Talk:Sex and sexuality in speculative fiction/Archive 3

sentence structure

"On the other hand, science fiction and fantasy can also to promise more freedom than do non-genre literatures to imagine alternatives to the privileged assumptions of heterosexuality and masculinity that suffuse many cultures."

What is meant here? Needs to be clearer. 84.182.118.222 (talk) 08:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to clarify with some word changes, while keeping source meaning, but which words don't you understand? Many cultures privilege the assumption of heterosexuality (cf. to homo-, bi-, pedophilic, zoophilic, third-gender orientations, necrophilia.) Even on wikipedia heterosexuality is assumed in biography articles, and stating any other sexuality needs sources, while heterosexuality does not even need mentioning.

Also most culture privilege masculinity, not only with men being seen as superior, but effeminate men being as "bad" as a woman, or that capable women are somehow trying to "be like men".

SF can show fictional cultures in which this is not the case Eg. In Dhalgren, all the chatracters seem to assume bisexuality of each other inless told otherwise, and The Female Man shows societies that assume women are lesbian, and Tiptree stories do much more bizarre things.

This freedom to invent such societies is what makes SFnal treatment of sex notable and interesting, imo.Yobmod (talk) 10:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's with all the "citation needed" tags?

On the list of notable written works, almost every one is marked with the "fact" tag. Skimming the article history, it seems like quite a few have been removed for being unreferenced. What's the difference between those that were removed and those that remain? What is it that actually needs referencing? All I see are plot points, for which obviously the source is the work itself. Is it the notability of each work that's being challenged? Inasmuch as that is rather subjective, could such a thing really be satisfactorily referenced, even if we dig up a critic's quote calling each one "groundbreaking" or something? I suggest, instead, the purpose and scope of the list be made more clear, and the "citation needed" tags be removed entirely. Mycroft7 (talk) 03:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put the reference column in. I strongly oppose removing the tags - would be far better to remove the list entirely (to talk). Most of these books are not important to the development of SF or its portrayal of sex. I contest them as being notable for this subject, therefore they are tagged.

I remove them slowly, to give people time to find cites. Feel free to take it out completely - or make a poor qualitz "Uncited list of SF books with some sex in" article.

The encyclopedia of SF has an entry on sex, which mentions inportant works - that is an example of a RS. Also "Uranian Worlds", a book devoted to sex in SF. There are hundreds of such reference works. Also, Sf reviewers often review classic works, and can be expected to mention if a book was important to this subject.Yobmod (talk) 12:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Odd John first edition cover.jpg

The image Image:Odd John first edition cover.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

is the cover art from a novel published in 1935 even still in copyright?Tanzeelat (talk) 11:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly; why wouldn't it be? --Orange Mike | Talk 13:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think 1923 is the magic date for US copyright --> public domain, so still a few years to go.Yobmod (talk) 13:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olaf Stapledon was British. It was 50 years after the death of the author/artist in the UK until 1996. After that, it was 70 years. The law was only applied retroactively to those works which came back into copyright. Um, have just checked... Stapledon died in 1950, which means his works enter public domain in 2020 (unless they've been renewed, of course). However... does that apply to the cover art? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanzeelat (talk • contribs) 08:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cover art will almost certainly be copyright of the artist (or publisher?). So depends on death of artist, and if the book is the US version :-/. If a UK book, and artist dies 1960, and cover was not re-used, we still have to wait 2 years.Yobmod (talk) 10:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of imagery

Would it be possible in your image to spell out the different symbols?

My apologies for my ignorance but I don't know what they mean. The intrigue is that someplace in my sci-fi reading, the postulate was made that there were 5 sexes... but I don't remember the classifications.

As to sex and science fiction...

Surprised not to see any reference to Ursula K. LeQuin's Left Hand of Darkness.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhineasToad (talk • contribs) 21:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UK LeGuin is in there with LHoD (4th paragraph of New Wave) and some short stories.

If i remember rightly, the symbols clockwise from top-right are male, asexual, female, transgender, intersex - althoough there are alternatives (i've seen asexual with just a circle). I know there are books with 5 (or 7 or 12 etc) genders, but finding any images to represent them was impossible, and fair use would be dubious. So the real ones are used, which is probably better anyway, as real genders appear in almost every book, and they are free. The link to gender has a further link to gender symbols - i don't think there is enough space in the template (as it is used on many other articles).Yob Mod 07:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A-historical bias

The article slams SF as a "puritanical" genre, without addressing the cultural restraints which helped enforce this. Most science fiction and fantasy was originally published in the form of magazines, which in the U.S. were subject to the Comstock Laws. An editor who accepted an overly-sexual story ran the risk of losing his/her mailing privileges! In the 1940s, '50s and even '60s, even science fiction fanzine feared running afoul of these laws, particularly due to "racy" illustrations "Postal inspectors can usually see, even if they can't read." --Orange Mike | Talk 13:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only US Authors?

I think that the value of the article could be increased by examining - or referencing - authors who come from a country other than the US. Apart from the reference to Micheal Moorcock (as editor of New Worlds) and referencing some proto-sf authors, all the writers described in the article are US born. To my mind the most obvious exclusion is J.G. Ballard, again a part of the British New Wave, whose Crash_(1973_novel) and The_Atrocity_Exhibition explored the links between sex, technology and the media landscape. Groakes (talk) 03:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SF does tend to be dominated by American authors, but you are eagerly solicited to add (properly referenced, not original research/opinion, of course) material about authors from other countries and languages. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered the same thing! With the huge volume of science fiction produced in the Soviet Union, and political reasons for the characters therein exhibiting unusually low sex drives, I would have expected quite a bit of interesting discussion. If I could remember how to do it, I would have appended a "This article may not reflect a worldwide viewpoint" tag -- perhaps someone else could help with that? I'd be so grateful. Heather (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

I think material from the essay-like The Transformation of Sexuality within Science Fiction can be salvaged and merged here. Any objections? Fences&Windows 22:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there's anything worth salvaging; that article looks to me like 100% original research. If there is something from it you think is worth merging to this article, I suggest you do so, because otherwise I'll take it to AFD. Robofish (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The topic itself seems interesting; perhaps you can search for good related sources and help improve this one. —Zujine|talk 01:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything worthwhile here, then take The Transformation of Sexuality within Science Fiction to AfD. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]