Talk:Pornographic film

Clean-up

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

Sub-genres

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

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

Cliches

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

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

Sourcing

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

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

Explaining slang

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

Yes, I think redirects from slang terms (or to any term that's extremely different from the article title) imply that we should explain or at least mention the term. Similarly, "Stag film" redirects to Pornography with no explanation. I hate to bring this up without fixing it myself, but I probably don't have time. ←Hob 17:36, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

The etymology of these terms may be more appropriate in a dictionary, not an encylopedia. I'm not sure. 149.43.x.x 02:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Mainstream and porn film industries

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

Image

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

Ugh

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

As far as I am aware, "adult film" has always meant "pornographic film." Arundhati lejeune 20:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Adult film means pornographic film. Dictionaries and thesauruses I have handy all seem to agree (although it doesn't show up alot in dictionaries since it's a two-word phrase). --Cheeser1 20:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Adult = puerile Peter Damian (talk) 07:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh wait, I see... after doing a Google search and checking usages, it seems that "adult film" = "pornographic film" but "film for adults" = "film made for adults but not usually pornographic". What confusing usage, considering that technically the two terms should be synonymous. Esn (talk) 07:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

What's with all the gay porn?

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

Wow, you're quite the deductive sleuth there - why don't you call Vivid Entertainment and take some shots of a straight porn shoot, if it's bothersome to you...? Maybe Jenna Jameson will let you photograph her. Otherwise, we use what we have access to and is free, and Lucas Entertainment is a major porn company. --David Shankbone 19:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like David promoting his own work here at wikipedia. I fully agree that a non-gay pic should be in the opening. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment on the edits, not the editors - you don't have any clue about anything I do. When you get a non-gay photo of the filming of a pornographic film, use it. --David Shankbone 17:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Err, David yes I do. I just look at your contribs and get to see exactly what you are up to on wikipedia. Why would you think otherwise? Do you think your contribs are secret or what exactly inspired this strange bordering on nonsense comment. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:The making of an adult film 8 by David Shankbone.JPG seems well-suited to me. If anyone can find a GFDL-compatible free image that is more appropriate, please upload it to Commons and propose it here. You are welcome to add your name to the filename. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I oppose the removal of Shankbone's photograph until a more representative free image of equal quality can be found. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Gutch: Part of Wikipedia's mission is to build a library of free content media, so GFDL-licensed images will always be preferable to other "fair-use" images, and most copyrighted images will usually be deleted outright. If you wish to broaden Wikipedia's image library of free-use images for a certain type of content, here are some links you may find helpful:

• how to request free use images from copyright holders
• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikimedia Commons – free use image library

Until then, please do not remove David Shankbone's image. It is fine. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

But why a gay pic at the top? And why one whose image name promotes David Shankbone? Botht hese questions need addressing, thes epics may be appropriate for gay porn. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

First, Shankbone is not my real name, it's my User name. Second, the question of naming rights of files is not self-promotion and I can point you to more discussions. Third, we use what we have, and you can't tell the gender of one of the people, nor can you see any genitalia. Pornographic film is pornographic film - we use what we have and is free, and they are good photos. --David Shankbone 18:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That, David, is a content based defence, so different from all this faffing about on ANI. I never implied Shankbone was your real name, squeakBox isn't my real name either. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reason it should not be a gay film. If you really feel it must be Jenna Jameson or nothing, we need a free image, and a WP:CONSENSUS of editors. I also feel a need to add that objecting to the photographer's name (real or pseudonym) seems a bit ... petty to me. I am sorry if that is not sufficiently "content based". / edg ☺ ☭ 01:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right edg. No real reason has been given to why the gay porn pic shouldn't be used. The title of this thread says it all: "What's with all the gay porn?" When SqueakBox said, "Looks to me like David promoting his own work here at wikipedia. I fully agree that a non-gay pic should be in the opening" is shows me something. Even if Squeak thinks it's a COI (what he read on Wikipedia Review and is repeating here), what does that have to do with why a "non-gay pic" shouldn't be used? As mentioned above, I don't think there are any available hetero porn shoot pictures. If one comes available and the quality is good, then feel free to add it at the top of the page. There can be two pictures. I know, what a shocka! This whole conversation has an underlying suggestion. sniff sniff Smell that? Smells like homophobic people wanting to remove anything related to the gay lifestyle from the article? Yes, go ahead and tell me to AGF (I see two users that have assumed none in regards to David), but if walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... APK ^{yada yada} 02:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Shankbone's pic illustrates that subject without being over-the-top. Shankbone has contributed a lot of great photos to Wikipedia, and I don't see what the problem is in his name being part of the filename. It shouldn't matter whether it's straight or gay porn, since the topic applies to both. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 06:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the brouhaha at ANI (which brought me here) this is a rather disturbing thread. It makes no difference whether the photo we use is of gay porn, straight porn, or some other kind of porn. If that's the best free content we have that applies to this article (and no one has suggested it isn't) then we should use it. The insinuation that a picture from a gay porn shoot is more problematic than a picture from a straight one is quite problematic. I was also somewhat aghast to read SqueakBox's "a non-gay pic should be in the opening." Why exactly? No good reason as far as I'm concerned, unless we have a problem with gay people (but that would not be NPOV, so it can't be that). If you want pictures of men and women getting it on at a porn shoot, then go out and take the pictures (good luck, I doubt it's easy). It's odd that we even have to discuss this.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus was reached above to leave the picture since it depicts the subject of the article and as far as I know, it's the only free picture we have of a pornographic film shoot. 65.183.142.159 (talk · contribs) is now removing the picture without giving a reason why. The picture has been constantly removed by various users and IPs for obviously the same reason, it's gay. I left a message on 65.183.142.159's talk page and he/she continues to remove the picture. I'm leaving a message here to show that consensus was reached and the IPs continued removal will be seen as vandalism. APK ^{yada yada} 01:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

