Talk:Erotic talk/Archive 1

Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 8 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Charris0524. Peer reviewers: Kaybraidi, CalebTerronez.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Painting

Simonxag says Image:1873 Pierre Auguste Cot - Spring.jpg "illustrates subject well". In what way? 75.35.115.68 04:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The painting shows young couple on swing. The painter skilfully uses context, lighting and body language to tell us that they are lovers. Their faces are inclined toward one another but the girl is too far down the boy's body for an immediate kiss to be practical. She appears to be listening and though the viewer cannot see his face, he is clearly speaking. Again context, lighting, body language and the expression on the girl's face tell us what he is saying. It seems likely that the swing will soon be put to other uses ;-)

This is a difficult subject to illustrate and frankly, I'd be surprised if anyone could find a picture that did it much better. The term dirty talk contains negative ant-sex POV imbedded in the English language, but this POV has no place in a factual article: the picture is French. Sex education texts (even right wing ones) do not state that sex is dirty, aggressive, hostile or in any normal circumstance akin to rape. Though the picture is rather romanticised it does correctly illustrate the function of dirty talk as foreplay as described in the linked-to websites. --Simon Speed 10:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

While your opinion about this is clearly very strong, your opinion alone is not basis for including the painting in an encyclopedia. Please read WP:OR. Unless you can find a reliable, verifiable source which claims that the painting illustrates dirty talk, please refrain from replacing it in the article. Thank you. 75.35.115.68 21:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is not particularly strong but is reasonably well argued and you have answered none of the points made. The main article makes no claim as to what the painting actually and truly illustrates, it merely uses the painting. This isn't research, original or otherwise. There are a few cases where the title or context makes factual claims about the content of (usually) a photograph, which is sometimes challenged in the discussion. But how many paintings and drawings can you find in the whole Wikipedia that have verifiable sources cited saying that they illustrate what they illustrate? Bizarre indeed! The article has no other illustration and (as I have argued) the painting illustrates it well. I you can find a better illustration I will support the painting's replacement. I note that the editor removing this content is anonymous: I would be happier if this was not so. --Simon Speed 22:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we need a third opinion. The only mouth visible in the painting is closed, so claiming it represents any sort of talk, dirty or not, is preposterous. I do not see anything in "context, lighting and body language" or any other aspects which would indicate dirty talk either. Your claim that the male "is clearly speaking" is not based on any facts, it is simply your opinion. You are obviously utterly unable to produce any sort of a source which might agree with you, so you raise transparently false straw-men arguments about other illustrations. If an article is difficult to illustrate, then surely it should not be illustrated at all.

It is clear that you are quite fond of the painting. I am too -- I think it is beautiful. Why don't you add it to the article on the artist instead of this article about which it obviously has nothing to do? I have added it to Pierre Auguste Cot so that it will not be orphaned.

Finally, on the matter of my identity, why should it have any bearing on the matter in question? I assure you if I were to log in to my account, which I use only to upload and edit semi-protected articles, that you would have no more knowledge of my identity than you do now. Thank you. 75.35.115.68 03:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

External links

I have removed the link to www.sexinfo101.com because it contains commercial content not appropriate for external links. Kevin 03:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Euphemism / dysphemism

The term dirty talk contains negative anti-sex POV, in the same way as terms like nasty, filthy, lewd, bad do when applied to sexual matters. These terms are correctly identified as dysphemisms although some choose to use them as euphemisms to repress more objective expression. I contend that English speakers are free to choose between objective and dysphemistic expressions, and though use of the latter may be (regrettably) embedded in some people's POV, they are not necessarily "imbedded[sic] in the English language" as Simon Speed has commented above under Painting Cuddlyable3 08:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Awful title

The title "dirty talk" is an appalling title for this article: in other languages, this subject is called by names like "love talk". Moving to erotic talk, a synonym which is in common use. -- The Anome (talk) 12:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Japanese language link

While the French language link leads to something like a translation of the English page, the Japanese link goes to ワイ談 page, which means "sex topic", "erotic topic" (for example bros trading sex stories). It has nothing to do with the arousing/intercourse dirty talk which in Japanese is 淫語, which has a page too: https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%B7%AB%E8%AA%9E

Sorry I've never edited language links before, so I don't know how it's done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB00:775:6100:596D:C2F2:309B:6B7 (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Archive 1