Talk:Yaoi/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Usage

Malkinann, the addition about Kurimoto (a.k.a., Azusa Nakajima) is great. It's hard to overstate her importance in the development of this genre. Both as author and critic, she is justly legendary. The absence of her name till now was a serious omission. Her 1991 book about the rise of a particular subset of otaku, titled Komyunikeeshon fuzen shōkōgun (コミュニケーション不全症候群, "Communication Deficiency Syndrome"), was a ground-breaking bestseller. It was also quite timely, following on the heels of the Tsutomu Miyazaki serial killings. Matt Thorn (talk) 06:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you know of any biographies on her, her article is crying out in a plaintive voice, "reference me! reference me!" - also further information on how she, as both authors, developed the genre would be helpful, the citation just says that she wrote important shonen ai mono stories. I wonder if we've enough information here to make a small subsection on non-manga (but still Japanese) manifestations of "Boys Love" such as tanbi? -Malkinann (talk) 06:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Critical reception

In User:Matt Thorn/Sandbox 1, there's been a discussion about reworking the "appeal" and "debate" sections, and what we've come up with can be seen in User:Matt Thorn/Sandbox 2. Just thought I should put a note here about the change. The initial difference can be seen here. -Malkinann (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

FAKE cover?!

Should the fake cover really be the one at the top of the page? I haven't read the entire manga but from what I hear, there's barely anything sexually explicit in it. A short sex scene or two and that's pretty much it. And this is a series that spans seven volumes. FAKE own Wikipedia entry states that it's a BL manga! —Preceding unsigned comment added by FallenAngelII (talk • contribs) 2007 March 21

I think a Shin Mizukami cover or a Zetsuai/Bronze doujinshi scan, or ever a Rimigra cover would be more appropriate for yaoi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.236.142 (talk) 13:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Question about yaoi fans(lover)

Whats the motive behind yaois? Supposing most yaoi writers are female, why are they seem to be drawn to yaoi? i know that for normals hetro sex, its pleasure from playing your gender role. Eg. if a guy is watching porn movie, hes drawn to picture himself as the guy in the act of the porn movie and females picturing herself as the girl in the act. What do yaoi fans connect themselves to? Can anyone explain the mindset of yaoi fan? -CuriousGeorge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.1.234 (talk) 05:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Most yaoi writers are female, and a fair few are lesbians (Lumsing). I'd suggest that you read the resources in this article (Yaoi#References, General references, and Yaoi#Further reading) to give you a fuller picture of why yaoi fans like yaoi. There are many different reasons that people have for liking yaoi. There's voyeuristic opportunities (to someone who likes guys, one guy is hot, two guys together is hotter - posited by McLelland), enjoying the taboo and overturning of norms (Noh), and seeing two guys together as being 'equal' (Wilson and Toku). I think that power is often an issue played with in yaoi - which character has the power, and which doesn't (as can be seen in seme/uke relationships). If sexuality is with two guys instead of a man and a woman, it's more distant, and so less frightening for a young female who may just be starting to think about her own sexuality (Welker). There's a fair few papers and articles out there which ask 'why?' and try to come up with answers - they'd be able to say it better. :) -Malkinann (talk) 06:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It's also an escape for some women who like to fantasize that they are the sexualy dominant Seme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.236.142 (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Ahh thanks for the bit of info. I'll look into those articles. (cg) 76.115.1.234 (talk) 03:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

See also "slash" fanfic brain (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose that shonen-ai be merged into this article, as the various terms are increasingly conflated, and works previously considered shonen ai are now umbrellaed under either Yaoi or "Boys' Love". I believe it would be more helpful to the reader if we could merge them together. -Malkinann (talk) 01:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Both articles are different. I rather have the 'Shonen-ai as an additional element' in the shonen-ai section. If we merge the articles, it will be long and confusing. Having two articles are better.Jonica c (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonica c (talk • contribs) 13:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting here, Jonica. What is "shonen-ai as an additional element"? It's not in the shonen-ai article... The shonen-ai article is comparitively short and mostly covers the same things, but worse, than the yaoi article. -Malkinann (talk) 22:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I prepose a dismerge, seeing as someone has done it already.

I agree. The term "shounen ai" isn't really used that much in Japan ("Boys' Love" seems to be more common), and among English-speaking fans, "yaoi" and "shounen ai" are mostly interchangeable. However, in all of the Wikipedia pages in other languages, yaoi and shounen ai are separate, so that might confuse things a bit. MayumiTsuji (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)MayumiTsuji

There's actually a difference between shounen ai & BL, but Japanese site owners & doujinshika have an incredibly hard time explaining it. Although I believe I have the gist of the difference, I have no documented proof. Also, with the shounen-ai article now gone, there is no information on it's predecessor; tanbi.

Thanks for commenting here, Mayumi. Why should what the other wikipedias do influence what we do here? -Malkinann (talk) 22:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

For example, if the merge takes place, will we link to ja:やおい or ja:ボーイズラブ, depending on which article the English one has more in common with. Or, of course, since this is the "Yaoi" page, we can just link to やおい, just to keep the titles consistent. It seems that in Japan yaoi and boys' love are separate terms, and that the English use of yaoi is closer to the Japanese use of boys' love. I really don't know where I'm going with this, but those are my rambling thoughts. MayumiTsuji (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)MayumiTsuji

I've asked at Help talk: Interlanguage links, with a neutral example (no-one's trying to merge the articles involved there). In the see alsos, there used to be interwiki links to the Japanese pages, in the form you've got there, perhaps they could be returned. -Malkinann (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, shoujo ai and yuri are at the same page, for what THAT is worth. Could be a point toward the merge (and yes, I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, but that's not really the best example - "Shoujo ai" was created by American fans as an analogue to "shonen-ai-as-mild, yaoi-as-explicit", where shoujo ai was mild, and yuri was explicit. Shoujo ai isn't a Japanese word, and the "back-kana" "少女愛 " and "しょうじょ-あい" don't appear on ja:ガールズラブ. Can you think of any other reasons why the articles should be merged? -Malkinann (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not anything of an expert on the topic, and always thought they were different in the same sense that "romance" isn't the same as "porn". ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not either - I've just read too much, lol. It boils down to that shonen-ai has more of a history than just being "yaoi lite" for non-Japanese fans, whereas shoujo-ai does not. Some of the early shonen-ai stories, like Kaze to Ki no Uta, were actually quite raunchy. (the main character of Kaze uses his body to get through school). -Malkinann (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the 'Shonen-ai as an additional element' on the Shonen-ai section... I miss that category!!! Can somebody bring it back? I mean, if Yuri has the 'additonal element' category, why not put Yaoi/Shonen-ai the 'addtional element' category.-Jonica c (talk) 11:43, 29 July 2008

That's simple. Because BL (yaoi/shounen-ai, as English-speaking fans like to call it) is a publishing category, whereas yuri is not. To put it simple, BL manga is specifically released by the publishers under the label "BL manga", and even in the bookstores you have specific "BL sections" when you can find "BL manga". This is not the case with yuri, which is more of normal genre (like sci-fi or fantasy) and most publishers don't bother to state their few yuri works as "yuri", nor do the bookstores have specific "yuri sections" for such material. Therefore it's pretty much up to the reader to figure out what is yuri and what isn't; the "yuri as an additional element" list is meant to help a bit on this. Kazu-kun (talk) 04:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

BL is a Japanese-created term. I was still in highschool when I realized that the Japanese were no longer using the term shounen-ai, & that was 10 years ago. I remebmer that even if you used the kanji for shounen-ai in a Japanese search engine, all you got back were dead web pages & references to old mangas. Now if you typed in the name of an anime; kanji of course, plus the abbriviation BL or a few character names & BL, you got boyslove pages. Type in the hiragana for yaoi & 18 in english & you got yaoi pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.236.142 (talk) 13:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

