Talk:Sex symbol

Fresh start

@Btljs:, @SNUGGUMS: - I don't think it is necessary to incubate this. We all are reasonably experienced wikipedians, and we can monitor the proper growth of this article in mainspace.

The following was suggested in the draft page:

• History: Of the concept not the actual term itself. ie. what evidence is there of what we now understand as sex symbols in different periods.
• Cultural differences: Round the world; 20th century teen culture;

Staszek Lem (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Definition

Our definition is very vague. (I suspect it is unreferenced, too. The footnote is for the 2nd sentence .) It fits any hot celebrity, but not all hotties called "sex symbol". Not to say the moniker is greatly devaluated nowadays. Can we find something more restrictive? Otherwise we are in danger to be flooded with "sex symbols" again. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

There are two definitions in Merriam-Webster: "a usually famous person who is very sexually attractive" and "a usually renowned person (as an entertainer) noted and admired for conspicuous sex appeal". These have the advantage that the individual has to be famous for something else in addition to their sexual attractiveness. However, since many people whose sole asset is their attractiveness will often take up associated professions that make them famous (such as modelling) this does not help much. The danger of this article being flooded with names is illustrated by a recent Rolling Stone article: "25 Hottest Sex Symbols of 2015". If we merely gain 25 names a year the article will soon become unmanageable. Polly Tunnel (talk) 11:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

References

The first definition is sloppy. The second definition IMO is better and I would suggest to include it into out article (with attribution ("According to...")). As for flooding with names, we have to look at precedents in wikipedia ("Pinup girl, Bombshell (sex symbol)", Femme fatale ("vamp"), angel investor, etc.). Apparently the term "sex symbol" lost its original "exceptional" meaning. Now it seems just to be synonymous to "hot celeb". Therefore we have to agree to include only names which contribute to the encyclopedicity of the article. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

To avoid the return of endless listings, I suggest including any names within paragraph form, probably with quotes on one's sex appeal. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

It will make even worse. Let me repeat: this is encyclopedia, and this is an article about a particular subject; and if a particular sex bomb adds nothing new to the concept of "sex symbol", no need to add it here. This is a matter of WP:TRIVIA we better avoid. 00:29, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Here is an example of bullshit I would strongly recommend: "25 Hottest Sex Symbols of 2015" : "Bernie Sanders: quoting "Thanks to his rumpled appeal and no-nonsense attitude, Sanders has rallied massive grassroots support and touched off a political revolution. And there's nothing sexier than telling the One Percent to shove it". O RLY?Staszek Lem (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

The whole reason I separated this page out from List of sex symbols was so that we could create a page which wasn't clogged up with irrelevant examples from the media. This page should look at the history of the concept, its use in different eras and different cultures and its role in fashion and sociological behaviour. These fame based pages like Celebrity, Pin-up model are usually very poor with current western bias and little depth of research beyond the mainstream press. Mata Hari illustrates the link between notoriety and sexiness, there have been historical figures who have gained sex symbol status in different eras to their own, e.g. Cleopatra. What about Rasputin, Marquis de Sade (who gave his name to a whole genre of sexuality), Boudica (template for the warrior queen), Lord Byron and many others who epitomise a particular aspect of sexual allure and existed before Hollywood came along and recreated history for the 20th Century lowest common denominator. It makes for a slightly more interesting discussion than which member of 1D or Little Mix are the sexiest. Btljs (talk) 08:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

This is one of those classic WP Catch-22s. I applaud the idea of moving the individual names out into the List of sex symbols article to give this article a chance of becoming encyclopaedic. However, the List of sex symbols article is currently being considered for deletion on the grounds of its subjectivity (quite true) and it looks like consensus will probably be to delete it. At which point people will start adding the names here, making it sensible to move them out into a new article called, say, List of sex symbols. This keeps going round and round. If we are to make this article work we will need grounds to remove most of the names that people will add here. It's not going to be WP:NOTE as the individuals are usually notable enough in their own fields to have biog articles already. It's not going to be WP:CITE as it's ridiculously easy to find sources calling almost anyone a sex symbol. It's more like WP:COAT, except that it's not the article that focusses on the wrong thing but rather the list. It's not quite WP:TRIVIA either, in the sense of being an unconnected miscellany. It's more like the situation described in WP:POPCULTURE, except that we would do best if we can eliminate nearly all the popular culture names. Any suggestions as to what our grounds could be? Polly Tunnel (talk) 11:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

My guideline would be: first of a kind, only one (or very few) of a kind or longest lasting. Once you've got, say, a movie sex symbol from the silent era, the golden era and modern Hollywood then no more Hollywood. Then you can have Bollywood etc. Maybe allow male and female in each category. So if Marilyn Monroe and James Dean are there, then nobody gets to add Diana Dors and so on. The examples should not be skewed towards modernity as lasting fame can only be judged from a distance. We should imagine this page being read in ten and fifty years time. Btljs (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

That's exactly my suggestion: something that non-trivially expands encyclopedic content on the subject. By the way, Diana Dors is addable for at least two reasons: the was described as "the only true" British sex symbol (of the era) and second, there are significant sources which discuss her influence as "sex symbol" in great detail. So is Italian Gina Lollobrigida BTW. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

P.S. which [James Dean (disambiguation)]] do you have in mind? (I am not American) And who describes him as "sex symbol"? Staszek Lem (talk) 00:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Criticism missing

Another thing is missing: feminst criticsm of the concept as a manifestation of sexual objectification of women. Per Wikipedia:Summary style, this section should be specifically description how the concept of "sex symbol" was recognized as objectification, as directly discussed in sources used. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed that point of view is missing, as well as information on people unwantedly becoming a sex symbol, on people trying to impose being a sex symbol to gain maturity, and on who are sex symbols in the eyes of sexual minorities like homo-/bisexuals, transgenders and paedophiles, and in the eyes of non-whites and non-westerners. The article now is very very biased. 83.85.143.141 (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

While I agree that the article needs globalization and diversification, one of your suggestion strikes me as odd. Sex symbols to "paedophiles". For the others, we could probably locate sources which do offer their perspective on the sex symbol-status of specific individuals. Is there actually a paedophile press or media industry than can be consulted for the views of this demographic? Dimadick (talk) 12:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Definition and disambiguation

The "excessive sexuality" comment makes a good quote (or referenced source) but a poor definition. "Excessive" means "too much" of something, not "a lot of" or "highest amount of" something. In addition, "excessive sexuality" has connotations of prudish disapproval, whereas I suspect that the term for most people has either neutral or positive connotations. Suggest removing that from the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE and replacing with a definition that amalgamates reliable sources. A mashup of a few dictionary defs would be fine, imho.

• Here's NOAD: "a person widely noted for their sexual attractiveness."

Interestingly, my Websters 2nd Unabridged (1951) has 'sex appeal' and 'sex pervert' but not 'sex symbol'; I guess the term hadn't hit the lexicographic big-time yet, even though I believe that the term existed before that (t.b.d.) with that sense.

The article should also consider other, similar terms, such as "blonde bombshell" and the earlier "femme fatale" (ngrams).

If there's going to be an article about this, then we should not ignore the fact that the term 'sex symbol' existed with other meanings prior to its usage mid-century in the sense of 'sexual attractiveness' and we should say something about the other meanings. OTOH, this could cause the article to become unfocused, and it might be better to have a disambig page encompassing multiple meanings of the term.

In the wake of increasing awareness and popularity of Freud's theories, 'sex symbol' was used in such things as the analysis and interpretation of dreams in a psychoanalytic context in the early part of the century. The earliest I found in a quick search was 1913, in Science: "The fire of Prometheus is a sex symbol."

Prior to Freud, there seems to have been a subject of research in anthropology in the latter part of the 19th century dealing with the analysis of family relationships, where "sex symbol" referred to a type of notational shorthand used in diagrams as a representation of a female or male child, as in MacFarlane (1882); there are many references for this usage.

The psychoanalytic meaning of sex symbol has thousands of academic book and periodical references, and it may be that there should be a disambig page to separate out these definitions from the earlier scientific ones, and the later popular ones, perhaps as Sex symbol (psychoanalysis), Sex symbol (notation), Sex symbol (film) or some such, subject to issues of notability of course. (I suspect the notational shorthand meaning does not rate an article, but possibly an {{R to section}}-type entry in a disambig page). Mathglot (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sex symbol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160822082910/http://www.actiontrip.com/features/atstop10videogamechicks.phtml to http://www.actiontrip.com/features/atstop10videogamechicks.phtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2020

Removal of "Toot Braunstein" as a listed fictional sex symbol. Citation does not appear to support listing, and one article is insufficient to meet the exceptional requirements of this page. Jasontracey1996 (talk) 11:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done. It kind of does, but more explanation in edit summary. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

List of sex symbols

Can we add like a list of examples of celebrities that are sex symbols? Misshampleton (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

No can do. There once was a separate list for that, which got deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sex symbols (4th nomination), so trying to do that here would just be seen as an attempt to revive its content. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Short description is too long

Meters: I assumed your objection to my first edit, based on your "nextdoor neighbour" example, was that I removed the word "famous" - so I restored my edit and put "famous" back. I think that was reasonable, as nothing else in my edit changes information.

There's no reason at all to write "considered as to be very attractive" over "considered attractive"; that's just saying the same thing with more words.

Additionally, all characters are fictional, so "fictional character" is tautological.

WP:SHORTDESC says short descriptions should be of no more than about 40 characters. Your current short description is 85. Popcornfud (talk) 10:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

That's a rather selective view of what you changed. You actually changed "widely regarded as to be very sexually attractive" to "regarded as sexually attractive". So, no, your version is not at all saying the same thing with fewer words. Brevity is nice, but not at the expense of being misleading. I have no objection to changing and tightening the wording, but dropping "widely" is simply misleading. It's a fundamental part of the concept. How about simply "Widely regarded as very sexually attractive"? Meters (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

In my view, "famous" does the work of "widely" there. If you prefer, we could drop "famous" and replace it with "widely" (since someone cannot be widely considered anything without also being widely known, ie famous).

As for "very", I go by the advice of Mark Twain: Substitute "damn" every time you’re inclined to write 'very'. Your editor will delete it and the writing will be just as it should be. It is sufficient to say that sex symbols are considered sexually attractive. Popcornfud (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

(ec)And by this I mean drop the "Person/Famous person and character/fictional character" completely. "Widely" takes care of any issues of fame and of any nonhuman sexual fetishes. If anyone wants to quibble along the lines of the difference between a sexually attractive something (breast for example) as opposed to a sexually attractive person/character then just make it "One widely regarded as very sexually attractive". 41 characters and done. Meters (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Fine. Drop the "very" too. Meters (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

And I have to disagree with you suggestion that "famous" could possibly replace "widely". Danny DeVito, for example, is famous. He may be sexually attractive to some, but he certainly isn't a sex symbol. Meters (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm a little lost - are we good with Person or character widely considered sexually attractive? Popcornfud (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I wrote simply "Widely regarded as very sexually attractive" and And by this I mean drop the "Person/Famous person and character/fictional character" completely. and then Drop the "very" too so we have "Widely regarded as sexually attractive" Meters (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

We can't do that - it's a fragment, it doesn't make sense. We need a noun in there. Popcornfud (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Are you even reading what I have written? I also suggested "One widely regarded as very sexually attractive" Meters (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I am: the last thing you wrote was So we have "Widely regarded as sexually attractive". Kinda looked like that was what you were suggesting, what with the uppercase "Widely" and everything.

I don't think "one" is a good solution here. It's non-standard and ambiguous: one what? Are you OK with Person or character widely considered sexually attractive? Popcornfud (talk) 21:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Fine with me, but I thought you were concerned with keeping it at no more than 40 characters. Meters (talk) 06:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

It's closer to 40 characters, so an improvement. Popcornfud (talk) 10:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Madonna, Ron Jeremy, Lady Gaga, Belle Delphine?

Can we add anything post 1960? 2600:1012:B122:F4B7:24:1F4E:B25C:C41E (talk) 03:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I would also add Mia Khalifa. 2600:1012:B122:F4B7:24:1F4E:B25C:C41E (talk) 03:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

We're not going to turn this into the perennially deleted List of Sex Symbols. This is not the place to list your favorite crush. TJRC (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Sexist Language, Poor Sourcing

“ Archetypal screen lover Rudolph Valentino's death in 1926 caused mass hysteria among his female fans.”

Hysteria is a well-debunked, sexist talking point regarding women. In addition, the provided sources are not necessarily reliable, and in any case do not reflect “hysterics”. WhiskeyRiver573 (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Attribution issue

List of sex symbols is deleted but quoted in attribution box at the top. This is not right... ping User:Graham87? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@Piotrus: It's probably the least worst outcome; see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:List of sex symbols. Courtesy ping Pppery, who started that nomination and commented there about the attribution. Graham87 (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)