Talk:Kama Sutra/Archive 1

message: Oops! I couldn't understand, how this could be FAC...--Rrjanbiah 04:57, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean? --ganesh 15:46, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: template removed 17:32, 12 July 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant that this article is not complete enough to get featured status. Also, no one did nominate it. --Rrjanbiah 04:09, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured article?

message: can we invite someone from anthropology pages to write/add some context?! Autumnleaf 16:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  anthropology pleeeze! 

message: Although I found this article to be very informative, I think it would be appropriate to place some sort of warning message about the sexual nature of the material. Particularly the image titled , "Anonymous artist from Rajahstan around 1950 Oil on cardboard 12 x 18 cm". I do not believe that image is appropriate for ALL ages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.67.128 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 2 February 2006
:Then you will be shocked by Bondage (BDSM). How about Prince Albert piercing? Wikipedia is not censored for minors. However, if you are serious about your idea I suggest you discuss it on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). --BorgQueen 19:55-20:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  sexual content warning message? 

message: The burton edition has 36 chapters but this includes an introduction which I think is by Burton and not part of the original text. I may be mistaken. How many chapters do other translations have? I only have the Burton/Arbuthnot translation. --Richard Clegg 21:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the Danielou translation, and it has 36 chapters including the introduction chapter, but it is clearly of the original document, not Danielou's - since he lists his own introduction separately. --BorgQueen 21:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, thanks, I just wanted to be sure. --Richard Clegg 22:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many chapters 

message: Is it a Hindu text? Is it accepted or marginal within Hinduism? The Vātsyāyana page describes him as belonging to the Carvaka school, which is contrasted to Hinduism. This is at odds with decsriptions elsewhere on the web. Any thoughts appreciated. ntennis 00:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Role of the Kama Sutra in Hinduism? 

message: Hi everyone. Cool page. Am using it to help write a talk. Thanks. I made some edits today and would like to make more if I have time. Hopefully I can convince my fiancee who is much more qualified to do the same. The page has some nice stuff on it but is I would say still at around B quality b/c there are a lot of POV problems (I fixed some up in the first paragraph) and the informtion is inconsistent. Thanks for having me and hope I can help. Isouweine 02:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hello" 

message: The inclusion of chapter titles is unnecessary because the entire English tranlation is available as a link at the bottom of the page.  The chapter titles do not correspond to Burton's translation and thus are not supported by WP:RS.  Many of the individual chapter titles seem to invite vandalism edits by adolescents,a and removing them will reduce vandalism.  Also, the practice of giving this level of detail for the contents of books is not consistent with Wiki practice for most other books.  There is more detail on this book than we have for the Rig Veda, for example.  There is a disproportionate focus by the vandals on these details. Buddhipriya 21:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why not. --BorgQueen 21:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was asked for my opinion but I really just tidy stuff up and remove vandalism. However, if after 4 days no one has objected then I say go for it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I will remove the chapter titles and check the remaining section titles against the Burton translation. Buddhipriya 21:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I looked in the edit history and I have not edited that article recently. I don't know much about  Kama Sutra and would only edit such an article if I saw obvious spam. But I would agree with the post above that says if no one objects, remove them. It sounds like you have a good reason for doing so. Sincerely,  Mattisse 21:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chapter titles can be removed 

message: :Image:Kama Sutra 2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Kama Sutra 2.jpg

message: Suggestions for external links:
<spam removed>
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.228.248.102 (talk • contribs) 11:30, June 10, 2007 (UTC)
: Amazing, the endless human fascination with the sexual act. I think somewhere there is a pop-up Kama Sutra in book form. Maybe there should be a Wikipedia page for bizarre spin-offs from the Kama Sutra. Rivergod 14:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is an example of linkspam inserted on a talk page. I am going to modify the links so they do not result in clickable links. I think this spam should be completely removed and request other editors to do so if they agree. Please consider joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam to help with fighting linkspam of this type. Buddhipriya 18:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I removed the links above. Even listing them on the talk page can be considered spam. Adding those links here means they are still being advertised, though less overtly. GizzaDiscuss © 08:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions for external links