132.198.101.63 (talk · contribs) is now removing the photo. The IP is registered in Burlington, Vermont. 65.183.142.159 is registered there as well. Coincidence maybe? APK ^{yada yada} 07:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

A sock puppetry report is filed at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Magustrench. All are encouraged to help by adding evidence. / edg ☺ ☭ 09:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. APK ^{PRAISE JEEBUS} 09:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Definition of 'Pornographic Film'

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

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

Agreed on all points. I'm going to edit it now, and see if it goes well. 219.79.113.61 (talk) 11:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No graphic images

Pornoshoot or not! Leave it out. The current image is way to graphic. This image is extremely offensive! Consider those people the rights of the peole that find this kind of stuff offensive! Its offensive because its inapporopriate and not because its depicting gay sex!

Please, remove the image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.119.98.197 (talk) 00:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The image is remarkably non-explicit. No genitalia are visible, and the photographers are in the foreground, not the putative sexual activities. I think the image is quite apt. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

For someone who seems so upset about supposedly indecent material, why are you reading an article entitled Pornographic film? Don't be surprised to see an image containing sexual imagery in an article that deals with porn. Read WP:NOTCENSORED and you can disable images from Wikipedia appearing on your computer. I'm not sure how, but someone else might be able to tell you. APK like a lollipop 01:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the image is surprisingly non-explicit... but I'm wondering if we should have it as the top-most one. Maybe we can move it down further in the article (say to around the Sub-genres subsection) and replace it with something like Image:Porn Set 5.jpg? Tabercil (talk) 02:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Tabercil, that is also a good picture but the current one shows more non-acting participants, and also doesn't have a large light in the way. I think the current one is better, and I don't think we should have to compromise on quality for this guy. --Carbon Rodney (Talk but be nice) 05:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree Carbon. APK like a lollipop 06:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh believe me, I have no objections to the current image... I'm just wondering if we have to have such a provocative one in such a prominent place. I've contacted Mike South who's mentioned in the past that he has tons of photos we're free to use and asked him what he could contribute that could specificly replace this image. He's sent a pair of images which I think will do the job; I just need to nail down the permissions before I can put them on Commons for all to review. Tabercil (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

So Wikipedia is censored now apparently. Garda40 (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think its provocative... or at least not too provocative. At the very least, people visiting this article shouldn't be surprised by graphic imagery. So I don't think it needs replacing. But hey, you are going to some effort to get these pics and I respect that. Certainly, if one of those images does a better job then I would support it. --

Carbon Rodney

09:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that you visit the porn film article, and expect non-explicit material, you simply desire non-gay material. --Carbon Rodney (Talk but be nice) 05:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You have the right not to visit Wikipedia, you have the right not to read articles on pornography if you find them offensive, and you have the right to block those images on your computer. See my comments to you in Talk:Pornography#Inoffensive_Pictures (where I also give a link explaining how to block images, as mentioned by AgnosticPreachersKid). Mdwh (talk) 09:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I find this image too explicit and unsuitable for many younger Wikipedia users; Wikipedia without images makes almost no sense and that's why it isn't wise to just block images from that site, and still some images are really not for children, who otherwise may and even should use Wikipedia. Is it really so necessary to put this image here? And please don't say there are no genitalia seen, it's not what it is about. I do appreciate this site very much as a source of knowledge, but for goodness sake, it IS public and this image IS offensive, and there is no protection here, so please just remove it. And do not put heteros making love in front of cameras instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.51.10.181 (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

What are your children doing reading articles about pornography in the first place? Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED (there may be valid arguments about whether particular images are useful or not, but being offensive, or unsuitable for children, is not one of them, especially since the article it is used on is also unsuitable for children). Also see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer.

