This article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

Sexology and sexualityLow‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofhuman sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality Low This article has been rated asLow-importance on theproject's importance scale. Books This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you canjoin the project anddiscuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to thedocumentation. To improve this article, please refer to therelevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest toWikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of allLGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit theproject page or contribute to thediscussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

"Throwing in her lot with Hobbes and Dionysus, she follows in the tradition of a work like Nietzsche's The Birth of Tragedy, where engaging assertion and overstatement are more important than rigorously proving a case. She argues passionately, with poetic flair: for her, human sexuality is dark, cruel, sadistic, powerful, daemonic, perverse, murky, decadent, pagan..." Has anyone here ever heard of POV? I haven't read the book, I can't improve this, but this comes right out and says "this book does not make a good argument" which is unacceptable for a wikipedia article.unixslug 23:39, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I've heard of NPOV, and I'll look into toning down that particular collection of rhetorical flourishes, if it bothers you, but what do you *want* me to say? You want me to lie about what kind of book it is, to make it sound acceptable to talk about it here? Paglia is a pretty well-known personage, and this particular book is what put her on the scene, so I volunteered to try and describe what kind of book it is. And the kind of book it is is somewhere between a scholarly treatise and a piece of prose poetry; there's no way around the fact that it's pretty over-the-top, which is what I'm trying to make clear, it's one of the reasons it was controversial. --Doom 09:44, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Moved a little ranting to my personal page ("neutral style = boring style"?):User:Doom --Doom 20:04, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that the above quotation can be seen as saying "this book does not make a good argument" or that it is in any way a npov violation. Its just a characterization of the style of the work, and if she didn't intend to make "good arguments" per se, how is it pov to point out that intent? Are you sure you didn't just read your own interpretation into the quote? --Head of the Caligula Appreciation Society00:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's as neutral as can be when we're discussing Camille Paglia. Also, perhaps something could be made of her links to Harold Bloom and his own style. The two have much in common, because for both the dry, desiccated academic mode is pretty much anathema; also why "Anxiety of Influence" and "Sexual Personae" are so difficult/problematic for many to read. Personally and aside from NPOV, I enjoy both their styles. Makes them far more engaging, and the are probably two of the better readers of poetry we have on this godforsaken earth right now.Fugazilazarus01:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This "article" should be deleted and replaced with one that does justice to Paglia's book. This is just an incompetent review posing as scholarship.

The article reads, 'Paglia seeks to show how Christianity did not defeat, but rather embraced Paganism. Apollo is her model for the former and Dionysus for the latter.' This is false - actually, I think Paglia has said her view of Paganism includes both the Apollonian and the Dionysian.Skoojal (talk)05:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that the article misleadingly categorizesSexual Personae as 'philosophy.'Skoojal (talk)06:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed this now, adding the appropriate category. Paglia's work is literary criticism, not 'philosophy.'Skoojal (talk)00:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article reads, 'Per the doctrine of the Apollonian and Dionysian, Apollo represents the ordering principle, while Dionysus represents chaos and disordering.' I think this is probably more accurate than what was there before, but this could be worded more clearly.Skoojal (talk)06:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Socks have evolved over the centuries from the earliest models which were made from animal skins gathered up and tied around the ankles.[1] In the 8th century BC, the ancient Greeks wore socks from matted animal hair for warmth. Romans also wrapped their feet with leather or woven fabrics. By the 5th Century AD, socks called ‘puttees’ were worn by holy people in Europe to symbolise purity. By 1000 AD, socks became a symbol of wealth among the nobility. From the 16th Century on, an ornamental design on the ankle or side of a sock has been called a clock.[2]

The invention of a knitting machine in 1589 meant that socks could be knitted six times faster than by hand. Nonetheless, knitting machines and hand knitters worked side by side until 1800.

The next revolution in sock production was the introduction of nylon in 1939. Until then socks were commonly made from silk, cotton and wool. Nylon was the start of blending two or more yarns in the production of socks, a process that still continues."

So which jokester put this up? (And the pic...pretty. I think I'll go read the sock page.)—Precedingunsigned comment added by66.91.57.84 (talk)08:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. —goetheanॐ15:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fairly long quote (cite 78) from John Updike's review ofSex, Art, And American Culture distorts Updike's view by omitting the previous statement - "The first chapter of ...Sexual Personae...is, simply magnificent- dense with stark truths and sweeping insights."Nitpyck (talk)18:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Molly Ivins' characterisation of Paglia as an "asshole" has no place in this article - it is trivia and does not meet the test of due weight. Inclusion of this type of random personal insult, which has no larger significance or relevance either to Paglia's career or to the image ofSexual Personae as a book, in Wikipedia is the kind of thing that gives Wikipedia a bad name. Please, let's be more professional and serious than that.FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk)00:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Oh, and linking the word "asshole", as if people wouldn't know otherwise what the word means and had to find that out from Wikipedia, just makes it all the more ridiculous).FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk)00:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As others remark, tons of random criticism from feminists who will obviously hate the book, offset by too little of the praise that has been heaped upon the book over the years. At present the article reads like someone asked ONLY libertarians what they thought of the communist manifesto, or ONLY communists what they thought of Milton Friedman. It's fine to have the outraged feminist perspective in there, too, but maybe it should be included under a general heading to let the reader mentally sort the barrage of criticism that (s)he is presented with for no apparent reason.89.23.234.28 (talk)11:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the initial response to the book from academia was mostly negative. You are free to add additional sourced info about the book reception. —goethean18:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that feminists hate it can only mean it must be good. I just got it for that reason.

67.204.247.30 (talk)21:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Music314812813478, I do not know why you think "virginity" is one of the major themes ofSexual Personae, but I have read the book and as far as I'm concerned, you're quite simply wrong. "Virginity" is not a major theme ofSexual Personae and nor is it one of the most important aspects of the Apollonian as Paglia defines it. Your recent changes to this article may be well-intentioned, but none of them has been helpful in the least. Changing "nature" to "instincts", for example, is uninformed and misrepresentsSexual Personae completely. Nature is a major theme of the book, but "instincts" as such are not. The term "Instinct" has a technical meaning with no relevance to Paglia's book, which is not about the concept of "instincts" as used in science. Nor are "feelings" as such an important theme of the book. I will have to remove your inaccurate changes.FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:00, 29 May 2017(UTC)

I do not really have an argument against that, so okay.Music314812813478 (talk)01:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't really read the book myself, so I don't really know anything, but the following is taken from the Paglia section in the Apollonian and Dionysian article:

The Apollonian and Dionysian concepts comprise a dichotomy that serves as the basis of Paglia's theory of art and culture. For Paglia, the Apollonian is light and structured while the Dionysian is dark andchthonic (she prefersChthonic to Dionysian throughout the book, arguing that the latter concept has become all but synonymous withhedonism and is inadequate for her purposes, declaring that "the Dionysian is no picnic."). The Chthonic is associated with females, wild/chaotic nature, and unconstrained sex/procreation. In contrast, the Apollonian is associated with males, clarity, celibacy and/or homosexuality, rationality/reason, and solidity, along with the goal of oriented progress: "Everything great in western civilization comes from struggle against our origins."^[1]

It made me think that virginity was an important theme in her book, but apparently I was wrong.Music314812813478 (talk)01:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• David Bowie Ron Frazier 1977.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at thenomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk)20:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The different Archetypes and a brief summary of them I mean? I'm asking because I'm searching everywhere on the internet and I can't find more info on it, and Chat GPT just hallucinates ones that sound like her style.2601:100:8301:3790:385A:BF9C:1E53:BA0C (talk)14:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• C-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• Low-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
• C-Class Book articles
• WikiProject Books articles
• C-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles