Talk:Pornographic film

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film 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.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the priority scale.

Contents

[edit] Clean-up

I've done a substantial clean up, which included things like phrasing problems, redundancey, and terminological errors/vagueness all the way to deleting things that seemed to be entirely original research or non-NPOV. However, there are absolutely no sources cited in this article, despite claims and facts that really need the support. This article would benefit from some research, but I haven't the means to do it. I hope someone will fill that in soon. Until then, I've tagged this as needing sources cited. And if you want to dispute or discuss my edits, I'm happy to engage in that conversation. Oh but please, if you want to revert something, don't rever to the whole thing, just what you want to change back! 149.43.x.x 00:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sub-genres

There is a category listed here called 'shemale' porn. I was under the impression that this term was degrading. I was going to change it, but I was not sure if it was labeled this by someone who doesn't know it is offensive, or if it is popularly known as 'shemale' porn as was thus labeled as such. I was thinking maybe 'transgender' 'pre-op' or 'gender-fuck' as alternatives. Any thoughts? Sylvea

I think the terminology matches the context - this would be the term used to describe the porn. I would consider it offensive, but I consider offensive the way that "lesbian" porn is used - it often depicts women engaged in sexual acts for the viewing pleasure of a male audience (this is clearly and often explicitly the target audience). But like "lesbian," "shemale" is the term they use in this insdustry, and so I assume then that it is most appropriate (for this article, not for something like Transsexualism). However, much of the other terminology in this article is innacurate, and some of it seems pretty non-NPOV, so I'll try to do a clean-up sometime soon. 149.43.x.x 02:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cliches

Hm, under Pornographic movie cliches I expected to see "The gardener comes in for a drink of water," etc. Koyaanis Qatsi

I think cliché is perhaps the wrong word here. I will attempt to find a word better suited to this section. 149.43.x.x 02:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing

The article could really use some references and better external links, not just things like the adult film database. I'm sure good books have been written about the history of pornographic movies.

Also, here's a claim that is really begging for a source: "...mainstream pornographic movies now depict a range of behaviors including anal sex that are high risk activities for STD transmission, as if the taboo status of these activities has made them more thrilling for the consumers of pornography. Anal sex and other similar activities are now part of heterosexual pornography in a way that was unprecedented before the outbreak of AIDS." The first half of the first sentence is undeniable, and the second sentence is arguably true if vague, but the combined implication - that the risk of AIDS and other STDs is the reason there's more anal sex in hetero movies - is quite a leap, and should either be cited as the opinion of some particular writer(s) on the subject, or removed as too much like original research. ←Hob June 30, 2005 21:48 (UTC)

[edit] Explaining slang

I was redirected to this page from a search with the keyword "blue movie" I expected some type of explaination as to how that term has come about.--63.196.199.219 06:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think redirects from slang terms (or to any term that's extremely different from the article title) imply that we should explain or at least mention the term. Similarly, "Stag film" redirects to Pornography with no explanation. I hate to bring this up without fixing it myself, but I probably don't have time. ←Hob 17:36, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
The etymology of these terms may be more appropriate in a dictionary, not an encylopedia. I'm not sure. 149.43.x.x 02:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me if this sounds stupid, but why has a "citation needed" tag been added to the first sentence in the 2000s? The following sentence gives an adequate example does it not?

[edit] Mainstream and porn film industries

Read in today's paper that the industries are bound to merge - I've come across this prediction a few times recently. Anyone have decent links on the subject?--Shtove 17:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

how about a screen capture from this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Blonde_stag_film.ogg

[edit] Ugh

Why does "adult film" redirect to "pornographic film"? As far as I know, an adult-film is one which is made primarily for adults - it does not have to contain pornography for this; it could be a gruesome war film, for example. I vote for creating a new article at "adult film" - does anyone object? Esn 17:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, "adult film" has always meant "pornographic film." Arundhati lejeune 20:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Ditto. Adult film means pornographic film. Dictionaries and thesauruses I have handy all seem to agree (although it doesn't show up alot in dictionaries since it's a two-word phrase). --Cheeser1 20:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Adult = puerile Peter Damian (talk) 07:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What's with all the gay porn?

