Talk:Erotic photography

message: Here was a discussion I had with my friend Ethan by email. Should we change all the references to "pornography" in the article to "erotica"?
:One thing to note...while vintage erotica may seem mild, the hardcore was
:just as hard core as by today's standards.  Simlarly, much modern erotica
:is similar to vintage erotica.  I guess that one major thing to note is
:that porn!=erotica.  They're just not the same thing.
::The difference between porn and erotica seems somewhat unclear and
::arbitrary. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erotica
:::It's unclear...but there is certainly a difference.  99.86% of hardcore
:::porn films at an adult video store are porn.
:::It comes down to what one considers art.  There's a fine line
:::between art and entertainment.  It's left to the viewer to
:::decide...but vintage erotica isn't necessarily porn.  Most of the 
:::images widely considered erotica have greater artistic merit than
:::most porn (even though they can be just as sexually engaging).  Ever
:::take a photography class and do nudes?  That isn't for sexual
:::gratification...but if it's a nude, is it erotica?
:::The point is that they're decidedly not the same.
Simplified: Pornography requires nudity, while mose erotic photography only has to excite or stumilate the user in whatever way possible: pose,style,expressions, angle, and lighting of picture, which most pornography does not try to reach without going nude. --71.126.59.54 (talk) 07:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Email discussion

message: User JoaoRicardo removed the link from this section:
:The distinction between erotica and pornography is somewhat arbitrary. Both often feature nudity, but crude sexuality more likely characterizes pornography. "Erotica" is usually considered to imply higher artistic merit, although for some, it can be just as sexually engaging. Many people appreciate the natural look of women in vintage erotica, which predates the widespread use of breast implants.
The reason for the link at the end was to provide evidence for the statement that many people appreciate the natural look of women in vintage erotica.. I will quote from the website:
:"But why this old stuff?" you ask. Because it is real, it was well done, and all of the models are as they are. There are no silicon filled, lipo sucked, collagen injected artificialities in these beauties. They are as they were -- natural.
:Their hips gently curve out from their waist, their eyes sometimes show bashfulness and at other times brazenness. But it is all real, and all very artistic.
69.243.41.28 05:36, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed link

message: Here is the discussion that led to the name change from vintage erotica to Photography of female nudes before 1923.
Best article ever! Concise, well-documented, and beautiful. It should be on the main page. 205.217.105.2 01:35, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Name change

message: I'm sorry, I've read this article through pretty carefully, and I can't figure out any sane rationale for the title. What happened in 1923? The only possiblity which might be present in the article is that only those photographs from before 1923 are currently in the public domain &mdsash; but that's utter nonsense for two reasons 1) the copyright date is constantly sweeping forward, so that this article is self-obsoleting; 2) the copyright status of artwork is not inherently relevant, not a logical basis for organization — could you imagine an art museum arranged alphabetically by name of the frame maker? 
On the other hand, perhaps the sentence about copyright is merely a parenthetical aside; and the 1923 cut-off date is there for some other reason. If so, for heaven's sake explain! Doops 06:39, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the title is cumbersome and not especially relevant. I also oppose the fact that this article — to which Vintage erotica redirects — is focused solely on female nudes. "Erotica" and pornography have, since the invention of the camera, featured nude females, nude males, and frequently both. -Branddobbe 08:21, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
I think a decent title would be Early 20th century nude photography, there's no reason why it should be restritcted to only females, although I'm sure the female was a more popular model.--nixie 02:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Completely Inexplicable Title 

message: This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. Several voters recommended that the title be changed since the cutoff date at which things pass into the public domain in the US will change over time. Splash 01:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote for Deletion

message: Removed bad external link (IchBin 22:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed link

message: The name of this article seems to have been changed again and I think it should be changed yet again. 87.194.35.230 09:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is only about the U.S. then it should say so in its title. 87.194.35.230 09:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems from the title that it is just about erotic photography but from the images illustrating it it would seem to be about nude photography more generally, the photographic nude or portrait photograph with naked females subjects. I think erotic photography is a narrower genre. 87.194.35.230 09:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Name Change 

message: 99.148.248.230 (talk) 04:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Thanks. / edg ☺ ☭ 10:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken citations 

message: Hi; I don't think links such as non-nude, non-nude photography, etc. should be redirecting to this page.  Firstly because anyone clicking the link is immediately greeted with examples of nude photography, and secondly because the page doesn't seem to talk at all about non-nude photography, except to state that erotic photography can be images of people who are only mostly unclothed.
With best regards, CountingPine (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that if you disagree with a redirect, the proper procedure is to nominate it for discussion at redirects for deletion — it is not appropriate to simply blank the redirect page the way you did. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Non-nude" redirects 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
*Support per nom. Common sense. Jenks24 (talk) 06:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Erotic photography. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://special.lib.gla.ac.uk/hillandadamson/calo.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120704193050/http://www.19thcenturypaintings.com:80/artist_biography.asp?artistID=88 to http://www.19thcenturypaintings.com/artist_biography.asp?artistID=88
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tallulahs.com/collectors1b.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) 02:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Erotic photography. 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/20100822002054/http://www.kochvision.com/product.aspx?number=741952635291 to http://www.kochvision.com/product.aspx?number=741952635291
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.19thcenturypaintings.com/artist_biography.asp?artistID=88
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) 21:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: As far as I can tell, all the models pictured are white, except for one male model whose race is unclear. It would be more inclusive if the selection here was more demographically diverse. It's also unclear to me the overwhelming proportion of women is entirely appropriate. -- Beland (talk) 00:38, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographic balance 

message: The selection of photos seems heavily weighted toward people who have female bodies, and they're all one person depicted alone. Examples of erotic photography which exclude people fucking each other seems lacking, if not censored. Temerarius (talk) 20:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sex 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:06, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: I feel this article is starting to brush the line between encyclopedic and voyeuristic.
there are 27 images on this page many of which are very similar to each other,
in comparison the article for "photography" only contains seven images.150.107.172.172 (talk) 08:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quantity Of Images 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
* 
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion 

message: The article begins with a clear statement of erotic photography as explicitly sexual, and should not be confused by including photography that is artistic, nude or glamour. Allowance must be made for historical nude photos that were thought of as erotic at the time, but would not be now. Betty Grable in a bathing suit? Never erotic.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletions: sticking to the topic