message: The Kama Sutra has spawned a whole kitsch industry, witness the hundreds of titles available on Amazon and the endless bizarre and lame websites with poses, paintings, sculptures, videos, animations... Why human beings are so obsessed with sex beats me, but the evidence is there. So why not have a separate article to cover this phenomenon? Then this article could confine itself to Vatsyayana's text and translations and all the people with erotic websites and the like could find a happy home elsewhere.Rivergod 13:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hive off a separate article about the Kama Sutra spin-off industry 

message: The Kama Sutra is famous for its graphic depiction of a wide range of sexual images. Can someone please add some of the original images to this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.203.235.207 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 10 July 2007
: You missed three words after famous (in the West) and mistakingly added an extra word before description (graphic). There aren't pictures in the Kama Sutra. Nor it is primarily a pornographical treatise. It is about kāma, which translates as love or desire. And one and only one aspect of love is sexual pleasure, which is the part Burton was most obsessed with. GizzaDiscuss © 10:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are no pictures in the Kama Sutra? Then why does this page link to the images on wikimedia? I've added a couple to the article itself, because I was expecting them to be here. If I'm wrong and there are no images, then please revert. 172.203.235.207 10:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, there were no pictures in the original Kama Sutra, similar to how there are no pictures in novels like Harry Potter. These paintings came afterwards, they weren't made at the time the Kama Sutra was written. That doesn't mean we can't have images. We should however clarify this point. For example, rather than saying "Typical image from KS," it is better to say "Graphic representation of one of the sexual techniques in the KS, painted in the 1?th century." I don't think there were any pictures of Jesus in the original Bible (there still aren't any) but I've bet you've seen a painting of Jesus. It is comparable to that. GizzaDiscuss © 22:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The fascination with sexual activity is apparent.  This is an example of giving undue weight to the small portion of the Kama Sutra that pertains to sexual matters.  As Gizza points out, the Kama Sutra is not an illustrated work. Buddhipriya 23:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would be nice if the article explained that, I imagine it's a common misconception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.159.69.47 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 12 July 2007
Some manuscripts of Kamasutram were illustrated. I have seen an Oriya palm leaf version in the Oriental Reading Room at the British Library. This of course would have been far later than the original, but as no contemporary manuscripts survive it is impossible to say whether the earliest versions of the text in its present form were or were not illustrated. The descriptions of standing postures as "chitraratha" suggests that such poses were used in art, or at least sculpture. Also, while I agree that the whole of Kamasutram does not pertain to narrowly sexual matters, the sexual content, seen as a crucial part of marriage, is clearly the heart of the treatise. The book attempts to describe and explain the whole relationship between a man and woman who are or could be, sexual partners. There is nothing about motherhood, children or other family matters. The man is not counselled in how to deal with his mother in law, or elderly female relatives. Even love, as understood in the west, is absent. There is nothing remotely sacred about the text and given some of its manipulative and immoral instructions and recommendations, it cannot be called spiritual. Like the Arthashastra (and like Machiavelli) it assumes that the end justifies the means. As instruction it is pedantic to the extreme. One has only to compare Ovid to see how banal and insipid are Vatsyayana's sutras. Nevertheless it is an interesting and quaint old text, of which I am thoroughly fond. It is a real pity that it has to be the subject of a tug of war between those who want it to be an ancient sex manual and those who want it to be spiritual. No one it seems is willing to allow it to be what it actually is. The result is a poor article that exemplifies the weakness of the Wikipedia method. Rivergod 14:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not think there is anything "sacred" about the text, which is classified among the group of Indian literature that pertains to mundane matters.  As the article explains, sexual content is only a small part of the work, but many people are fascinated by that aspect.  People can find pictures of sexual activity elsewhere, they do not need to see them here. Buddhipriya 04:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh I thoroughly agree with you. Kama Sutra mania has spawned a vast industry of culturally-sanitised pornography which I've suggested elsewhere should have its own page as an interesting phenomenon, rather than intrude here. Rivergod 07:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Kama sutra is really good, nothing mania etc, it deserves what it gets. Maybe you haven't read properly. Lara_bran 04:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures

message: True, kama sutra was not illustrated. But that certainly does not mean there should be no images in this article. Only point is positions should be one that is described in kama sutra. It is quite acceptable to add images to this article, but while doing so make sure to give proper caption that links with kama sutra. Thanks. Lara_bran 03:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I disagree. And I believe that there is a consensus that both old and modern images which have been associated with the Kama Sutra are not appropriate for this article. IPSOS (talk) 03:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please dont talk about past consensus, give a valid reason instead. This is wikipedia article, we are not replicating kama sutra. In caption of the image we clearly write kamasutra was not illustrated. I did not reinsert your removal because i was not sure if that position in the image was described in kama sutra. Lara_bran 03:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There have been regular attempts to insert pictures of sexual activity on this page, all of which have been rebuffed since the cleanup effort on this article took place.  You will notice that there have been at least two insertions of new sexual material in the past two days.  This constant sexual vandalism is one of the problems that we addressed with the prior cleanup effort, which included removal of the unreliable Burton list of sex activities, which were a magnet for vandalism. Buddhipriya 04:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Vandalism is not a valid reason, me telling again. I think its obvious, you want me to explain why its not a valid reason? It is uncensored encyclopedia, anything notable is mentionable, we cant refrain by fear of vandalism. And mind you that pic addition was a good faith edit. Lara_bran 04:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you will find that consensus is against you. You really should read WP:CON. Not all consensus is achieved by a vote or a poll or even discussion. When you can't get your changes to stick, you can be sure that consensus is against you. IPSOS (talk) 04:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, IPSOS for making that comment.  The remark "When you can't get your changes to stick, you can be sure that consensus is against you" is a good way of saying the idea I was trying to document with the prior consensus of this article being that the section detail should not be included.  The prior consensus was reached by posting in advance my proposal to remove the detail.  After three editors agreed that it could be removed, and not a single editor argued for its inclusion, I removed the detail.  That removal did stick (showing consensus for the removal) until Lara inserted specifically the sexual detail with no prior discussion.  Thus her insertion of the material now has the force of overturning the prior consensus, with no support yet given for it by any other editor.  That is why I feel that the status quo ante should remain in the article until such time as a new consensus has been demonstrated on the talk page (that is, the section details should remain out).  Buddhipriya 04:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  about recently added image 

