Talk:Pornography/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Why my link was removed ?

I was add link to site http://www.fleshka.net , i think it is a great site , on this site i found more 250000 pornography galleries in all niches . Thanks\zxWAvr3qbr

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a repository of links. This article is not meant to be a list of places to find porn, but rather an encyclopedia discussion of pornography.--Bibliophylax 16:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Please Add This

I think the page is protected. I want to add the term Carnography under See also. Would someone be able to add it? 156.34.222.231 13:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. -- Beland 02:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks 156.34.220.66 19:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Revise "Religions Objections"

Here's the current contents of "Religious Objections."

Fundamentalist religious tradition generally limits sexual intercourse to the express function of procreation. Thus, sexual pleasure or sex oriented entertainment, as well as lack of modesty, are usually considered immoral by conservative religious sects. Additionally, many religious groups view pornography as contributing to 'immoral' behavior in society.

Since I believe a very significant portion of opposition to pornography is religiously- or morally-informed, the sparse, stereotyping treatment here surprises me. I see that this was discussed recently (on the most recent archive page), but no significant action was taken.

Here's what I would recommend, combining text from the current article, the talk page, and my own writing (as a new user, I can't make the change myself):

Religious groups often discourage their members from viewing or reading pornography, and support legislation restricting its publication. These positions derive from broader religious views about sexuality. In some religious traditions, for example, sexual intercourse is limited to the express function of procreation. Thus, sexual pleasure or sex-oriented entertainment, as well as lack of modesty, are considered immoral. Other religions do not find sexual pleasure immoral, but see sex as a sacred, godly, highly-pleasurable activity that is only to be enjoyed with one's spouse. These traditions do not condemn sexual pleasure in and of itself, but they impose severe limitations on the circumstances under which sexual pleasure may be properly experienced. Pornography in this view is seen as the secularization of something sacred, and a violation of spouses' intimate relationship.

In addition to expressing concerns about violating sexual morality, some religions take an anti-pornography stance claiming that viewing pornography is addictive, leading to self-destructive behavior. Proponents of this view compare pornography addiction to alcoholism, both in asserting the seriousness of the problem and in developing treatment methods.

I would link to pornography addiction in the second paragraph, and add that link to the "see also" section at the bottom of the article.

I've removed the word "fundamentalist" in the interest of NPOV. It's heavy with connotation. On the one hand, anyone who espouses this view is labeled as out-of-touch or extremist. On the other hand, it implies that those who have different religious views on sexuality are less "fundamental" than those who take this particular view. I think we can just say "some religions" without unnecessarily labeling them.

These changes should probably also be merged into the main article -- Anti-pornography movement.

-- Smith.dan 22:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Some More on God and Pornography

I wrote the following "pornography and religion" addition, before seeing the above contributions. It disappoints me that God's moral objection to such pornography does not feature on the wiki article Internet pornography also.

Several religions, including Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism and several other religions contain references within their religious texts outlining how sexual misconduct (and the diversionary lustfulness associated with both the generation, purveying and viewing of that material that would be associated with such misconduct – namely, pornography) is often considered wrong/evil.

See fitna, and Puritans

Anyhow, I think that the link to fitna and Puritans should ideally be included both within this article, as well as within the Anti-Pornography Movement Article.

PornIsEvil 16:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)(well, kinda.....)

I Agree 71.56.222.192 07:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Andy

Concerns about children using Wikipedia and finding porn

Wikipedia, so many underaged children are currently viewing wikipedia on educational purposes such as science and literature. I strongly condemn any pornography in this encyclopdia site. Even if you need to put them for particular purposes, don't you think the external link might be harmful. Young people are always curious about these things despite the number of content warnings you have labelled. They are addictive and unnecessary. {[from anonymously]} —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.162.123.244 (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Ultimately it is the responsibility of parents to supervise their children's computer use and prevent them from visiting certain sites if they think it is necessary. (I am a parent myself.) Personally I don't see anything harmful to children in the current version. As for porn being addictive, that is subject to debate, to say the least. Please see The Science of Pornography Addiction by Daniel Linz, Ph.D. Rosemary Amey 18:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

5 year olds want to look for Pokemon not Porn-o. What do we have to be worried about. - BigFrank101

Concerns that I was directly spammed on a baby blog directly to this wikipedia link. So while I am obviously supervising the computer - wikipedia and pornography is searching ME OUT on a BABY BLOG. I have a background in internet law and I realize some information can not be controlled, but you need to control this site. The inforatmation is too widely regarded as accurate - and there are too many things that are ending up to be false. The site is quickly losing credibility, which is sad.

If you want the IP of the person who spammed - I'll send it.

In fact, here you go:

216.177.165.10
65.73.204.61

Wikipedia spammers!

And? The fact that somebody spammed this link somewhere doesn't mean we should remove relevant images which contribute to a better understanding of the subject. Jeff Silvers 20:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

LEx

There has also been a recent increase in sex crimes in Japan which parallels an increase in all crimes. Some in Japan have blamed the increase on violent pornography and indeed, some sex offenders report having been inspired by themes in commonly available pornography. The counter argument is that some sex offenders will likely use any defense they can to lower their culpability.

wheres the refrence? Im deleting this because it need sources [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

lex

Apparently I can now edit the page. Made my suggested changes myself. -- Smith.dan 13:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Can pornography be performed?

Pornography may use any of a variety of media — printed literature, photos, sculpture, drawing, painting, animation, sound recording, film, video, or video game, and may even be performed in a live venue, possibly in front of a live audience.

I question the notion that pornography "may even be performed". The word root -graphos means that pornography must be in the form of some distributable medium. The subject it depicts may be (almost always is) a live performance, but IMO one cannot perform pornography. That does not rule out that that a live performer's emulation of sex acts could be described as pornographic (adjective) i.e. "like pornography". (cuddlyable3)84.210.139.189 18:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe you are correct. Because the word is subjective in interpretation, many people think that some things that they view as being pornographic. Accurate though, is as you say, that live sex performers could not be considered to be pornographic, although the recording of the event might be termed by some to be pornographic. Atom 19:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be a gray area between the technical definition (as cited above), and common useage. There is certainly a long history of "live sex shows" which feature "lascivious" performances designed to tittilate and arouse the audience. These might well qualify as pornographic performances for that reason. Doc Tropics 19:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the reason that they are not advertised as pornographic performances is because they are not recorded. A lascivious performance designed to tittilate and arouse is not pornographic, the video tape of the performance may be. Only a depiction of the event can be pornographic the behaviour itself may be erotic, obscene or lascivious, but not pornographic.

Merriam Webster

Etymology: Greek pornographos, adjective, writing about prostitutes, from pornE prostitute graphein to write; akin to Greek pernanai to sell, poros journey -- more at FARE, CARVE 1 : the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement 2 : material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement 3 : the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction <the pornography of violence>

Atom 20:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh. I stand corrected; you are absolutely right. Also, I've added your name to my list of "Editors I won't disagree with, because they will kick my metaphorical butt in a debate".Doc Tropics 20:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

practice makes perfect

i read somewhere, in a sex/health magizine (no not a porn mag) that statistcally those who watch porn, and masterbate more often are better at sex, i guess from "learning from example", does anyone know if this is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.226.37 (talk • contribs) date

Most sexual acts in pornography are over done, and not 'realistic', in the sense that more often than not, underwear doesn't rip off that fast, or that way. Pornography is merely for entertainment, and that sexual education videos should instead be used for learning, instead of something that was done mainly for entertainment and, quite frankly, something to jack off to instead of reproducing in reallife. Disinclination 07:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I would suspect this is a case of correlation rather than causation. Rosemary Amey 00:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that the magazine printed this because people who masturbate build up sexual endurance so sex lasts longer for them. I don't think that it affects a person's skill at sex however.Lhoaanpd 02:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious.

How come an article on pornography doesn't have a pornographic picture to illustrate it? Xiner (talk, email) 17:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It does, as you'll see the rack of movies along there. We don't need naked pictures of people doing it, irregardless if Wikipedia is censored for minors. This is about the industry and what it is. If you wanna see what happens IN a pornography, check out sexual intercourse or something similar to that. Disinclination 21:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Xiner (talk, email) 22:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Well. I had no idea HOW the original pornography image was removed, but I found it. Still unsure of why the Pompeii image was added. Going to find the reason as to why, and maybe put it to a better place (aesthetically pleasing), and shrink it down as well. Disinclination 23:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I like vaginas

Someone has written grafittis such as "I like vaginas" in this article. So I hope that someone can correct it as soon as possible? I like vaginas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.131.36.144 (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Removed a sentence

Because it seemed extraneous, I removed the following sentence from the topic "Production and distribution by region":

• "Pornography is now a major part of life for some, with many couples swearing by it to relieve themselves sexually."

ChrisWinter 04:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

The history section of this article has been vandalized. I am unable to repair it. 59.167.130.181 04:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Censoring the pornography stand

Is there anyway to censor out the stand, not completely remove it, rather, blur some of the images out casually? Many kids at my school seem to love getting legitimate sites blocked. Hell keep the stand and boobies, just blur out the penis/vagina parts on the stand, and their aren't many to begin with. People may argue that this is extremist religious censorship, rather, I plea on behalf of the people at my school, The Administration will simply block the complete site, due to their horrid policies and slacker motto. 76.184.219.16 22:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I sympathize with your situation, but Wikipedia really shouldn't change its policies or content so it fits with the policies of a particular school. Some religious schools may also block material they deem offensive, but does that mean we should censor the atheism article? Jeff Silvers 20:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

this article is rubbish

This could be a very interesting article if it didnt read like it was put together by some very strange individuals. lock it up and get some people with intelligence on it please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.243.220.42 (talk) 02:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

What parts in particular do you refer to? -iopq 05:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Included Media Content "Stag Video"

The stag video doesn't play anything. This threw me for a loop so I downloaded every codec for each direct play viewer, and Wiki Browser and still got nothing. This depressed me because I would like to upload some video content to wikipedia, and thought I couldn't view it. As a last ditch effort I tried one of the other wikimedia video files. Lo and behold it played in each of the players.

Long story to quick point: If the stage video doesn't work or has been censored, can it be removed? If it shouldn't be removed, can a working version be uploaded? Having a link that goes nowhere is a tad disturbing, especially to newbies and/or "old porn" addicts. :p

Ara Pelodi 04:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

italian photo

Hallo, I want a your opinion about the Pornography on italian wiki [1]: what do you think about the photo "porno.jpg"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.15.100.179 (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

What difference does the opinion of contributors here make? Unless you're suggesting that the picture be used in this article, I really don't see what useful comment can be added by us. --Robert Merkel 05:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

By and for women

Anyone else think the Village Voice quote in the 'pornography by and for women' section is kind of irrelevant? I guess I can see how it might not be -- but it's long, and I don't really think it pertains. Anyone disagree? Eeblefish 02:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It's been a few days. I'm removing it unless someone disputes it. Eeblefish 04:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Some Sources

• Milton Diamond and Ayako Uchiyama in „Pornography, Rape and Sex Crimes in Japan“ (International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 22(1): 1-22. 1999) online „Pornography, Rape and Sex Crimes in Japan“:

  Our findings regarding sex crimes, murder and assault are in keeping with what is also known about general crime rates in Japan regarding burglary, theft and such. Japan has the lowest number of reported rape cases and the highest percentage of arrests and convictions in reported cases of any developed nation. Indeed, Japan is known as one of the safest developed countries for women in the world (Clifford, 1980). (...)...: Despite the absence of evidence, the myth persists that an abundance of sexually explicit material invariably leads to an abundance of sexual activity and eventually rape (e.g., Liebert, Neale, & Davison, 1973). Indeed, the data we report and review suggest the opposite. Christensen (1990) argues that to prove that available pornography leads to sex crimes one must at least find a positive temporal correlation between the two. The absence of any positive correlation in our findings, and from results elsewhere, between an increase in available pornography and the incidence of rape or other sex crime, is prima facie evidence that no link exists. But objectivity requires that an additional question be asked: „Does pornography use and availability prevent or reduce sex crime?“ Both questions lead to hypotheses that have, over prolonged periods, been tested in Denmark, Sweden, West Germany and now in Japan. Indeed, it appears from our data from Japan, as it was evident to Kutchinsky (1994), from research in Europe, that a large increase in available sexually explicit materials, over many years, has not been correlated with an increase in rape or other sexual crimes. Instead, in Japan a marked decrease in sexual crimes has occurred.

• Berl Kutchinsky, Pornography and Rape: Theory and Practice? in: International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, Nr.14, 1991, p. 47-66--Nemissimo II 10:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Great article. I have one suggestion, though. I think it would be interesting to include a paragraph dealing with the issue of WHO the porn actors are - socially, economically, and so on. I have a feeling there's a pretty clear class issue here. Also, as far as I know, quite a lot - maybe most? - of the women actors in porn are actually victims of sexual abuse, either as children or later in life. I'm sure there are some studies on those things - maybe someone has the time to dig this out? This would shed some sociological light on the gut feeling you invariably get watching porn: "those girls aren't really having a great time"... (although I admit it's a case of mixed emotions :))

See also links

This article has a lot of See also links (no wonder because it's a big topic). I just made an attempt at categorising them. If someone can do better, please do so. - Face 19:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Lawyers and pornography

I fail to see a direct relationship. is this really necessary? (quote) "It also provides lucrative employment for armies of lawyers, on several "sides." " —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ariel Hoffman (talk • contribs) 15:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Language correction needed

This phrase from the introduction needs to be changed.

• and may even be performed in a live venue, possibly in front of a live audience.

By definition, a 'live venue' is in front of a 'live audience', there is no 'possibly' about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.69.137.14 (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

'Grafe' is misspelt. It should be 'Graphe'

Citations needed

Are there any citations available for the following statements from the introduction:

• pornographic industry has skyrocketed due to the technological convenience of VHS and DVD, and in particular the rise of the Internet.
• most distribution is by sale.

Regarding the first statement, i have read that within the first 5 or so years of the introduction of the camera, London officials confiscated 2 tons of photographic pornography.

with regard to the second statement, any place that sells adult videos/DVD's also does a good business in rentals.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.69.137.14 (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Linkage

The mention of C Everett Koop should be a link to the article on him, especially since he is a controversial figure in many ways. I can't edit the page myself because of the protection. Vcdevx99 02:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)vc

Main image

This image needs to go, yet certain people insist on keeping it. Why? Wikipedia is here to teach people, and the photo does not teach anyone anything. I shouldn't have to tell anyone that images like this expose Wikipedia to public scrutiny which can only be a bad thing. Shreditor 03:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

IMO, it should be changed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.77.237.201 (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

It's a depiction of pornography, in an article about pornography. WP:NOT censored, so I guess I'm failing to see the problem? It's not gratuitous. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 05:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

In this case, a visual aid is always nice, as long as it's not unnecessarily distracting. I believe that we can do better than the current image (though I like that the current photo's subject is extremely typical and demonstrates an everyday reality), but I am adamantly opposed to omitting a visual example from the lead section altogether. A good article almost demands good visual aids.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 05:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Visual aid for what? Pornography is the depiction of sexual behavoir in order to excite sexual desire. I don't think anyone needs a "visual aid" to understand the concept. The only reason why I'm making a big deal of it is because I like Wikipedia and I don't want it ending up as a sensational story on the 6 o'clock news about how we're peddling porn to minors. I appreciate that Wikipedia is uncensored. In order for it to stay uncensored, let's use some self-restraint. Shreditor 21:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

We have shown restraint and good taste, IMO; barring restraint, you'd see some much more exciting photos in this article than a pedestrian snapshot taken in a Tel-Aviv flea market.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 11:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

What if I were to take a photo of the covers of some pornographic DVDs and magazines, sans the depictions of fellatio? The most you'd see is exposed breasts, which you can see many other places on Wikipedia. It would also be higher quality. Takers? Shreditor 00:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The covers and the like would still be copyrighted, even if you took a photo of them, and we always prefer a free-use image to a fair-use one. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 01:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it would be preferable to have a photograph that does not include felatio or penetration. The image we are using here is not free since it is a photograph of cover art, which itself is copyrighted. Johntex\^talk 01:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sex crimes in Japan

--- Lexi

There has also been a recent increase in sex crimes in Japan which parallels an increase in all crimes. Some in Japan have blamed the increase on violent pornography and indeed, some sex offenders report having been inspired by themes in commonly available pornography. The counter argument is that some sex offenders will likely use any defense they can to lower their culpability.

Why is this unsourced?

--- Lexi ---

This should be cited if possible. If not I would delete it. Shreditor 00:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

--- Butcer ---

I removed the unsourced statement

!!!!!!!!!

please remove the top image. It is very disturbing for many individuals, and it is unnecessary. please remove that image. 66.214.242.93 06:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOT#CENSORED. There are far worse images out there then that one, and it depicts the subject of the article without being gratuitously explicit. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 06:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I am in partial agreement with the first point. I do feel that this image is rather explicit when there are many other images (soft core) which could be used in its place. I agree that an image should be in this article and personally I do not find this picture offensive - however perhaps a more appropriate image could be sourced. After all, there are many hard core images that could be used to highlight the Zoophilia article, but they have chosen to go with an artistic representation rather than a graphic photograph. Any thoughts - Regards - Munta 09:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

spelling-transliteration error

At to top of the article 'and γραφή grafe' should be replaced by 'and γραφή graphe'. In fact IMO it would be more precise and correct, simply to write a better etymology. ->

ie something like this : Pornography (greek Πορνογραφία,Pornographia from Porne,prostitute grapho,(v.) write, suffix ia,state of,property of,place of)

Penis Picture -- Copyright violation

The composite picture at the top of the page of copyrighted DVD covers is a violation of copyright laws. If there is a "need" to have an image, it should be an image of ancient greek pornography or the like, (or perhaps from Victorian England) which would not involve a copyright violation...presuming the photographer grants permission. The only reason Wikipedia would not be sued for violating the copyright of the porn covers shown is that the porn industry welcomes the publication as free publicity. Nonethless, this is a violation of copyright law unless the companies give written permission to Wikipedia.

Has anyone noticed that there are explicit images in the main picture. Or if this isn't an issue, why not have some real hardcore pictures - closeups of anal sex, cumshots, etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdw052 (talk • contribs)

Because its unneeded. Disinclination 19:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Then why are any pictures of nudity or sex needed?Jdw052 22:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Because, as you'll see, that the pictures are depicting what was seen as pornography in both modern and ancient ages. The rack of pornographic videos and the painting on the wall are seen as enough. You have to realize that people object to this thing all the time. All thats needed is a few tastefully chosen images, and the rest should be text. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It is about text, not about images. Images are just references. Disinclination 22:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, you really can't see anything in the image unless, of course, you click to enlarge. as an encyclopedic image it's perfectly fitting for all the reasons listed above (and come on, the entire talk page is pretty much exclusively about the image). Complainign about the content of the image once you've enlarged it is like complaining about violence in a boxing match. (or perhaps something that makes a tad more sense) Maybe we could solve the whole issue by locking out the image to prevent enlargement. Gene S. Poole 00:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

So Do you think, it is possible to have the main picture removed?

Afraid that's been gone over and over. Wikipedia is not censored. We don't allow the gratuitous use of sexually-explicit material, but illustrations which are appropriate to demonstrate an article's subject certainly may be allowed. In this case, it's a picture of pornography in the article about pornography, seems perfectly alright to me. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

sociological aspects of pornography

I'm very interested in the powerplay that exists between the female actors in pornographic films and the men on set, in the films, producing the films, watching the films, etc. When I hear women talk about the "degredation" and "dehumanization" that occurs when a woman is submissive in bed or on film, I immediately think that these woman have possibly not looked at the deeper powerplay being acted out; sexual submission does not explicitly denote a lack of control or power, when it is looked at more closely than at face value. I've become aware of the fact that the submissive woman or man (or the "sub") often paritipates in said role (in a real life interaction, not necessarily on film) because he or she gets something out of the dramatiziation of being used. To speak more loosely, they get off on being the sub, or they wouldn't do it. In a way, they are using the dominant figure as much as the dominat figure is using them. I go through all of this because there is a parallel in the sex/adult industry: women in pornography are paid about ten times as much as men are (from my own research with people who are in and who make pornographic videos-- woman are paid about $2,000 for vaginal intercourse, men are paid about $300 for the opposite end of the same act, if both are paid up front), while men are often considered to have a harder job. Men are expected to stay erect, not ejaculate and ejaculate on command, whereas women can fake their orgasms or have a real one, and have no sex organ to prepare for intercourse, as lubricant is often used. It is not an across the board truth, but many women get into pornography to make money they cannot make with the education and/or experience they have, usually a high school diploma. It's been called a woman's industry because in a way, the women in it are exploiting the men they work with and profitting off their often times innate sexuality. Adversely, women who sleep with lots of men in american society are called whores and sluts, men who sleep with lots of women in american society are siad to "have game" or be studs. These women are often aware, at least partially, that the adult/sex industry "exploits women," weather true or false. They still go into these films willingly for money or sexual gratification, or because that is the most appealing avenue available to them. The discussion question I wanted to post is, all of the above information considered, who's more expolited in pronography, men or women? And is it really correct to focuss on the exploitation of women in anything more than a historical section of the article?

Functionvsaesthetic 09:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)functionvsaesthetic [FREECHILDPORN]

tricks of the trade

many girls in the porn videos are getting tricked and scammers take advantage of naive models tellin them lies like " you can get famous or " get noticed GIRLS GONE WILD used it in one of their ad's seen on craigslist.org

Many don't get paid or are underpaid some even do it free.

porn doers often use illegal drugs and are drunk while performing these shameless acts.

misue of freedom of speech

Porngraphers has abused the freedom of speech to promote filth in the media.

This talk page is for discussion of the article, not of your opinions of pornography. Jeff Silvers 20:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Porn in motel/hotel rooms

porn in motel/hotel rooms should be blocked by default since kids often turn it on w/o their parents permission.

da

q pongan mas imagenes

{{editprotected}} Sorry, but am I really the only one to notice the first line of this article? 85.16.7.55 23:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Please explain what is it you want. the {{editprotected}} tag is only to be used when a request to edit the page is being made. Harryboyles 09:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Andrea Dworkin etc

Women campaigners against pornography such as Dworkin should consider which countries they'd rather live in: Holland or Denmark say where pornography is freely available; or Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia where is there is no pornography. Bit of a no-brainer isn't it? SmokeyTheCat 10:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Curiously?

"Curiously, porn plays in few theaters, " seems like a strange comment to make in an encyclopedia. Who is curious here? The author of the article? It's more of an exploratory statement rather than a descriptive one.

Besides, there was a time when porn was in lots of theaters. I think it's pretty well-understood that the advent of the availability of porn for the VCR is what killed the porn theaters. Why would a person want to go sit in public to view porn when he could do it in the privacy of the home? Mainstream theaters are suffering the same problem.

Subjective point of view

I believe that the "Religious Defenses of Pornographia" section does not live up to the style standards of Wikipedia. It is written in a highly subjective style, which of course goes against the Wikipedia policy of neutrality, and employs a conversational, argumentative tone. As for the non-neutrality, the language includes multiple instances of subjective terms like "absurd" and "absurdity" and points a negative judgement call at the Catholic Church ("This absurdity is surprisingly similar to historical Roman Catholic doctrine"). If we are to accept such language on Wikipedia, we are only to ruin the efforts of the countless users of Wikipedia to uphold the site to the standards, therefore revoking Wikipedia's status as a reliable resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J-t-m (talk • contribs) 03:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Cultural focus

This article is expressed as being general but in fact is about western culture since the nineteenth century. Representations of human beings, and particularly of women with little clothing, have been taboo in various Moslem and Jewish cultural contexts, among various early Christian sects and the iconoclasts of Byzantium, and following the Reformation England, Scotland and no doubt elsewhere. There needs to be some recognition of this in this article. Deipnosophista 08:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Requesting removal of external link

The first external link, "The Impact of Pornography on Men" by Antonella Gambotto-Burke, goes to a web-site that has pictures of a copyrighted magazine. 68.222.34.38 02:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Site seems to be Antonella Gambotto-Burke's personal homepage so there propably isn't any copyright problem. --Zache 04:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

A link to the author's own website should be okay. The article itself however seems to be mostly opinion, and lacking quality information. / edgarde 04:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Image in the "legality" section

I added a free image to the legality section. It's a soft-core pornographic image, and it's next to the sentences: "Most countries allow at least some form of pornography. In some countries, softcore pornography is considered tame enough to be sold in general stores or to be shown on TV." The image caption says "Softcore pornography is legal in the United states and most other countries." I think this fits very well in the section, which is not otherwise illustrated. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 05:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but just becasue we have a picture of a half naked woman does not mean you have to suddenly place it in every article. That particular picture does not illustrate the legal status of pornography in any way. It doesn't fit, it's just and excuse to add the picture. pschemp | talk 14:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This was the only article this image was in. I believe it shows an example of what is typically allowed, accompanying the text. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Um right. Anyone can go look at your contribs and see how many article you put this group of pictures in. It doesn't show anything, of what is allowed,as it isn't pornography. pschemp | talk 21:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This is typical Soft Porn. I can see a lot of fraudulant reasons why someone would want to add this image everywhere, but we shouldn't overlook the difficulty to find free images in certain subjects. Porn is one of them, and I think an example of what soft porn is is in order. If anyone can find a better, more informative free image, please raise your hands.--SidiLemine 11:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Claiming that picture is any type of "porn" is a considerable stretch. I'm sure there's an article better suited to Quadell's image; I just can't think of one right now.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 12:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that finding an appropriate article to put the image in is really the way to go (or it should be done in the image's talk page). We should concentrate on finding an image to fit the soft porn section of this article. I think this one is fine, and I would like to see other propositions if no one agrees.--SidiLemine 13:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll - several people seem to think this poll detracts from the discussion rather than aids it. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Most people here seem to be overlooking that fact that the image was placed in the Legal issues section, not the soft porn section. It is already in the soft porn article, I see no need to duplicate that here since this is the main topic article. Also, it (or one much like it) is in Michelle Merkin article, where it truly belongs. So far the resons for including it here are less than compelling. This is a big article and needs to be selective about pictures. pschemp | talk 18:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no "soft porn" section. Instead, the distinction between softcore and hardcore porn is discussed in the legality section. That's why I used the caption "Softcore pornography is legal in the United states and most other countries." That's an important aspect of legality.

Yes, this is a big article, and yes, it needs to be selective, but it is currently a big article on visual pictures that has only three images, none of them contemporary. I think the article is improved by having a contemporary image, and it seems others here agree.

Finally, Pschemp, I understand that the reasons for including the image are less than compelling to you, but I hope that you will respect consensus if it turns out that consensus is against you in this. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It's already in the soft porn article, which is a detail article of this main article. There then no need to duplicate that here. pschemp | talk 18:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I would like to point out that I concur the initial feeling of "wow, who is the vandal who uploaded that?" that Pschemp seems to express. But I see three points in his argument and I cannot say I agree with one. First, This is a big article and needs to be selective about pictures. To me, this looks like a big article that definitely lacks pictures. Get it to PR and see what they say. When we have enough pictures it will be nice to look for the most appropriate, educationnal, etc; we're not here yet. Second, That particular picture does not illustrate the legal status of pornography in any way. Well, it looks to me like it could, if the caption focused on defining soft porn, ie what's legal in the US. This to me is the real point we should be debating. Then, It's already in the soft porn article. This is absolutely baseless, as countless images are used in very repeated ways throughout wikipedia. It doesn't take more space, or anything: it's just a link. And if you say it is appropriate to describe soft porn, then all the more reasons to include it in this section. Sincerely, --SidiLemine 19:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this photograph of a genuine pornographic actress would be more suitable? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 04:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It has the merit of being unaesthetic, thus appearing more educative to most.--SidiLemine 10:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Porn vs Erotica, discussions on differences important

Enjoyed most of the entry, found it reasonably balanced (discussion on anti-porn stances are important in a free society) and informative none the less. Recognising the varying degrees of porn is an important point, but how about bringing in a definition of erotica as a sub-family genre of porn?

Someone elsewhere described erotica as soft-porn...I couldn't disagree more. Erotica can be thrown under the label of porn but includes a higher degree of implied and contained stimulation beyond the obvious.

Porn may be an image of 2 people having sex...location irrelevant, pose irrelevant etc...where as erotica still is a picture of people having sex but it is set within an evironment or includes reference to a broader context that offers multiple levels of stimulation, or expands the basic stimuli. In my opinion only of course.

Just a starting point if anyone wants to begin a discussion. Worthy topic within the "pornogrphy" realm IMO, given an increase in acceptance of "erotica"/porn overtones in general society (movies, advertising etc).

- Madison H —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madison H (talk • contribs) 02:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

WTF?

I am kind of shocked by a lot of the stuff in this article, but let's start with the big kahuna. A case study? Since when does Wikipedia have 'case studies,' and how can we possibly do so without violating WP:NPOV and WP:OR? Ethan Mitchell 23:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't "have" case studies, but it can use verifiable case studies as citations, which is exactly what happened here. Please point out what statements you feel violate NPOV, and explain how summarizing the results of a case study constitute original research. - Ugliness Man 05:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to the content in the section, but I think the way that it is being framed is problematic. There is no reason whatsoever why a section about the Meese Commission should have a subsection devoted to a case study of pornography in Japan. The study wasn't comissioned by the Feds, and the paragraphs quoted don't refer to the Meese comission. In fact, they are redundant with the information higher up in the article, under the much more sensible heading "Effects on Sex Crimes."

The impression that I get looking at this layout is that someone wrote a piece about the U.S. government comissions, and someone else inserted the "case study" as a kind of rebuttal of the comissions' conclusions. But we shouldn't be laying out our articles like a ping-pong match, and we certainly shouldn't be dropping case studies in the middle of encyclopedia articles unless there's some explanation of why. Ethan Mitchell 16:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The article is not about pornography in America, it's about pornography, so perhaps the Japanese study was an attempt by someone to diversify the perspective. I'm not saying the article is perfect, but I don't think it's terribly problematic at present either. Perhaps rearranging or renaming the section, and adding a few more countries might help. - Ugliness Man 08:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Faulty citation

A "citation needed" tag was added to the assertion "movie rental stores such as Blockbuster and other large video-rental firms avoid porn", and someone used Blockbuster's FAQ as a citation. However, I just reverted that, because I checked out the FAQ and I don't feel the statements on that site sufficiently support the idea. The question which was pointed to as the citation was "What movie ratings does BLOCKBUSTER® carry?", and the only statement I can find in that answer that seems to support the assertion is "we generally do not carry films with ratings of NC-17 or X." Aside from the fact that the term "generally" is used, and therefore the possibility of finding porn at a Blockbuster is not entirely eliminated, another question I found while trying to verify the citation is "Why does BLOCKBUSTER Online® carry Playboy titles?" The answer reads, in part, "Playboy movies are just one of many movie niches fulfilled on BLOCKBUSTER Online®." Unless you want to get into an endless, pointless, circular debate (of a nature that doesn't really belong on a Wikipedia talk page) saying that Playboy is not porn, then I don't think you can claim that Blockbuster doesn't carry porn when their own website acknowledges that they carry Playboy titles. - Ugliness Man 05:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Blockbuster carries hard core porn in Denmark. Dont know about other countries. Would like to edit my page, but my english is not goo enough. - Smertetrip, Denmark. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.218.171.223 (talk) 09:22, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Lol, I feel like moving to Denamrk. Jk. My real question is how sick and lonely can people get to be able to go out in a public store and rent pornography? Most people would be too embarrased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kipisanerd (talk • contribs) 00:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No pictures?

Why are there no pictures? If pornography is "a place to record prostitutes," demonstrating a common form of that record – pictures – would be more accurate and appropriate than simply describing it. Is it censored?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.38.244.123 (talk • contribs) 20:57, August 11, 2007 (UTC)

• As it states in the picture guidelines for Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography why we're avoiding all unnecessary explicit images: "The reason for this is to avoid any legal entanglements due to the 18 U.S.C. 2257. We are here to create an encyclopedia, not a porn farm." Tabercil

And, why is this video here? It seems fine to have it, but to call it non-pornographic is to contradict the information in the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.211.47 (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit needed?

Would

"This article is about the genre. For the album by The Cure, see Pornography (album).

“Porn” redirects here. For For the eye disease"

be better than the current:

"This article is about the medium. For the album by The Cure, see Pornography (album).

“Porn” redirects here. For For the eye disease"

(with duplicate For For, etc)89.240.76.210 16:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't need a copyedit, it needs an {{otheruses}} template. Consider it done. WLU 17:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Biased article

Almost HALF of this article is devoted to the ANTI viewpoints against pornography, but fails to address those who support and encourage the use of porn (or just plain nudity). It is clearly biased to leave the reader with the impression "porn==bad". I tried to address the "pro" view with this paragraph, and thus bring the article closer to a more neutral viewpoint, but the parapraph was summarily censored by the anti-porn contingent seeking to suppress useful information.

I deleted the section because it was completely unsourced. Please see the policies on avoiding weasel words, reliable sources, no original research and neutral point of view. The page should indeed include a 'pro-porn' viewpoint if one can be found, but it must conform to the five pillars. Don't decry a conspiracy, source it. The text below in the 'working section' can be used to tweak the wording and attempt to arrive at a section that is suitable for inclusion. Also, I'm not sure that simple nudity would be considered pornography - as the lead section says, Pornography or porn is, in its broadest state, the explicit representation of the human body or sexual activity with the goal of sexual arousal and/or sexual relief. The section below seems to discuss more nudism than pornography, as pornography is about sexual relief while the section below is more artistic appreciation. Also, reference to specific sites really does look like spam-pushing. Avoid websites unless they are major / organizational / scientific / university based. Don't even bother if there's any sort of money exchanged. Also a problem that there is a lack of a citation from a reliable source that naked people in non-sexual situations or poses is not pornography. WLU 13:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I know lots of people who immediately view any kind of nudity as "porn". Example: Playboy magazine, which is filled with nothing but nudes (no sex or implied sex), is often labeled as porn (and it isn't). - Theaveng 13:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Since playboy is, in part, designed or viewed as something that explicitly represents the human body for sexual arousal/relief, it'd probably pornography. Better than us attempting to define if it is or not, is to include a section citing a discussion of the debate by other people. We report verifiability, not truth. In other words, we can never say (for epistemological and policy reasons) that it is pornography or not, but we can say 'these people say it is. These people say it's not'. WLU

It should be noted that in 1974, then-governor of Pennsylvania, Milton Schapp ordered a review of criminal sanctions against all form of nonviolent activity then branded as a "crime". The results of this two year study was reported in the Report of the Governor's Justice Commissiom Study of Nonviolent Crime. The sub-section dealing with pornography was contained in the report titled The Report of the GoverJustice Commision study of Nonviolent Sexual Crime. Based on case-study review and psychophysiological research at the University of Pittsburgh, the commisioners decided that there was no association between pornography and sex-crimes. In fact, a nonsignificant trend was noted in which consumption of pornographic material was associated with a decreased level of sexual crime. (Harrisburg,1975). A similar study commisioned by President Nixon arrived at a similar conclusion.

Working section

Nudity vs. Pornography Some groups within the industry and general populace seek to separate nudity from sexual pornography. Entire websites have been devoted to providing photos of "simple nudes". These sites do not allow portrayal of sexual positions, but instead promote the beauty of the human body for its own sake, and compare admiration of the body to the admiration of lions or gazelles. i.e. Appreciation of the beauty of nature. Even at the legal level, it has been acknowledged by some jurisdictions that nudity and pornography are separate entities. In the United States, the federal Supreme Court since the 1980s has consistently upheld that photography or art portraying nude people,((would this even be pornography?) (Yes many sects such as Christians view nudity as pornography.)) even of children, is allowed under the law & protected by the Right to Free Speech/Expression. However pornography portraying sexual situations is limited to those 18 or older, and thus falls under different legal standards from nudity.

References

Use the following citation template for references added:

<ref>{{Citation | last = | first = | author-link = | last2 = | first2 = | author2-link = | title = | place= | publisher = | year = | location = | volume = | edition = | url = | doi = | id = | isbn = }}</ref> Also, if unfamiliar with citations, see WP:CITE. WLU

I'm not sure what's wrong with the phrase "some jurisdictions"? Some juridictions allow pornography (like the US and EU) and some juridictions do not (like Iraq or Saudi Arabia). Thus it's an accurate statement to say "some". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theaveng (talk • contribs)

'Some' is non-specific, it's a generalization that is unattributable to any single entity. Better is to say "US,^[1] EU,^[2] Canada^[3] and Barbados^[4] allow pornography, while most Muslim countries do not^[5] because it is banned by the Koran.^[6]" Of course, that's a gross generalization, those numbers need to be blue and have sources. This needs to be done for just about all the groups discussed on a page as controversial as porn. If some Christian groups find nude depictions pornographic, cite the specific group with a reference. WLU

I like sex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.154.121.183 (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The Stag Film is NOT pornography (it's not in the least bit sexually arousing)

It's a woman taking off her top; not a good example to be included in this article. This is just nudity and not something to feel "shameful" about unless you're a Puritan. (If a man were making the same moves, with the same chest exposure, no one would call it porn.) I find it highly objectionable that somebody thinks a topfree woman is somehow pornographic or fits the definition of obscene. -Theaveng 11:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, I got a chubby -iopq 12:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Eat less food, then you won't be so fat. -Theaveng 17:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with that, but if it isn't pornography, then is it even relevant to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.91.147.198 (talk) 04:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It ISN'T relevant to the article; I am removing it. If it were an actual pornographic film, the case for its inclusion would be much stronger. Naturezak (talk) 02:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Stag films were/are pornography, and are relevant to this article. Please do not remove. That you don't find them arousing does not change this — per WP:NPOV, personal tastes should not sway this article (obviously not everyone responds to every type of pornography), and current tastes and mores do not retroactively disqualify historical material on aesthetic grounds. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

A topless woman is not obscene or erotic. It is a beautiful fact of nature that men have penises and women have boobs and vaginas. If you feel at all offended by those words; get real. Like children think sex is gross, a person who thinks boobs are bad when shown is childish.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kipisanerd (talk • contribs) 2008-05-02T00:16:04

He never claimed it was obscene. I do agree with him however that it is erotic. Mdwh (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

"Pornography or porn is the explicit depiction of sexual subject matter, especially with the sole intention of sexually exciting the viewer. It is to a certain extent similar to erotica, which is the use of sexually-arousing imagery for mainly artistic purposes." It is not likely that this clip is of an "artistic" nature, and wheter or not anybody finds this arousing or not is besides the point. It's a stag film, dated perhaps but still originally made for brothels. Hence: it's porn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.112.40.42 (talk) 13:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Porn shows women(or men if its gay pornography) in sexual intercourse for the veiwing pleasure of generally men. The video does not show the woman being in sexual intercourse, but instead taking her top off. This video would rather be in the softcore article, just not in the pornography article.Wikiwikiwon29 (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Wikiwikiwon29 15:39, 8 July 2008

But this article is pornography, not hardcore pornography, which you are referring to specifically. This article covers softcore too. And whilst I'm here, to respond to the original comment: this is not the obscenity article either, so I don't see what not being obscene has to do with anything. Mdwh (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I see we have another edit-warring. The only question under consideration should be: was it intended to sexually arouse the viewer. What are not relevant issues are:

• Whether it is obscene (porn does not have to be obscene, either legally or otherwise).
• Whether it depicts sex (as I say, this is the pornography article, not hardcore pornography; pornography is broader than sexual acts - see Softcore).
• Whether topless women in general is porn (obviously they aren't, but nonethless, some such images can be - e.g., page 3 of The Sun).

Mdwh (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, what is the source of this film? Ideally we should be able to go by whether it was considered pornographic at the time or not, as opposed to what we personally think. Mdwh (talk) 21:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if the film was once advertised as pornographic, there might be a case for it being in the article with a description ""This kind of material was once considered to be pornography". Likely though, it is from the 50's and before the term "pornography" was used. It was called "erotica" then, which is not "pornographic". Even so, if the film had been considered to be "pornographic", rather than erotica by its creators or viewers, we can decide whether it adds to the quality of the article, and how the term is used now.

Hmm. I don't see an edit war. At least not yet. I removed the video because it is not pornographic. The article title is pornography. It isn't erotic, obscene, or pornography. The fact that is was apprently intended to be erotica says nothing about whether it belongs in the pornography article. it is a woman, true, and she appears topless, true -- but that does not make it pornographic. Yes, it exploits (or once intended to exploit) some peoples interest in womens breasts, but that is not sufficient to call it "pornography". Nudity is not inherently sexual. Maybe this film was intended to be sexual, but there is, in fact nothing that I can see that is sexual about it -- just a woman taking her top off. A movie that was intended to be erotic. (the term pornography probably didn't even exist in that context when the film was made.) We as editors may decide what kind of material best fits this article to illustrate the topic. This video, in my opinion, in no way adds anything helpful to the article on this topic. (On the other hand, the stag film article it would apply well to.) So, I did not remove it because it was pornographic or obscene, I removed it because it was not on topic (It isn't pornographic). Atom (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

What definition of pornography are you using? The lead states "the explicit depiction of sexual subject matter with the sole intention of sexually exciting the viewer" which I would agree with, and is what we should be using. It also states "It is to a certain extent similar to erotica". And as I stated, obscentity has nothing to do with this issue - no one is claiming it is obscene - if you associate porn with obscenity, that is your POV.

No one is claiming that nudity is inherently sexual. But it also is not true that nudity is never sexual. If it wasn't intended to arouse, there is an argument it isn't porn. If it was intended to arouse however, I don't see it's any different to any softcore today.

What about the image of the magazines? Those women aren't even topless - are they not porn, either? Are you saying that you can see nothing sexual about topless models who appear in softcore porn mags, and places like page 3 of The Sun newspaper, despite the fact that they are produced and sold and bought for that purpose? Mdwh (talk) 02:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

New lead image

My submission for the new lead image --David Shankbone 01:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that we need a different lead image. I think Image:LampArtifactDoggystyle.jpg makes an excellent lead image for the History of erotic depictions article, but it's not quite so appropriate here because it is not "pornographic" according to the definitions prescribed in the article itself. Generally, this article claims, pornography did not even exist until the Victorian era (although erotic images have been around forever); I also think pronography connotes a certain lack of artistic merit or historical interest, both of which the lamp seems to offer. What we need in the lead image is some actual porn.

The problem is how do we find such an image that's not unnecssarily graphic or shocking? We could do something along the lines of Image:AN Rita Faltoyano-Nikki Benz 1.jpg. It's a free image of two contemporary pornographic actreses in typical porn star attire, but there's no actual sex or nudity. User:Videmus_Omnia has many similar pictures in his free image gallery. Another idea is a harmless still from a pornographic movie, or a high quality of image of the outside of a sex shop that garishly advertises pornographic material for sale. David Shankbone has a pretty cool image here, but I feel its focus is more the light and shadows on a darkened street and not so much the pornographic merchandise and signage. Does anyone else have some suggestions?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 13:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

What if we swapped the first two images? I looked over the images you suggested and most of them are of pornographic actors/actresses, not pornogrphy per se. The french cartoon actually uses the word 'pornography' and alludes towards the social tensions raised by pornography - makes it a good choice in my mind. And the lamp alludes towards the roots of pornography before it existed in its modern, sensationalistic, mass produced and socially controlled version, which makes it a good fit for the history section. WLU 14:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad suggestion, but I (perhaps my thinking is overly concrete) was hoping the lead image should actually be of pornography or pornographic material.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 14:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Hey guys - why don't I go to a porn shop and take a photo of some of the paraphernalia or of a wall of porn videos? No shortage of those here in New York. --David Shankbone 14:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be great!! But please be very careful about copyright paranoia.... for many months, the lead image to this article consisted of a similar photograph to the one you're proposing. It was a very humdrum snapshot of a rack of porno videos for sale at a Tel Aviv flea market; although it was not artistically impressive, I felt it was a great illustration of the article's subject. People complained[2][3][4][5] about it constantly and kept trying to remove it. One editor employed legal threats, arguing that the boxcovers were all copyrighted, and we can't reproduce them here (even though many of the box titles were completely illegible!). Eventually, the picture was deleted from Commons for reasons I do not understand[6][7]. Hopefully, your picture won't suffer the same fate. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 15:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

There should not be any copyright issues when there is an amalgamation of covers; but what I may do is a more sweeping "Store View" to incorporate videos and paraphernalia; that should alleviate any questions. I will try and do it today. --David Shankbone 15:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing what you come up with.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 15:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Killer photograph! It's perfect, and I'll add it to the lead image right away; feel free to revise whatever lame caption I come up with.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 01:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is a lead image needed?

Why is a lead image needed at all? If Wikipedia were a hard-copy document, should its article on cocaine lead with a scratch-and-sniff patch? Does anyone want to argue that pornography has no addictive element? If it does have addictive elements, is it really best to have a teaser image at the top of the article? Wikipedia routinely uses "spoiler" warnings before revealing the plots of movies. Some readers don't want to have the plot revealed without warning. So why present readers with a titillating image without warning?

Some readers are looking for information on how to overcome an addiction to pornography. Hitting them with a provocative image without warning probably isn't the best service that an encyclopedia might provide.209.172.22.162 (talk) 02:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Those are some pretty foolish arguments. If a person has an addiction to pornography then they shouldn't be going to an article about...pornography. They should be going to a self-help group, and staying away from places where they are likely to find images of such things to tantalize them, or where they will read about the history and use of pornography in culture. If a coke addict wants to quit cocaine, they shouldn't go to the Cocaine article where--yes--they will find photos of cocaine, advertisements, leaves, etc. Lastly, we aren't censored, neither for children, nor for addicts. Addicts shouldn't be torturing themselves, and we can't not educate just because a misguided addict goes looking for trouble on an encyclopedia article about what they are addicted to... it's that simple. --David Shankbone 04:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"Foolish arguments" is a strange way to spell "apt analogy."

I note that no reason was given for having a titillating image as the very first thing in this article. "We can because we're not censored" is not a reason.

It is unlikely that a coke addict who is going to get a jones from looking at the lead image in the cocaine article, which shows the chemical structure of cocaine. In contrast, the lead image in this article is from a window display which is intended to entice people to partake of pornographic peep shows. The image at the top of the cocaine article isn't designed to rev up an addiction. The scene in the image at the top of this article is.

An assertion that information should not be used to combat an addiction is ludicrous. Why isn't this appropriate reading for a cocaine addict?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine#Effects_and_health_issues

This article does not begin with a content disclaimer. Rather, the very first thing beneath the title is a provocative image. Any warning after that may be too late.

Lastly, "uncensored" need not be a synonym for "insensitive to the vulnerabilities of others".209.172.21.229 (talk) 23:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, uncensored specifically means not censored to accommodate the sensitivities of others. Wikipedia contains many images that may be considered pornographic or otherwise offensive. See Talk:Muhammad/FAQ for examples. Wikipedia's content disclaimer specifically states (among many other examples):

• Wikipedia may contain triggers for people with post-traumatic stress disorder.
• Wikipedia may contain images and videos which can trigger epileptic seizures and other medical conditions.

... so I don't see a case for removing a mild lead image like the one included in this article. I would add that if the pornographic value of this image poses a danger for someone, they might need to stay away from internet in general.

Also, despite your claim above about movie articles, Wikipedia articles do not routinely contain spoiler warnings or disclaimers. See the following:

• Wikipedia:Spoiler
• Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles

A link to Wikipedia's disclaimers (which includes Wikipedia:Content disclaimer) is on the bottom of every article page. Further cushioning in article space is contrary to the goal of writing an encyclopedia. If you take issue with this policy, the place to take this would be Village Pump; policy changes of this type will not be decided on this Discussion page.

As for why a lead paragraph is needed "at all", see WP:LEDE. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I changed the title of this subsection, which had no title prior to the 23:54, 24 April 2008 edit. This thread is about whether there needs to be a lead image – whatever the image may be.

"The sensitivities of others" is different from "sensitivity to the vulnerabilities of others". "Sensitivities" is about what people find to be offensive. "Vulnerabilities" is about what can cause people harm.

Perhaps it is true that Wikipedia may contain triggers for people with post-traumatic stress disorder. Would it not be civil to warn someone who is close to the edge that they are about to encounter something which could be harmful to them?

Everyone knows that public sidewalks may contain steps. Isn't it helpful that they are often painted yellow to alert people that they are about to encounter a step?

Saying "we are an encyclopedia and we are not censored" is not a license to trip people.

Why any lead image is necessary for this article remains unanswered. There is nothing here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LEDE

about having a lead image.

I didn't ask why a lead paragraph is needed.

Maybe the current image fits elsewhere in the article. I see no reason for it to be at the top of the page.

This is true: "A link to Wikipedia's disclaimers (which includes Wikipedia:Content disclaimer) is on the bottom of every article page." That is on the very last line of the page to satisfy the lawyers, not to serve the readers. A one-word link at the bottom of the page is not a warning.

The following text appears at the top of this talk page, before any provocative discussion is encountered:

Images or details contained within this article, in particular, may be graphic or otherwise objectionable

Now, that is a warning. The top of the article contains no such warning.

Touché on the comment about spoilers. It isn't good netiquette to surprise readers with them, but that decision has apparently been made.

As it appears this decision has, for the moment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#CENSORED

some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the articles about the penis and pornography)

So this article seems to have a specific pass in that regard.

Who is served by having a provocative lead image for this article?209.172.23.224 (talk) 02:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Peep Show by David Shankbone.jpg represents the subject from a modern and realistic perspective, and does so in the least provocative, least offensive fashion I can imagine possible without resorting to potentially misleading irrelevance. And it is GFDL-compatible free content. I see nothing wrong with this picture, and your objections seem weirdly exaggerated to me.

Your arguments are largely based on analogies to physical dangers, like tripping people up, or dosing them with drugs. People who are put in such extreme danger by words, pictures and being (as you say) surprised should not view Wikipedia, or indeed the World Wide Web in general. I see no reason Wikipedia should be toned down to accommodate the "vulnerabilities" of such a volatile, unbalanced minority; for people in such a state, I would suspect Wikipedia is the least of their problems. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"Historical merit"?

What does it mean to say that erotica "hold[s] or aspire[s] to... historical merit"? I can't decipher this at all. --Rrburke^(talk) 17:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Questions on the legality of pornography

I have some questions regarding pornography, and found on the UPS, USPS, and Canada Post websites, that it is illegal to move pornography between jurisdictions or to mail it...

1. Why is this so?
2. Why is it illegal to move pornography between states?
3. Why is it illegal to move/import/export/purchase pornography from canada and the USA to each other?
4. Is it illegal if you're bringing it with you for your own personal reasons, such as moving from one state/province to another, or visiting and bringing it for personal reasons? RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 02:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Questions like this should go to Wikipedia:Reference desk (tho they do not dispense specific legal advice). Article talk pages are for discussions about editing the article. / edg ☺ ★ 05:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm not looking for legal advice, as i dont' live in the united states...i'm just trying to figure out why the laws say what they say regarding these issues. I just think it's a bit odd to render moving pornography from one state to another illegal. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 14:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

For the USA, I would imagine it's because pornography laws potentially are different in each state.-Wafulz 03:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Anti-pornography article?

It looks more like anti-pornography article. Actual pornography needs expansion. Lara_bran 16:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that a huge amount of anti-porn section should be removed. With all the stuff from it created on a seperate page with just a link to it from the porn page. The amount on here is not necessary for this encyclopedic article. It basically amounts to covering half of the article about christianity with atheism. i will give time for a few responses before i create an anti-porn page to place the stuff on, and link it to this page.Aladdin Zane 17:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I would move the "The Impact of Pornography on Men" article (from this article's External links) to an anti-porn article (perhaps Anti-pornography movement). It's neither very informative nor scholarly, but it can be said to represent anti-porn opinion.

That said, I don't see much that needs to be removed from this article, and doing so risks creating a POV fork. For that reason I don't favor creating a separate "anti-porn" article. Better to develop other parts of this article than to simply remove anti-porn info for "balance". / edg ☺ ★ 17:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Not in this case. The anti-porn movement has a page. So as much as is on this page does not belong. The most that belongs here is the section title / a brief a paragraph overview / and the link to the article is already there. I know some may not see it as being to much, which is why it needs to be viewed in comparison. like a overbig section of atheism, on Jesus' page, or a huge section about the U.S.A. on the United Kingdom's page, and so on. I will be paring down the section, and duplicates from the anti-porn page will be removed, with a majorit of anything left, transferred. Leaving as a I stated a one paragraph overview of the movement itself, everything else sould on the APM page. Also it does not risk creating a POV fork, as most of the stuff is about the movement, which does not belong on this page.Aladdin Zane 17:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Jesus is a small consideration within atheism, whereas pornography is the entire subject of porn opposition, so WP:OTHERSTUFF is particularly not a sound argument here. There is no reason to "pare down the section" to a one-paragraph overview. What is needed is more information on pornography. / edg ☺ ★ 17:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a big reason to pare it down. It already has it's own page. Also the anti-pornography movement, is not pornography of any genre or sub-genre. Also the article is excessivly long with it in. The information will still be on wiki, just in the proper location. Aladdin Zane 21:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is not List of pornographic genres, so the fact that anti-pornography information is not part of such a list does not mean it should be excluded here. And at 42kb, this article is hardly "excessively" long — there isn't reason to invoke WP:SUMMARY here. And, consigning "anti" information to another article is creating a WP:POVFORK. The request made at thread top is to add more information, not remove existing information. / edg ☺ ★ 21:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I moved sections around, but did not change content. True, article is not as long, but it needs expansion on subject than anti-subject. Article has enough materials for a WP:GA, all it needs is some copyedit. Lara_bran 04:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Porn actors and actresses

A section on this is necessary, help from somebody with knowledge would be appreciated. Thanks. Lara_bran 04:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Religeous protestors

"(Pornography) immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world"

Says a leading religeous figure. LOL Just thought I'd mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kung Foo (talk • contribs) 00:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Rational for my edits

I edited some of the economic section as the 10 billion number has not be confirmed and is highly disputed. The existing version stated it as fact and then later rebutted itself. The influence on the current format war will also be negligible since both formats will carry pornography. It will not have the same influence it did on the VHS vs Betamax format war and may not inf act have been influential back then either since both VHS and Beta carried pornography. It may in fact just be an amusing anecdote. Manic-pedant 23:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree the 10 billion figure is probably inflated and should be handled differently; as the Forbes stats were bandied about plenty, some mention should be made, but in the context of the more recent estimates. The DVD format interest however is pretty well sourced and should be kept — whether or not it is true (and I suspect porn is a big influence on home video formats), it currently seems to be considered an influence. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I just redid that section to de-emphasize $10 billion estimate. Can someone confirm that Eric Schlosser's book Reefer Madness was the evangelist for the 10G figure? / edg ☺ ☭ 03:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning that both formats (HD DVD and Blu Ray) have always carried porn? The original statement anout blu-ray will not have porn were voiced by CEO of Digital Playground after he felt he didn't receive enough support from Sony. Vivid refuted that claim, releasing their first HD offering in blu ray. It may be well sourced by it's perpetuating a myth.Manic-pedant 18:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the myth? I think the basic information here is:

Sony (or whoever owns Blu-Ray) made certain the format would be available for porn producers so they wouldn't lose the format war. Part of the drama was that porn content appeared on HD DVD first, and Blu-Ray had to play catch-up. Furthermore, fear of losing the format war on just that content meant Sony (or whoever, I don't follow this stuff closely) had to quell rumors that Blu-Ray wouldn't be as available for porn as HD DVD.

Should we rephrase that section more along the lines I just loosely paraphrased? Or is there more I'm not getting? / edg ☺ ☭ 19:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Blu-ray is outselling HD-DVD 2:1 for the last 11 months, total sales are about 3:2 Blueray to HD DVD. So if it has a role it's not known to what extent as it doesn't have an obvious effect. Many people have made statements concerning it but it's not a verifiable fact that Porn has any influence on the current format war and it's unlikely since both formats have porn on them. The statements about sony not supporting porn all came form one source, the CEO of Digital Playground, who complained he wasn't getting enough support at a conference. This was just echoed in mainstream media without any substantial qualitative reference. Perhaps add in a qualifier like "Some claim".

I'd propose re-phrasing it currently: "and a major factor in the Blu-ray vs. HD-DVD format war.[7][8][9]" revised: "and a possible factor in the Blu-ray vs HD-DVD format war."

As well all three citations are speculative opinion pieces. Manic-pedant 18:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I made a change. It's small but like I stated before, the old version asserted a definite and large effect but there is no proof of any effect at all aside from the opinions of several journalists. The Sales numbers do not reflect their opinion.Manic-pedant 20:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think these can be dismissed as "opinion pieces". The "opinions" cited in these articles are from industry representatives, and we have three very different sources.

Digital Playground claimed that he was forced to change allegiances from Blu-ray to HD DVD because Blu-ray disc manufacturers were refusing to print the hot stuff for fear of Sony pulling their licence" (Macworld/Computerworld)

Ron Wagner, director of IT operations at E! Entertainment Television Inc., in Los Angeles, said his company has already chosen the Blu-ray Disc format, in large part because of talk in the porn industry favoring it over rival HD-DVD. (Inquirer)

The Fox piece devotes a section specifically to Sony's decision whether or not, and what bizzers think about this. While it does not detail sources, it states these are opinions in the industry, and not the writer's analysis.

And before someone starts shooting down these excerpts, these are just samples from articles containing more. Analysis of sales figures are original research unless you can find a reliable source (preferably several, considering the above) saying these mean anything — HD isn't selling much yet, so either format could overtake the other. I've changed this to "including being a factor", over "including being a major factor" and "and may be a factor", both of which seem kinda WP:POVPUSH. / edg ☺ ☭ 00:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree "is a factor" is a lot better then "is a major factor". As for sales figures:

Figures
More recent news

My links include links to other sources such as reuters and Video Scan.-- Manic-pedant (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, the amount of sales doesn't prove or disprove anything in the Economics section of this article. Standard definition DVD players are almost ubiquitous, whereas HD formats are not locked in yet. I'm kinda tired of discussing this point, which I think is irrelevant to this article. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I answered your request for references. The reason I'm still typing is I find perpetuating the myth of porno being a factor in the VHS/Beta and HD DVD / Blu ray somewhat un-encyclopedic so I bring the topic up now. I find how it's written still to be incorrect but better then it was before. I'd further note the influence of pornography on both format wars is contested. I believe the idea beta had no porn may have been a factor but I know for a fact beta did have pornography very early on. In any case pornography is much less of a factor, as those numbers reflect. Manic-pedant (talk) 07:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Expansion

I expanded without any sources, but these are necessary. I dont think this constitutes Originar research. Aladin genie 06:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up on the Talk page. The current edit doesn't make much sense.

In general, softcore refers to pornography that does not depict penetration without showing genitals,...

Also, genitals can be depicted in R-rated movies in the United States — they are not defining of "pornography". / edg ☺ ☭ 06:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to refine/edit the content, but article needs expansion. Each section should have some 10-15 lines. Thanks. Aladin genie 06:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

With this edit, there's an arbitrarily placed list of media in the middle of the "economics" discussion. I don't believe this information helps the article, and it confuses the point being made in the HD format part. Inserting arbitrary content to reach an arbitrary length does not enhance the article; it dilutes it. / edg ☺ ☭ 06:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed subtitle, but left the list as it is. Sections should be expanded otherwise looks bad with white spaces.. Aladin genie 06:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

If that section should be expanded, it should be with meaningful content re: Economics. The video-specific list of media does not add meaningfully to that section, and should be removed. The reason media types are explicitly mentioned in that section is because of market influences on those particular formats. Frankly "Different media are used, such as ..." is a somewhat arbitrary tangent in that section, and sounds kind of silly, like you're suddenly writing for children. "Whitespace looks bad" is not a valid reason to add arbitrary content.

Also, you are listing video media only in a general article about pornography that should not be specific to current forms, and you ignore print media, which is still very common. I'd fix this, but it would involve reverting most of your changes. / edg ☺ ☭ 07:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I got your point, but medias where the money comes.. Maybe mentioned somewhere else in a separate section? Aladin genie 07:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously I don't favor a list of media, because it would be quite long and represent everything that can show an image — for example, porn was made available on 35mm slide film well into the 80s — plus many text and audio forms. If you really want to start such a list, it should be in a different section. In Economics you're working at cross purposes. / edg ☺ ☭ 07:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the list in lead section and removed it from economics section. But it can be mentioned in a separate section if not as subsection of "economics". Thanks for noticing error. Aladin genie 07:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for working toward WP:CONSENSUS. This article tends to attract clumsy original research (example), so I'm kind of watching out for that, but I'm not an authority on this subject and don't have much to add. If you can find well-sourced new information that could expand this article, that would be great. / edg ☺ ☭ 07:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

John Holmes was a fraud

The entire controversy about the John Holmes (actor) trial in the early 1980's was contrived to affect the drug legalization issue in California, if not the entire nation. Porn stars always state their anti-drug use ideals, they always say that their form of entertainment is drug-free and that they are certainly more morally sound than the average street junkie. But what happened with Holmes was shown in Wonderland (film), a film that totally misportrayed the real occurances in 1981 and was immediately taken out of the theaters after its release. The fact that Holmes was a police informant (as was David Lind, a known gang member) shows that his contact with pornography was more that of a police officer than a pornographic "actor," and shows that the events described (or omitted) in Wonderland were those whose express intent was to cause much more legislation to be put into effect, curtailing civil liberties in many respects. Both Holmes' and Lind's attempts to enter witness protection (Lind was actually allowed into the witness protection program) shows this to be true, even though Wonderland glosses over the political aspect of the crime. It's also said that Holmes was an Army veteran; it can now be shown that he should have received a medical discharge early on in his enlistment unless he was serving another purpose during his tour in Germany. What it was, who can say, but Holmes has had a negative effect on civil liberties in the nation, and both Lind and he have damaged the witness protection program perhaps beyond repair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.159.55 (talk) 13:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Further reading

Any reason why the further reading is entirely advocacy? Just seems a little strange to me. Richard001 (talk) 07:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a particular guideline for such a section. I agree the list seems quite POV and doesn't help the article much. / edg ☺ ☭ 09:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to submit for the OTHER section an article that examines the dangers and sociological implications of pornography. Here's the link: http://www.artsandopinion.com/2003_v2_n1/lewis-2.htm Thanking you, Artsandopinion (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Robert Lewis

Thanks, but much writing exists on this subject, and the link you propose isn't very informative, so I don't think it would be good to include even as an editorial representing a position. Also, I think there are WP:COI concerns. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Petition: remove movie in media section

The movie in the Media section, with the topless blonde woman, not only that it is not porn, and therefore has nothing to do with this article, but it's completely irrelevant. Diego pmc (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The movie would indeed pass for porn at the time it was made. Admittedly tame by today's standards, I see no reason why not to include it. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not censored. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I know it isn't censored, and that's not the reason why I asked for it to be deleted.
However, it should be mentioned that it was porn at that time, as some people (including me), surely aren't aware of that, and might consider it irrelevant. Diego pmc (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I opposed the removal of the media. It is a good example of pornography, and it is not something that someone today would be aroused from; no one is going to use that for any purposes other than educational ones.--eskimospy (talk) 03:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I did —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.104.50.163 (talk) 14:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Petitions mean nothing on Wikipedia. Since there is consensus among editors to have this media, you would have to make a case that Wikipedia policy dictates removal of this content. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Movie is quite irrelevant in the article. I don't see why article must have a media file for it's own sake. Link to the media should be enough. --Thialfi (talk) 11:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary a source?

This thread was copied from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of this?[8]--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Pornography is a legitimate source! Chessy999 (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I already know what you think of the source; I'm attempting to solicit more opinions.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Am I not allowed to participate in the discussion your highness? Chessy999 (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionarian here: No, of course not. Likewise Wikipedia is not an adequate source for Wiktionary. Of course it may be useful to link to the Wiktionary entry, but that should be done through {{wiktionary}} or a similar template, and should be presented as supplementing rather than substantiating the article. -- Visviva (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed... wikis in general, which would include our sister projects such as Wiktionary and Wikinews are not considered reliable sources for citation in Wikipedia, due to their nature (edited anonimously, subject to frequent change, no editorial oversight or peer review, etc.) ... even Wikipedia itself is not considered reliable. Blueboar (talk) 14:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. I got rid of the reference, but I placed the wiktionary template near the lead paragraph (since the lead paragraph discusses the definition of the word at length).--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Chessy999 has re-inserted the citation [9]. I'm not sure why. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

To agree with most people here, Wiktionary is not reliable source (see here). --h2g2bob (talk) 14:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an open and shut case... WP:SPS clearly states: Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable. This is policy folks. A very good explanation of why this is policy can be found at Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Are wikis reliable sources. We should certainly include a prominent link to the definition in our sister project, but we can not use it as a source. Blueboar (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Open and shut because one person wrote an offline WP? Try a new approach, review the FACTs and APPLY your intellect. Wikipedia has approximately the same accuracy as Encyclopædia Britannica. Of course there are always the Machiavellians, which seems to be the case with the majority of editors in this discussion. There are several major differences between Wiktionary and Wikipedia:1) Length of definition as compared to an article 2) Ease of verifying definitions 3) Ease of patrolling Wiktionary. These three FACTs add up to Wiktionary being a very accurate dictionary, certainly accurate enough to be used as a citation. Be sure that many news articles and webpages use Wikipedia and Wiktionary as sources, simply search Google news using either term and you will find them. Don't be so hard on Wiktionary and Wikipedia. If the definition or article is well written complete with citations, it is as valid as any other dictionary or encyclopedia entry, which we must agree are often used as legitimate sources and references. Chessy999 (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

like everybody else i would say that wiktionary is not reliable source. Although i think that it can be used as source when you are referencing wiktionary related stuff and/or it doesn't matter if it is reliable or not. --Zache (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Everytime we put the [[ ]] interwiki brackets around a word, we are referencing Wikipedia...Ipso facto Chessy999 (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

There is more than one way that Wikipedia can use Wiktionary;

• It can link to Wiktionary entries for words in articles that are not within common vocabulary, "Their fusion creates a self-perpetuating synergy."
• It can use the {{wiktionary}} or (my preference) {{wti}} to link to Witkionary as a "see also" kind of link between the Wiktionary entry and Wikipedia article.
• It can copy definitions from Wiktionary for inline clarification, either of the article title or of a similarly key word. History of knitting for example. This is to be preferred to using other dictionaries, firstly because there is less issue from copyright and secondly because we're sisters!
• However it can't use Wiktionary as a source of fact, and as such Wiktionary is not a reference.

In essence I suppose, Wiktionary can be used for illustration, but not for authenticating information. Conrad.Irwin 18:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. Links to other Wikipedia pages are not citations, nor are they intended to be. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

One thing that Wiktionary does is research the meaning of words. If a word or a sense of a word is challenged, then we attempt to "attest" the word or the sense. That leads to the production of citations, from "durably recorded media". Those might be useful at WP. They are not necessarily produced quickly in response to a request, however. DCDuring (talk) 03:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary pejorative term

The word "Jewess" is a pejorative, anti-semitic word and should be replaced with the phrase "Jewish woman". The "-ess" ending (meaning female) is usually pejorative (specifically, a diminutive) and in modern usage has mostly been avoided; for example, we are more likely today to say "server" rather than "waitress". Although the "-ess" feminine ending is still considered acceptable in a few cases (for example, "actress" or "lioness"), the term "Jewess" is clearly pejorative or at least diminutive (for example, nobody calls a Christian woman a "Christianess") and should be avoided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.234.3 (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

First sentence: grammar

"Pornography or porn is very fun the explicit depiction of sexual subject matter, especially with the sole intention of sexually exciting the viewer."
Seems like someone was messing around.Rastafaria (talk) 02:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Request

I would repsectively ask that the Silent Stag Film be removed at the bottom of the page. While i have not read ahead through all the archives to see if this has already beed discusses, and i also know that wikipedia is an unbiased information source that does not limit information, I don't think that an actual video of pornography, no matter what genre or classification it has, should be able to be played right off this websight. Numbers of people use this sight, and many are younger. While it is not up to us to determine what is "right" or "wrong" to show, my persobal preference is not to make pornogrophy avialble to watch on an informational websight. I would also like to point out, like before, many younger kids use this for reading, and whether you determine it is ok for them to watch, i would ask for the sake of their parents to remove it. I would definately not want my kids exposed to porn now, or throughout their life if i had that power, and would hate restrict their access to this websight when it can be such a benefit. While you can probably tell I have a Christian perspective, i also am looking at this from a objective standpoint. I Apologize for the long rant, and i guess to sum this up, As a parent i would like to prevent my kids from getting into pornography as much as possible, and a large number of other parents probably feel the same way. I ask that out of respect towards the parents who disagree with pornography, to remove it. This article gives information on the subject clearly enough without a visual aid, and any guy who is determined to find porn can easily find it just about anywhere else on the internet. Lets not include that in a encyclopedia please. I will understand if there are disagreements, but I ask to please realy consider what I've said tonight. Thankyou. 66.78.69.82 (talk) 11:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I sympathize with your position, at first glance. It's not clear to me what useful information this film clip provides beyond simply being an example of what is meant by "pornography," of which there are already others on the page. I would have little objection to it on an article about stag films, but I'm less sure on this page. There was a discussion of the clip already on this talk page, and I'm reading up on the details of Wikipedia's policies/suggestions regarding obscenity/pornography. Given that Wikipedia is by default not censored, you might want to do the same and see if you can find a policy reason to remove it. --George (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not the type that usually supports censor, and I appreciate that Wikipedia is not censored, but he has a point. There's a pretty clear line between not censoring, to provide a clear picture, and common sense (yeah, it's a POV). Then again, that video isn't categorized as porn nowadays, and scenes similar to that can be seen in most of today's movies. diego_pmc (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Driving force behind technological development

In the section 'Technology' Jenkins, H. (2004) So You Want to Teach Pornography. In, Church Gibson, P. (Ed.) More Dirty Looks: Gender, Pornography and Power 2nd Edition. London: British Film Institute Pp. 1-7 could be used as a reference. He said "Pornography has been a driving force behind the technological development and deployment of almost every media - print, photography, cinema, video and digital media alike." p.2 Guruchelles (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a common statement repeated in many places, almost accepted as a truism these days. Does this author make a case for this statement, or is it said more in passing? / edg ☺ ☭ 14:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

No, he doesn't make a case for it as such. He uses the 'truism' as a reason why one should be able teach pornography studies.Guruchelles (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Kinda borderline as a source for that statement. I'd prefer to leave it out and find something better. A Google search on "pornography driving technology" gets a few promising hits.

I was such a screwup in college I bet I would've flunked Pornography Studies. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Does the New Testament forbid pornography usage?

The article says the New Testament does forbid pornography usage, quoting Mathew 5:27-28. But that passage does not forbid adultery usage. Consider:

• The passage states that thinking of a woman in a sexual way is adultery. But adultery relates only to marriage, therefore if neither party is married then there is no adultery involved.
• The passage only refers to the thoughts of men, not of women.
• The passage defines what is considered "adultery", which is a sin, but the passage itself does not forbid the sin; further, it is debatable whether the New Testament actually forbids sin. Many Christians believe that sin is unavoidable, and salvation comes only through faith in Jesus Christ, rather than through the repentence of any particular sin.

I conclude that while that passage may be interpreted as saying that all sexual fantasy is wrong, it is far from clear. I think the article should be changed to reflect that.

Also, the translation used is not in mordern English. Shouldn't all translations in the English version Wikipedia be modern English translations? Isn't the whole point of translation to convert something unreadable into something readable? (I'm a Christian, and I barely recognise the passage.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grand Dizzy (talk • contribs) 16:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Answers to the above

• Your conclusions are not really very strong on theology. I don't think they ought to be taken as guidlelines for interpreting the Gospel!
• On the subject of Adultery, any woman who (at that time) had intercourse outside marriage was considered an adulteress. She had made herself unclean and unsuitable as a wife. She had shamed her family. She could be punished by stoning to death. You are overlaying a very modern idea of what adultery means.
• Thoughts of men, not woman.... Jesus is using "man" as an example. Jesus isn't making a rule. He is teaching a broad idea. If you are looking for a simple set of rules, your in the wrong religion! If you understand the concept, then you don't need a set of specific rules. You simply make the concept your guiding light.

(Like "Love one another as I have loved you".... If you know that concept, you don't need to be told "Don't lie about people, don't scream at each other, don't sulk, don't hit, don't pull hair.")

• The New Testament does not forbid sin. But that doesn't mean that it's OK for Christians to do it. (Sin, that is). The point that Jesus makes is that people have sinful thoughts as well as actions. They should strive against both. But, luckily salvation isn't entirely dependant on our goodness. It's dependent on God's love. So the whole point of not sinning, is that it is not a legal obligation. It's a moral obligation. That puts a very different slant on it! The big picture is not about a set of rules and regulations. It's about acting in a way that reflects the grace of God.
• The quotation is from the best known version of the Bible. It's called the King James Bible. It dates the early 17th century. For many people it remains the preferred version, and it unites English speaking Christian communities. Amandajm (talk) 09:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Jesus and two-faced conduct

Firstly, what I am writing here takes the interpretation that there is a difference between erotica and pornography. The O.E.D. definition merely refers to pornography as something produced for sexual stimulation, rather than artistic content. Without bothering to cite authors at this point, porn, as distinct from erotica, is often seen as being exploitive. Exploitive means that someone is suffering a degree of abuse through the production of the material, or the material is disrespectful of others rights or well being, or it incites people to behave in an exploitive manner. Eroticism, on the other hand, merely incites people to enjoy themselves.

Secondly, I feel obliged to say here that Jesus was not exactly a prude. He was the chap who cooked barbecues on the beach, is said to have produced something in the order of 40 gallons of wine for a wedding breakfast, who was criticised for hanging out with drunks, prostitutes and (would you believe it) tax collectors, and who healed the so-called "servant" of a Roman Centurian (they were the despised conquerors, and this was almost certainly a homosexual relationship.) Jesus didn't just hug babies... he hugged lepers.

That said, this is the quotation I have just changed:

The New Testament does not forbid the production of pornography, but rather its use. Jesus states, "Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt not commit adultery: but I say unto you, that every one that looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." (Mathew 5:27-28). In the first verse Jesus is quoting the Torah (Exodus 20:14).

• It is ludicrous to suggest that "The New Testament doesn't forbid the production of pornography, but rather its use".

In fact, Jesus had a profound understanding of human nature. He understood "sinful" behaviour in all its forms. He encouraged people to obey all the reasonable laws of the church and the rulers.

• However, Jesus very rarely "laid down the law". ie. he didn't usually tell people in specific terms, how to manage their lives. He gave them two overriding guidelines "Love God, and love your neighbour as yourself" He went on to explain that "your neighbour" was everyone, even your enemy. So, to put it simply, you ought not act in a way that hurts, insults, defiles, humiliates or is otherwise abusive to or regardless of the needs of, any other person.
• Over and over, the thing that Jesus condemned was two-faced conduct. Jesus condemned the twisting of "words of the law" in order that one might suit oneself. The Gospels are full of Jesus challenging those people among the Jewish leaders who knew the law sufficiently well to break it successfully, and thereby set a very bad example.
• What we have here, in this present mis-interpretation of Jesus' statement is exactly the type of conduct, exactly the type of twisting of words that Jesus despised and condemned.
• It is correct to the letter of the book to say that Jesus did not condemn pornography. Nowhere did he say "do not write this, or make images of this..." Nowhere does he actually mention pornography specifically. Images of figures were not used by the Jewish people.
• So what did Jesus mean? (Remembering, of course, that he is talking to a group of Jewish people and they all know the Ten Commandments off by heart).

His meaning is clear. "You all know (by the Ten Commandments, Leviticus and so on) that adultery is wrong. But what I'm telling you is this....Don't get too above yourselves, just because you function to the letter of the law. Because, regardless of how you may act, if your thoughts are immoral, then so are you!".

• Jesus' apostle Paul, who wrote and travelled indefatigably, and who established the "Christian Church" as an organisation in many cities, was absolutely clear in his condemnation of "immoral conduct" of all sorts. He encouraged the individual members of the churches that he wrote to, to be pure in both mind and body. This really cannot be reconciled with the "production of pornography".
• So, all we can say is, the Early Christian Church condemned anything that focussed in an "unholy" way on the body. Sex between married couples was condoned, and both the men and the woman were expected to give of it to the satisfaction of the other, except when they abstained by agreement. (Paul wrote this... Jesus never made any such specific statement about marriage)
• Just to round this up- Jesus was challenged to pronounce judgement on a woman who had committed adultery (we are not told the circumstances). The mandatory punishment was to be stoned to death. Those who challenged him wanted to find out whether he would keep the law in this matter. His answer showed the most exceptional insight into the minds of those self-righteous accusers. He said "Let the person here who is without sin throw the first stone." The crowd broke up and went away.

Jesus said to the woman "What, has no-one condemned you?" ... and then, the telling words "Go your way, and sin no more."

• The point here is that some other religions (and some branches of Christianity) seek to maintain control by fixed rules, set in cement. (St Paul's letters are often interpretted as fixed rules). Jesus did not do this. He led by example, and established a very few of the loosest, yet most binding laws that have ever been given or written down. That instruction "Go your way and sin no more", was a very hard ask. Putting other people first is a very hard ask.

.... and neither of those thing leaves any room for making an interpretation that "The New Testament does not forbid the production of pornography, but rather its use." (In saying this, I refer you back to the small print at the top of this edit, for the definition that I am using to interpret "pornography".)

Please do not twist the teachings of Jesus in this way. Amandajm (talk) 09:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Minimum age in denmark

The article says 16 years, but that's not what I can find:

"Den, som udbreder utugtige fotografier eller film, andre utugtige visuelle gengivelser eller lignende af personer under 18 år, straffes med bøde eller fængsel indtil 2 år eller under særligt skærpende omstændigheder med fængsel indtil 6 år"

It means (any danish can correct me if I'm wrong, I'm a swede so I'm not 100% sure, but pretty) the following:

"Anyone who spreads sexual (not sure on the exact word here, but somewhere between "sexual" and "sinful" and "naughty") pictures or film, or other visual reproductions of persons below 18 years, are to be punished with fines or up to 2 years in prison, or in particulary bad situations up to 6 years of prison."

That is for all I know the word from the actual law, but as I said, I'm only 99.9%... 81.235.198.225 (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

"A place to record prostitutes" seems like a fun inexactitude. "Pornography" would rather translate "the fact of displaying prostitutes". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.182.20 (talk) 16:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Bible Quotation of Mt 5:27,28 Doesn't Apply

These (commonly quoted) verses don't apply to erotic imagery and pornography for many many reasons. This is easily shown by reductio ad absurdum, reduction to absurdity.

• If these verses are taken in the asserted sense, then every married couple committed adultery before they were married because they desired each other so strongly they wanted to spend their entire lives together. See Lust for one's spouse
• Also, if drawn/painted erotic pictures of some generic non-specific opposite sex are arousing, then are we to suppose one commits adultery with the canvas? Perhaps one desires to marry a paintbrush? (No bibliographic reference is available for "Covetous lust for a paintbrush".)
• Also, adultery is a sin with married people, not the unmarried. The greek word for woman here (as well as by context) clearly establishes that some specific married woman is intended.
• Also, nowhere in the Bible is there any prohibition of either polygamy or even female concubinage. The most one can say is that the Bible indirectly suggests those practices are less than desirable. So to argue that erotic pictures are wrong when sex slavery is not wrong, is a foolish exercise.
• Also, the Koine greek word rendered here as lust is "epithumeo". It means "with strong desire". (BTW: Koine Greek was the original language of the New Testament Bible.) If it always means lust then there are severe Bible translation problems. For example, the same word "epithumeo" is used in many verses throughout the New Testament. Consider the following verses with this ridiculous rendering intact.

• 1 Timothy 3:1 "Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone lusts (epithumeo) to be a bishop, he desires a noble task".
• 1 Peter 1:12b "... Even angels lust (epithumeo) to look into these things."
• Luke 22:15 Jesus Christ said, "I have lusted (epithumeo) with extreme lust (epithumeo) to eat this Passover with you before I suffer."

(BTW: This is Christ's statement about holy communion!!)

• Also, to the argument that only "romance" is meant to be acceptable, no such word uniquely exists in God's word. The word romance didn't get invented until much later. Koine greek has only the word "eros" to uniquely describe the attraction between male and female, from which we obtain our modern word "erotic". God's word contains no condemnation of eros. Just the opposite is true, that prohibition of marriage is a mark of anti-christianity (1 Timothy 4:3), as taken by all the major protestant reformers.
• Also, it is primarily outside romance that causes husbands, wives, etc. to abandon their responsibilities and "run off" with another person. I have never EVER heard of someone "running off" with a picture, not even a .MOV!!
• Also, since eros includes romance bilaterally for either male or female, one must infer that romantic movies (like Gone With The Wind or Somewhere In Time) is eros and therfore, pornography. This is especially true since both movies portray fornication.
• Also, the word "pornography" didn't get invented until MUCH later. Modifying the Bible as mainline churchianity tries to do is both unjustified and dangerous.
• Finally, there is no simple direct subject_negated-verb_object prohibition of any erotic media anywhere in God's Word. The poetry of Song of Solomon (aka Song of Songs) is a perfect counter-example.

These verses are too irrelevant to keep them. Their history is well known and acknowledged. This is mere casuistic extrapolation in its weakest form. I want to formally challenge the applicability of Mt 5:27,28. What is the best way to do it? --ClickStudent (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The origin of pornoagraphy

The "ia " at the end of the Greek word is the noun form. The English word pornography should be considered a root of the Greek root, not it's noun form. Also, porne is used of any sexual defilement. http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4204. better sources are out there I'm sure. Thus, it does not mean a "a place to record prostitutes", but a "record of sexual defilement." Also, the very last line in the article appears to be vandalism Bkmullenix (talk) 06:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Please forgive me for calling attention to the fact that you are questioning only a single point.

• Again, "pornographia" does not appear anywhere within holy writ. This is 100% total absence of support. If God had MEANT that, He would have included it. He doesn't need help.
• Porne (4204) is certainly rendered occassionally as general case "whoredoms" in scripture, which is vaguely your "record of" prostitution. But the issue of whether portrayal itself is sexual defilement is still totally unsupported. It's like saying possession of a picture of a murder is the same as killing someone. It's also like saying the possession of a cookbook turns you into a glutton and makes you overweight. That was not Christ's intent. If you DESIRE to do evil, you have a problem. Unfortunately, everyone desires to do evil. So trying to live by written law can never accomplish perfection. Thus, we need Christ. THAT is the intent of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5. It does not presume sexual desire is evil.
• As to "record of" I think you might be playing a game of sophistry here. For example, the word for "groceries" is inherently a "record of" that thing...groceries. It doesn't mean you bought them or that you can afford them. It is merely the symbolic "record of" that concept. And you CERTAINLY can't generalize an implicit primitive "record" all the way to "picture". So if you are trying to make that overly subtle point, let me discourage you. This would richly deserve the pejorative "pure sophistry".

Another curious BTW: The 1966 Funk and Wagnalls Dictionary defines "Jesuit" as "a casuist; an equivocator: a derogatory term" and "Jesuitism" as "deceptive practices, subtle distinctions..." Both are the second meanings.

• Small point but "pornographia" is certainly latin, "ia"? Tough to say its certainly Greek for anglicized forms.

But never mind. Let me make your argument for you. God cares about our desires. "May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in thy sight..." etc. Unfortunately, God created sexual desire for the opposite sex. RCs choke on that. But that's not God's problem...and not mine either. Look at the poetic metaphors of Song of Solomon (Songs) and see how the double entendre is extremely erotic. I think what we really need is a Modern English Version of Song of Solomon. Read THAT in church!!!!

BTW: This porne generalization also happened with the word sodomy later in the 13th? century. e.g. sodomy was deemed to include masturbation (yet another Roman Catholic word invention) all by yourself.

btw: Masturbation isn't anywhere in scripture either. RC has always had so much fun adding things that aren't there. That list is endless.

BTW: This "porne" extrapolation probably came from Siricius and Innocent I in 395AD when these definitions were slurred to justify mandatory priestly celibacy. See An Historical Sketch of Sacerdotal Celibacy in the Christian Church (on p53 of the 1867 edition), by Henry Charles Lea. "Siricius and Innocent I ransacked the Gospels for texts of more than doubtful application with which to support the innovation {of required celibacy}"...curly brackets mine.

Also btw: Lea showed the reason they did that...to get rich...i.e. to avoid ecclesiastical loss due to inheritance. And it WORKED!!

--ClickStudent (talk) 03:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Why Is Roman Catholic Catechism Worth Mentioning?

Why does this page mention a mere catechism beside (and equal to) all the world's holiest writings? Anybody can create a catechism. Many churches do. It is their statement of POV. And that POV often changes. Even RC catechism has changed many hundreds of times throughout history. Whenever it is politically convenient, such things change.

But the Torah, the Qur'an, the Bible...these are fixed. Many churches have C's that say outrageous things about RCism. So why have this statement at all? What is so damned special about RCism? This cathechism inclusion confuses the issue about what basic world religion actually STATES. Suggestion: break the religious POV stuff into a separate section, at the least. I thought POV was not allowed in wiki pages? --ClickStudent (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Porn's sole intention?

"the sole intention of sexually exciting and entertaining the viewer" - can't it sometimes have intentions other than that? For example The Devil in Miss Jones or Pirates (2005 film). Can it also sometimes not have that intention, the explicit depiction of sexual subject matter with the sole intention of revolting the viewer, perhaps? Шизомби (talk) 13:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

IMHO I think you're correct. One could also name Stanley Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange" and Nobokov's "Lolita" (which actually show's how the sexuality of a (supposedly inexperienced) young minor totally dominates everyone, including the professor played by James Mason in Kubrick's film). Even Kubrick's AI has scenes of garish neon sexuality to demonstrate the most selfish inclinations of humanity. ....er....hmmm....then there's Salvadore Dali's "The Masturbator" and several others. Yeah, you gotta be right.

But that didn't stop people from condemning each of these films and art. When people start talking about obscenity, not even moral value matters. And the outspoken lawyers and feminists in this topic are often desperate to forbid viewing and protect us from all this filth.

So where does this hyper-rational moral authority come from? Take a guess. Its not the Holy Bible. --ClickStudent (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I was going to question this myself. I would think it need only be the 'primary' rather than sole intention. Lots of things are pornography but the writers add other things for humour or to stimulate thought. I'm pretty sure country laws don't make 'sole' a priority. Proving 'sole' is pretty hard anyway. What media only has a single intention? Tyciol (talk) 04:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the 'Challenge to Religious Defenses'

The article cites multiple Bible verses, a book (several locations), and a video. Perhaps more are desired. But it is patently incorrect to say that no references are cited. As to POV, every point is cited in other sources, hence the above citations. As to logic, reductio ad absurdum is a form of logic acceptable as a proof in mathematics. So that can't be POV. But no substantive objections are available, so I can only guess what is meant. I'm tempted to simply remove the challenges, given that nothing is said. I will do so in 48 hours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.123.129 (talk) 05:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about putting up the reference tags

I'll admit,I did overstep the line with that being done,but I still think the neutrality of that section in the article is a little off.Because saying things like "some bible erotica isn't even poetic" and the reference tag that i put on that section was because of this sentence here:"but they are intentionally extremely erotic," and "some bible erotica isn't even poetic."I think that's pov being demonstrated.Once again,sorry about the wrongly placed referenced tag.Please see me at my talk page if you want.Sammy theeditor (talk) 07:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead image

I am a strong advocate for good lead images, as they set the tone for the article. In this case the current lead image (of a sex shop), although a nice image, and obviously related to sexuality, is a picture of a sex shop window with a blow-up doll and sex toys, including dildo's. That's cool, it is just that it has nothing to do with pornography. There are no magazines or books, no dvd's, CD's or video tapes in the image. The image, basically would be a great lead for a "Sex Shop" article. Based on the content of the article, and the long history of erotica and pornography, this image has essentially nothing to do with the topic. One could stretch to say that in some places, sex shops sell pornography, and the image implies that pornography is available in some indirect way. Clearly alhough it may illustrate many things well, it does not illustrate the topic, pornography, well. Atom (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

And we've now come full circle on the issue of a lead image. The most recent discussion was here; I would suggest you start there and work backwards through the links provided first to see what's gone before, before you start trying to change the lead image. Tabercil (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I have read that thread, and it is very interesting. There is consensus agreement even though there was lots of discussion. The only thing you could say about it that was definitive is that a person who was very concerned about having an innocent image expressed that he liked the sex shop image. I agree with David Shankbone that Wikipedia is not Censored, and that the original image of a pornography stand should not have been deleted. It was perfect. The image of a sex shop is just not illustrative of pornography. It might be okay for an article on "peep show". I will keep an eye out for something that would work better. Even the cover page of a 1960's playboy or penthouse would be better, and not likely to offend. Atom (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

How about this one, as a possibility:[10]? Nsk92 (talk) 21:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow! I think that it fits the bill perfectly! Go for it! Atom (talk) 21:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from Tabercil first. Also, I don't have any experience with putting images in the articles and am a bit afraid of messing it up (some sort re-scaling would be required, right?). Maybe it's better if someone a bit more experienced with images actually does the replacement. Nsk92 (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I can put it in, no problem. Let's wait and see if anyone else has anything to say about it, and I will put it in after a few days unless there is some strong objection in the interim. Atom (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Offhand, that works. But let's wait a lil' longer for more feedback. Tabercil (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

IMHO your proposed image is more appropriate, but its still a little weak. My previous attempt at posting related issues was shot down because of a very careful definition of porn. The sex shop image fits that definition even more poorly. For counter-example, many happily married couples frequent sex shops for the benefit of their own marriage. Marriage and the tools to facilitate that cannot be considered porn. (I have strong feelings about this.) There does, however, seem to be a substantial religious war against such kinds of marriage (and has been since 385). I have only contempt for such religious foolishness. BTW: if people really want a wide definition of porn, take a picture of the titles on the women's magazines, probably on this same rack. Frankly, I think I prefer an actual example of porn. If necessary, choose the most benign sort for the squeamish and most delicate.

So, by all means, post a more appropriate picture. --ClickStudent (talk) 10:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Part of the issue, of course, is that the term Pronography is so hard to define. In my case, 90% of what many people may call porn, I would call "erotica". Of course, that matters little in this case. I think we should put the new image in (since we seem to have concensus) after we leave a few more days for comments. Atom (talk) 02:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Men's interest?

Sorry I didn't think about this earlier, but perhaps a picture limiting porn to exclusively men is just a little sexist. Let me quote some stats orinially published on [www.protect-x.com A porn industry trade journal/website] The original is a long but interesting list:

• Women keeping their cyber activities secret______70%
• Women struggling with pornography addiction______17%
• Ratio of women to men favoring chat rooms________2X
• Ratio of visitor to adult websites who are women_1 in 3 visitors

I suspect they really mean 1 to 3, i.e. 1 in 4, based on these other numbers

• Women accessing adult websites each month________9.4 million
• Women admitting to accessing pornography at work_13%
• Women, far more than men, are likely to act out their behaviors in real life, such as having multiple partners, casual sex, or affairs.

Just for the hey of it, let me quote some of the stats concerning BOTH men and women

• Men admitting to accessing porn at work__________20%
• US adults who regularly visit internet pron websites__40 million
• Promise Keeper men (ecumenical Christian organization) who viewed porn in last week__53%
• Christians who said porn is a major problem in the home_47%
• Adults admitting to internet sexual addiction____10%
• Breakdown of male/female visitors to porn sites__72% male, 20% female

The sources for these stats is a vvvvery long list. No way to link back to which source supplied each stat. Apologies again for forgetting about women's interests. --ClickStudent (talk) 08:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a section in the article about Pornograpby by and for women. The lead image is more focused on people interested in women. The lead should try to represent the topic as best it can, until we can find someting that does so better. It is not necessary that the photo represent all and every aspect of the topic, but the desire is that a glance at the lead image gives the reader insight into the topic and helps to understand some things about it without yet reading the article. If the image can exemplify all aspects of the topic well, that is great! But, in a complex topic, that is rarely possible.

Also, the lead image is not what I would call 'Men's interest', so much as it is pornography focused on an interest in women. Atom (talk) 13:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Atom, your point is well taken. There are multiple other entries about substrata of the concept of porn within Wikipedia. I guess I hadn't thought that through. OTOH: One could just gimp out the title over the rack, or outright chop it, without loss of meaning. But I'm just nitpicking now. Either way, this image is FAR better than the previous.

