Talk:Hardcore pornography

NPOV?

NPOV tag added with no explanation given, so removed unless a reason is given. Jezzerk 06:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Completely unverified facts and baseless, moralistic accusations used in the "Against" column. Verification and References are the pinnacle of any Encyclopedia and thus should be so for Wikipedia as well. 70.77.41.16 17:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia attempts to present topics from a neutral point of view. Unfortunately your verification tags have had to be removed because you are clearly POV in favour of porn. However, the section has been amended to clarify where the arguments come from and that research results are disputed. Moral arguments have to be included in this section to ensure NPOV regardless of whether any individual agrees with them or not. Jezzerk 08:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a *significant* difference from disagreeing with points, and wanting them to validated. You still have no real validation and the points have little basis in fact. I believe you're the one infringing upon the NPOV, especially relevant by your habit of removing past NPOVs. While moralistic reasons are a valid concern, *baseless* moralism has no place in an encyclopedia. Cite your references about pornography increasing rape among other things.

Several studies have proven quite the opposite, thus making such a claim not just against the NPOV, but completely and utterly factually wrong. See here for more details: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=913013 70.77.41.100 17:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge recommended

There is a proposal to merge this article with Pornography as there seems little information here that is not already included in the Pornography article. Discussion is at Talk:Pornography#Merge_Hard_Core_Pornography_article_here.

Cleanup

I've cleaned up the article somewhat and made it generally more presentable. I am not keen on the For and Against sections as they are just a list of vague objections/defenses with no real discussion. I suggest improving this section or deleting all of it except to mention the controversy among crackpot Christians and others. After all, this is dealt with in the main pornography article. -Neural 22:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

Suggest removal of the US rating system from the introduction. Unless, of course, the intention is to have yet another US-centric article. Or a listing of all the rating systems from everywhere else in the world

nevermind - removed it myself, as being irrelevant to the introduction, and culture/national specific

New Devil In Miss Jones

In reference to the image on the right. Is "New Devil In Miss Jones" really a classic? It came out in 2004, wouldn't it take a little longer for a movie to get "classic" status? - OPaul 06:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Needed Example

I think an example of Hardcore porn should be placed in the article. I think the cover art is not a good enough example. There should be a film screen shot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Nirvana Rules (talk • contribs)

Hear, hear. I am all for it. What does the the people say? A little consensus before going hardcore would be very nice. Aditya Kabir 16:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think so too. We ought to have a more 'elaborate' example. Kendirangu 14:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Why has there been a gay porn picture added to describe the article? I don't care if they're gay or not, but a) doesn't providing a gay picture lead to people believing hardcore means gay, and also b) it seems that they've only used a gay picture because they can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.103.183 (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you say the same thing if it was a straight porn picture? And I don't think we can make assumptions about the motivations of the uploader. Mdwh (talk) 23:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Newdevilinmissjones dvd.jpg

Image:Newdevilinmissjones dvd.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Gang, if you do any real research on the supreme court and this issue, you will see time and again that they come out AGAINST hard core pornography. There are many examples of this. THis should definitely be in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.79.135.239 (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Legalization?

It would be interesting to know what was illegal in the various countries - e.g., production, publication, distribution and/or possession? Mdwh (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Image

Since there seems to be an edit war, what are people's views on having this (or another) image? What reasons are there for and against having this image? I am not sure what is mean by being "explicit" or "graphic"? Mdwh (talk) 02:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, seen as I was the first one to raise objections, I will give you my opinion. I really just fail to see what it contributes to the article at all. What does it answer? What information does it provide the reader that could not have been obtained from merely the written description? While I realise that wikipedia is not like 'other' encyclopaedias, I can hardly imagine anything like this appearing in something like Britannica, not necessarily because it may offend people or appear explicit, but merely because I fail to see how it adds or complements the article at all.