message: Of 36 chapters 10 chapters(of part 2) deal with what is done inside bedroom. part 3 4 5 6 deal with acquiring a female. part 7 deals with improving attraction and desire. As for "small portion" sentence, you people are synthesising sources.WP:SYN. With recent added source(indra) write as "KS is not sex manual nor religious text", that is called writing by source. If you derive something from that statement then it is called WP:OR, to be precise WP:SYN. Thanks. Lara_bran 05:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So far, of the changes made on 24 August, almost 100% of the edits have been reverts of someone else's work. I think this is a sign that agreement on principles should be made on the Talk page. The strategy of incremental edits is not working. I agree with Lara Bran that the claim that "a small portion of the work deals with human sexual behavior" needs to be sourced, and such a phrase does sound like a POV effort to play down the sexual aspects. (Why is it up to us to estimate the percent of sexual content, unless a scholar has written about that exact issue?) Also if distorted conclusions are being drawn due to Burton's translation, then that fact needs to be sourced as well. (The reference to Burjor Avari's comment that the translation is 'inadequate' doesn't shed much light). Until these matters are addressed, I don't see how inserting the chapter headings can be judged as good or bad. EdJohnston 16:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This web site does not seem to be usable as a WP:RS as it looks like just a personal site. Please review WP:EL as well. Buddhipriya 06:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree there is misconception, but to avoid WP:SYN im changing sentence. We dont derive something out of another thing, unless we find similar sentence from a source. You are welcome to give any source stating same thing, im only against WP:OR, but not strict in WP:RS. Thanks. Lara_bran 04:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lara removed a small portion of the work deals with human sexual behavior, but I'm not convinced by the replacement she provided, about it being neither a sex manual nor a religious text. It's a bit early to be refuting misconceptions; just get on with the story. How about, a portion of the work deals with human sexual behavior, instead of a small portion? EdJohnston 05:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I also note that Lara continues her edit war on this. The suggestion to omit the adjective "small" may be an acceptable way to adjust the language, but the issue that needs expansion is that the mis-characterization of the work as a sex manual. I think the best course would be to continue to locate additional references that support the point that the work in total is not a sex manual, but instead is a a book of manners for a well-to-do urban elite male. The citation to Avari can be expanded to elaborate on this issue. I have placed a copy of the Doniger translation on order so I can check what she says about the Burton translation, but it may take a week for the book to make it via interlibrary loan. Buddhipriya 06:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  It is wrong statement, it is synthesised(WP:SYN) from some other statement. "a portion of work" is very fine, and not WP:SYN. You know where do you state, where give undue weight etc are secondary crimes, wikipedia article expands by part by part. Lara_bran 05:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This removed "small" is quite fine with me. But please note that inline citation provided does not match with sentence. You can keep this sentence without that or any citation. Lara_bran 08:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmmmmmmmmmmm I sometimes wonder --P-BOY 04:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  small portion of kama sutra 

message: I am unsure if the web site used to source this edit is usable: . While it appears to be by the author of a book which we currently cite, I am not sure about policy in this type of like. Can the material be found in the book by that author? Buddhipriya 07:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indra Sinha (it's his website) is clearly an expert on the subject. I am not going to get involved in the endemic edit warring from which this article has suffered. — Athaenara  ✉  07:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not disputing Indra Sinha as a WP:RS. I am asking for clarification on policy regarding use of a personal web site for sourcing in a case such as this. You will note I did not remove the citation, I am merely trying to be sure that we are within policy guidelines in using it. Buddhipriya 08:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  See this [Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper)]. A website maintained by an expert in the subject is usually ok as long as it is not used to support a redflag or potential libelous content - so I think the Indra Sinha reference is acceptable in this instance. Abecedare 08:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for that policy link, which is clearly relevant. In part it says: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." Note the mention of caution. Can you please look at the detailed formatting of the reference and ensure that it follows correct formatting for a web reference of this type? Buddhipriya 08:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Web site as a [[WP:RS]] 

message: Dispute on whether to give detail of contents about the book. Proposed content: see above 08:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comments 

message: Article clearly misguides since it details a section about only 1 chapter of Kama Sutra in one whole section namely Pleasure and the spiritual life. But all other parts are hidden from user. It is clearly misleading. Also images are removed, stating that Kama Sutra was not illustrated, but an article describing that can have images. All these are clear attempt to mislead, or deprive audience of correct picture. Also please note User:Buddhipriya's comments in above sections, his contempt for Kama Sutra itself, and he had been cutting down the article since 6 months. The disputed content is not new content, but it was cropped off by perticular user. Content puts clear picture about structure of the book, and very essential, hence it should be included. Lara_bran 08:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement  by {{User|Lara bran}} 

message: I think the well-cited encyclopedic information that Lara wants included is absolutely necessary. Without it the article is severely lacking in comprehensiveness. Including info that properly summarizes the content of the text and refers to the interpretations of such important figures such as Burton is vitally important. As to the image issue. Whether images were included in the original or not is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not censored, and including images is a part of every good encyclopedic article. We can included a few images without veering into how-to guide territory. There are many historical and artistic representations of related subjects, and Kama Sutra content. VanTucky (talk) 04:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by {{User|VanTucky}} 

message: I support the inclusion of additional material as recommended by Lara Bran. For instance, I support the retention of the material removed here. It's unfortunate that there has not been a very collegial spirit here on the Talk page, so it has not been easy to see whether a consensus has been emerging. Without doing a detailed study, it seems to me that the July, 2007 versions of this page have been shrunk and reduced compared to the version of one year ago, and that some of that material probably needs to be restored. Discussion on specific items should continue. If a truly balanced summary could be written, it might be possible to drop some of the chapter descriptions. If no fair summary can be agreed on here, I guess we could keep the chapter descriptions in the interim, because they are objective evidence of some of the book's contents. EdJohnston 15:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by {{user|EdJohnston}} 

message: I oppose the continued edit warring and WP:OR by Lara Bran.  The article should rely primarily on citations to secondary WP:RS rather than recapitulating a table of contents.  The inclusion of sexual activity in images gives WP:UNDUE weight to that aspect of the book, which is a mischaracterization of its contents.  The ongoing depiction of this work as a sex manual is an insult to the work, and reflects failure to read the analysis of the work given by reliable sources on its actual place as a work of Sanskrit literature.  The mis-characterization of this work is likely to continue so long as WP:OR is permitted to be included here. Buddhipriya 21:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by {{user|Buddhipriya}}  

message: I echo most of Buddhipriya's concerns. Nobody is talking about WP:CENSORing all the sexual-related info on the Kama Sutra, but giving it WP:UNDUE weight according to WP:RS transforms the article into WP:OR. Burton's commentary and translation are added only because of notability, not on accuracy. GizzaDiscuss © 12:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by {{User|DaGizza}} 

message: There should be no images presenting the details, but, everything else can be in. There should be no problem pointing out the detailed contents of the literature.  BalanceΩrestored Talk 10:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by {{User|BalanceRestored}} 

message: I feel there is scope for both content summary and chapter names. Article is currently short and needs to be expanded. Lara_bran 03:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are still adding WP:OR.  It is your personal analysis of what the work contains.  It is not based on anything that has been said about it by a WP:RS.  You also have failed to reply to the issues raised by Abcedare regarding the fact that the purpose of WP is to quote WP:RS regarding what the book means, not simply to try to recreate the table of contents.  I continue to urge complete removal of even the list of contents that was in the article prior to the start of these changes. Buddhipriya 04:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It doesn't appear to be original research to me, given that the summary and contents are cited to reliable sources.  --Haemo 04:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have changed proposed content 4 times, and the last version has seen consensus to include. Anybody may expand contents section below for summary. Lara_bran 10:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content-summary Vs chapter-name Vs both 

message: Since wikipedia is not censored images can be posted. Also, kama sutra may not be illustrated, but we can write that in image caption itself. There are many images in commons media. Thanks. Lara_bran 04:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  images 

message: I think wiki should not be used as an advertising tool to promote sales of any books. There is a section named "Translations" which is primarily showing the front cover of a book. I propose this section to be entirely removed. BalanceΩrestored Talk 10:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Translations

message: Well, this page looks more like Sir Burtons Table-Of-Content, I did feel that it was wrong to not to discuss the content of the book. But, I don't think Sanskrit texts are ordered this way. BalanceΩrestored Talk 11:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is translation not review, see another translation by Wendy Doniger ( book, see index pages), which says the same. Both match and so it is given that contents are ordered in 7 parts and 36 chapters, attributing to these 2 translations. You can also see wikisource given below, but that is incomplete. Also translations are not advertising book, but mentioned here depending on notablity of that translation. In your comment you should substantiate your view of excluding images, note that wikipedia is not majority vote. Lara_bran 11:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I gave my view on this bran. For me this article looks a bit out of the shape. I did not say you are wrong. Just that, right now certain books should have sold few copies. BalanceΩrestored Talk 11:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Author of that book maybe notable, though his book is new. Actually even i was amused to see a book that is ordered in such ordered manner, in so early as 4th century. Lara_bran 03:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Format

