Talk:Ars Amatoria

message: I brushed up a little for you guys. 
There is still a massive amount of work to be done.
My editing skills are but average, so that's why you'll need to edit quite a bit until it's perfectly polished.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.199.17.123 (talk) 14:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral, informative point of view

message: Is it needful to say that the topic of the books is '(heterosexual) love and sex'? I know that it may not be politically correct, but heterosexuality is the unmarked form when referring to such things. It would only be notable to say if the books were about homosexual love and sex. I will make the changes. Oswax 07:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, since the other love poets conventionally include homoerotic material, though Ovid's "damning" is really not that. (Martial was not Ovid's contemporary, BTW.) I don't think he actually condemns homosexuality per se. It's simply his personal preference, and has a political dimension in that in Latin love poetry, the object of same-sex love among men was invariably a boy, and the relationship was quite unequal and often plainly exploitive, as the "boy" most often would've been a slave. So Ovid's affirmation of heterosexual love, as he explicitly states, is that real pleasure comes from loving an equal, not from using sex to express a domination paradigm. This is radical not only because of a distaste for power inequality (which is one of the ways in which Ovid may be viewed as expressing republican sympathies contra the new regime of the first emperor Augustus), but because he regards women as equals in the erotic relationship. Remember that this is the work that according to tradition (if not reality) got him exiled, in part because it encouraged women to be sexually independent. The IP is wrong to say that "it meant both," and is bafflingly wrong to say that homosexuality was not "accepted" in the 1st century BC, though homoeroticism was no longer idealized as it was in Classical Greece. It's a complicated issue that would get us off the subject here, since Ovid is not prescribing for same-sex relations. Though presumably many of his "tips" for seduction would work, to the extent that they work at all. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gay couples 

message: Why did this book cause Augustus to banish Ovid? Was it too pornagraphic? Was it offensive? I don't understand.  Celsiana 00:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Banishment?

message: It's not considered acceptable to quote enormous chunks of text as is being done in this article, the book needs to be moved to Wikisource or wikibooks.  --Xyzzyplugh 14:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't move to Wikisource until the translator is identified.  This may be a violation of the translator's coyright.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Hey! This is the only article in wikipedia written by Ovid. Rintrah 22:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The book doesn't belong in this article

message: I'm just a guest here on wikipedia, but I'm pretty sure that there is something wrong with the "content" section of the article. It is highly opinionated; the whole section is full of phrases that make it seem as though it was taken completely out of a review regarding the book. This page needs one of those boxes that informs readers that the page is highly opinionated (I apologize for not knowing the technical term). Please deal with this issue.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.54.101 (talk) 22:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, this section is written very oddly and should be rewritten in a more impartial tone. It’s also hard to parse at times- it should be more straightforward. Can someone familiar with this work please rewrite it? 2601:182:C00:10E0:2985:1FE7:FD28:8417 (talk) 03:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content section is highly opinionated. 

message: "Ovid hardly offers lore of great potency to his eager disciples," the article states. This is really down to how you interpret the "lore", and I do not think Wikipedia should be a text critic! There are many passages in this text that even the lovers of today may learn a great deal from! As for "brushing the dust off her gown" - this is simply a great way to instigate touch, without it being seen as impromptu. And being able to make a woman accept your touch is one of the first hurdles a lover must overcome. Thus I don't think it's bad advice at all! --Kebman (talk) 00:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: About the potency of the text

message: In accordance with the above comments, I've added a POV template to the content section of this article. I will attempt to work on it myself, but it's going to need the eyes of more than one editor to attain neutrality. Amphy (talk) 20:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV dispute

message: I've finally started working on cleaning up the POV issues with this article. I could use some help, and I'd love if we could utilize some of the content from The Art of Love section on Ovid. I think we can also pull some sources from that page to help solidify info on Ovid's exile in relation to the Ars amatoria, as well as content on his meter (elegiac couplet) and his genre (love elegy). Perhaps we can also add some info on the preceeding Amores and Ovid's development of Ars amatoria from that. I am rereading my library's abridged version of The Art of Love but someone more familiar with the elegy is welcome to take a crack at this article. Amphy (talk) 03:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Finally working on NPOV

message: The lead currently states "It is about teaching basic Gentlemanly male and female relationship skills and techniques", which is not supported by the text. Gentlemanly, as defined in the wiki link is "good, courteous conduct". Ovid takes a cynical view of love and encourages making false promises ("If you are wise, practise deceit on women alone, for that you may do with impunity..."), adultery ("Be courteous to her husband too. Nothing could better serve your plans than to be in his good graces.") manipulation ("Tears, too, are a mighty useful resource in the matter of love"), trickery ("Let him think there's someone else with whom he has to share your charms. Some such tricks as these are needed"), and other dishonest actions which are the opposite of Gentlemanly. That word should be removed for inaccuracy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by NastyBrutishAndTall (talk • contribs) 23:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead and Body Issues 

message: The Body starts off with "The Ars amatoria can be called a burlesque satire on didactic poetry." Why is this considered burlesque satire, when the book was apparently written in earnest? Its seems odd to call it that without any verifiable citation. 
Also, the book doesn't seem to match the definition of burlesque satire, which is defined in Resolution of the Debate in the Medieval Poem The Owl and the Nightingale, by Karen M. Gasser as "satire which diminishes its object through incongruous imitation." 
("As Chiron was to Achilles, so I am to Cupid"—in other words, "I pacified the wild Cupid") - The first quote here is from the Art of Love, but where is the second quote from? It's not in my version of Art of Love.
Finally, the excepted quotes are presented without context as to the whole work. 
Any issues with me doing some serious editing in regards to the above issues? NastyBrutishAndTall (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Body 

message: The article states that the Ars amatoria was written in the year 2 AD, but the infobox says that it was published (ca.) 1 BC, which is three years before it is supposed to be written. 87.189.157.138 (talk) 13:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publishing Date 

message: The paragraphs on the exile of Ovid and its relation to the writing of Ars Amatoria are highly opinionated, violating WP:IMPARTIAL, using terms such as "It is more probable that" and "it is hardly likely that" to describe the dispute. untitled 21:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV disputed (still)