If you want a Wikipedia that is suitable for children, then I would recommend checking out http://schools-wikipedia.org/ . Mdwh (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I'd also like to throw my two cents in. I think any imagery in this article is inappropriate. There should be no pornographic material, visible genitalia or not, homosexual or heterosexual or whatever. That image we have on the opening of the page is clearly pornographic and inappropriate for our younger users. I suggest we make a move to remove the image. I'm all for advocating self-censorship and such, but the fact is that Wikipedia is free to use and anyone can pull up any page. Links bounce around between all the articles here, and it would be very easy for an underage viewer to happen on something like this. I don't think the argument of "you don't have to read articles on pornography" or "we shouldn't censor" are valid arguments - we should have the underage kids in mind, especially on something as widely used as Wikipedia. Fact is that there are younger kids browsing the site that don't need to stumble onto sexually explicit imagery, we shouldn't just push on them "lern2blockpics, noob!" and other such arguments. -User:Korubi(talk) 03:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

But Wikipedia is not intended to be a child-friendly encyclopedia - it has adult topics. Send your children to http://schools-wikipedia.org/ instead. (And why do you think the article text is okay? And what about all the other unsuitable-for-children topics and images on Wikipedia? Should Wikipedia be gutted of all non-child-friendly material because you don't want to install a filter and direct your children to the appropriate site? Personally I wasn't allowed even a TV in my room until I reached a certain age - I find this idea that it's now okay to let young children roam the Internet unrestricted and without supervision quite worrying...) Mdwh (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

wikipedia as special-interest shill

Interesting to see gay porn as the lead image. Is wikipedia an advertising service? 208.111.233.85 (talk) 06:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Assume good faith. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The lead image should show one or more men having sex with one or more women, as God intended. Or a lesbian scene. Please think of the children! 71.182.179.188 (talk) 04:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

See previous discussion. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I find this image too explicit and unsuitable for many younger Wikipedia users; Wikipedia without images makes almost no sense and that's why it isn't wise to just block images from that site, and still some images are really not for children, who otherwise may and even should use Wikipedia. Is it really so necessary to put this image here? And please don't say there are no genitalia seen, it's not what it is about. I do appreciate this site very much as a source of knowledge, but for goodness sake, it IS public and this image IS offensive, and there is no protection here, so please just remove it. And do not put heteros making love in front of cameras instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.51.10.181 (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Muhammad/FAQ#Q8. For instructions on how to hide images, see Talk:Muhammad/FAQ#Q4. As for keeping "offensive" images off the "public" internet, good luck with that. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Lead image

I don't believe that a picture of gay porn accurately reflects the preponderance of work filmed out there. Perhaps it could be changed. We would not have a picture of a dead cat for the article on kitties even if it were technically quite correct. Vranak (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

So you're problem is that it's gay, right? You're problem is that we have a big budget, mainstream gay pornography shoot as the lead, right? Even though no genitals are shown, and you can barely make out the genders. It's gay. David Shankbone 03:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The dead cat argument goes nowhere. The fact is the current picture (1) is GFDL (2) illustrates the topic and (3) does so without even showing genitalia is reason enough to keep. If something comes along that is superior in those three regards, this might be a topic worth revisiting. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, my one and only argument against was that most porn is not gay porn. Vranak (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Not to point out the obvious flaw in your original post, but surely most cats are, in fact, dead. The contention should not be whether one state of something is more common than another, but to what extent an image conveys information useful to the reader. Arguably an image of a live cat is more useful that an image of a dead one. Now, I don't know what the intended purpose of showing straight-or-gay porn is here, but I suspect that the favoring of one type over the other has little to do with our goal of writing an encyclopedia. The current article has no lead image. This should be corrected, and sexual prejudice (however carefully argued) should not be a basis for deciding on the replacement. Acannas (talk) 03:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Pronography on Wikipedia

Pornographic photos are not appropriate for an online encyclopedia used by children. Frankly I will encourage others not to fund Wikipedia if pages such as this are not cleaned up. Feel free to enjoy porn at your leisure but please don't add to an online encylopedia, so that we all have to look at it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.225.86 (talk) 03:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This is an article on pornographic film. If children don't want to see images of pornography, then maybe the better solution is for them not to look at articles like this. There's a story about Dr. Samuel Johnson, the creator of the first dictionary of the English language. A fine lady told him that she was shocked that he'd include swear words in the dictionary, and he replied that he was shocked that she'd look them up. In any case, Wikipeida is not censored.   Will Beback  talk  21:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a story... Well maybe there is, and maybe it's just made up. In any case is it not possible that someone in all ignorance would look it up, and that perhaps that might be a child? Actually I suspect it's only a few editors who don't give a stuff about what children might come across. But I'd never encourage anyone to fund wikipedia.DMSBel (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Missing some information

What I wanted to know when I came here is how many people there are in the porn industry. I imagine this would be a hard number to get exactly right, but some estimates would be nice. Like how many people take advantage of the porn star STD prevention program.