message: Some dates are obviously wrong here. The article states the following:
Historian John Keay says that the Kama Sutra is a compendium that was collected into its present form in the second century CE.[4]
However the dates of its authors, as mentioned at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mallanaga_Vatsyayana say the following
who lived some time in the Gupta period (4th to 6th centuries CE )
Obviously one of the dates needs correction.
Thanks.
Anil Aggrawal Anil1956 (talk) 05:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong Dates

message: The external link in Note 18, # ^ [http://www.alaindanielou.org/The-Complete-Kama-Sutra.html The Complete Kama Sutra by Alain Daniélou, is commercial by nature. I believe it is in violation of Wiki's policy.
--APDEF (talk) 12:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commercial Link:  

message: If you want something to balance out the sex positions, the description of part 6 could be expanded -- it contains some revealing details about the society of the time, and is sometimes amusing, as when we're informed that it's pretty much a courtesan's religious duty to extract a maximum amount of money and jewels from her client. AnonMoos (talk) 07:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Part 6

message: Written by jamie cutts
Cuttsy69 (talk) 14:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What would you like changed on the article? The request must be of the form "please change X to Y". Mhiji (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm going to collapse the template for now. When you clarify your request feel free to uncollapse it. elektrikSHOOS 23:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Cuttsy69, 19 November 2010 

message: since what the majority of people think the Kama Sutra is, is somthing like a catalog of sexual positions, shouldn't this article talk more about the Kama Sutra most people are talking about when they say "Kama Sutra" ? --TiagoTiago (talk) 03:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the main article Note 1 where the broken link has been corrected to http://indrasinha.com/kama-sutra/ - this page contains detail about three common misconceptions. 1) Kama Sutra is a sex manual 2) Kama Sutra is an ancient text 3) Kama Sutra is a sacred text. It also contains reference to the act of cyber piracy which spread just one chapter across the internet with the result that many people came to believe it was the whole Kama Sutra.
Rivergod (talk) 10:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  shouldn't more attention be paid to the popular misconceptions? 

message: that's how it reads now (to me).  fix it - add the date it's from.
:: Nobody knows for sure, but the consensus is between the 2nd and 4th centuries CE. From internal evidence it cannot be as late as 1200CE, although the Jayamangala commentary, which Burton incorporated into his translation, and Sinha into his, dates from around that time. The early date of 3500 BC is wishful thinking.  Rivergod (talk) 11:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  add date 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 
;What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Kamasutra5.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: http://www.theoriginof.com/kamasutra.html
Please check this link and if you find it useful add it to the external links.
(Anurag Bhateja (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new external link suggestion 

message: Embarrassing. Check with any noted Sanskrit authority. CousinJohn (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Kama means "desire," not "sensual or sexual pleasure"

message: Please change the word "three" in line that says "'Kāma' which is one of the three goals of Hindu life[...]" to say four, as the link included in that sentence lists four goals (as does the link's full article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purusharthas)
68.184.98.207 (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Done thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 23 April 2013 

message: * Hello, someone has "corrected" one of his spellings of "Sanscrit" to the (now) more usual "Sanskrit". Burton consistently spelled it with a "c" throughout the work quoted, could someone with editing access change it back thanks, perhaps with a [sic] to discourage it being changed again. 121.73.190.52 (talk) 02:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request - Sanskrit > Sanscrit in Burton quote 

message: I want give this entry write 2 hyperlinks,it can let reader more easy to fina a movie of this entry information
覌天 (talk) 06:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: @覌天: What are the links? We can't consider putting them in if we don't know what they are. —C.Fred (talk) 06:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  I want give this entry write 2 hyperlinks,it can let reader more easy to fina a movie of this entry information 

message: 60.48.46.43 (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: No request was made. --ElHef (Meep?) 17:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2013 

