notable I'm sure there'll be more links from larger papers, but...
This article was linked to by Dagbladet as a source to learn more about Goreans. --Nnp 08:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Times of London took the "Kajira Hill" Usenet post link from the external links section of this article, but didn't bother to cite Wikipedia...  AnonMoos 15:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Kaotians tend to be annoying.  We're unimpressed.  Scott Sanford/Wyvern 09:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: From what I've seen, they exist if you call having exactly two core male members "existing".  Someone who is closely following the foofaraw might be able to say more... AnonMoos 18:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It deserves a mention in this article because it received prominent media coverage in which Goreans were prominently mentioned (even if both Kaotians and Goreans agree that Kaotians are not Goreans).  We can rewrite the article to make it as clear as possible that Kaotians are not Goreans (if you have any good ideas about how to achieve that), but the whole incident is still going to be mentioned...  AnonMoos 15:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We also need to rewrite the article so that the source of "Goreans are not Kaotians" is made clear.  Without citations, the only actual source available is the bbcnews article, which DOES refer to him as a Gorean. Reyemile (talk) 03:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4996410.stm was a relatively good "heat of the moment" news story about the beginnings of the Kaotian affair, but it was written by a journalist who didn't necessarily understand all the fine details of different communities, and the Kaotian saga dragged on for long months after the "mainstream media" had lost all interest, including an appearance by the leader of the group on the British equivalent of the Jerry Springer show, and long forum discussions on the website which was then the official John Norman author website.  The few agreed conclusions of all this foofaraw are relatively well-known to people who care about these things.. AnonMoos (talk) 07:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but 'relatively well known' is not an acceptable wikipedia standard.  Can someone find a source for this, even if it's a Gorean website explaining the differences of something? Reyemile (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know -- it was all originally documented in excruciatingly painful detail in the comments area of the then-official Norman site http://www.worldofgor.com/ , but that area is no longer publicly accessible (see http://www.worldofgor.com/iforum/forum.asp?FORUM_ID=2 ).  Google searching on the words "Kaotians" and "Goreans" turns up a lot of third-hand rehashes of the original BBC article, and I haven't hit upon a search pattern which will single out material useful for our purposes.  What I do know is that if we omit the one single thing which was eventually agreed upon between Goreans and Koatians (that Kaotians are not Gorean), then the article will give a false impression, and we're bound to receive complaints (in fact, "BG T-T-G_uk" already complained directly above). AnonMoos (talk) 02:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: That sentence was obvious semi-vandalism, and I gave it the summary boot.  Anyway, the more prevalent reaction seems to have been that he was a shameless publicity seeker, and that those who take Gorean ideals seriously didn't want him sensationalistically misrepresenting such ideas to the media... AnonMoos (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media links 

message: It might bear mentioning that John Norman, who wrote the Gor books, is rather upset and confused by the very existance of Gorean lifestyle practicioners who sometimes go as far as to refer to his books as "The Scriptures". (I kid you not. Google for "gorean ~scripture" or somesuch.) Zuiram 00:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, they more often call them the "scrolls"... AnonMoos 01:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norman's own views 

message: Somone added the following sentence to the article (but commented-out, so that it wouldn't display):
:
I don't think that this can stand in the article as-is.  First, Magicians is of course not the "latest book" anymore.  And I don't know that Norman's attitude is really "tolerant" as such -- it's certainly true that Magicians shows that if an upper-class male on Gor who is politically influential in his own locality engages in semi-discreet homosexual activities, then in many cases there's not much that anyone can do about it (and a lot of people probably wouldn't care all that much anyway).  But that's different from Norman considering it to be a curable "anti-biological" perversion (which it seems that he does, though he doesn't get indignant about it).  I'm not sure that there's any real reason to mention the subject in this article at all -- if it goes anywhere, it would probably be best under John Norman. AnonMoos 15:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Magicians of Gor sentence

message: I made some links. "Slavery" could link to Slavery or to Domination and submission (BDSM) ("Sexual submission" redirects to that article.) In the context of Gorean lifestylers in the real world, Domination and submission (BDSM) would seem to be the better choice. However, the fictitious cultures of Gor itself practice literal slavery, with people being captured and held (frequently) against their will. (I am not a Gorean, but I assume that this doesn't affect my views on this question.) -- 201.50.248.179 11:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A note on linking "Slavery" 

message: . . . are serious business. Seriously, only on Wikipedia could this sort of nitpicking subjectivity be considered proper encyclopedic content. This whole article should be purged and rewritten. 70.144.168.254 08:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not you particularly respect or esteem either side, it's still a relevant basic fact of Gor fandom that those who try to live out Gorean philosophy in their real lives generally look down their noses at mere on-line chat-room roleplayers... AnonMoos 17:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: That section has been kind of a graveyard of good intentions (as can partly be seen in previous discussions here). AnonMoos (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The word serious, when describing Goreans should be reworded or removed. There are many different opinions on what Gorean is, and to seperate a group by saying they are "serious" implies the other groups that disagree with that view are not serious. Not a very objective word to use. Does anyone have a problem replacing the word serious with the word some? OrionTheWolf (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not particularly attached to the word "serious" itself, but there should be some way of indicating that there's a spectrum of people who might call themselves "Goreans", from those that are having fun in internet chat-rooms (but who might toss the whole Gorean thing aside for "World of Warcraft" tomorrow) to those who are strongly committed to Gorean ideals, and base their lives and relationships around them. AnonMoos (talk) 10:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree again, but there does not seem to be a consensus on what each group of Goreans should be called. The only way I can think of is to include a section on Role Playing Goreans and Lifestyle Goreans, but that is likely to cause an uproar. Let me think on it some. I am just wanting to see the page improved, but when dealing with a alt life sub-culture is difficult. Thanks for your comments! OrionTheWolf (talk) 01:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Serious Goreans"

message: Here's a generic collar icon, but but it's probably not specifically-Gorean enough to be included in this article... AnonMoos (talk)
:It would be, if it had a Kef symbol drawn on it somewhere...  ;) Evening Scribe (talk) 03:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure that a Kef symbol is very frequently included on collars in the Gor books; the typical main purpose of a collar inscription is to identify the owner. AnonMoos (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. For a different collar symbol, probably more appropriate to the Gor page than to this article (Gorean), see Talk:Gor. AnonMoos (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Other graphic

message: Drew an alternative form of the Kef symbol which is not as faithful to the some of the descriptions in the books, but which better depicts the decoratively floral and "open" aspects of the Kef fronds... AnonMoos (talk) 21:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It may not be as faithful but looks great! Looks so good I had my girl marked with it. OrionTheWolf (talk) 01:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I'd be curious to know exactly what design for the Kef Norman originally had in mind when the Gor paperbacks were published, but perhaps it's best to "let the mystery be".  The full range of symbolic shapes I've come up with are in the font (not all such symbols are suitable for upload to Wikipedia / Wikimedia Commons...). AnonMoos (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative kef graphic

message: Honest Q...is there any evidence that this movement or fringe lifestyle or whatever you want to call it is big enough to deserve its own article? Like, is there another press mention that describes it as more than, say, a thousand people or something? No offense to anyone, but based on what I can find with and through the article, the whole thing consists of (the populations of) a couple of message boards. For normal media, there's one police blotter-type article, which features persons who specifically deny being Goreans, so it seemed a weak source in terms of its numbers of actual Goreans (I don't know where those come from). Don't kill me--just askin'--but are you certain this shouldn't just be a couple of sentences in the main article about the books?98.199.228.211 (talk) 07:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Goreans actually punch well above their weight in terms of on-line presence.  It's not that there are one or two on-line message boards, but that there have been dozens of on-line message boards (among other things).  On "Second Life" the Gorean subculture is extremely prominent (some would say infamous).  BDSM people sometimes express the view that there are way too many Goreans infesting general BDSM sites... AnonMoos (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: While the phrase "natural order" only occurs a very few times in the Gor books _(as far as I was able to determine), the phrase "order of nature" in fact seems to occur dozens of times in the books.  I would highly recommend that you use "order of nature" instead of "natural order"... AnonMoos (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Revision (phrases)

message: What on earth is "pockmarking"? Verifiability is a non-negotiable Wikipedia policy - if you think this makes the article looks ugly, then the burden is upon you to find sources, or remove it. A single general tag for the section lacking sources is inapproprate, as there is one source. If you prefer, you could place the single tag Template:Weasel section, but surely more specific references are more helpful to editors, so they know which bits need fixing?
In addition, no explanation is given for reverting my removal of:
because of the frequent lack of a safe word between Gorean master and slave
Which is unsourced, but also unclear, as the argument could be made about BDSMers who don't use a safe word. What is the justification for its reinsertion?
The fact that you think tags are ugly is not a reason to remove them. That it looks ugly should be an incentive to fix the problems! Please do not remove tags until the problems are fixed. Mdwh (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pockmarking is pointlessly and uselessly adding in-line tags to the majority of sentences in a section -- something which in this case serves no observable function with respect to actual practical article improvement, as I previously explained in detail on your user talk page:  If an article section is worthless (with no significant salvageable content), then it should be deleted outright; if it has overall issues, then a tag should be added up at the top of the section (as you also did); and if there are one or two problematic assertions, then they should be tagged in-line -- but redundantly and repetitively adding a large number of in-line tags serves no meaningful useful purpose, as far as I can tell.  The section actually becomes more difficult to edit after you've finished pockmarking it up (which is one reason why I reverted your edits as a block, while leaving the overall tag at the top of the section in place). AnonMoos (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I am not interested in edit warring, I have removed the material altogether as you suggest. If anyone wants to reinsert, they should find sources - or be willing to have it tagged so that other people can find sources. Mdwh (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's rather unfortunate that you were unable to work in meaningful cooperation with others to edit this article, but instead attempted to impose on others a false choice between either you leaving your heavy-handed personal "mark" on the article, or deleting a whole section.  It's hard for me to believe that if you had been motivated purely by a desire to improve the article, then you wouldn't have found some way to validly express your concerns using less than 3 or 4 inline tags per paragraph... AnonMoos (talk) 11:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

text: And what does any of that have to do with the reinsertion of "because of the frequent lack of a safe word between Gorean master and slave"? Mdwh (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did some research on the internet just now, and find many in the BDSM area (non-Gorean) that do not use safewords either. Though I know through personal exposure that not having a safeword is frowned upon, in the five or six different articles I read, I did not find mention of it being frowned upon. I agree the section should be removed, even if it is contrary to my personal exposure, since we cannot find any verifiable source for it. OrionTheWolf (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Back in the early 1990's, when the BDSM ethos was being formulated, I think it was generally pretty much frowned upon (among those who took BDSM seriously) not to have a safeword; but now the whole BDSM thing has broadened and diffused, so generalizations are more difficult these days...  Anyway, BDSM'ers may not always use safewords themselves, but many of them may still find the lack of safeword use among Goreans to epitomize what they most dislike about the whole Gorean thing.  I never said that snobbish disdain was always strictly consistent and logical...  AnonMoos (talk) 11:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: The kaotian leader mentioned in this article now has a blog at http://www.fatbuddhablog.com  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.147.227 (talk) 10:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I went to that site using a simple browser with advanced features and plugins disabled, as I frequently do (since it's convenient for quickly checking a site out), and couldn't tell that it was him.  Don't feel like bothering to investigate any further... AnonMoos (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kaotian leader now has video blog 

message: Is it pronounced Gorean as in Korean or Gorean like Corey-in?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.66.98 (talk) 09:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The usual way to pronounce it would be [ɡɔrɪən] or [ɡɔriːən] (depending on how traditional "short i" vowels before another vowel, or at the end of a word, are pronounced in your dialect).  This would rhyme with the usual pronunciation of "Korean".  I really don't know what pronunciation is intended to be indicated by "Corey-in", so I can't say anything about that. AnonMoos (talk) 07:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. If you were actually mainly asking about stress position, then I missed that, sorry.  "Korean" is of course pronounced with stress on the second syllable of three.  I'm not sure whether it would be more common to pronounce "Gorean" with stress on the first syllable or second syllable.  Among non-fictional words, "Caribbean" is pronounced with both penultimate and antepenultimate stress by different speakers... AnonMoos (talk) 23:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation