Jump to content

Talk:Erotic art in Pompeii and Herculaneum

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gender query

[edit]

Mention is made of "Maritimus licks your vulva for 4 As. He is ready to serve virgins as well." Presumably then there were male prostitutes for female clients in Pompeii also?

194.46.234.199 (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably then there was a bit of kidding between men also?2A02:AA1:1020:E2D1:DCEC:18D7:6FC1:79D1 (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

==Wiki Education assignment: Pompeii and the Cities of Vesuvius== This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 12 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mipsallison, JNRM Student, IsaHistorical, Helenliska (article contribs).

New Edits to Venus section

[edit]

Hello, I am a student editor and I plan on expanding the Venus section with information about wall art in Pompeii. JNRM Student (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images vs. text

[edit]

This is not a Commons category, and yet it seems that the only thing happening in this article is the endless addition of images, regardless of whether they replicate types of erotic imagery already illustrated or whether they contribute in art historical terms to understanding the development of erotic art by style or period. It's more than a little juvenile just to see how many naughty pictures you can find in Commons. I'm not commenting from a position of prudery (it's fair to say that I'm the primary contributor to the current version of Sexuality in ancient Rome, but what's the methodology? What are the criteria for culling the many possible illustrations in proportion to the text? Cynwolfe (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had my attention drawn to this page by a message on my talkpage, and I have a similar concern. In particular, there is an entire section dedicated solely to images of erotic art outside of Pompeii and Herculaneum, containing 27 images of greater or lesser relevance to the topic at hand. Is it really necessary to have three separate images of the same sculpture of Cupid and Psyche (neither of whom are mentioned in the text of the article)? How about this image, of a terracotta relief which was found in the Rhone Valley and produced over a century after the destruction of Pompeii and Herculaneum? I would certainly be inclined to cut down the number of images and retain only those which have some sort of relevance to the text of the article. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree. I read the comment on your talk page (since you mentioned it here) and there are good points there too – some of the images seem scanned from books that are not PD, and while that may or may not fly with 2D art, outside WP at least the copyright of a photo of 3D art attaches to the photo, not the age of the object photographed. The same contributor was doing this at the main Roman sexuality article, which I did go through to weed out for relevance and placement, but I'm not motivated to focus on this topic at present. I would applaud any gardening you'd care to do. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that a major culling is needed. At the very least, the entire section on images outside the region in question should be removed – Aza24 (talk) 05:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]