Talk:Pornography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pornography is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
August 29, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Censorship warning

This topic may attract censorship. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not censored.

Articles may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Images or details contained within this article, in particular, may be graphic or otherwise objectionable in order to ensure complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to our content disclaimer regarding objectionable content.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
Archive
Archives
  1. 2001 - July 2005
  2. August 2005 - June 2006
  3. July 2006 - October 2006
  4. October 2006 - April 2007


Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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

[edit] Working section

Nudity vs. Pornography Some groups[who?] within the industry and general populace seek to separate nudity from sexual pornography. Entire websites[who?] 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.[citation needed] Even at the legal level, it has been acknowledged by some jurisdictions[weasel words] 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.[citation needed] 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)

[edit] 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

"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)

[edit] New lead image

My submission for the new lead image --David Shankbone 01:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
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[1][2][3][4] 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[5][6]. 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)

[edit] 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:
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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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?[7]--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 [8]. 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.[1] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)