Talk:Homoeroticism

message: Is the inclusion of personal letters appropriate to this page? Homoeroticism is defined as a form of cultural expression not necessarily tied to homosexual identity--but love letters of course are about the writer's own relationship and sexuality, not a presentation of a particular form of eroticism to the world. I'm inclined to cut references to letters (although the quotes could perhaps be moved to a lesbian-history page or to a page about Virginia Woolf).
The above note was me logged out, as were the two recent changes to the page.
DanB DanD 18:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  personal letters 

message: This page's introduction presents Michel Foucault's controversial view of sexual identity as if it were fact, and doesn't cite the POV to its source, so I've added an NPOV tag. Dybryd 02:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this problem has been rectified with a quotation that refers to "the tradition of Michel Foucault", this tag is no longer needed. Welland R 13:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV tag

message: I, for one, am confused by the introduction's differentiation between the terms "homoerotic" and "homoeroticism."  Please clarify or delete.  Or, if I'm just a retard, please ignore. --
3/22/07
I think that the author of the article is saying that 'interpersonal homoerotic' describes a quality of a real-life interaction between individuals which is private to them, whereas he defines 'homoeroticism' as a quality inherent in certain works of art, which thereby enters the public domain.  Andrew Smith
Why is the image of St. Sebastian so widely viewed as homoerotic? As I understand the term, homoerotic art means only art suggesting themes of gay/lesbian sexual attraction or sex. This would seem to exclude anything that's a single figure in isolation. Or is this a "male gaze" thing? Octopod (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But, if that's so, who can say of which sex the painter (and/or subject) was lustfully dreaming? Use of this picture in the article is gratuitous and unjustified save in lewd imagination. The given citation seemed to deserve inspection but was found to be inaccessible. Thus, the picture's opinionated caption lacks reliable verification. It and the picture should be deleted unless a much better rationale can be presented. Bjenks (talk) 04:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro: 

message: I would like to comment on the quality of the subheading "in popular culture". There is little linking the ideas together, and use of the word "largely" indicates a vagueness on the subject. Also, the idea that Emo is somehow related to homoeroticism is an opinion rather than a substantiated statement. While there is a link to the article on Emo, nowhere within the Emo article does it state that there would be some sort of connection between homoeroticism and the emo subculture. 221.100.187.166 14:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please suggest some wording that would work. As for the emo connection I agree that it should be clear to any general reader. Benjiboi 01:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''In popular culture''' section issues

message: I'm questioning the statement about defining homoeroticism solely as in terms of a work's likelyhood to arouse the homosexual portion of the audience. The presence of the slash fiction link in the "See Also" section, and the well-known interest of many hetero males in lesbian sexuality would seem to make that statement overly restrictive. There is a not-insignificant heterosexual interest in homoeroticism.   DFDosflores (talk) 02:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attribution of "homoeroticism" by critics 

message: Several sections of this article have been tagged as original or unverified research. Before these tags can be removed, these sections require reputable citations. Queerudite (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the sections. They had been unreferenced since October 2007. Queerudite (talk) 12:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research tags

message: I think that it is interesting to observe that a double standard exists concerning what is considered to be hetero-erotic (or simply erotic), and what homoerotic.  This is very clearly demonstrated by comparing the illustrations on the 'Homoeroticism' page with those on the 'Erotocism' page where explicit scenes of heterosexual coitus are displayed. The examples given here - S Sebastian and Hymen and Cupid seem to me to be completely chaste. The threshold at which a work of art becomes erotic is clearly lower when homosexual liaison is depicted than when the subject is heterosexual in nature.  The origin of this dual standard must be a hyper-sensitivity to homosexuality which arises from society's general disapprobation of homosexuality, and therefore from homophobia.
Re the examples on the Homoeroticism page - I can see that the sculpture of Hymen and Cupid might be of sexual interest to a paedophile. But if this is what constitutes its supposed 'Homoerotic' quality (the paedophile being assumed to be male), then the definition of Homoeroticism, as given (Homoeroticism refers to the representation of same-sex love and desire), is not fulfilled by this supposed example: does the embrace of the two figures represent love and desire ?  I think not.  Like the 'example' of S Sebastian, this sculpture can only be 'homoerotic' if the definition is broadened to include works of art which appeal to, cater for, or arise from a homosexual (or in this case a homosexual-paedophilic) interest.  Perhaps I have found here a more satisfactory definition of the term.  Unfortunately this might be too broad, since Michelangelo's David might now be included.
The illustration of supposed Lesbian sex on the 'Homoeroticism' page might be seen as an interesting counter-example of the dual standard.  But of course this illustration is not strictly an example of homoeroticism.   It is actually an example of a standard genre of heterosexual pornography. It represents a common heterosexual fantasy in which the two women are performing for the benefit of the man, or of the male viewer.  
Overall I am dismayed by the poor quality of this Wikipedia entry.  It is riddled with logical inconsistencies, shallowness of thought, and unacknowledged assumptions and prejudices.
Andrew Smith Feb 2009
: Good post. 186.212.118.15 (talk) 08:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Dual Standard

message: Homo-eroticism is not homosexual depiction. No overt sexual depiction is required for a thing to display eroticism. Do you believe that Freud meant that overt homosexual depictions are a part of the formation of men as social actors? Actual examples of homo-eroticism are more difficult to assert and would surely be disputed as the reality of homo-eroticism's influence can make people feel uncomfortable. Examples given by people other than myself that I will not argue include German cultural phenomenon introduced by Goebbels and the 2006 film "300".74.178.137.190 (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is wrong 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Homoeroticism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070901002221/http://www.glbtq.com:80/arts/subjects_st_sebastian.html to http://www.glbtq.com/arts/subjects_st_sebastian.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Related to religion and the homoerotic attitude of Christian figures, the links may be a little difficult to understand, the example in which User Crossroads mentions should show the heteronormative attitude of the church but I notice that it was not exactly right, I will solve the problems and then it will reappear.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.97.176.89 (talk) 09:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, IP editor, and welcome to Wikipedia (if you haven't been welcomed already)! A couple things: the vast majority of your additions to this page contain significant deviations from Wikipedia editing standards (namely: WP:SYNTH, WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, WP:UNDUE, and WP:FRINGE). As a new user, this is fine and you should not feel deterred! I would encourage you to look into these essays on editing guidelines, as well as the excellent WP:FIVEPILLARS. Unlike other editors, I have not elected to entirely revert your source. However, I can sense that these is a multi-month consensus growing to exclude that material on FRINGE grounds. I think there is a limited possibility this material can be presented, but I am inclined to suggest that we instead introduce a link to Sexuality of Jesus as a "See also" rather than attempt to engage with the subject entirely on this page. Reach out to me on my talk page if you have any more questions! ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion