Talk:Anti-pornography movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A summary of this article appears in Pornography.
Pornography Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Pornography, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Comments

I'd like to ask WHY is it necessary to state on the top of this page that "this may not represent a worldwide view", when it doesn't say that on the pornography page? I don't think it seems very fair to make it clear that not everyone is against pornography, and not make it clear that not everyone is FOR pornography either.... In fact I find that QUITE offensive.

That's an issue of POV, not world view. 24.126.199.129 09:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes in organization

I have make a few revisions to this article, including a reorganization of the subjects (moving the government studies to the end as opposed to between the religious and feminist), and removing the conservative portion from the initial list of objections (as some of those who oppose pornography on religious grounds would not call themselves conservatives). --Simao rod15 21:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Who? I don't think anyone who isn't conservative really bothers much about it. James James 07:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


But didn't we already establish that feminists do care? Are they typically considered conservative?

One must remember that conservative is usually in reference to a political movement, whereas those with religious objections may not claim they are participating in a political act. As such one could claim that there are three separate anti-pornographic movements, those arising from a religious objection, those arising from an academic one such as feminism, and those arising from a political one such as conservativism (if poltical conservatives care at all). The basic question should be asked, does one have to be religious AND a conservative in order to object to pornography? Does the conservative movement care about pornography? I would suggest we either separate conservative and religious, or eliminate conservative all together. To have them simply in the same pile can be misleading and fallacious.

One must remember that conservative is usually in reference to a political movement, whereas those with religious objections may not claim they are participating in a political act. As such one could claim that there are three separate anti-pornographic movements, those arising from a religious objection, those arising from an academic one such as feminism, and those arising from a political one such as conservativism (if poltical conservatives care at all). The basic question should be asked, does one have to be religious and a conservative in order to object to pornography. Does the conservative movement care about pornography? I would suggest we either separate conservative and religious, or eliminate conservative all together. To have them simply in the same pile can be misleading and fallacious. --Simao rod15 21:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


I'm still not seeing why. So far as I know, there is no "liberal" figure in religion who has been outspoken about pornography. "Conservative" is a political label, not necessarily a badge of belonging to a party or movement. You are, I think, defining "political" too narrowly. Politics is about how people want society to be ordered. I think that it's clear enough that antipornography criticism stems largely from feminists and conservative religious types, where conservative is understood as meaning something like "traditionalist" or even "reactionary". They make an interesting pair on account of that: feminists are radicals; Falwellists are not. As I said though, if you can find examples of "liberal" religious objectors to pornography, fair enough. James James 07:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


I understand what you mean, but to supply an example, one could view the catholic church. Oh wait your saying, the catholic church is one of the most conservative Christian groups around. But the catholic church has many view points, some considered conservative (such as anti-pornography) but I would say some points that are liberal such as an opposition to capital punishment (Section 2267). I would say that liberal and conservative at best fits with specific views and not the church itself. For pornography and the catholic church, its religious views result in conservative political consequences, but are not conservative in and of themselves.

Even if you wish to use labels such as conservatives and liberals on the whole of a religion (which I believe to be inaccurate for many denominations and faiths), then even some liberal faiths such as Unitarian Universalism which calls itself liberal (http://www.uua.org/aboutuu/) says that it "Articulates the General Synod's abhorrence of pornography." (http://www.uua.org/owl/uccres.html).

I think that what one should say is that there are religious and feminist objections to pornography. I will make the changes to the article to show what I think would be a better article. If there are those of you that still object however, please feel free to say why and change the article accordingly. --Simao rod15 21:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the UU is a good example of what I was asking for. Thanks for supplying the reference. The labels "conservative" and "liberal" are applied to religion regardless of their accuracy. I think you are mistakenly conflating American political positions with broader labels. Capital punishment is a defining issue in the States but in other places, not so. The Catholic church is not an American institution, but still would be considered by most conservative. I doubt you'd find it describing itself as anything else. It wouldn't see it as an insult! James James 00:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought I had participated enough that I should actually get a user account, so all previous changes and commentary I have made in this article I have decided to put my signature to (hence the odd time stamp) --Simao rod15 21:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


I removed the paragraph citing a Unitarian Universalist website in a misleading way. If you go to the website indicated: http://www.uua.org/owl/uccres.html the title and opening paragraph state it all. In case you're unfamiliar with the church's programs, Our Whole Lives is an optional sex education program (for the UUA and UCC) used and adapted by individual congregations. The title states that the following pronouncements were made by the United Church of Christ. A different church entirely (they're the ones with the tv advertisements and billboards): http://www.ucc.org/ Furthermore the opening paragraph states: "The General Synod, composed of delegates from congregations throughout the United States, convenes biannually to determine church policy and conduct the business of the United Church of Christ." Throughout the page there is never any mention that the UUA voted to uphold these resolutions. In addition, the "Resolution on Pornography" is dated 1987. I don't know how the UCC works but I know that in the UUA resolutions and pronouncements of the sort are developed at every general assembly thus keeping the church "progressive." I don't believe that it should be implied that the UUA is officially or even in its majority unofficially opposed to pornography unless proof can be found. Gs19 03:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Potential References

The feminist criticisms section has several "citation needed" notes on Catharine Mackinnon's criticisms. I can't get to my copy right now because it's duct taped into a box way far away from me, but the easiest source to work with is going to be her book Only Words. It's primarily about her analysis of pornography and hate speech as actions, rather than words, and consequently undeserving of 1st Amendment protection, but it can also serve as a good source for MacKinnon's overall analysis of porn. The Literate Engineer 14:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Movement?

I'm curious about the intro, and the overall meaning of this article. The following quote is pertinent:

Though objections to pornography might come from many perspectives, they can often be classified as one of the categories noted below.

How can "many perspectives" be a "movement"? It would appear that this article is actually discussing Critics of pornography, or maybe People critical of pornography, or Groups critical of pornography. Try as I may, I just can't see bible-thumpers and radical feminists being part of a "movement" together; yet that is what this article is implying, without any source for the implied claim. Opinions? Kasreyn 05:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

One month later, I remain puzzled as to how radical feminists are united in a "movement" with the likes of Pat Buchanan, as this article would seem to imply. A "movement" implies common goals and a unity of perspective that seems to be lacking amongst the disparate groups and organizations opposed to pornography. How can two groups with entirely different reasons for opposing pornography ("blasphemy" vs. "degrading to women") be considered part of an all-inclusive "movement"?
I would very much like to engender some discussion of this issue here, rather than simply renaming the article "Groups critical of pornography". Cheers, Kasreyn 22:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I feel I have been quite patient. I will wait one week further for comment, then begin a proposal to move the article to "Groups critical of pornography". Cheers, Kasreyn 08:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Here are my thoughts on the issue. The Pornography that I have done lots of work on to try and make it fair and balanced has developed well, and people who seem to be of an anti-pornography perspective have made sure that their perspective is represented there. In this Anti-Pornography movement article, it should be descriptive of the title itself. It should tell about the Anti-Pornography movement, what it's goals were, what people were part of that, reasons for it being formed, reasons why it is in the current state it is in, etc. The Pornography article needs to limit the topic to just a fair view of the facts related to the anti-pornography movement (perception that it is bad), but not the histopry of the anti-pornography movement, and the people, etc. So, renaming the article would seem to me to be a bad idea. Atom 12:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
But the thing is, you haven't addressed my central concern: the so-called "anti-pornography movement" is presented as a single unit, a whole, even though we are actually talking about disparate groups which oppose pornography for entirely different reasons. How can religious conservatives and ultra-feminists be considered allies? The former group opposes pornography because they feel the female body (in fact, any body) is dirty and shameful and must be hidden; they have no interest in "freeing" women. And ultra-feminists oppose pornography because they feel it is degrading to women; they don't care about it being "blasphemy". Their ultimate goal may be the same, but their motivations are almost diametrically opposite. That is not a "movement" as I recognize the term, and so the article is very poorly named. Kasreyn 22:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I won't argue with you on those points. The concept of right wing religious conservatives and left-wing feminists working together is very strange. I think it was more a matter of right wing religious groups using and taking advantage of feminists. Any way you look at it, it makes for interesting reading. That's why this is a seperate article, and shouldn't be merged. As for the title, it has to be something, and both some femininists and some right-wing religious types self define it as an anti=pornography movement. If it were up to me, I would call it the "Pro-Censorship movement".

[edit] UK section

Opposition to pornography is therefore more embedded in the state than other countries.

This statement could use some fleshing out since it's not entirely clear to me what it means.

Arguments against pornography were already well developed in the United States before the sale or distribution of hardcore material was legalised in 2000 (much later than other countries...

The above statement seems to be claiming that the sale or distribution of hardcore material was illegal in the U.S. prior to 2000 what is not true. Maybe the author meant the UK and not the US? --Cab88 12:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I have re-written this section to make it a bit more understandable. Somebody has mentioned that there are other anti-pornography groups in the UK. It would be nice to name them. I would research it myself but I can't bring myself to do it. Jezzerk 12:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Although the BBFC is nominally an independent organisation, it is unlikely to do anything that annoys the government, which has the power to remove its authority.

Is there any justification whatever for this statement? I am removing it.Salim555 04:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I think there is justification, but it would require extensive explanation of the structure of the BBFC and it's previous history of censorship; it’s secrecy over certification of hard core pornography and policy on such; its attitude to producers of what it regards as 'non artistic' submissions and the circumstances by which it (and the government) was judicially forced to allow hard core pornography in the first place. All of this is on record but it would probably take an article in itself to explain that goes well beyond the simplicity of the statement you’ve removed. It’s probably best not gone into. Backdooruk 09:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Pornography Category and Propornography POV on wikipedia

I'm deleting my concerns off the discussion page because someone has just written to me to explain that the wikipedia POV IS pro-pornography and prostitution. That's really sad. --Nikkicraft 22:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

See How_to_create_categories. I'm not sure if Wikipedia has a pro-pronography (and pro-prostitution) bias, because I'm not closely familliar with those entries. Although Wikipedia has been originally funded largely through capital accumulated in the pronography industry, it does not necessarily follow that it tends to promote the practice. Maybe it does. I suppose, at this point, it comes down to the strength of the aforementioned explanation, which I, myself, am not privy to. So it might be useful to present it on Talk:Countering systemic bias. El_C 01:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know who wrote to tell you such a foolish thing. Wikipedia is intended to hold to a Neutral Point of View. Of course, there are often disagreements as to where that neutral point of view lies. As to WP funding through the porn industry, as mentioned by El_C, I've never heard of this before. What is that all about? Kasreyn 05:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't confuse a stance of rejecting censorship with one of promoting Pornography, they aren't the same at all. Wikipedia is not pro-pornography nor anti-pornography. There are many people who feel strongly about violence against women, I happen to be one of them. Some people feel that pro-sexuality, and pornography is responsible, or exacerbates violence against women. I don't happen to agree with that. Wikipedia is neutral on the subject of whether it does, or does not, and gives a forum for presentation of existing facts, studies, commissions, and references to either view. As a feminist I believe that a core principal is that women should be able to express themselves freely without being censored by men, by governments, by patriarchy, by religion, by world corporate culture or by other feminists. The remedy to opinions or expression that you disagree with is to state your own opinoins and views, not try and stop others from expressing their differeing views. In the case of Wikipedia, it is more limited, in that people should express some kind of trail of facts, and not their person 'causes' or opinions. Atom 17:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ever going to get citations?

Is anyone ever going to be able to find citations for these statements: "Those that favour a complete ban on pornography are actually a small minority[citation needed], but they tend to receive more attention in the media.[citation needed] The majority of feminists would consider porn to be a small issue.[citation needed]" Until some organization surveys all feminists around the world (not bloody likely) it seems doubtful that such statements could ever be verified. Natalie 23:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

There are a large number of statements made on the page that could use citations. We could delete the article, or we could mark the whole article as being too unreferenced, or clutter the page with a hundred cite tags. If something is unsupported, and controversial, then remove it. Marking things that you don't agree with with a site tag, and then not discussing what is wrong with the statement wastes everyones time.

The statements above are an alternate POV from the article to give the article balance, so that it is more neutral POV (would be my guess). I would like to see cites also. But, most feminists would probably agree that those statements are correct, so why focus on them exclusively and not ask for sites for the other stuff too?. If one side or the other marks every statement that they disagree with, the article would be full of cite tags.

  • "They say sex is reserved for married couples, and assert that use of pornography could lead to an overall increase in behavior considered to be sexually immoral."
  • "They advocate rejecting corporate control of sexuality as exemplified in publications like Hustler and Penthouse, protesting particularly what they see as the dangerous conditioning practice of intermixing violence and sexuality for titillation and entertainment as in pornography and other mainstream media for the purpose of achieving orgasm."


Atom 12:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Religious objections

This section should contain some biblical references or somthing to show that it isn't just a few extremist Christian leaders fringe view. Right now it reads like only ultra conservatives would have an objection to it, when in reality most Christian groups take a stance against pornography, even the more liberal ones. --E tac 16:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, but it is a few extremist right wing organizations. The majority of the population in the U.S. and U.K. are christians, and pornography grows because it is a business that people spend their money on. Obviously, Christians are the predominant supporters of pornography. Are you suggesting that most christians live their lives differently than what their churches preach? Or maybe although it is not something talked about in church, but most christians are okay with people choosing their sexual interests and behavior as long as it is kept to a personal level. Maybe some christians believe that sex is okay, and that their sexuality is something between them and their God, and not a community decision? Whatever the case, the facts speak for themselves. Pornpgraphy is created, propogated, distributed, purchased, and consumed primarily by christians. Atom 17:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I would say the majority of pornography opponents in the UK are inspired by feminism. There is something of a lacuna in the coverage of the UK in that it does not cover Lord Longford's 1970s investigation and report, for which he came in for considerable criticism (and mirth at his expense). Sam Blacketer 18:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

"Maybe some christians believe that sex is okay", whoever said sex was not ok? It sure was not me. "Pornpgraphy is created, propogated, distributed, purchased, and consumed primarily by christians." Do you by any chance have a source to defend that statement? Note that I said groups, by the way the bible does say there will be lots of people in churches who are fakes and complete hypocrites, and yes many Christians do strugle with pornography, but I doubt you will find many who do not have a moral objection to it, or many churches that would disagree with that. The only groups that wouldn't are a very small minority on the far left. The bible itself is really to clear on the issue for there to be much debate by anyone who is even semi-serious about their own faith. I wouldn't say Christians as a whole are as vocal as the femminist groups about shutting down the industry completely, but they are still against what it is about. --E tac 21:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I hear what you are saying, and hypocrisy is practically a requirement for being a christian. I'm not suggesting that churches would advocate pornography, but the fact is that most feel that what you do behind closed doors is your own business.

As for feminism be against pornography, of course there are a few, but predominantly, feminists are for freedom of speech, and there are large numbers of pro-sex feminists, many more than the anti-pornography feminists. And, you might consider reading your bible more closely, as not only would I disagree that the bible "is really clear on the issue" but there is absolutely nothing in the bible that talks directly anout pornography. The closest it comes is to generally denounce people who are immoral as not going to heaven. Atom 01:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

"And, you might consider reading your bible more closely, as not only would I disagree that the bible "is really clear on the issue" but there is absolutely nothing in the bible that talks directly anout pornography."
Seriously, there are plenty of verses dealing with lust, which correct me if I am wrong but the entire porn industry is based on enticing lust. Most often when the bible speaks of sexual immorality in the new testament, it is translated from the greek word "pornia" whch is where the word porn comes from so that likely includes all forms of pornography.
"The closest it comes is to generally denounce people who are immoral as not going to heaven."
Have you ever even read the book? This definately goes to shows you lack any understanding of real Christianity at all. --E tac 01:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
And by the way, stop trying to bait me, I have put in my 2 cents, and I am done here. --E tac 02:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scale of the movement

The article only talks about the movement in U.S., U.K and Canada. Does the movement exist at all outside those countries? How big a movement is it in U.S., U.K., Canada and elsewhere? Has its size varied in time? Most of the events mentioned in the article are from the last century, does this mean that the movement has declined since? I think it would also be useful to separate description of the current situation from historical matters. Almost everything in the Feminist objections section is history, which is why it is so much longer than the Religious objections and Feminist Criticism of the Anti-Pornography Position sections. -- 130.233.24.129 02:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I can imagine that, probably in China, there would be something like harsher laws against pornography (castration of those caught, police punishment, flogging, the usual asian punishments for such immorality). MrASingh 11:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Freespeech

Pornography is not speech. Stop the freespeech bullshit NOW!. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.57.16.139 (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Nowadays people generally use the umbrella term "freedom of expression". No, pornography is not speech, but neither is any form of visual artistic expression. That statement is rife with fallacy. I don't even know why I bothered to respond to that post...Antimatter---talk--- 05:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The statement that pornography is not speech is presented as fact when in it is clearly opinion!! Whether pornography counts as speech is entirely subjetive based on an individuals stance on human sexuality and representations of it.

[edit] Add Links to Online Petitions?

Are there links to online petitions? What if one wished to donate money to the cause of the eradiation of all online pornography (bearing in mind that this is a non-trivial task!).

More links are needed. MrASingh 11:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If we present these, we should in balance present links to provide funds for anti censorship movements too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.168.171 (talk) 10:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Advocacy Section?

Why is this section on this page? This is a list of books/articles/authors promoting pornography. The length of this list is much longer than the anti-porn list, so it makes the article seem biased - biased against the subject of the article! plus, the fact that it comes closer to the top lends some "weight" or importance to it, so maybe that list should be moved lower on the page.

how about another page called the pro-pornography movement, and that list could be the start of that page? or, change the title of this page to reasons for and against pornography, and balance out the two viewpoints.

just some thoughts.

I agree. It doesn't make any sense for an advocacy section to be here unless it is "advocating" anti-pornography, which is what this page is supposed to be about. It certainly shouldn't be under the "Further Reading" section, because that section should be filled with resources for people who want to know more about the anti-pornography position. All and all, it just ends up confusing (esp with the criticism section being filled with supporters of the topic of the page!) I'm going to be bold and remove the section entirely. If someone else want to put it back in, at least make sure that it's properly labeled and placed below the actual anti-pornography resources.Vesperal 05:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Nevermind, I fixed it myself without removing it. Probably needs more Anti-pornography links, but that's not my area so someone else can do it.Vesperal 05:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For the benefit of men...

Does anyone know if there is an anti-pornography movement that wants to get rid of pornography for the sake of the men who view pornography since pornography actually helps to ruin mens' lives?


Here we go again!!! You present opnion as fact. It is unclear whether pornography "ruins mens lives".. In fact, researchers in sexual health consistently suggest pornography can play a role in enhancing peoples lives. Debate not polemic please!!!

[edit] The effects of Pornography: An International Perspective

Public health effects of pornography says that this is a response to "Effects of Prolonged Consumption of Pornography" - so which is correct? The quote says:

Lab experiments typically do not take into account context and other crucial social and situational factors in considering the audience or the material... In real life, individuals are free to satisfy different sexual urges in ways unavailable to students in classroom or subjects in laboratory situations.

Mdwh (talk) 11:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Zillmann, Dolf: "Effects of Prolonged Consumption of Pornography", [1] contains two findings:
(1) extensive viewing of pornographic material increases viewers willingness to engage in sexual assault
(2) extensive viewing of pornographic material produces certain other sociological effects, including increased sexual promiscuity, and decreased respect for marriage and family.
Finding (1) is described in Public health effects of pornography because the result asserts an unequivocal effect on public health. Finding (2) is not described in Public health effects of pornography, but instead in Anti-pornography movement because, per WP:NPOV, Wikipedia does not claim that increased sexual promiscuity, a decreased desire to have children, etc, would necessarily constitute adverse public health effects -- after all, a significant portion of people in many countries believe that sexual experiences should not be "repressed" by limitation to long-term monogamous relationships, that having fewer children is beneficial to an overpopulated planet, etc. "The effects of Pornography: An International Perspective" [2] is almost entirely devoted to a consideration of the effects of pornography on sexual assaults, and, in this vein, critiques only finding (1) of the Zillman study. John254 01:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] US vs. Williams

I added this one here with new link and the PDF full decision, where the summary called sylabus can be found. It is a landmark ruling on this subject. The USA Supreme Court on May 19, 2008 upheld a 2003 federal law,” the Prosecutorial Remedies and other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act, the Protect Act, aimed at child pornography, in a 7-to-2 ruling penned by Justice Antonin Scalia in "United States v. Williams." It dismissed the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit's finding the law unconstitutionally vague. Michael Williams of Florida was caught in a 2004 federal undercover operation and found guilty later of “pandering” child pornography, since he offered to sell nude pictures of his young daughter and other forms of child pornography in an Internet chat room.nytimes.com, Supreme Court Upholds Child Pornography Lawwww.supremecourtus.gov,UNITED STATES v. WILLIAMS, No. 06–694, Decided May 19, 2008theweekdaily.com, Busting child pornography, real and imagined--Florentino floro (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)