message: 122.175.158.104 (talk) 08:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: as you have not requested a change.If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2014 

message: 115.249.65.126 (talk) 09:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: as you have not requested a change.If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2014 

message: 106.200.246.38 (talk) 03:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. No request was made. (t) Josve05a (c) 08:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2014 

message: I have added three images relevant to the article found on Commons.
* File:Indian - A Sexual Encounter - Walters W871.jpg 
* File:Indian - Poolside Lovemaking - Walters W869.jpg
* File:Lamairesse - Kama Sutra.djvu
Trust they add visual and contentwise richness--jojo@nthony (talk) 08:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added relevant images 

message: 117.212.202.150 (talk) 11:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: as you have not requested a change.If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 11:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2014 

message: 103.229.47.18 (talk) 11:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2014 

message: 117.208.126.169 (talk) 11:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 11:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2014 

message: 119.157.39.134 (talk) 11:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 11:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2014 

message: 117.218.154.205 (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Request is unclear. Bladesmulti (talk) 01:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2014 

message: 14.98.180.214 (talk) 16:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2015 

message: 62.243.189.220 (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. (t) Josve05a (c) 17:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2015 

message: 14.97.78.165 (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2015 

message: 122.174.104.138 (talk) 12:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: as you have not requested a change.If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2015 

message: 41.129.233.69 (talk) 11:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 11:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2015 

message: Kama (desire) is unlimited is has many manifestations sexual desire and expressions of love are only one part of the totality but when desires scatter they become junk but when desires are bound by sutra of life they become a marvel and such binding force creates a discipline this book (Kama Sutra) rights about pastures and angles of life through sex it is an understanding of life from the key hole of sex. sex is not the final chapter for amusement it is an early philosophical approach to life.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.55.155.133 (talk) 08:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2015 

message: 117.204.181.55 (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: as you have not requested a change.If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2015 

message: 111.125.141.222 (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: as you have not requested a change. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 21:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2015 

message: ssss
39.54.213.22 (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: as you have not requested a change.If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2015 

message: 182.178.208.66 (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: as you have not requested a change.If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2015 

message: 175.101.79.133 (talk) 08:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 08:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2015 

message: 182.66.16.140 (talk) 08:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: as you have not requested a change.If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2015 

message: 65.49.68.181 (talk) 10:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 10:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2015 

message: Kamasutra is the book of knowledge as how to do physical intercourse between men and women. This was written in Ancient India and also has a dedicated place with many sculpture showing the various physical intercourse position. Kamasutra teaches the combination of Mind, Soul and Body blending with the partner
Anthony Hill (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: - it is rather better written in the existing article - Arjayay (talk) 13:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2016 

message: Last para, intro, now reads:
"Historians attribute Kamasutra to be composed between ..."
Suggested edit:
"Historians believe the Kama Sutra was composed between ..."
Reasons:
1) "attribute ... to be composed" is bad English
2) "the Kama Sutra" is consistent with the rest of the article  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinRinehart (talk • contribs) 10:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request, introduction 

message: In the introduction, these two statements are contradictory:
"... text written by Vātsyāyana."
"... composed between 400 BCE and 200 CE."
Was the book written over two centuries? Or was it the work of a single author?
MartinRinehart (talk) 11:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internal contradiction. Expert attention needed. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kama Sutra. 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  tag to http://www.sacred-texts.com/sex/kama/index.htmand
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080506045738/http://www.alaindanielou.org/The-Complete-Kama-Sutra.html to http://www.alaindanielou.org/The-Complete-Kama-Sutra.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I just wondered how the view of Feminism about this book might be. I'd really like to see an Feminist interpretation / view on that added to the article. Alrik Fassbauer (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Wondering about how Feminism sees the "Kama Sutra" ?

