Talk:Courtesan

message: At least one sentence of the article is unintentionally ironic as written:  [Courtesans] were also subject to lower social status, and often religious disapproval, because of the perceived immoral aspects of their profession....  The writer undoubtedly believes that the adjective "perceived" adds something to the article, or at least that the adjective blunts controversy; but in fact it does neither.  It only saps verbal vigor from Wikipedia's prose, in a disappointing way that ought to be made progressively less common on Wikipedia.
Why?  Consider:  Can the writer even conceive of a use of the phrase "immoral aspects" in Wikipedia which should not (in his view) be preceded by the adjective "perceived"?  If you are the sort that believes that acts and habits can be objectively immoral, then it is hard to imagine that you would fail to include the characteristic acts and habits of the courtesan under the heading of immorality (but you can imagine? wait then; we shall address this point soon).  Contrarily, if you are not the sort that so believes, then all "immoral aspects" are merely "perceived," aren't they, whence the adjective is merely superfluous.  Either way, good writing wants this adjective dropped.
If I may argue in part by reference to an authority of whom I do not generally approve, but of whom many smart people do: Immanuel Kant, admittedly a towering intellect, the classic archfoe of Thomism and Platonic realism, had somewhat to say on fallacies of this kind, as you may know.  He would surely have had short patience for the "perceived immoral aspects" of prostitution.
Comes the objection:  "I believe that slavery but not prostitution is immoral."  Okay, that is one position (not a very good one, I think, but still, it is one position, and indeed may be the position of the author of the fraught, "perceived immoral aspects" phrase in question).  However, if that is your position, then surely you accept the robust philosophical possibility that another, potentially reasonable person could hold the very reverse position:   "I believe that prostitution but not slavery is immoral."  (If you do not accept this, then feel free to review the body of St. Paul's epistles in the New Testament on the subject.  Whether you agree with St. Paul or not, the position that St. Paul were to be excluded by Wikipedian acclamation from the class of potentially reasonable persons is absurd.  So let us accept, at a minimum, that a potentially reasonable person could indeed hold the very reverse position.)  If a potentially reasonable person could hold the very reverse position, this implies that the immoral aspects of slavery are hardly less "perceived" than are the immoral aspects of prostitution.
And I think that you can apply a similar argument to almost any other instance of which you might think.  Yet, following the example of the sentence in question, Wikipedia should have to endure articles on the "perceived immoral aspects" of robbery, rape, murder, etc.
This is not a good idea.
Nor is Wikipedia about to take the position, across the board, that immorality could not possibly, objectively exist.
In short, since the tendentious adjective "perceived" is in this instance either misleading or superfluous, depending upon one's point of view, I think that we can safely drop the adjective.  (I know, I know: this comment is tendentious.  But this comment is not part of the article, is it?  The adjective in question is part of it.  This is why the adjective is to disappear.) -Tbtkorg (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This is ridiculous. The phrase is fine. Wikipedia's not about to start describing what's actually immoral, as opposed to perceptions of this, Nkn7391 (talk) 07:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Nkn7391's bluster merely ridicules. It fails to answer the question. Tbtkorg (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[P]erceived immoral aspects" 

message: Hi all, I am editing the Italian article Cortigiano, and I insisted in order to have the same page for the male role (cortigiano) and the female one (cortigiana) in order to better show parallelism and differences. IMHO this English page is lacking most of all an obvious link, that is "COURTIER", which was the original meaning of Courtesan. This would be of great help to better understand a very important social figure. Excuse my poor English. --S vecchiato (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the "COURTIER" ? 

message: I added some information drawn from the Oxford Dictionary Online and links to Baldassarre Castiglione in order to point out the etymological (hence historical) links among the institution of the court, the social role of courtiers and the change of meaning of courtesan. Hope it will be of help. --S vecchiato (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that helps give the article its foundation, S vecchiato. 219.76.166.15 (talk) 10:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Court, to court, courtier and courtesan 

message: Although come things may have changed, a perhaps a Courtesan would not have royalty as a patron these days, I think more should be added about modern day courtesans, specifically in the 21st century. Courtesan  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.135.78 (talk) 18:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the Modern Day Courtesan? 

message: This phrase is used to often in the text. -95.116.79.113 (talk) 12:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's used more often than not. -86.42.195.88 (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

text: And did it succeed in oftening? -Derek Ross | Talk 05:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  More often than not 

message: I know of no instances of courtesans being executed just for being courtesans.  The possibly mythical downfall and execution of a courtesan from the ballad "The Four Marys" was hung for infanticide.  I am sure some were murdered but probably no more than any other member of the court.  The article needs trimming to make it non-sensationalist.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.31.202.145 (talk) 09:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That claim looked strange to me as well, and it's still there after four months, with no source to back it up, so I've deleted it.  The second paragraph is also uncited, but sounds more plausible, so I've left it in for now. Iapetus (talk) 15:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical inaccuracy and lack of citations

message: Should they have their own article? People like Charles Woodcock were definitely courtesans. -86.42.195.88 (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Male courtesans?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Courtesan. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20060319091907/http://icqurimage.com/Magazine/courtesan.html to http://icqurimage.com/Magazine/courtesan.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) 20:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Courtesan. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20060810094203/http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ahr/110.2/patriarca.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ahr/110.2/patriarca.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) 20:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article gives a confusing impression.  A courtesan is generally understood to be a professional elite prostitute, such as Imperia La Divina, or Veronica Franco. Yet, this article lists royal mistresses, such as Madame de Pompadour.  True, a royal mistress was sometimes slandered as a courtesan and could in some sense be regarded as a prostitute, particulary by our modern conception of it, because she had financial gain from her position as mistress, but she was, in effect, a mistress; she was not a professional, she had no other "clients" than the king, she was normally a noblewoman who was not educated and trained to be a professional courtesan.  The royal mistresses are a special chapter: they differed from courtesans, and they, in fact, have their own article here in wikipedia, so to include them here are incorrect and creates great confusion of the terms. They should be removed from the list, and only professional courtesans included. The article does include a description of royal mistresses, which should be removed and included in the article about royal mistress - why have different articles otherwise? Royal mistresses and courtesans have their own articles in wikipedia, as they should, and to mix them like this only creates great confusion of the terms.--92.35.232.49 (talk) 14:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Courtesan and royal mistress

message: Should Madame de Pompadour be on this list?  70.179.82.15 (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No. She was a royal mistress, not a courtesan. It is not the same thing. Pompadour was basically married in all but name to the king for twenty years; they had a relationship, she was not a prostitute, regardless of the fact that she of course benefitted financially during the relationship she was not actually payed for sexual services, and their relationship continued for many years after their sexual relationship was discontinued.--Aciram (talk) 01:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Madame de Pompadour]] 

message: — Assignment last updated by Anonquokka (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Hist401

message: Regarding past Japanese geisha, can they be considered courtesan? And the definition of courtesan? Because Geji or Yiji in ancient China, Gisaeng on the Korean Peninsula in the past, tawaif in northern North India in the past, and Qiyan in ancient Arab society all share the same concept as Japanese geisha, whose profession is singing and dancing. So should Japanese geisha also be included here?
182.255.33.150 (talk) 04:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding past Japanese geisha.And the definition of courtesan 

message: Regarding past Japanese geisha, can they be considered courtesan? 182.255.33.150 (talk) 04:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding past Japanese geisha