I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, but what is the point/relevance of this picture? It's more likely to offend than offer any actual insight. (Washboardplayer (talk) 11:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC))

I don't see the use of that picture either. On top of that, it seems to be one of those pictures in the, imo, rising trend of posting pornography on pages where it's not needed. I'm not shocked by pornography, far from, but there's no need to post it on pages to which it gives no extra value/relevance....And does it really have to be gay pornography? It's not really the mainstream hardcore pornography as far as I know.Firipu (talk) 08:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering if it is an image of gay porn, just to prove a point. I would imagine that there are other images more representative of Hardcore pornography. But there should be an image, however something that has more of the industry rather than just a basic porn shot would be interesting Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

My first reaction of course is to prohibit people who want to remove an image only because it is, in their opinion, pornography. Getting past that, and establishing that the image, in fact is allowed on Wikipedia and is not, in fact pornographic in any way, leaves the discussion of what image is the best image for the lead, and what other images are effective at illustrating other points made in the article. My opinion is that this image as a lead image is better than no image. It is a picture of people making a pornographic film. The topic is hardcore pornography. This seems to be to be on topic.

I can't imagine why anyone would be offended by this image. My guess at that would be 1) Some people are offended that pornography is made. 2) Some people are offended that men have sex with men and the image reminds them of that. 3) Some people consider nude buttocks to be offensive for some reason. In my opinion, none of these reasons are sufficient for removing the image.

Reasons that would be good for removing the image might be: 1) The image is not on topic. 2) A better image is available for illustrating the topic. 3) Having no image is better than this image in illustratiung the topic. In my opinion, at this point, none of these are true. Atom (talk) 16:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This image should not be there. Putting up this image does not elucidate the topic in any way. Given that essentially every human engages in one form or another of sexual intercourse, it requires no leap in logic to understand the concept of two people engaging in intercourse, and having that event recorded. This image is utterly unnecessary in understanding the concept.

Secondly, how is this NOT pornographic in nature?? This is a picture of a man performing anilingus on another man, which is a sex act. As this is from a hardcore pornography movie, there is no reason to imagine that the act is merely simulated. Thus, the image is porn and should not be on wikipedia.03:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Each person has their opinion. I've suggested that the image does relate to the topic. The topic is hardcore pornography, the image is a picture of a hardcore pornographic film being made. To me, in my opinion, those things relate. It is possible that another, better image will come along, but for the moment it is, in my opinion, the best available.

As for it being pornographic. Again I don't see anything pornographic. You assume that the image is of a sex act, and you assume that the sex act is anilingus, and yet there is nothing in the image, or the caption to suggest either is the case. I see a film being made. My imagination suggests that something explicitly pornographic has been, or will soon transpire on the film, but this image does not show that. I don't imagine that the image is simulated, but there is no reason to make assumptions as the miller test applies to reality, not to imagination or assumptions. Clearly the image does not satisfy any one of the three barbs of the miller test, and it would have to satisfy all three.

Atom (talk) 04:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Atom, get off of your cross. The picture contributes nothing to the article. Pretty much ANY picture would contribute nothing to the article. The article is a blurb that basically says nothing more than "hardcore porn = porn with explicit sex acts". Sex is pretty much a cornerstone of the human experience, so I'm pretty sure that a photo of someone eating ass isn't clarifying the subject for anyone. The picture has no purpose for being here, but if you want to cry and whine and hide behind technicalities, there's probably nothing that can be done about it, though, because unfortunately that's pretty much the standard for getting things done around here. Congratulations on being the sort of person that gives wikipedia a bad name.71.202.112.38 (talk) 18:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for offering your opinion on the matter. Atom (talk) 23:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Atomaton. --A Knavish Bonded (talk) 06:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the non-named guy above in the "needed example" part says the truth

Why has there been a gay porn picture added to describe the article? I don't care if they're gay or not, but a) doesn't providing a gay picture lead to people believing hardcore means gay, and also b) it seems that they've only used a gay picture because they can.

Can't add anything to that. I'm neutral towards gay people, and I don't have any problems with pornography. But I really don't see the use of this particular picture... Firipu (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• That's pretty fallacious. In one breath you say, "I don't care if they are gay or not..." and then "I care that they are gay..." Why would the reasoning not be inverse if they were straight (that hardcore is straight)? The fact is, until people start putting up some free use pornography photos, preferably from a major studio, the entire debate is moot. Even then, we would use both photos - but removing one just because they are gay is the exact thing many people here are claiming it is not: homophobic. Find other photos to add; we don't subtract free media. --A Knavish Bonded (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)