message: Talk page watchers: I have reviewed the talk page archive, the article's edit history and the current version of this relatively high traffic wikipedia article, as I try to do in other articles. The article is incomplete and can be significantly improved. I will start the update in the coming weeks. The extant version before the update can be found here. Any suggestions and comments before and during my update would be most welcome. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review and proposal to update 

message: The section of the same sex section was really interesting to encounter because Sapphistries did acknowledge early activity of same-sex action. I found it interesting that men were allowed to get no shame in committing adultery and when a woman were to seek a new relationship, it then became an issue to society. I also did give a clear definition of unfamiliar terms that I never encountered, therefore, this section gave a majority of clarification of terms that an individual, such as myself, has never heard of. I believe some sections can change the use of language that is being displayed because we want to update and educate those to familiarize with literacy that does not harm someone's identity. It is clear that some sections are repetitive, but certain topics did deserve their own sections to better elaborate on the conversation. This group did an amazing job choosing a topic that was theorizing love, erotic love and subjects that revolve around love. It is a better understanding of what I did not know before and it establishes some queering around this article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lptoled2 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Lptoled2: The adultery section is incomplete and work-in-progress. I urge patience before conclusions such as "men were allowed to get no shame in committing adultery and when a woman were to seek a new relationship, it then became an issue to society" in Kamasutra. It is more complicated, and women apparently had much agency and freedom in ancient India per Doniger... but I need to finish reading through a few more (lengthy) papers and the context, before summarizing the mainstream view. Your school project is most welcome, and their efforts to learn and contribute to collaborative editing is cheerfully appreciated. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review WGS 310 Lesbian and Queer Cultures Leslie Toledo 

message: They are very enlightening 
* Charukesi Ramadurai (7 October 2015), India’s temples of sex, BBC Travel 
* Sandip Roy (January 28, 2013), Kamasutra: Is it about pleasuring women or oppressing them?, FirstPost.com
* Wendy Doniger ( 29-07-2015), Wendy Doniger on how Kamasutra blurs the line between rape and sex [Book Extract] As if speaking back to Kautilya's Arthashastra, Vatsayana ends up establishing a code of accepted sexual violence. From: The Mare's Trap. Nature and Culture in the Kama Sutra.
InsulinRS (talk) 23:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the sections you added which claimed that the Kama Sutra was linked to "lots of rapes" and child pornography as neither claim was defended in the sources listed. The BBC article makes no connection between the Kama Sutra and child pornography or violence but instead refers to legislation on pornographic websites as context. While one of your sources provides a critique of the Kama Sutra in its establishing the boundaries of "acceptable sexual violence", it does not make the claim that it is responsible for rape or child pornography. There is nothing wrong with a criticism section, but it must not make claims beyond that defended by reliable sources. Pretentieux (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes they are. The First Post and DailyO articles are even more detailed with DailyO even stating "As if speaking back to Kautilya's Arthashastra, Vatsayana ends up establishing a code of accepted sexual violence."InsulinRS (talk) 00:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could you provide a quote from one of the cited sources which defend these claims (particularly that the Kama Sutra is linked to "lots of rapes" and child pornography? I read through them thoroughly and found no such claim. Unless a defense of these claims is cited, the passage containing them should be reverted. As to quote you provided above, the passage does not claim that the Kama Sutra is responsible for rapes nor child pornography. I did not revert the section in which you quoted Doniger on the code of accepted sexual violence. In context, Doniger does not seem to be claiming that the Kama Sutra is responsible for rapes. Pretentieux (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, she does, with the article even being titled "Wendy Doniger on how Kamasutra blurs the line between rape and sex" Please do not disregard rape as a form sexual violence.InsulinRS (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not claiming that rape is not sexual violence. My objection to claiming that the Kama Sutra is linked to "lots of rapes" and child pornography is that none of the provided sources make that claim. I believe this situation is covered under WP:NOR: "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research... This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". Therefore this material should only stay up if a reliable source explicitly links the Kama Sutra to "lots of rapes" and child pornography. Pretentieux (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: We must not disregard the links to Kamasutra and sex crimes