On the subject of Gimp and imagery...I've noticed several articles without pictures that could benefit from some appropriate mosaic or collage. These seem to be easy to do. But correct me if I'm wrong on this next part. A mosaic, even a simple one, seems to skirt the copyright issue because it is sufficiently original artwork. So would it generally be ok for me to dump in mosaics of tv/news/movie frame grabs, arbitrary internet jpegs, and even corporate logos(appropriately de-emphasized???)? This picture is sorta that. But I suppose there's a wiki page for me to read somewhere about the legalities of such things. Where should I go? What (preferably short) thing should I read? I've read that patent and copyright suits are the sport of kings.

Anyway, thanks for your advice in advance. --ClickStudent (talk) 01:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, a Mosaic would be an original work, and if you made it you could put it in the public domain, however, if it included copyrighted images, then you would have a problem. There are guidelines on such things, yes. Here is a link to the Non-Free Content policy. I believe that generally the cover of a magazine or a book, or a CD or album is allowed under free usage. Atom (talk) 02:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Inoffensive Pictures

I stumbled on this article looking for the etimology of the word pornography, and yes another successful first hit, so good job to all of those taking part in writing this article.

But, there was one request that i would like to make, and that is to only upload non-offensive content. I find the picture of the "two gentlemen" in the economics section, should atleast be moved to the film section, and i also find it inappropriate. Wikipedia should be a an inoffensive resourse, i would just as well be against images demonstrating 2 people that are about to commit in a lewd act.

This is an encyclopedia, not a Porn/Sexuality site. The images should me images like that of the oil lamp. Keep it under control, this site should non-biased, non-offensive resource! Should wikipedia searches be filtered at our children's schools? Should wikipedia be blocked at a schools? I think parents have the right and be able to protect their children from graphic images, and wikipedia shouldn't be a source where people see such images in what should be an unbiased article.

I'm not against pornography or homosexuals. I believe sexuality is something private, and something that YOU keep to yourself. I don't care how/what people do. I just think that a 12 YOL shouldn't be able to stumble on something like this, if he jokingly types in Porn in wikipedia.

I would have let this slide, but the link under the picture (to pornographic film) led me to something FAR more graphic, which i immedeatly had to remove, i'm sorry, but my concious wouldn't let it stay up the way it is. And if i'm the only one to fell like this, then please put it back. Anyway keep it behind closed doors. Keep wikipedia a non-biased resource! There are many people who live happy lives with their familys, and they do not want to see, or their children to see such graphic content! Put a warning up top or something, or delete these images completely. The article will only get better by doing so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.119.98.197 (talk) 23:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. If we censored anything that might be unsuitable for a child or offensive to someone somewhere in the world, then a great deal of material would have to be removed. How does one objectively define "non-offensive"? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but this is an article on pornography. It would be misleading to suggest that pornography was just about things like that oil lamp. I am not sure I would call the image "graphic", in that it is not showing a sexual act taking place as far as I can tell. If you are worried about children, I'm not sure that them reading articles on pornography is a good idea, with or without images - and the argument about sexuality/porn being private applies to the article as a whole, not just the image. But as you say, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and keeping things private is not very helpful for this purpose.

The warning already exists: see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. I am not sure how this has anything to do with being biased. If you do not wish to see images, see Wikipedia:Options to not see an image. Mdwh (talk) 09:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

A specific photograph depicting porn...

There is no specific photo in this article that depicts or gives an example of contemporary pornography. As an example of pornography cannot be shown through a drawing, I suggest that a photograph is included to give a specific visual example of an actual pornographic image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.228.5.172 (talk) 14:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Unhealthy dimensions ?

It appears this article does mention the word 'unhealthy' once.

There are a variety of unhealthy portrayals, or negative consequenes caused by this subject that are not identified and should be.

Unhealthy on a variety of levels...There must be research on this somewhere. If we can criticize Relgion surely we can find some things wrong about this subject relating to more than is on the current site ?

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

For example...

Children who avoid theserisky behaviors will incur benefits both in the short-run, by avoiding disability and death due to traumatic injury, and in the long-run, by avoiding chronic illness and terminal diseases.

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 17:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Intent ?

Pornography or porn is the explicit depiction of sexual subject matter with the sole intention of sexually exciting the viewer.

I have to suggest that this may be one of many 'intentions' of porn. There are a variety of other purposes including 'political' and in the case of psychopathic producers some rather devious intentions. The current intro is too selective.

• Some directors have the clear intent of expressing a hatred for people, be they men or women, and use film to express it.

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Film

I question the authenticity and origin of the "silent stag film" provided near the end of the article. I'm no expert, but to me it looks like a relatively modern soft-core strip tease clip that has been edited and filtered to appear like an old silent film. The source page on archive.org doesn't appear to give any information as to where this film comes from. As such, there's no evidence that this is public domain, and while it may be some amateur piece where some guy with a new camcorder convinced his girlfriend to help him out, it may also be copyvio. I suggest that until some verifiable information regarding its origin can be established, it be removed. And, to be honest, does it really belong here anyway? I mean, I know that Wikipedia is not censored, and I find nothing offensive about the clip, I have to wonder if it really contributes significantly to the article. Not every media-related article requires examples. - Ugliness Man 01:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. I think this is a modern piece of video mocked up to look old. As Ugliness says there is no information regarding its origin - it is totally unsourced and should be removed. 3tmx 06:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it does not add anything to the article. I removed it.

I disagree. It is an example of pornography (albeit a rather tame one). There is info about the file here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, how about we discuss it before we put it back in. I do not know what the policies regarding this are, but should it not be some sort of democracy? =)

Actually, it should be left in (as it has been a part of the article for quite awhile) unless there is a community consensus that it does not add to the article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Replace it with hardcore and see the response you get then? [[User:EZEZ]] ^Talk 21:28, 04 November 2008 (UTC)

Totally inconsistent.

I'm confused. The article defines pornography as: "the explicit depiction of sexual subject matter with the sole intention of sexually exciting the viewer." However, in the history section, the article goes on to define pornography in terms of the resistance against it or something, which makes no sense. Would it still be porn if it was not taboo? The lead says "yes", but this history section says "no". I move that the language such as "the concept of pornography as understood today" be modified to be less dependent on contemporary Western mores... it's totally slanted and confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.108.40 (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Other problems

This article generally does not expand enough on anti-pornography opinions. These are not, by any means, small movements in some hillbilly town. It does not cover broadly enough the specific claims of negativity toward porn, all they say is "some politicians, religious people and feminists don't like porn and think it has degrading effects". For one, this being an issue of law makers makes it big enough to be on the societal scale. There's not many sources compared to that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.81.23.225 (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This is outragous

There are kids who use this website. Whoever wrote this youd be banned. Kirby1103 (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey again Kirby. Just letting you know that you should perhaps read up on wikipedia's policies before you start getting involved in article disputes. For your information, Wikipedia does not censor. And as such nothing will happen to this article or any others involving censorship for minors. Mattie^TK 23:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

If there are kids seeing things they shouldn't be seeing then there are parents who aren't doing their jobs properly. Funny how you need a licence to drive a car or own a gun, but anyone can have kids without even the slightest bit of training, isn't it Kirby? 59.38.32.9 (talk) 12:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Cite probs

Don't ask me what I'm doing on this page, but looks like there's a cite problem, with < ref> tags being used after the < references /> tag. Why do the sources have footnotes anyway? Stevage 22:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation on "Pornography"

The article on Pornography links to the Porn (disambiguation) page for other uses. This makes it very difficult to look up, say, the Cure album "Pornography" which is only listed on the Pornography (disambiguation) page, which is not linked from this article at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.25.63 (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

Some of the language in this article has questionable neutrality, for instance, the last sentence under "Legal Objections" that ends with, "...has not followed up on a single one." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kronos o (talk • contribs) 18:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Free pic

Can you replace the pic on the top (fair use) by a free (and modern) pic from Hardcore porn or from Commons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.88.35 (talk) 18:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently awesome for Japanese a decade ago

From a search of the peer-reviewed secondary (review and meta-analysis) literature on PubMed: "despite the wide increase in availability of pornography to children, not only was there a decrease in sex crimes with juveniles as victims but the number of juvenile offenders also decreased significantly." - "Pornography, Rape and Sex Crimes in Japan" by Diamond M, Uchiyama A. in Int J Law Psychiatry. 1999 Jan-Feb;22(1):1-22. Review. Richardson TR (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is pornography linked to driving technology?

I have never seen a good report detailing how pornography actually drives technology in a significant respect. It is an unsubstantiated myth with nothing to back it up. I've actually seen authors outside wikipedia link to this portion of the page like this is some kind of reference, while the wikipedia reference "Some people claim..." has a big question mark behind it. If pornography is such an important part of driving technology, a respectable source should be provided. The line should be taken down or a suitable reference found. Many subjects drive technology but unless pornography has some incredible and traceable reference, it shouldn't be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strattonbrazil (talk • contribs) 16:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Minor typos under Porn#Religious objections

In the religion section are 2 typos: "Mathew" and "adulery" -- Christianity condemns both the production and use of pornography. Jesus states, "Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt not commit adultery: but I say unto you, that every one that looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." (Mathew 5:27-28). In the first verse Jesus is quoting the Torah (Exodus 20:14), reminding his Jewish listeners that adulery is forbidden.

Why is it stated that pornography does not include striptease, as this is a sexual act and not the depiction of a sexual act? In fact the distinction between stiptease and, for instance a pornographic film, is not that one is a depiction of a sexual act and the other is a sexual act. Both are (depictions of) sexual acts. Surely the fundamental difference is that one is a live performance, the other is recorded. So the definition of pornography isn't that it is a depiction of a sexual act rather than a sexual act, so much that it is a depiction of a sexual act rather than a live sexual act.JohnC (talk) 08:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Feminism

Why is there a feminism section? I don't get it. Feminism is one of hundreds of fringe movements. Why is their opinion important enough to have an entire section in this article and even sub-sections?--AlekNovi (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Feminism regards 50% of the human population. 2. Goth-ism or Wiccan-ism or whatever other fringe movement hardly has any influence on porn. Yili2943 (talk) 07:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

What about other religeons that take up a greater amount of the anti-pornagraphic population too? Shouldn't they have a reference or at least a section regarding them?--98.166.100.251 (talk) 06:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Which other religions? There is already Pornography#Religious_objections, as well as Anti-pornography_movement#Religious_objections. Mdwh (talk) 09:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Censorship

I see that this page was previously a candidate for a featured article, and that it is now locked, due to a high risk for vandalism. Strangely, I see no discussion of either in the talk page. Furthermore, with all of the historical and academic examples of pornography available, and the fact that Wikipedia is not censored, there are no actual examples of modern pornography. As far as I knew, nothing is to be assumed, as this is an educational tool, yet this omission assumes the audience is familiar with visual examples of pornography. If this is due to the objections of one or many, we must remember, none can take a "moral high ground" when composing objective encyclopedic references. Nullpersona (talk) 12:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I came across three excellent articles on the subject of pornography which might be referenced as external links. Ann Redding:http://www.mfc.org/contents/article.cfm?id=753 Pornography and Violence: http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/pcscporn.htm Robert J. Lewis: http://www.artsandopinion.com/2003_v2_n1/lewis-2.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudi600 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Archive bot is broken

The MiszaBot I archiving this page is adding stuff to Archive 1 instead of Archive 4 which is what the box at the top of this page says is the last archive. Do we need to upgrade to MiszaBot II? More importantly, how can the chronological order be fixed? 99.35.129.210 (talk) 01:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Where is this porn from?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFthWqoZIog At 3:39 are the best scenes, although whole music video is full of them. The BDSM/fear play looks real awesome to me - Now I would wish to know where from these scenes are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.237.10.210 (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing improvements to this article, not general questions on pornography. You can ask questions like this at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Organization of info on effects of porn usage

I've been looking around for a summary of effects on individuals of watching porn. There's a summary of it here, a summary of it in anti-pornography movement, and most of it in social effects of pornography (under #Controlled Studies, which is an odd place to talk about effects on individuals). These probably need to be collated together somehow at a reasonable place, maybe including a rename of social effects of pornography to just effects of pornography to capture that it covers effects on individuals too. Suggestions/comments? —AySz88\^-^ 01:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Do we need to have a separate page for individual effects? I mean, what would such a page have which isn't in the other articles? Tabercil (talk) 02:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Aren't they already covered? myopia, Carpal tunnel syndrome, hairy palms... oh, there's a red link :-) Dekkappai (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

How is the pornography industry affected?

It would be interesting to here a study about how the thousands of free porn videos tube sites have affected the porn industry. Obviously it has provided a quicker and wider selection of porn to online viewers, but are these sites actually hurting the industry? I guess time will just have to tell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.70.211 (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there are any statistics available to prove either case. AinslieL (talk) 07:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Cross-cultural perspectives

If pornography exists in all or most cultures, it probably carries a lot of cultural baggage. For example about half of the pornography of South Asia describes activities within the extended family. Unmarried younger brothers having relationships with older brothers' wives. Aunts (mother's sisters) sexually initiating a nephew. Brothers and sisters. There is a considerable amount of this pornography online, both in English and in Hindi and other South Asian languages in the roman alphabet. Some useful keywords are "bhabhi" and "sali" or "saali" (sister-in-law), "devar" (younger brother-in-law). What about other cultures? LADave (talk) 06:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)