So, can someone put the BL 'as an additional element' :D. --Jonica c (talk) 09:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I seem to recall the list being controversial in the yuri article too, so I think it's not such a good idea. If such a list were created, every item would need to be sourced to a reliable source saying it's BL-ish. -Malkinann (talk) 10:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems you didn't get my point Jonica. Like I said, the publishers themselves decide and indicate what is BL, so readers don't need any help to find BL stuff. It's the same in the US; publishers always identify their yaoi/shounen-ai stuff as yaoi/shounen-ai, so readers don't need any additional list to help them find this stuff. Kazu-kun (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Support - per reason #3 of WP:MERGE: "There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability." Basically, there's no reason to have a couple weaker articles when one strong and broad article will do just as well. --Kraftlos (talk) 05:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, it would confuse readers if it is merge. Well, as long as someone put back Yaoi/Shonen-ai'as an additional element' then it's fine. :D --Jonica c (talk) 09:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Why would it confuse readers if it's merged? Would it confuse readers any more than having a "poor cousin" article which isn't looked after and has fewer possible sources? (due to the umbrella terms being mostly BL or yaoi, both of which are covered here) -Malkinann (talk) 10:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay fine!!! Just make it really clear and have different headers, as long as you put 'BL as an additional element' ... screw the references!!! hahaha.. kidding! But please put the additonal element please.....--Jonica c (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI, a merge is done manually. The information can be added in whatever way it works best. Nobody's gonna just stick the other article at the bottom. --Kraftlos (talk) 12:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Support - Boys' love grew out of shounen ai, which is basically an extinct genre. From where I sit, in Japan, it's a no-brainer. In the Japanese Wikipedia, "Boys' Love" is the primary article about this genre/phenomenon. The article on yaoi addresses yaoi specifically as a doujinshi phenomenon that refers specifically to parodies of "straight" material. Basically, it treats "yaoi" as a historical, rather than on-going phenomenon. There is a "shounen ai" article, but this is primarily about the historical phenomenon of adult men in sexual relationships with pubescent/adolescent boys (e.g., Greeks, etc.). Buried way down in the article is a section on shounen ai as a subculture phenomenon in Japan, which is to say the shounen ai most of us think of when he hear the phrase. Now that's confusing. I see no logical reason why these should not be subsumed under a single article, with shounen ai and yaoi being explained in their historical contexts. BTW, Jonica c, I'm not sure why you are so passionate about the "additional element" angle. Isn't it enough to just say that male homosexuality appears as an element in shoujo manga that are not primarily about boys' love, offer a couple of examples, and move on? Matt Thorn (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a little problem with the term "doujinshi" as well. I've learned that somehow a comic of one's own online story not parodying something already in print still counts as doujinshi. The best example I've seen is Todd-chan's "Psycho Blast." & while it's not my cup of tea, I'd also like to point out that in Japan, Shota-con is called just plain Shota & Syota. What I can't remember the name of is the gay men's for-men yaoi...it's not called yaoi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.236.142 (talk) 13:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Support - it should have been done much sooner but I was too lazy to initiate it myself. I also think shounen ai as ephebophilia is important enough so that we DON'T simply redirect the article to Yaoi. The reader should have a choice where to go next (yaoi article/ephebophilia article).Tanya had (talk) 10:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point, Tanya had. "Shounen ai" should redirect to a disambiguation page that distinguishes between the two very different meanings of the word. Matt Thorn (talk) 11:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone redirected it to yaoi reguardless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.236.142 (talk) 13:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit iffy on having a disambiguation page for shonen-ai, because I'm wondering when someone looks for shonen-ai on the English Wikipedia, what are they looking for? I imagine that for English speakers, the word "shonen-ai" means "boys in manga/anime in love" rather than being another word for ephebophilia. We can discuss the meaning drifts away from and back to ephebophilia, as the history of the term, certainly. I'm thinking that the Manual of Style page on disambiguations suggests not putting in non-English meanings? The example's a bit unclear...-Malkinann (talk) 13:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Touché. It's hard to imagine a situation in which someone would do a search for "shounen-ai" to find out about historical ephebophilia in Japan. It's probably enough to say that it originally (and to a certain extent still does) refer to ephebophilia, including a link to that article. Matt Thorn (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

BL is about women who like romance & or sex between 2 or more males of varying ages, not pederasty & gay history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.236.142 (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

BL may be about that, but historically, Shōnen-ai was about ephebophilia, and that's why there was the confusion as to do we redirect, or do we disambiguate. But as this is the English encyclopedia, and in English, Shōnen-ai primarily means boys in manga/anime in love rather than being another word for ephebophilia, I merged information from the Shōnen-ai article to yaoi and turned the page into a redirect. -Malkinann (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

ok, I see what you mean and I agree (assuming "shounen ai" is never really used by English speakers to describe ephebophilia in Japanese culture).Tanya had (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Shounen Ai

Aside from it needing to be spelled shounen & not shonen, since no one on the web spells it that way, it needs to be expanded greatly & include publishers. What happened to the original BL/shounen ai page? They redirect here now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.236.142 (talk) 13:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I gather that there was originally no Boy's Love page, (it was created as a redirect from another popular name) but we had a merge discussion for shounen ai which can be seen up at #Merge proposal. If you'd like to expand information on shounen ai and modern BL, please feel free to go right ahead - I'd only like that you include reliable sources when you do! Thanks! :) -Malkinann (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop! My arse hurts!

The "alternate acronym" for Yaoi can be cited to Lunsing, who gets it via a 2000 Yukari Fujimoto paper "The Soul of Girls' Comics: A Complete Guide and Collection of Interviews of Girls' Comics Reflecting the Present" Tokyo: Hakusensha, 2000. It used to be in the article, but I think it was removed as some people found it offensive. I propose to add it back with the following wording: "A joking alternative acronym among fujoshi for yaoi is YAmete, Oshiri ga Itai (やめて お尻が 痛い, "Stop, my arse hurts!").<ref name ="Yaoi Debate"/>" (Also, best section title ever? ^_-) -Malkinann (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Malkinann. I undid the anonymous edit that included this because it wasn't referenced. I was planning to put it back in with a reference this morning, but found that you already had. Matt Thorn (talk) 03:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'd tend to just tag it with {{fact}} if the questionable material isn't obviously wrong or libellous - I find fact-tagging such statements reminds me to go look it up, and it flags the statement as needing a citation (newbies may not know this). That's just a difference in our editing styles, no biggie. Do you have access to Fujimoto's 2000 paper where she details the alternate acronym at all? It just seems to be something that's more widespread amongst the literature on yaoi rather than yaoi fandom itself... (or maybe I'm hanging around in the wrong joints...) -Malkinann (talk) 05:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

"2000"? I don't know about anything published in 2000, but I do have access to what I believe was Fujimoto's first published mention of the phrase, from 1991. In fact, the entire text is on my website. Unfortunately I no longer have the original book, so I can't give page numbers. But she repeated the statement in her 1998 book Watashi no ibasho wa doko ni aru no? (私の居場所はどこにあるの？, "Where Do I Belong?"). I have the new bunko (pocketbook) edition of that book right here, so I can give detailed bibliographic info for that one. Since the decline of the word "yaoi," you don't hear this much anymore, but it can be found here and there on the Internet. Several sites refer to an alleged incident in which the well-known newscaster Hiroshi Kume, in a report on yaoi for the program "News Station," used the phrase, thereby helping to spread it beyond a core of fans. I can find no concrete info to verify this common belief. Matt Thorn (talk) 08:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the romaji on Lunsing's paper doesn't render quite properly, so I can't give you the romaji title for Fujimoto's 2000 paper. I can't really see the kana for the joke on the 1991 paper (command F fails me here...) :( Does Fujimoto give stacks more detail on the joke etymology (like dating it?) than what we've got here? As it is just a joke (and an old one at that) we shouldn't give it heaps of attention, but being able to roughly date the phrase sounds attractive. Are you aware of any sources which discuss the phasing out of the term "yaoi" in Japan? What are BL-ish doujinshi called now? -Malkinann (talk) 01:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Fujimoto does not give any detail about the joke, but since she published the paper in 1991, we know the joke was circulating at least that far back. I've never come across anything that tries to trace the history of the joke, and I don't recall ever seeing (in print) any reference to it older than Fujimoto's. "Yaoi" was coined in 1979, but the genre did not really begin to be sexually explicit until the latter 1980s, so I would guess the joke was created sometime around that time. There are numerous variations on the "snarky acronym", but this one is the cleverest and best known. I've never encountered a source that discusses the decline of the term yaoi. I just noticed it myself over the years. One year they're calling it yaoi, the next they're calling it boys' love, and then they're calling it BL. I almost never hear young people refer to it as yaoi anymore. In five years, they'll probably be calling it something else. BL is very much a trend-driven genre, and the range in age of fans runs from 12 to forty-something (maybe even fifty-something), so younger fans are always trying to distinguish themselves from older fans. Please not that everything I'm saying here is original research. I've never written about it in anything citable, and I don't think anyone else has, either. It's just my off-the-cuff analysis based on 20 years of interaction with the shounen-ai/yaoi/boys'-love/BL community. Matt Thorn (talk) 01:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Poring over the Google-translated page, is the phrase "やめ て、お尻が、いたいから" an alternate wording of the joke? Have you ever thought of translating her paper into English on a dull day? Google translates it as "and such, buttocks, but want". o_O It seems to be an alternate punchline, like the many answers to Why did the chicken cross the road? - this alternate acronym being more along the lines of "Hurry up and **** me". -Malkinann (talk) 02:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The only difference is the から (kara) at the end, which means (in this case) "because", so it would translate (awkwardly) as "Stop, because my butt hurts." I've seen/heard it with and without the final kara, but there is no substantial difference in meaning. Just a minor difference in phrasing. I have (for many years) thought of translating the article on a dull day, but that dull day hasn't arrived yet. Also, the paper is some 17 years old, and the yaoi/BL scene has changed much in the interim. Maybe I'll collaborate with Fujimoto-san someday on something for publication in English. That would give me an excuse to spend some time with her. ( ¯ ∇ ¯ ) heh heh heh heh heh Matt Thorn (talk) 03:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that for me. :) I suppose Wikipedia can always stave off that dull day for you, though if something's old enough, it becomes historic, right? ^_- -Malkinann (talk) 10:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Y!Gallery

The ygallery website http://yaoi.y-gallery.net/ its the most popular art community that focuses around Yaoi why not put this up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.122.105.214 (talk) 09:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to the discussion page. Have a few "reliable sources" who are unaffiliated with Y!Gallery written about it in detail? I'm just not sure it's a "notable" website in terms of the entire history and cultures of Yaoi. Can Y!Gallery's "achievements, impact or historical significance" be sourced to independent observers? If so, I'd love to hear about it! Thank you! -Malkinann (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2008(UTC)

Seme and Uke

Wow. I just starting reading this, and was stunned at how wrong it is. If Suzuki described the seme as "masculine" and uke as "feminine," then I'm afraid Suzuki doesn't know what she's talking about. I thought every fujoshi on the planet had read at least some of Yasuko Aoike's From Eroica With Love. That is the prototype. The unashamedly gay man pursues the stereotypical masculine, stoic man, and gradually (or suddenly) breaks down his resistance. The uke has to be freaked out by his feelings for the seme to some degree. Of course, there are plenty of exceptions. And come to think of it, the fujoshi.jp definition based on "penetration" is way off, too. Think about it. Plenty of stories involve the feminine seme steadily seducing the uke, whose feelings finally explode in an agressive act of penetrating the (very self-satisfied) seme. Most of you have probably read enough BL to imagine any number of plotlines. These days, some of the best so-called BL artists forgo the whole seme/uke thing, and simply have the two "hook up" in a more natural, organic (?) way. My good buddy and former student, Est Em, is a good example. Sometimes there's a hint of seme/uke in her work, but usually she explores deeper aspects of the relationship than just "who seduces who" (which is why neither she nor I liked the English title "Seduce Me After the Show"). I'm rambling again, but the point is this kind of gross generalization is not just wrong, it makes the genre sound more formulaic and shallow than it is. IMNSHO. Matt Thorn (talk) 13:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I've not finished using Suzuki's work yet, which may contradict or clarify matters further. She generally prefers using the words "active" and "passive" rather than seme and uke. Suzuki describes two main modes of relationships, and says that they are both equally common - in the first, she describes two equally masculine men, (I imagine they'd both be "beefcakey" types), where the one who takes the lead in public life or who has the more prestigious job being the "passive" partner in sexual matters. In the second, she says that the yaoi couple is portrayed as heterosexual through various methods, such as showing one character as larger and more masculine, or through showing one as being a more willowy type and his partner being a macho, macho man, and using language choice or "voice" of the characters, such as boku opposed to ore. She also reckons that as girls felt more free to ogle, they started wanting to ogle more manly men rather than the boys of shonen-ai. I think the key here is that she says the heterosexual dynamic can be portrayed through various methods, so that in itself can be an important qualifier for any further description we may wish to add of the ritualisations of seme/uke. -Malkinann (talk) 09:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I must say that what you describe doesn't quite match my own experience with BL. A stereotypical masculine, stoic man in BL is much more likely to be the seme (romance fiction 101: The Mr. Darcy Prototype). The uke might be masculine but the seme is usually even more stereotypically masculine. Looking at the covers in Amazon's yaoi catergory, it's pretty obvious who is the seme/uke in most titles.Tanya had (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

There are certainly many titles that fit that description. But there are many others that do not, and I suppose my point is that there is not one simple formula. When fujoshi here in Japan talk among themselves about BL, the thing they argue about most passionately is pairing, and who should be the seme and who should be the uke. I even know one or two friendships that have been strained or broken because of disagreements about this sort of thing. That is one of the things that makes the genre interesting to me: it is clearly a distinctive phenomenon, and yet the details can be very different, and are also very important to the fans. People who get really into it, as opposed to casual once-in-a-while readers, have very strong opinions and sharply-defined tastes. Matt Thorn (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Blond and dark-haired?

I notice that in James Welker's "BL as Girls Love" paper, he mentions that Yukari Fujimoto devotes some attention to the visual cue that one character is dark-haired and the other is blond. He says that she says (isn't Chinese whispers fun?) that the dark-haired one is usually more masculine and grounded in reality, whereas the blond is more feminine, "decorative" and "separated from reality". Is this common enough to put into the description of the partners? -Malkinann (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I wonder which of her writing he's referring to. She doesn't mention it in the old "shounen-ai" essay she let me publish on my web site. I've never noticed such a phenomenon, but now that I think of it, that is the case in three classic shounen-ai/BL from the 1970s: Yasuko Aoike's From Eroica with Love, Keiko Takemiya's The Song of the Wind and the Trees, and Moto Hagio's The Heart of Thomas. But then again, in all three of those works, the more "feminine," fair-haired character was undeniably the seme. I would be cautious about including a generalization like this, since readers may assume it's a hard and fast "rule." But Yukari is a solid authority on shoujo manga, and, compared with other published critics/scholars, BL as well. She's not only extremely intelligent (and funny, stylish, and beautiful--sorry, got carried away there), she reads more manga than anyone I have ever met in my life, and that's saying a lot. I seem to remember hearing her once say she reads roughly 50 manga magazines, cover to cover, every week. Anything Yukari says on the subject is worth citing, though you have to keep in mind that what she wrote 20 years ago and what she wrote last month may not synch. (That's true of anyone with a functioning brain, I suppose.) Oh, and tomorrow's her birthday. (^^) Matt Thorn (talk) 00:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

He says it's in her 1999 paper, "Shoujo manga ga mederu otoko no karada" (The male body admired in shoujo manga) Kuia Japan (Queer Japan) 1 (November): pages 24-28. I think Welker also suggests this blonde/brunette dynamic is also seen in yuri - Shiroi Heya no Futari being the defining work there. He says that Fujimoto says that Oscar and Andre from Rose of Versailles also follow that dynamic, but he questions her calling Oscar the "blond type", as he reckons that Oscar isn't divorced from reality, but is rather an idealist. Perhaps it's a combination of the artists wanting to make the characters visually distinct from each other ("opposites attract"), perhaps wanting to show foreign-ness through the exotic hair colour (maybe covered in Nagaike's paper?), combined with imported stereotypes about blondes and brunettes? I don't know. Please make sure she has a happy birthday! (It'd be a bit weird for me to wish her one myself, wouldn't it...) -Malkinann (talk) 03:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

"Please make sure she has a happy birthday!"...(•_•;) No. No, I won't got there. Tempting as it may be. (I did send her a little gift, though.) Ehem. First, the word "blonde" is quite a loaded one when you're talking about manga, which is a black and white medium. Excluding color illustrations (in which hair can be literally any color), all hair in manga is "black," but some has more white space. I would disagree that "light" hair makes a character seem "more foreign," at least to 99.9% of Japanese readers. But hair that is "more black" is inherently "heavier" looking, in the literal sense. This sense of "weight" can extend to the reader's perception of the character. Serious characters, I think, are more likely to have blackened hair than are less serious characters, though there are always exceptions. (E.g., in Honey & Clover, Morita's hair is "blacker" than Takemoto's.) I'm looking through a copy of BGM ("Boys Guys Mens") Vol. 3, a BL anthology published by Tokyo Mangasha in December 2007 (and which I have because it includes a piece by my buddy and former student, Est Em), and although most of the stories differentiate the two main characters through "lighter" and "darker" hair, I don't see any pattern in terms of seme/uke, or personality. Hell, these days a lot of BL doesn't even have a clear seme/uke. I'll have to dig up Yukari's article, but the example Welker refers to, and the three examples I gave above, all come from the 1970s. This may be an extinct pattern. Either way, I'm not sure it merits mention, but that's just my opinion. Matt Thorn (talk) 05:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yikes, I didn't mean it like that! Moving right along now... So, it could just be a convienient 'make my characters look different from each other' approach, not specific to yaoi and possibly even not specific to manga? Maybe once you find the original article things will become clearer. -Malkinann (talk) 05:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Seme/uke: differences in Japanese and English usage?

Regarding the above discussions, pretty much all the English-language fan discussion I've seen defines seme/uke in terms of penetrator/penetrated; the scenario Matt implies with "the feminine seme steadily seducing the uke" would instead be described by most American fans of my acquaintance as an agressive uke pursuing a shy or reluctant seme. If the Japanese fandom is using the terms more in the sense of pursuer/pursued as Matt seems to imply, might it be worth explicitly pointing out the difference in usage so as to reduce confusion and perhaps prevent some edit wars? JRBrown (talk) 00:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that's what Matt's getting at - to my mind, there's the whole "tab A, slot B" situation, and then there's the personality/relationship dynamics. Perhaps it was that a particular dynamic was so fashionable in the series translated for the English-language market that the dynamic has become conflated with the sexual position - the "bishonen in distress" uke and the aloof, more macho sempai-seme. The more I think about it, the more I think it's a je ne sais quoi kind of a thing, with many variations... *shrugs* Please feel free to have a crack at rewriting the section (with reference to reliable sources) to make it more encompassing. --Malkinann (talk) 11:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you have it the other way around. Seme is the aggressive, macho one while Uke is the girly one. The easiest way to remember is this: during intercourse in the boring old missionary position, the one who is always Under (and therefore the receiver) is an Uke. Both 'Under' and 'Uke' starts with a 'U'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenand (talk • contribs) 05:19, February 10, 2009 (UTC)

Hey, hey (My concerns)

Well, I've been a member here for a year and a constantly been checking on this article. As I observe, there are homophobes who tries to take down this page. I can't remember who they are, but it has been getting on my nerve. Who thinks this page should be lock and only trusted users can enter? Really. I mean, this article is becoming more and more unreable. Many article that is "shonen-ai" is not listed in the shonen-ai category. Also, I have a problem with the shonen-ai category. I was wondering why is it lock? I would really want to help put some titles, but the user "lock" it. Also, the "shonen-ai/yaoi/BL as a additional element" is really helpful. Really helpful. And, can we have a BL Games category? It would be a real help. Why did they delete it anyway? Where are the editors anyway? Am I the only one who is noticing these? I would really appreciate some concerns.--Jonica c (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The answer is that examples of Yaoi or shonen-ai should be listed in Category:Yaoi or its subcategories. These categories have to be added to the page of the work itself., not here. This article is to explain the overall phenomenon of BL, so would be simply too big if we tried to include all examples.Yobmod (talk) 12:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

GA

Does anyone have an opinion of the GA readyness of this article? I've not done any work on it, but made a summary section in other articles that i'm working up to FA or GA. This seems broad and stable enough for GA. I'll wait and see if one of the main contributors want to "glory" of submitting it, otherwise i'll give it a go soon. Thanks!Yobmod (talk) 12:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it needs a really good copyedit, with special attention being paid to the jargon and words to avoid guidelines. I'm kind of toying with what to do with Category:Yaoi and Category:Shōnen-ai - I view keeping the categories separate as problematic, as shonen-ai has a dual meaning (works from the 70s and 80s, and non-porny modern works). I'd like to merge them together into a Category:Boys Love, but it may be worthwhile reinvestigating the list possibility. Most of the sources used for this article should be fine, but the article could benefit from a look-over with a fine-toothed original research comb. Currently, the article does not contain any information on Original June - doujinshi which are non-parodic efforts. I think Matt has said there is little scholarship on doujinshi which occurred prior to the parody boom. So I think the article probably covers enough angles on the topic. I've omitted moral panics about BL works - mostly "omg how can this library stock this porn!!!!!" and people going "pfft, yeah right, freedom of speech" - most of it should be available via Anime News Network. I'm unsure as to how to incorporate moral panics. So, I guess the article mainly needs a copyedit first before even thinking about GA. --Malkinann (talk) 23:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge fandom demographics to fujoshi?

As the article is now about 60 KB, I've been thinking of ways to better organise the content. I've been considering merging the current Yaoi#Fandom_demographics section into the article fujoshi, leaving a smaller summary behind here - renaming the expanded article something like Yaoi fandom or BL fandom. I believe the current section in the article demonstrates that the shonen-ai/BL/yaoi fandom has enough scholarship to stand on its own. An analogous example might be science fiction and science fiction fandom. Thoughts? --Malkinann (talk) 19:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• I think fujoshi should be merged here, because the meaning of the word fujoshi is nowhere near "Fandom demographics". Renaming in Yaoi fandom is better idea. -- DEERSTOP (talk). 01:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• I think that they should be merged, but merge fandom demographics into fujoshi, not the other way round. And after it has been merged, rename the article yaoi fandom or something along those lines. Sanatherandom (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Your opinions solicited

Hello all;

I'm thinking of writing a paragraph or two on the role of early BL magazines as lesbian/LGBT-female community spaces, based on some of Welker's papers; would this be better placed on the Yaoi or Yaoi fandom pages? Thanks, JRBrown (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I've actually put a bit of that into Yuri (genre)#Etymology - as part of the connection between "yuri" and lesbianism. There's also a snippet of it in the "Critical attention" section, and the "publishing" section. (looking back at it, perhaps in the publishing section is a bit of a stretch...) Probably a fuller treatment would be better on the Yaoi fandom page. We could also make a lead for the yaoi fandom page and put it on this page as a WP:SS measure? --Malkinann (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Intending to remove what looks like trolling

Hi,

I'm not a subject matter expert at all, so I'm checking here on the talk page before making edits. The "Unreferenced section" and "Cleanup-rewrite" tags on sections two and three look like trolling to me. In particular, it's blatantly false that section two is unreferenced. If you know more about the subject and agree, feel free to remove those tags, or I'll stop back in a week or so and remove them unless I hear disagreement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggsyntax (talk • contribs) 12:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they were trolling; these sections have been edited considerably since the tags were applied, and I for one have left them up since I think the gei comi section in particular could use more work (there isn't much analysis in English, so it would be very nice to have someone who is familiar with the Japanese scholarship chime in). If you think the sections read well feel free to remove the tags.JRBrown (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern, Eggsyntax. :) We must be doing something right for maintenance templates to look like trolling! :D The unreferenced section on top of gei comi could be removed (although if JRBrown prefers, it could be replaced with {{refimprove}}, and I added the cleanup-rewrite ages ago in response to a complaint on the talk page above, under the section title #Seme and Uke. We're still kind of hashing out what to do with that section, as the qualities of a seme and an uke are hotly debated in the fan community, but yet little explored in the literature... I'm hoping against hope that the upcoming book on yaoi edited by Dru Pagliassotti will (a) be of help in this section (b) be available to me. Clear as mud? ;) --Malkinann (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible French Yaoi ref book

Hi,

Is Malkinann here ?
I found a potential serious book reviewing the Yaoi genre. Homosexualité et manga : le yaoi (French). Unfortunately after getting the Manga Dico, i'm going to calm down a bit before investing more in Manga academical related publication :( Plus don't want to be tagged translations only editor. --KrebMarkt 13:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks great as a "further reading" for this article - it seems that the publishers provide some sample sections from it, too. Hope I've got the citation right for it, but even so, having the link there will take people to the publisher's website, which should cover for any errors on citation formatting. Everyone's just excited because Manga Dico is fairly current and it provides commentary for many series and can potentially be widely useful. The demand for it will go down in time. --Malkinann (talk) 02:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Got it yesterday :p A lot lot lot materials to read and digest. Great for people interested in Manga academic like stuff and fan of the yaoi. Some statements are bold like Shueisha (shonen jump, jump SQ) using yaoi to bolster their sells. Are there really a lot of Hikaru no go yaoi doujin released ? --KrebMarkt 05:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Matt Thorn was saying that he's been hearing the phrase "Shoujo Jump" bandied around a lot - ie. Shonen Jump is putting lots of BL in to appeal to the ladies. That the phenomenon has gotten into the Homosexuality and Manga book is great, it means we can have a solid citation for it! :D Also, re. Hikaru no Go yaoi doujin - if there are two or more males, someone will create yaoi of it. ^^ --Malkinann (talk) 08:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The Gei Comi/Bara section

I just tried to put citations in, but it seems my markup was wrong and really screwed up the page. I undid my edits but I don't think it worked and I certainly don't want it considered vandalism, can someone just undo my edits.

I don't think this belongs in the terminology page of 'yaoi'. The person entered it there, but then argues the terms are for a subgenre that is not, in it's essence, yaoi at all. They're incorrect, because the current genre of 'gay manga' in Japan is in fact sold as a subgenre BL [macho BL, or Men's Love], by male fans for male fans, and is not the Gei Comi that they're talking about when mentioning Tagame and the Gay Comic scene that existed before and during the 'BL' [yaoi] boom in Japan; They're citing info related to that time period and that form of comics, but they're doing it while trying to describe the current genre--so they're coming up as inaccurate. They're also coupling art-style differences that indicate the gender target for the market [these can be cited but aren't] with opinions on plot trends which are in fact meant to mimic idealized romance, just like BL for women. Again, they're citing outdated articles that have nothing to do with the current state of the genre they're trying to say is NOT YAOI.

~gynocrat —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gynocrat (talk • contribs) 00:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi gynocrat; I started the Gei Comi sub-section since the article was drawing various contrasts between yaoi and gei comi, but there was no information on the latter. The macho BL or "crossover appeal" stuff is touched upon briefly in the paragraph just above the Gei Comi/Bara paragraph. It would be nice to have a separate page for Gei Comi and/or macho BL, but I don't think there's enough cite-able material available in English as of now to support one. If you know any non-Japanese sources that would be useful, please let us know (I can handle French, Italian, and German and have access to a pretty big university library system, so even quite obscure stuff would help). Of course, feel free to take a stab at writing an improved section if you like. JRBrown (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, having looked at the comments you were trying to add, I think the more efficient way would be to flag the section with one of the dispute/discussion templates, such as {{Refimprove}}, {{Citecheck}} or {{Disputed-section}}, and put the comments on the talk page (i.e., here). That allows everyone to view and discuss the points at issue without making a mess of the article in the meantime. JRBrown (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi JRBrown, I did remove the citations and comments since I obviously FAIL at Wiki.  :) Tried the template way but that was a disaster also; I did undo the changes thus, no mess in the article, at least for no more than three-minutes on screen time. I did bring the discussion here, and I thank you for replying. I thought about rewriting it, but I'm on a deadline, so instead I posted here to ensure the author of the section would find it and address my concerns. One note, I still have no idea why the term 'gei-comi' is being used here at all, since there's an obvious distinction between it, and the English originated term 'bara' or yaoi for men. It's an antiquated term these days, like 'shounen-ai'. It's just not used anymore, is it popular in the /chanverse?  :) I still think many of the opinions you express aren't backed up by the material you're citing. Sadly, there is little available in English - I tackled it's history myself at GGY, but my references came form talking to Japanese creators, fans, and online shop keepers from Japan. I do cite some articles I recall reading in English about it all. Feel free to take a look http://ggymeta.wordpress.com/popular-gay-manga-posts/that-bara-article/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gynocrat (talk • contribs) 19:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

When you say "It's just not used anymore", do you mean "bara" or "gei comi"? One point of using "gei comi" is that none of the published (academic) sources use (or even mention) the term "bara" in connection with manga, and the term was being used by the yaoi article as I found it (and elsewhere on Wikipedia); I suppose we could use "gay men's manga" instead. I don't know what the current usage is in Japan, but at least on the Anglophone Web, from what I've seen all (presumptively) gay-male-oriented manga is being called "bara" irrespective of origin (just as the Anglophone use of "yaoi" doesn't necessarily match Japanese usage).

