Talk:Eroticism

message: I'm not sure where to put comments like this but the link in this article to Physio links to Physical Therapy rather than the philosopical artical (if that exists).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.157.4 (talk) 21:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: So suddenly all my edits are missing and the older page has been reverted back as if nothing had ever happened. That took a lot of time and research, which is frustrating in itself. I've seen this before in other Wiki page edits and lengthy edit wars seem the next step where competing editors trade nasty quips until one gets tired. All my issues with the older article still stand (they're listed on This Article Reads Like Someone's Poorly Constructed Term Paper) I have no idea if any Wiki Editors will read this and since no one bothered to actually comment on why my work as to why none of it survived all I can say is that Wikipedia is poorer for its results. Life is far too short to spend time volunteering to a project that neither respects research nor protects the work intrusted to it. What a waste. Himeyuri (talk) 13:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I did not fully read the two versions; I was simply alarmed by the removal of content so I reverted. I have now restored your version. Keep up the good work. Handcuffed (talk) 00:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the deleted material should be added back though. Handcuffed (talk) 01:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: All My Work Gone?

message: First, most of it seems to be pyscho-babble, with lines like: "Unlike sensuality, which concentrates on the pleasures of the senses, eroticism is concerned with heightening those pleasures, and may involve a delay in sexual gratification to intensify the satisfaction level by extending the period of yearning desire" that are uncited and apparently someone's original research. 
Or, It might seem at first that eroticism is a virtually tranhistorical notion ... what? I know Foucault was all the rage a decade or so ago, but this section seems to be two long quotes full of weasel words that neither explain nor clarify what its trying to say. 
And speaking of psycho-babble, why introduce Bataille here at the exclusion of any and all theorists who have been writing in the last 40-50 years? After stating that Eros was the god of 'heteroeroticism,' (a very limited view indeed) the article makes no reference to what queer/gay/lesbian/bisexual eroticism is. Are we to assume from this article that they don't exist? That in gay eroticism women 'were still more often the object of the artist's or writer's gaze than they were the subjects of their own representing processes? 
And finally, this conclusion that Some [who?] believe defining eroticism may be difficult since perceptions of what is erotic fluctuate well, that's stating the obvious but actually I've never had a problem defining eroticism and pointing out the erotic is fluid and bound by personal tastes, time and culture isn't a problem. I also took down the photo of the bikini model since it wasn't connected to anything in the article other than whoever posted apparently likes objectification.
I'll work on this article but it needs a lot of work and while I agree a Modernist view of eroticism does represent some limited ideas on the subject it certainly isn't the only thing that can be said about it. Himeyuri (talk) 11:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: This Article Reads Like Someone's Poorly Constructed Term Paper

message: Hi,
Could it be possible that eroticism is the feeling and erotica is the representation of eroticism.
In that case eroticism is not an aesthetic.
Can anyone advise?
--Jahsonic 20:17, September 24, 2004 (UTC)
:Are we defining aesthetic as "heightened sensitivity to beauty"?Philosophically then, eroticism is absolutely an aesthetic; erotica, the representation, then produces the aesthetic. (Check the new version.) --User:Ikonoklast910 02:20, February 23, 2006
Aesthetic should rather be defined as a "value which stirs an innate subjective appreciation of beauty". Eroticism is the feeling of excitement and appreciation that results from erotic subjectry or action; hence the aesthetics of erotica. Just an opinion.
- Madison, http://www.theeroticwoman.com  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madison H (talk • contribs) 02:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hello

message: In research papers and academic (peer-reviewed) journal articles I more often see the term erotism rather than eroticism, but my research doesn't lie in this area. Can someone clarify if there is a difference and whether this article should:
# Include references to erotism, e.g. insert something like "(also spelled erotism)"?
# Create a new article on erotism (if it means something different than eroticism)? 
# Change all instances of eroticism to erotism (if erotism is indeed the correct spelling)?
Hope this can be answered using academic and professional (medical) references rather than simply "common usage".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yilangren (talk • contribs) 20:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erotism or eroticism? 

message: To perhaps many's distastes, non-human-origin eroticisms, SHOULD, be on this page , in both a positive and of course negative light, with all kinds of aspects of animal, and further, natures, and of course, not just some evasion , OR, something that would only portray sources from non-human, as a risk, as of control / rape, etc.
many human erotic behaviors are IMITATED from nature, and so original sources OF, them, should be here somewhere.
There's no point in denying it, human,.. 'purists' - it keeps coming back, no matter what you think of... 'it'.
There are in that sense, more than only one... 'it' , ( as dangerous , risky, uncontrolled, etc ) .
Many many sources, that will keep coming back - not just dangerous-beast, etc.  Many loving and whatnot.
Telling the difference between BECOMING more or less than human, and only arousal FROM, while still remaining human, are TWO DIFFERENT issues/topics, not one.  Stop pretending.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vurrath (talk • contribs) 17:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clearly missing non-human arousals 

message: I think that the article needs an image that will be widely accepted as being thought erotic by a wide range of people without being pornographic or, necessarily, hetrosexual. Currently, the article only contains images that may be not be quite so generally thought of. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added Image 

message: LGBT-related Pornographic is a type of Erotic.--2600:1702:4B28:F760:4072:67FB:410C:4BB5 (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[LGBT|LGBT-related]] [[Pornographic]]