Talk:Anasyrma

Comments

There appear to be only four references to this term on Google (other than links to Wikipedia mirrors), but all of them appear to support the meaning given in the article.

Can anyone find any references for this term? -- Karada 22:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

And, whilst we're at it, one of those hits [1] led me to the term apotropaion, which probably also deserves an article. -- Karada 23:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Greek dictionary has the verb form: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0058%3Aentry%3D%232510 AnonMoos 17:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I encountered it for the first time in the Bonfantes' book on the Etruscan language, where it describes a scene involving Tina (Zeus) and Semla (Semele) on a mirror. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Bible Reference

I don't see the relevance of the Biblical reference to Noah's curse under the Curse of nakedness section. Placing a curse on someone because they saw you sleep naked is vastly different from the nakedness itself inflicting a curse (or having any powerful effect, for that matter). Noah did not flash his sons, and they would not have been cursed had he not found out about what they had seen. I am removing it - feel free to put it back if a counter-justification can be provided --SohanDsouza — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.227.86.30 (talk) 19:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Noah's son saw his father naked and then Noah cursed not only the son, but the son's children. In all of biblical commentary, no one seems to be able to explain why. Even today, seeing your parents naked is not a big deal. So at some point, the curse was a big deal, and apparently not just in Africa. This seems highly relevant. In Africa, the nakedness itself does not inflict a curse, but the threat of it is enough to stop an army. So there's obviously something here that we don't understand, but Noah understood it. I'm putting it back in if you don't mind. USchick (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the I.P., the article fails to make it clear why the Bible section is related. The Curse of Ham is about accidental exposure, which the article clearly defines as different from anasyrma. It needs to be better integrated into the article if it's going to stay. Grayfell (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Curse of Ham does not say anything about accidental exposure. Ham may have walked into the tent deliberately. It doesn't matter, accidental or not, the exposure itself was enough to get a curse. Even before the curse, the other two brothers went in backwards to cover Noah. Why? He wasn't awake and wouldn't have known the difference. Whatever the original threat was, we obviously don't understand it anymore in 2012. USchick (talk) 03:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. This article is about the gesture of lifting one's skirt or kilt, it is not about the curse of nudity. I wasn't saying it was accidental for Ham, but I don't see any sources implying that it was intentional exposure on Noah's part. Noah didn't try to expose himself to Ham, did he? You're right, we don't understand it, that's why I fail to see why it's in an article about deliberate exposure. It's interesting in itself and very relevant to articles like Christian naturism, or Nudity in religion, or even modesty. But why is it here in this article? Actually, the more I look at it, the more I think there should be a separate article on the curse of nudity Grayfell (talk) 04:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I would support such an article. here is another source from Harvard University about Kaguru people in East Africa. [2] p.480 "Among the Kaguru a sexually mature person who sees his or her parent naked would consider himself or herself very unfortunate." USchick (talk) 04:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The point in this article is that it's not always a positive thing, in some instances it can be a scary thing. USchick (talk) 04:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a good reference. I'm going to try and assemble an article in the next couple of days. I'll let you know once it's in my user-space, if you want to give feedback. Grayfell (talk) 05:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! Additional sources are on my talk page. USchick (talk) 23:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Any news on that? The article is called anasyrma and I think everything that is not immediately related to the Greek anasyrma should be in other articles, be it exhibitionism or something else. Richiez (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, what makes this only a Greek concept? The name for it may be of Greek origin, but the concept is universal. If you go back far enough, even the word is probably Latin. USchick (talk) 04:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

By extension of your argument, should we move the content of exhibitionism, flashing and mooning to this article and make those redirect to anasyrma? There may be room for something like history of flashing and exhibitionism but given that the Greek anasyrma had a completely different "effect" than in some other cultures it does not fit into this article any better than say into exhibitionism. Richiez (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

According to the article, anasyrma is done for the effect of the onlookers. What is the effect? Seems like the curse of nakedness accomplishes the same thing, which makes it relevant. A Google search on Anasyrma returns 18,300 results, so obviously it's not a common term. In contrast, "curse of nakedness" returns 936,000 hits. If anything, maybe the article should be renamed. USchick (talk) 00:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

According to which article? WP should not be self-referencing if you mean this article. Overall I found few external sources. This article could be renamed, but than there is equal paucity of good sources for curse of nakedness. Anasyrma, if nothing else is a Greek word that has precise meaning in the antique context. Extending that context is tricky.

What would seem worthwhile is to create something like apotropaic nudity - phallic and kolpic manifestations alike seem to have apotropaic qualities in many cultures and this would distinguish them from simple exhibitionism. nudity already has a section on curse of nudity btw. Richiez (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Literally?’

“ 'Anasyrma is literally “the exposing of the genitals.’ “ Saying “literally” in this context connotes that the meaning of the term is etymologically based on a direct translation of its original components. But such is not the case here. As the previous sentences make clear, the word is literally an “upskirting.” Orthotox (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Story from the Irish Times"

"A story from The Irish Times (September 23, 1977) reported a potentially violent incident involving several men, which was averted by a woman exposing her genitals to the attackers." In addition to not being properly cited, this sentence is misleading. It in fact refers to a letter to the editor written by a reader of the Irish Times, recalling an event he claimed to have witnessed as a child; it is not a story "from" the Irish Times. The veracity of the story was later questioned by Weir and Jerman in their book "Images of Lust" (1986) which appears to be the source for this sentence, via another wiki website. It's not clear why the ramblings of a letter-writer belong in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:AC0:2D80:8C1A:CCF1:2112:FD6D (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

"Peodeiktophilia" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Peodeiktophilia has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 21 § Peodeiktophilia until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 17:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)