Hey JRBrown, :) The term 'menslove' or ML is what's currently being pushed by the creators and Bakudan at the moment. For reference on this, please visit the G-Project site here: http://www.gproject.com/bakudan/ They want the term 'menslove' to incorporate all the styles of gay manga, including those muscle-BL's currently being aimed at male fans of BL. For example, Matsu makes manga for male fans of 'muscle-BL'; while Jiraiya makes manga for male fans of 'beru'. Two very different styles, but both are gay comics. Through Bakudan, a group of male mangaka pulled together what they would consider the top '40' must have titles that best define ML: http://www.gproject.com/store/love08/

In terms of the new-school/old-school issues you raise, I'd mention again that the recent "BL-for-guys" stuff wasn't the subject of this section, in part because there has been no academic mention of it yet; if you think that this distinction should be made clearer, we can try to come up with some appropriate explanation. I'm not solely responsible for this section, and some of the comments you added address stuff not written by me; I generally try not to delete material unless it is incomprehensible, obviously irrelevant, or contradicts published sources without offering a competing cite. I'd note, however, that the translations from the Italian article are as accurate as I can make them; specifically, it says

Venendo ai contenuti, in generale i manga per ragazze danno più peso ai sentimenti e quelli per ragazzi all'azione, e questo stato di cose si riflette anche nei manga con personaggi gay (esempio: negli shonen ai le scene di pianto a dirotto e le lunghe pause introspettive non sono rare, mentre lo sono nei manga gay).

Turning to the content, in general, manga for girls gives more weight to feelings and that for boys to action, and this state of affairs is also reflected in manga with gay characters (example: in shonen ai scenes of uncontrollable weeping and long introspective pauses are not rare, but they are in gay manga).

Although the article does seem to be referring mainly to manga that was serialized in gay men's magazines. JRBrown (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

JRBrown, you lose me completely on the Italian stuff, thanks for the trans, but yes, they're obviously talking about the gay comics that were serializes in works running in SMZ mag or BADI Monthly; those magazines contained works look really out of place compared to the current material. Even the works of mangaka Jiraiya serialized back then, don't resemble his current crop of works written for Macho Type, G-Bless, or Urigekidan. The art is similar, but the stories are dramatic - some of them silly and a bit over the top...but that's just writing what the market it buying. The market currently comprised of male fans coming off the heels of 'BL' for women.

Bara in its own page

I have created a new page exclusively for bara (also known as gei comi): Bara (manga). While sometimes called yaoi, bara is actually a subgenre of manga created by men for men (homosexual men in this case) and does not abide by the same conventions as yaoi (by women for women). The yaoi article supports this conclusion several times:

"...yaoi came to be used as a generic term for female-oriented manga, anime, dating sims, novels and dōjinshi featuring idealized homosexual male relationships."

"BL creators and fans are careful to distinguish the genre from “gay manga,” which are created by and for gay men.[1][2]"

"Yuri for actual lesbians tends to resemble the opposite of gay men's manga (bara), while men's yuri manga is more like yaoi manga, since both are targeted at the opposite sex and are not about reflecting gay reality."

"Yaoi has become an umbrella term in the West for women's manga or Japanese-influenced comics with male-male relationships,[11] and it is the term preferentially used by American manga publishers.[17] The actual name of the genre aimed toward women in Japan is called 'BL' or 'Boy's Love'. BL is aimed at the shōjo and josei demographics, but is considered a separate category.[11][18] Yaoi is used in Japan to include dōjinshi and sex scenes,[11] and does not include gei comi, which is by gay men and for gay men.[1][11]"

"Recently a subgenre of BL have been introduced in Japan, so-called "Muscle-man BL" or "Gachi Muchi" [25] (which has been referred to as "bara" among English-speaking fans, [26][27] although in Japan this term only refers to gei comi), which offers more masculine body types and is more likely to have gay male authors and artists. Although still marketed primarily to women, [25] it is also thought to attract a large crossover gay male audience. [28] This type of BL should not be confused with gei comi proper."

"Considered a subgenre of seijin (men's erotica) for gay males, bara resembles comics for men (seinen) rather than comics for female readers (shoujo/josei). Bara is more true to actual homosexual male relationships, and not the heterosexual-esque relationships between the masculine seme and feminine uke types that are most common in romantic fantasy in women's yaoi manga. "

"In comparison to yaoi, gay men's manga is unlikely to contain scenes of "uncontrollable weeping or long introspective pauses", and more likely to show characters who are "hairy, very muscular, or have a few excess pounds"."

The exception is "Muscle-man BL" / "Gachi Muchi" which is sometimes called bara, but as it is intended for a female audience it is yaoi, with only physically masculine characters. Otherwise it abides by the conventions of the BL genre.

People interested in bara or gei comi should be able to find it easily on Wikipedia. I searched for it and the disambiguation page listed the article for Barazoku, a publication that is definitely significant in the history of bara. The article, however, does not go into detail about the bara genre. A visitor had to already know what yaoi is and that information on bara could be found in the yaoi article in order to find such information on Wikipedia.

I have pulled information from this and other articles, which I list on the page. I have done my best to make sure the references work correctly, but I'm not an experienced Wiki editor. It is my hope that others will assist in correcting any mistakes and with general revision. I have also categorized the article under a variety of related subjects, such as bears in gay culture, partially in hopes that the article will gain visibility. --SykoSilver (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

"Types of uke", etc.

On April 10, a not-logged-in user added the following:

Appearance vs. Personality

The classic guidelines establish the uke by appearance (shorter than the seme, more childish, mostly light-haired, cute faces, effeminate) in relation to the 'dom' seme's appearance (taller, more masculine, older), often regardless of the characters' personality. Some artists are known to physically alter the original appearance of characters to fit the stereotyped look. Recently, most characters (especially in American fandom) are established as seme based strictly on personality (the uke being typically more emotionally imbalanced, acquiescent, and immature or have more feminine interests), which sometimes conflicts with the original visual concept.

The Height Rule

As previously stated, pairings (especially when fan-based and in Japan) follow what is known as the "height rule". The shorter of the two characters is placed as the uke while the taller is inevitably cast as the seme, regardless of whichever character is more passive personality-wise. Even when fans wish for the more dominant or aggressive shorter character to have the role of seme, often the character will go through a sudden height change in either the fanart, doujinshi, or fanfiction. The reasoning behind it is most likely because having the shorter character "on top" visually looks odd.

Types of Ukes

There are many different "styles" of ukes that are used in anime and manga:

- Ukes are usually seen as a younger characters who are shorter, younger, or otherwise have an appearance slightly more "cuddly" than handsome. Shuichi from Gravitation and Naruto from Naruto is a typical example of a character with uke overtones.

- Another uke style is the depressing uke. They are usually dark and short, and prone to having to worst luck in life. They cry, and are usually antisocial from large groups of people. They might even resort to cutting their own wrists or other forms of self harm to 'let out emotion'. In fan writings and other fandoms, Naruto's Sasuke, or Fruits Basket's Yuki and Kyo are often paired with either being placed as the uke. But both can be classified as a depressing uke. The self-sacrificing Kurama from YuYu Hakusho, would fall into this category when placed as an uke (mostly under the "personality/American" definition of an uke), or, when following the "Height Rule", his popular fandom boyfriend Hiei would also fit this category.

- A popular uke "style" is the rebellious uke. They are slightly taller and more mature than the above placed uke, and usually have a fiery temper. When in involved in a reationship, their seme makes it clear who's in charge and this doesn't sit well with this particular uke. They rave and protest, demanding to be the seme and not the uke. They refuse to admit that they are sometimes adorable, or have a soft spot for something a little less 'manly'. For fan-based pairings in Fullmetal Alchemist, Edward Elric is usually considered this type of uke.

- Another Uke style is a more "girly" boy. eg. Kim JaeJoong from TVXQ is considered an uke because of his girlish looks as opposed to Jung Yunho who is cast as a seme because of his masculinity in the fanpairing "Jaeho". [This paragraph was deleted in the next edit, by a different IP address]

This contains some redundant information, some that is probably OR (I've seen several Japanese seme/uke classifications and I don't recall a "depressing uke" type) but perhaps a bit of potentially useful new content; much of it is based on fanfiction usages, particularly Western ones, which the current article does not address. I'll leave it here for anyone who wants to try to dig out the useful bits and rewrite them in an appropriate style and/or hunt down cites. - JRBrown (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Just as an aside, we must be extremely careful with anything using real people as an example (real person fiction, real person slash) due to such matters falling under Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. --Malkinann (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Request to rename this page "Boyslove."

I think that yaoi should be a subcategory of BL, rather than the other way around. Just rename the title. "Boyslove" or just plain BL is the term Japan uses. "Shounenai" is an outdated term not used in Japan anymore, refurring to older stuff like "Kaze to Ki no Uta." Yaoi is smut, porn. A few Japanese girls have told me "June is used with original characters, yaoi is just in doujinshi & fanfiction." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.118.100 (talk) 05:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The criteria for Wikipedia is the term most commonly used in English, and the consensus on that seems to be "yaoi". It's almost the only term used by publishers, is also used by much of the academic analysis, and it appears to be the term most widely recognized by readers. - JRBrown (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Rape

the portrayal of rape in this article is completely, utterly one sided and massively POV. this is a complete and utter dereliction of the duty of the editors and writers, complete negligence. it is totally unacceptable and severly damages the credibility of wikipedia as a reliable encyclopedia to discuss rape as some kind of positive experience without any sort of criticism or counter argument. Decora (talk) 15:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The point of the "Rape" section is not to discuss rape in real life, but fictitious rape in the context of BL narratives. There is a large body of academic discussion on rape fantasy in women's fiction and romance novels, but rather less work on its role in BL specifically; if you have any relevant citations I would be most grateful if you could point them out. As rape fantasy is a common element and apparently appeals to many readers, the academic analysis has largely attempted to explain its appeal rather than condemning the readers or authors for their interest. - JRBrown (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Female Oriented

is this a necesairry part of the article. maybe the writers/drawers are mainly female, i don't know. but isn't this comment sexist and aimless? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.172.97.94 (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's a necessary part of the article, because most of the reliable sources discuss yaoi/shonen-ai/BL as being by women for women, and attempt to examine the effects of this or why this is important. ("first step towards feminism", etc.) To leave this out would be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the topic. Yes, the enquiries can pathologise the fans. As part of the general curiosity and talk about the subject, I've managed to improve the amount of yaoi articles on wikipedia, so it's not all bad. Could you please tell me if you feel that the current treatment in the article has a point of view, or is sexist, rather than just reporting the views of the literature? --Malkinann (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with Malkinann. Flyer22 (talk) 18:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

its completely unreferenced. Decora (talk) 15:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It's referenced in the sources Malkinann speaks of. Flyer22 (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