On this article and many of the articles that link off of the first paragraph have a "gay porn" photo as the primary photograph of the article. Also it seems like all the photos are from the same set which leads me to believe it's one person with an agenda. Gutch220 (talk) 18:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you're quite the deductive sleuth there - why don't you call Vivid Entertainment and take some shots of a straight porn shoot, if it's bothersome to you...? Maybe Jenna Jameson will let you photograph her. Otherwise, we use what we have access to and is free, and Lucas Entertainment is a major porn company. --David Shankbone 19:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Looks to me like David promoting his own work here at wikipedia. I fully agree that a non-gay pic should be in the opening. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment on the edits, not the editors - you don't have any clue about anything I do. When you get a non-gay photo of the filming of a pornographic film, use it. --David Shankbone 17:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Err, David yes I do. I just look at your contribs and get to see exactly what you are up to on wikipedia. Why would you think otherwise? Do you think your contribs are secret or what exactly inspired this strange bordering on nonsense comment. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Image:The making of an adult film 8 by David Shankbone.JPG seems well-suited to me. If anyone can find a GFDL-compatible free image that is more appropriate, please upload it to Commons and propose it here. You are welcome to add your name to the filename. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I oppose the removal of Shankbone's photograph until a more representative free image of equal quality can be found. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Gutch: Part of Wikipedia's mission is to build a library of free content media, so GFDL-licensed images will always be preferable to other "fair-use" images, and most copyrighted images will usually be deleted outright. If you wish to broaden Wikipedia's image library of free-use images for a certain type of content, here are some links you may find helpful:
Until then, please do not remove David Shankbone's image. It is fine. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
But why a gay pic at the top? And why one whose image name promotes David Shankbone? Botht hese questions need addressing, thes epics may be appropriate for gay porn. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
First, Shankbone is not my real name, it's my User name. Second, the question of naming rights of files is not self-promotion and I can point you to more discussions. Third, we use what we have, and you can't tell the gender of one of the people, nor can you see any genitalia. Pornographic film is pornographic film - we use what we have and is free, and they are good photos. --David Shankbone 18:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
That, David, is a content based defence, so different from all this faffing about on ANI. I never implied Shankbone was your real name, squeakBox isn't my real name either. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any reason it should not be a gay film. If you really feel it must be Jenna Jameson or nothing, we need a free image, and a WP:CONSENSUS of editors. I also feel a need to add that objecting to the photographer's name (real or pseudonym) seems a bit ... petty to me. I am sorry if that is not sufficiently "content based". / edg ☺ ☭ 01:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
You're right edg. No real reason has been given to why the gay porn pic shouldn't be used. The title of this thread says it all: "What's with all the gay porn?" When SqueakBox said, "Looks to me like David promoting his own work here at wikipedia. I fully agree that a non-gay pic should be in the opening" is shows me something. Even if Squeak thinks it's a COI (what he read on Wikipedia Review and is repeating here), what does that have to do with why a "non-gay pic" shouldn't be used? As mentioned above, I don't think there are any available hetero porn shoot pictures. If one comes available and the quality is good, then feel free to add it at the top of the page. There can be two pictures. I know, what a shocka! This whole conversation has an underlying suggestion. sniff sniff Smell that? Smells like homophobic people wanting to remove anything related to the gay lifestyle from the article? Yes, go ahead and tell me to AGF (I see two users that have assumed none in regards to David), but if walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... APK yada yada 02:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Shankbone's pic illustrates that subject without being over-the-top. Shankbone has contributed a lot of great photos to Wikipedia, and I don't see what the problem is in his name being part of the filename. It shouldn't matter whether it's straight or gay porn, since the topic applies to both. OhNoitsJamie Talk 06:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Aside from the brouhaha at ANI (which brought me here) this is a rather disturbing thread. It makes no difference whether the photo we use is of gay porn, straight porn, or some other kind of porn. If that's the best free content we have that applies to this article (and no one has suggested it isn't) then we should use it. The insinuation that a picture from a gay porn shoot is more problematic than a picture from a straight one is quite problematic. I was also somewhat aghast to read SqueakBox's "a non-gay pic should be in the opening." Why exactly? No good reason as far as I'm concerned, unless we have a problem with gay people (but that would not be NPOV, so it can't be that). If you want pictures of men and women getting it on at a porn shoot, then go out and take the pictures (good luck, I doubt it's easy). It's odd that we even have to discuss this.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of 'Pornographic Film'

I disagree with the definition as presented in the introduction: "Pornographic films are motion pictures that explicitly depict sexual intercourse and other sexual acts, typically for the purpose of sexual arousal in the viewer". I would argue that a pornographic film must, by definition, be one that is for the purpouse of sexual arousal in the viewer, and that a film depicting secual acts such as intercourse is not automatically a 'pornographic film' (such as an educational video, or non-pornographic narrative film that includes a scene in which characters engage in intercourse). As such, what I disagree with is the word 'typically'. I'd be fine with just axing 'typically' from it. However, if there are a number of competing definitions of a 'pornographic film', I think that it would be best not to push any one definition, but rather to acknowledge a lack of consensus. If noone has any problem with in in a few days, I'll be bold and just cut 'typically' from there. Anyone else have an opninion on this? 219.77.138.228 (talk) 06:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, except that as List_of_pornographic_sub-genres notes, one of the two main categories of pornography is soft core pornography, which doesn't or needn't "explicitly depict sexual intercourse". I think the whole sentence needs to be reversed. Something like "Pornographic films are motion pictures designed for the purpose of causing sexual arousal in the viewer, often by means of depicting sexual activity". 87.254.71.190 (talk) 21:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed on all points. I'm going to edit it now, and see if it goes well. 219.79.113.61 (talk) 11:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)