This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please check "What links here", specifically at those linking through the re-direct. --rob 06:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
The "Sex industry" section should be merged with "Sex show", with just a disambig message leading to it fom here. This article should IMHO only address the 18th/19th century attraction, a.k.a. "raree show" or "perspective view". --220.127.116.11 17:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi, sorry friend, the porn industry still calls them "peep shows". So we have to deal with both "nice" family 19th century peepshows and XXX 20th century peepshows.M.O. (talk) 03:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
This article aggregates a lot of historical instance data relating to peep shows without managing to be at all explicit about what a peep show is, i.e. a device for strict control of point of view, or at all systematic about the ends to which that strict control is devoted in various cases. As the "peep-show" was known to artists like Alberti, Leonardo, or Hoogstraten, strict control of point of view was necessary to establishing the most complete possible perspectival illusion. In the case of the "peep-show" in the modern pre-cinematic and/or pornographic sense, strict control of the point of view is used to allow charging for the view, limited display of material that would be objected too if freely displayed, etc. I fear that it's adoption by "Wikiproject Sexuality" and "Wikiproject Pornography" only portends more sloppy sociologizing for a topic that really deserves a rather more rigorous treatment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)