But perhaps it would be best to state "generally female-oriented," as I'm sure there are some boys/men who enjoy reading/watching yaoi. And the Yaoi#Gei comi/Bara section does discuss how the term yaoi is sometimes conflated to mean Gei comi/Bara as well. Flyer22 (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I am male and bi and I love yaoi, I actually got a little angry when I read that it was female oriented and only included males with bara, which I don't really like. I agree with Flyer22 that it is "generally female-oriented" and that it should say something about males as there is a definitive number of males that do enjoy reading/watching yaoi.--JAK0723 (talk) 04:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The article on the yaoi fandom discusses demographics of readers in more depth. --Malkinann (talk) 02:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

child sexual abuse

furthermore this article is full of the typical NAMBLA propaganda that has been repeatedly deleted in other articles and edit flamewars. for example, the typical strategy of conflating child sexual abuse with gay rights. there is almost zero criticism in this article on the issue that Yaoi depicts child molestation, and almost no mention of people objecting to it on these grounds. . . instead these objections are painted as 'homophobic' rather than 'anti-child abuse'. but child molestation is exactly what Yaoi depicts. why is this article empty of such criticism? The article is completely POV as a whole, in tone and in structure. it does not even mention any criticism on the child sex abuse issue. absolutely POV and damages the credibility of wikipedia severely as a legitimate encyclopedia. Decora (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

As above, if you have citations for RS discussion of these issues we would be grateful if you could mention them. The majority of academic discussion of underage characters in BL frames them in terms of young adult romance for an adolescent audience, and notes that Japanese media has historically been less squeamish about the depiction of sexuality in teen-targeted material. "Child sex abuse" is quite rare in BL; perhaps you are thinking of shotacon? - JRBrown (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Lede

I just removed this text from the Lede

Yuri is a wider blanket term than yaoi, because it refers to comics with lesbian relationships, regardless of the target audience, which may be (presumptively heterosexual) men, heterosexual women, or lesbian women. Yuri made by and for lesbians tends to resemble a distaff counterpart of bara, while men's yuri manga is more like yaoi manga, except more sexual, since both are targeted at the opposite sex and are not about realistic homosexual relationships.

It's fine as a sentence, but it's un-sourced, and doesn't say anything about Yaoi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.22.169.142 (talk) 07:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

pornography

Yaoi is clearly pornography. and yet reading this article, you dont get that sense. instead, it is painted as some kind of gay rights liberation literature. again, massively POV and disingenuous. Decora (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

In the western usage of the term yaoi, it covers all works of any degree of explicitness. The article does state that some BL is explicit. I disagree that BL is "painted as some kind of gay rights liberation literature"; it is presented as female-oriented romantic fantasy, which is a fair descriptor of the genre as a whole. - JRBrown (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

There are two Japanese articles that link back to this English article as a translation. One for Yaoi, and one for Boy's Love. That's because they are NOT the same thing. The first line of this article gives the strong impression that Yaoi is the Japanese term for any material with a homoerotic theme made for women. That isn't true. It's the English term, which has been borrowed and changed from a Japanese term with a different meaning (explicit homoerotic pornography). That should be made very clear in the very first paragraph, or people are going to embarrass themselves with this misleading information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DancingHorses (talk • contribs) 09:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The "neutrality of this article is disputed" tag

In what way is the neutrality of this article disputed? The editor who added the tag should have started a section about it here on this talk page, as the tag suggests. Otherwise, editors won't know what needs "fixing." I can guess who added the tag without checking the edit history, judging by the most recent comments on this talk page, but a section on exactly how this article is not neutral should have been started as well. Otherwise, I or anyone else would be in the right to remove the tag. Flyer22 (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Pictures

Example of an image with a yaoi motif.

The German Wikipedia has been working with Animexx to provide quality yaoi and shonen-ai pictures for those pages, and as a result of that, I've been pointed to the image you can see on the right. Given that we are also using File:Yaoi_Books_by_miyagawa.jpg (books on the bookshelf), File:JackXArik.png (two young men kissing beneath an umbrella), and File:Otome Road Boys Love Billboard.jpg (an advertisement for a yaoi drama CD in Otome Road), how should we rearrange the images? I propose that the image at the right becomes the top image, and that the bookshelf image go down to publishing, and the Otome Road image be depreciated. --Malkinann (talk) 22:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the illustration of the guys kissing that is now in the Publishing section could be moved to the top of the page, and the books moved down? I'm afraid that the "guys making out" picture might cause another "OMG porn on Wikipedia!" flap, so I'd suggest that if it is used, it not be at the top. The Otome Road picture isn't particularly useful, so getting rid of it seems fine. - JRBrown (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

That reaction may disappear altogether when Wikimedia rolls out its feature allowing people to hide possibly offensive images. I reckon this picture can be placed in the Themes section, providing the "interiority" the section's introduction suggests. While kissing depicts shonen ai well, this picture is more intimate and fits well into the Themes section. Kudos to the Germans on their work, as well as others considering the quality of the German Wikipedia. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 19:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

LOL, I like Malkinann and Arsonal's suggestions...but also agree with JRBrown. I've certainly seen people cry "OMG porn on Wikipedia!" enough times, such as from seeing the drawings on the Non-penetrative sex article. The drawing of these two young men above is pretty tame to me, though. And, Arsonal, I saw a feature like that on Wikipedia a few times. Was it taken away? Flyer22 (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You might have seen something else. The image filter referendum directed by the Board of Trustees has not begun. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 22:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't quite see how the new picture fits into the themes section, or how to make the caption make it fit? Another sensible place for the new image might be in the seme and uke section, as the grey-clothed man is penetrating the dark-clothed man? --Malkinann (talk) 03:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, it seems I've inadvertently overlooked the Seme and uke section. That would be an appropriate alternate location for the image. I think it would portray the second and fourth paragraphs well. Captions can alternatively be informative rather than descriptive, such as pulling an appropriate referenced sentence from the prose regarding seme and uke and putting it as a caption. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 13:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Flyer22 (talk) 20:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Usage

The history of the term Yaoi seems to be a little messed up. The term wasn't coined until the 1980's and was popularized at Komike. Boy's love however started *before* that point. Those should be properly separated and put into chronological order.

Compare the Usage section to the original text from the reference. (I edited it a bit to make it faster to type, typos might apply.)

"Yaoi is a term used to describe texts and a broader subculture characterized by a predilection for male-male love stories, stories created bu and for women. Starting in the 1970s, Japanese manga included commics depicting love between young men (shounen) by artists like Hagio Moto, Takemiya Keiko, and Yamagishi Ryoko--called the Showa 24 gang, for their common birth year, 1949. Inspired by the cultu author Mori Mari, in 1979[ed. ,] Kurimoto Kakou published a novel of young male love titled Mayonaka no tenshi (Mioidnight angel). These "Shounen love stores" (Shounen ai mono) in prose and manga wer the precursors of yaoi. (reference)

At the same time from the mid-1970s onward, in the world of fanzines (Doujinshi), women writers and artists were producing prose fiction and manga that imagined love between the male characters of popular anime like Chatchaman and Majingaa Z [...] These were anime parodies, but in 1979, Kurimoto helped found the magazine [June] to publish original works for the same readership.

But it was only later that the term yaoi was applied to works like these. Around 1980, the female manga artists Sakata Yasuko and Hatsu Akiko coined this word to describe the male male sex manga they were publishing in the magazine Rappori. Yaoi was a combination of the initial letters from the phrase "Yama nashi, Ochi nashi, Imi nashi" (No climax, no conclusion no meaning)-- a self-ironic refeence to the face that these parodice works had no need of a story and consisted simple of repeated sex scenes.

The word yaoi gained currences in places like Komike[...] in the mid 1980s"

This is a lot more clear than the article itself, which means the article needs to be rewritten, without using this text. The text of the article is confusing, leading people to think the term was made in the 1970's, which is wasn't and created in the 1970's, which is wasn't. The term came *later* than the actual phenomenon, but was more defined by June. Ummm... reading comprehension from original author.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Your quote says "Sakata Yasuko and Hatsu Akiko coined this word to describe the male male sex manga they were publishing in the magazine Rappori". I don't believe Rappori was qualified as "sex manga" magazine. The authors in the doujin magazine had been basically already famous shoujo pro mangakas then, and though I haven't read the magazine myself, I have never heard it was pornographic in any sense. Don't confuse them with (ero)doujin-sakka these days. And what makes you believe that "leading people to think the term was made in the 1970's, which is wasn't and created in the 1970's"? See http://twitpic.com/56b7bk/full, this Yaoi Sepecial Issue was published in 1979 and had a discussion on yaoi in it, so at least it was a established word among the authors and the readers in 1979. -- 60.34.9.121 (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to add something in a similar vein for this discussion. The portion at the beginning of the article as follows: "Yaoi began in the dōjinshi markets of Japan in the late 1970s/early 1980s as an outgrowth of shōnen-ai (少年愛?) (also known as "Juné" or "tanbi")..."

The comparison of terms is not really true, and if based on the sources currently on the page seems to me an overstatement of phrase. I see the phrase used in one of the sources "These "Shounen love stores" (Shounen ai mono)," but based on the Japanese use of the term, shōnen-ai would not be the same as Tanbi/June. Nor do I see anything in the sources linking the two terms. Someone enlighten me if I missed something here. 74.214.36.226 (talk) 06:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Criticism needs to be expanded upon to include domestic abuse

How is that the "criticism" section fails to mention the whole rape thing? The article blathers about that tripe about it being "uncontrollable love", but it does nothing to point out how disgusting this whole genre is because of the romanticization of domestic abuse? I call sheep crap on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.129.0 (talk) 11:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Yaoi is primarily romantic love not rape, but the sub-section does cover what ideas exist. Criticism of a minority of works that is covered in its own sub-section is probably the best for NPOV while addressing the major points of something as complex as yaoi. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually most yaoi is rape and Stockholm Syndrome. The word itself even means "Stop my butt hurts". And if not rape, then there's heaping helpings of pedophilia (even they're of age the uke will often look like an underage girl and act like an underage girl as well, and sometimes the seme will look underage too), incest, and/or misogyny (most women in these things only exist so as to be the EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVIL Mustache-twirling Bitch who wants to break the seme and the uke up, or the uke will act like the misogynistic stereotype of a straight girl). And the criticism doesn't say anything about all the rape in the genre. Bluekevlar16 (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Bluekevlar16

What nonsense. It does not mean "stop my butt hurts". If you want to add something about critiques about rape in the genre, feel free. Just be sure to include reliable sources and neutral language. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of "yaoi" in LBGT in Japan template

Please see discussion at Template talk:LGBT in Japan. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Yaoi has nothing to do with LGBT. Yaoi is culture of the heterosexuals. It is inappropriate to write in Template:LGBT in Japan.ヤオイ(Yaoi)は1970年代の日本で、異性愛女性に生み出されたものです。ja:森鴎外の娘のja:森茉莉が、書いたのが一番最初ですが。基本的にヤオイは異性愛者の文化です。ゲイ男性の多くはヤオイは読みません。

Yaoi was produced in Japan of the 1970s by a heterosexually oriented woman. It is Mori Mari first to have written. Yaoi is culture of the heterosexuals. Most of gay men do not read Yaoi. It has nothing to do with the culture of LGBT. Yaoi is a cltures of the heterosexuals, by the heterosexuals, for the heterosexuals. It isn't related topic. Yaio is an imaginary product of the hetero woman. It is different from the real homosexual. source:「オトコノコのためのボーイフレド」（1986,Japan）P72[1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leoxaq (talk • contribs) 04:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The template is not "LGBT culture in Japan". It's "LGBT in Japan". Yaoi is about gay men. It doesn't matter who the target audience is. このテンプレートが日本のＬＧＢＴです。日本のＬＧＢＴの文化じゃない。ヤオイの内容が同性愛と同性愛者ですよ。対象顧客層が関係ない。 (Note: Japanese text is the same as English text). EvergreenFir (talk) 04:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Yaoi is not about gay men.Yaoi is about gay by the hetero woman's imagination. It is not included in LGBT concept.--Leoxaq (talk) 05:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion at Template talk:LGBT in Japan. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

First of all I would like to say that lots of gay men especially in the United States do read Yaoi. Secondly, some yaoi is written by men. Thirdly, if it is by women for women it would be a matter of appropriation and exploitation of homosexual relationships which would mean it is 100% anti-gay by design. So if it wasn't for the fact that many people in the gay community me included do believe it was gay it would be virtually the same as blackface and therefore would be discriminative. Which do you want it to be? I have seen studying both suggesting it is gay and others suggesting its homophobic.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 07:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Yaoi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lemurbaby (talk · contribs) 12:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

General

• There are instances of British and American spellings in the article. Pick one and use it consistently.

 Done Or at least I think so. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

• Sometimes Japanese terms are italicized and sometimes they aren't, but not in a consistent way. Either they should all be italicized, or only italicized on the first use - some kind of a system.
• There is confusion in the use of Yaoi and Boys' Love at places throughout the article. Sometimes Yaoi is used as a blanket term, and other times Yaoi and Boys' Love are both discussed with an implied differentiation that seems to be more relevant among Japanese than among Westerners. The article needs to be clear on how it's using the terms within the article itself. How are you intending they be used here - are you using the Japanese meaning of Yaoi or the Western one?
• Choose one consistent way to write dates: day month year or month day year, and choose whether to spell out month names or use a number

 Done All dmy to match the Oxford usage.

• Citation formatting is inconsistent as well. Please use one consistent format for these - I'd recommend templates, but they're not required.

Lead

• The lead doesn't summarize all the subsections of the article and needs to be reworked and expanded.

History

• This section should lead off with the background to the creation of the genre as an outgrowth and parody of the earlier one. I copied the content from the lead as a place holder and moved another bit of referenced material here where it fits better than where it was. I'd recommend rewording and expanding the copied content and adding the necessary references to support it.
• "The nascent genre targeted the shōjo and josei demographics" - which are what?
• The history section is difficult for the average English-language reader because it uses foreign terms without defining them. It's also unclear what happened when, and why/how in the development of the genre - is yaoi a subgenre/outgrowth of shonen or of shojo, for example?
• If "A Lovers' Forest" is the first work of yaoi, it shouldn't be in a note but in the main body of the article. It's unclear which was the first though - the article posits several contenders. If there is no consensus on which really was the first, would you cluster the contenders together and make it clear that cases have been made for each but there is no agreement on any one of them? It will be important to include the year each one was published to help make the chronology clearer in the reader's mind.
• Explain why Kurimoto's works are the precursor to yaoi - did they focus more on female sensibilities or something?
• How can the term yaoi be created in the 1970s and coined in the 1980s?
• "The phrase also parodies a classical style of plot structure." How so?
• Using the quotes "difficult to understand" and "yummy parts" is not encyclopedic and obscures the meaning here. I'd recommend explaining in plain English what's meant here, and if you feel the quote is really worth keeping, use it in a quote box off to the right side.
• I'd recommend explaining how june is supposed to be pronounced if we don't want a whole world of readers to pronounce the name of the genre the same as the month! :) Also be consistent in using either juné or june as the spelling.
• "male/male tanbi (耽美 "aesthetic") romances" - there is a problem here with the coding, indicated by a superscript question mark in the article after "aesthetic". I also noticed the same problem after " Yamete, oshiri ga itai" and it's probably elsewhere too. You'd want to review the whole article to check for and correct this error wherever it surfaces.
• In the note, "The word was originally used to describe an author's distinctive style, for example, the styles of Yukio Mishima and Jun'ichirō Tanizaki." - the wording of this is unclear to me. Can you provide an example linking these writers and the word tanbi?

Shōnen-ai

• Can you briefly describe how these were characterized by idealism?
• Who is Suzuki? (help the reader know why his/her opinion or analysis matters)
• Do you have a reference to support the claim made regarding Gravitation and the Remix version?

Top and bottom

• "In recent years..." can you use a year or decade when this changed?

Bara

• This section is relatively underdeveloped. I reorganized a bit. Add citations where indicated.

Female characters

• "Early shōnen-ai and yaoi have been regarded as misogynistic" - by whom?
• "but Lunsing notes a decrease in misogynistic comments from characters and regards the development of the yuri genre as reflecting a reduction of internal misogyny." Can you explain this more fully? I don't understand the connection between the development of yuri and reduction in misogyny.
• "Alternatively, yaoi fandom is also viewed as a "refuge" from mainstream culture, which in this paradigm is viewed as inherently misogynistic." - I don't follow this either. how is yaoi fandom a refuge from misogynistic mainstream culture, especially if the female characters are so unimportant or negatively depicted?
• "Yaoi author Fumi Yoshinaga usually includes at least one sympathetic female character in her works" - why cite this one particular author? Is this meant to be evidence for something bigger? How does this fit?
• "There are many female characters in Yaoi who are Fujoshi themselves." - need to explain Fujoshi and how this connects to female empowerment. Add a citation.

Homophobia

• "The theme of the protagonists' victory in yaoi has been compared favourably to Western fairy tales, as the latter intends to enforce the status quo, but yaoi is "about desire" and seeks "to explore, not circumscribe, possibilities."" - This is unclear - I don't understand the comparison, especially since the part beginning "but yaoi" seems to be intended to contradict the comparison rather than support it.

Rape

• "rendering her stories a subversion of contemporary tropes that reinforce and reflect older tropes such as the prevalence of romantic tragedy themes." - I'm having a hard time following this. Can you reword it or clarify?
• The focus on Fusanosuke Inariya here seems unbalanced. Are there other authors to talk about in relation to this subversion of the rape fantasy trope?
• I disagree with the idea that rape is more prevalent in Yaoi manga than in other type of erotic or pornographic material. If you were to do a statistical analysis of all Yaoi mangas, I am pretty sure the rape fantasy would rank pretty low bellow other more common fantasies - like best friend romance, unrequited love, etc. I would question the impulse to single this topic out amongst other.

Tragedy

• "June stories with suicide endings were popular" - when was this?
• You jump from discussing june to talking about yaoi. Is there a distinction you need to draw here between june and yaoi? If not, use the term yaoi throughout. If so, we need more of a lead from the discussion of june to the discussion of yaoi because as it is now there is no discussion of what tragedy happens in yaoi stories.

Publishing

• In general this section is underdeveloped and doesn't cover some key areas of content. It's unclear but seems the only publishers discussed are those printing for North American markets. Who prints in Japan? What data do we have about revenues, publishers and popularity of yaoi manga in other countries? What about revenues, sales and distributors in the self-publishing market?
• Restate here when June was first published, and explain what happened in 2004 to mark the transition to the second period. I hid this using the !-- because right now it won't fit without significant expansion to make the information relevant.
• I think the word "imprint" might be a mistranslation here. Is the article referring to publishing houses?
• Address "citation needed" tags

Demographics

• address the citation needed tags
• This section should lead off with data about female fans in Japan, which is currently lacking.
• There is also info about non-Japanese fans here that should be moved to the section "Popularity outside Japan".
• "a search for non-Japanese sites" - what kind of sites?
• There is redundancy in the "popularity outside Japan" section regarding Global Yaoi
• Need to introduce the acronym GLOBL alongside Global BL
• Several manga titles in this section are not italicized and need to be

Critical reception

• Again use yaoi as the term, not Boys' Love or BL, if the Anglophone meaning of the term (i.e. the subject of this article) is being discussed
• Use the past simple tense when a specific year or date is referenced: "In x year, so-and-so observed" not "so-and-so has observed". Lots of grammar fixes to be made in this section regarding verb tense
• "BL has been compared to romance novels..." rephrase so it's no longer a passive sentence
• "Sandra Buckley believes that bishounen narratives..." remind the reader what characterizes bishounen narratives relative to other types of narratives discussed in this article
• yaoi ronsō - this should be defined
• in the paragraph starting "As women have greater economic power, ..." references are needed for the quotes and paraphrasing

Criticism

• yaoi ronsō or "yaoi debate" of 1992–1997 - this needs to be fully developed in a paragraph of its own, and should probably be mentioned in the history section
• "There has been similar criticism to the Japanese yaoi debate in the English-speaking fandom" - awkward, rephrase
• "In China, BL became very popular..." this sentence also needs to be rephrased
• This section also needs to use the term yaoi instead of BL/Boys' Love for consistency
• "comics were not copyrighted as the publishers feared arrest for posting the content" - I don't understand the connection here
• "In 2001, a controversy erupted in Thailand ..." this paragraph is disorganized and difficult to follow. Reorganize

End GA review

• With the passage of NGE, I'm moving to this one, which I somehow neglected to see. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Sexual Orientation of the Audience

The fact of the matter is that we are not agreeing on what sexual orientations should be included people keep challenging well maybe gays the right word or androphiliac or LGBT. Lets remove the problem we can pretty much surmise that most of the audience (especially in Japan) are Women with a growing number of Men (especially in Western countries) also reading it. If you do insist on including sexual orientation I suggest we use LGBT which to the person who mentioned transgender does not always mean just because we use LGBT we are discussing every sexual orientation or gender identity under the umbrella. Anyone have any objections please speak up on the talk page.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 07:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

My only comment on this matter at the time is what I stated in this edit summary. If most of the audience for yaoi is usually cited as heterosexual females, that should be in the lead...per WP:Lead. That's what a WP:Good article or WP:Featured article reviewer would state (experienced ones who know what they are talking about anyway). Simply indicating in the lead that most of the audience is female is of course not the same thing as stating that the vast majority of those females are (or are commonly cited as) heterosexual...even though people often assume that a person is heterosexual unless that person states otherwise. Per WP:Lead, it is also fine to summarize the other sexual orientation demographics. That stated, I don't much care that these demographic aspects are no longer in the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 08:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Well my ideal was going to be to state that Yaoi is mostly read by heterosexual women and LGBT people (which would encompass the gay, lesbian, bi an pan identities that were already in the lead). However I really don't see sexual orientation as important when discussing the audience. I'm pretty sure people from homosexual to heterosexual to bisexual to asexual of all genders read Yaoi, Yuri and Transgender manga. Especially in the United States those three aren't always about entertaining the heterosexual woman anymore it is becoming a genre that much like slash and femslash is fighting back against cissexism and heteronormativity. A simple sentence mentioning its impact on LGBT people or the fact it is read and watched by people of all genders and sexualities would be sufficient in my eyes however I don't consider it necessary.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 08:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

removal of 1000 nights imperfect citation

edit removing imperfect citation As it is currently in the article:

As women have greater economic power, commercial demand for the sexualization of men may correlate. Korean comic writer Jin Seok Jeon wrote, "Men are now marketable. It's also a time where women are big consumers and can buy almost anything they desire. Some men think this is degrading...but the tables have turned, and I like the fact that men are just as commercialized now." He jokes that after researching oil wrestling, which requires extreme physical fitness, he does not feel as marketable, illustrating that yaoi and other pornography exploiting men is subject to traditional criticisms, such as sexual objectification, creating unrealistic expectations and negative body images.

Until someone reads the right volume of One Thousand and One Nights (manhwa) this can't be verified (and some of it sounds like a personal theory on the original wiki editor's part rather than the author's), but I felt I should save it here, just in case someone does read the book. I've removed it from the article because it can't be verified, but it could be added back in if someone gets the book. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Citations removed

It seems that when this article was rewritten by Lionhead99, a lot of citations were removed. How is anyone meant to tell where the info comes from if this happens? --110.20.234.69 (talk) 05:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

If an editor knows that a statement was previously sourced, they can track down an old version and copy&paste the ref. If only the ref name is given (and current version doesn't have the ref name), then you ctrl-f to find where the same ref name was used elsewhere in the old version. In one location the full ref is given and you can copy&paste it. That's how I tracked down "McLelland_2000_136" and "Nagaike03" once you told be where you saw those ref names. Cheers, Kirin13 (talk) 08:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

It's important to feel sure that when you're reading an article, the information came from the cited source. I only found it - after it had been missing for almost three years - because I was interested in past versions of the article. Particularly as this article cites books and academic studies and long-dead URLs, and has a lot of citations to boot, that integrity is important. Is there any way to flag this article for checking? --110.20.234.69 (talk) 08:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

You can put {{Refimprove}} but that's unlikely to get anything done. You could also request help with this article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga or Portal talk:Anime and Manga. I don't know how helpful that will be. This type of question is good for Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions where editors much more experienced than me can offer suggestions. Cheers, Kirin13 (talk) 09:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

IP, Lionhead99 is a prolific WP:Sockpuppet master. One that I'm very familiar with. How do you know about him having edited this article? How can we be sure that you are not him, especially since you sign your username like he did -- with two dashes in front? Flyer22 (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The two dashes are added by the software, the button for signatures? If I were this person, why would I be trying to point out his mistakes and spend some time reversing them? Could you please address my concern? --110.20.234.69 (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

They are? Either way, many editors, including myself, don't use the two dashes for signatures. In fact, in my several years of editing this site, I see that the vast majority of editors don't use the two dashes for signatures. As for "why would [you] be trying to point out his mistakes and spend some time reversing them?", perhaps because, if you are him, you recognized your mistakes. And/or, if you are him, you want to gain the trust of those who edit this article (especially if they are very familiar with Lionhead99). Such responses are common WP:Sockpuppet responses. Your concern has already been addressed by Kirin13 above, and I see that you also went here about the matter. You still have not answered me regarding your knowledge of Lionhead99 having edited this article. Flyer22 (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I found the problems with the article by looking through the history, as I mentioned earlier *on this very page* to Kirin. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22, clicking on does produce --~~~~. The person who responded to IP at the teahouse, MadScientistX11, also used the '--'. I don't think we should use signature signing (especially by a button we encourage new editors to use) as way to argue sockpuppetry. I don't see how IP is harming this article or any evidence of socking, so such accusations are a bit premature. Kirin13 (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know that others use two dashes in front of their signatures. So does Moonriddengirl, who, in addition to me, has commented on Lionhead99's talk page and is very familiar with Lionhead99. But signatures are a valid way to help catch WP:Sockpuppets; those (including me) who are very experienced with catching them know this. Unless the signature is unique or rare, I don't heavily rely on signatures to prove WP:Sockpuppetry; I use signatures as part of the puzzle in identifying WP:Sockpuppetry. That stated, as you can see, I dropped the WP:Sockpuppet angle regarding the IP; I have not pressed that matter since the IP last responded to me above. Flyer22 (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

As of your previous post, you were still angling at it. But since you've now dropped it, we can now return to the discussion of how to fix this article instead of how so&so is related to so&so. Kirin13 (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Flyer, I appreciate it. To more fully explain my problem with the article, I can see that during the restructuring, references were removed, but the information from those references was not. As an example, here you can see the removal of a reference for "salt and pepper", which is clearly visible in the source and which is an unusual claim that needs a citation. I am concerned that due to the restructuring, this removal of citations, but not information from those citations, was missed at the time. I have found some instances of this, which I have attempted to repair, with help, but I am concerned that there are more that have not yet been detected. I don't feel confident that even if I went through the article with a fine-toothed comb, (and had the time, resources and energy to do so) I would get them all. As a result of the changes, the ability of readers to check that the information comes from a source has been damaged. If the point of citing everything inline is to help everyone find what information comes from what source, then removing citations without also removing the info that comes from those citations creates the false impression that info comes from the source at the end of the paragraph, when it actually came from another source which was removed. This creates an article which looks good on the surface, but doesn't actually say where it got all of its info from. In a way, this could be seen as accidental plagiarism - the article uses the sources' ideas without saying where the article gets them from. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 21:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

So, where to from here? --110.20.234.69 (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• removal of citations about a 'beefy' BL subgenre, needs examining --110.20.234.69 (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)