Talk:Pornography/Archive 2

Archives

• Archive 1: November 2002-July 2005 (one comment from Feb 2006)

---

The list of regulations in different countries is incomplete and chaotic. For some countries, specific details are given, for others, those details are not being mentioned although also valid. Wouldn't it be better to make a table out of this, with certain aspects to be "Legal/Illegal"? Especially for emigrants, this would help to better choose the new country to live in ;) -- Paniq 16:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Good idea; also, can anyone verify the existence of the term 'gigity', as it is allegedly based on Family Guy's quote by cartoon character Glen Quagmire... Patrick 10:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Academic objectivity vs industrial propaganda, and offensive material rating system

(Text moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wikipedians_for_encyclopedic_merit)

Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:20, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Something which may interest editors of this page

Any help which could be provided would be greatly appreciated. -Godfearing Parent.

• Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. From what I have seen thus far, the WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency is simply a campaign for censorship, which I oppose vehemently. Please avoid "godfearing" arguments. I am a Christian myself, but this is an encylopedia, and "offensive" images are used to further the cause of the article and the encyclopedia. You would expect this from a medical journal; expect it here. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 01:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

AVN

I think the AVN links are relevant to this subject; it's a well established trade magazine, which talks primarily to those involved in the production of pornography; it isn't a porn magazine except in the sense that it's written to a large extent by, for and about pornographers.

I've also taken the liberty of reorganizing the external links and relabelling them for clarity. They're now under subheadings which should give readers an idea of the kind of material covered. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 18:43, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Although the AVN links might be informative they do not enlighten the reader more to what pornography is. The two links are also biased to the US. The point is to give the reader more information to the nature of what pornography is. I would only list CNN under news because of the fact that they are world reknown. I opt to revert again. --Kim Nevelsteen 18:57, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you're right to state that the two links are biased to the US. However the same can be said about nearly all of the other links. I think you're wrong to state that the AVN links don't help the reader to understand what pornography is. I found Ron Jeremy to appear in PETA ad most illuminating on the merging of pornography and mainstream in the United States. I'll not put it back, but I think it probably does belong in this article. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 19:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not to heavily set against it, but maybe a third opinion could be helpful.--Kim Nevelsteen 19:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

That's fine with me. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 19:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

history

Somebody needs to expand the history section to include stuff like: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/classic_erotica_collection_forbidden_movies_from_the_brothels_of_paris/

I have started to add to the history. I will mainly write from a British and European perspective, and will add more about the Victorians when I have the time.--Train guard 20:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Since Rory has decided to revert my contribution, I have taken the matter up with him on his discussion page.--Train guard 10:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The misunderstanding has been cleared up. Thanks to Rory, the section has been restored and I have added a section on the nineteenth century. I will add more, but I propose to place most of the material in the sections relating to particular media.

--Train guard 12:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

What out for, as best I can tell, a feminist homophobe, IP 84.12.80.231, who vandalized the site on Nov. 1. -- User:Tenebrae 19:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

"pr0n"

No one but a few script kiddies refers to pornography as "pr0n." I feel that the inclusion of this term is utterly ridiculous and not encycolpaedic at all.

rgr that

-- WRONG! Pr0n has over 1,000,000 google hits, and an article on Wikipedia, so apparently it is encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.198.112 (talk • contribs) 30 March 2006 (UTC)

What do google hits have to do with anything? "asdf" has over 5 million hits that doesn't say anything. If you want, add it to a section on internet porn or something but not at the beginning of the article as a synonym for christ's sake. Most people don't use/know about "pr0n", while porno and porn are common knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.126.246.247 (talk • contribs) 30 March 2006 (UTC)

External links: Advocacy

Advocacy: "The act of pleading or arguing in favour of something, such as a cause, idea, or policy; active support." This seems contrary to the actual links listed under this heading which all seem to be of a feminist or anti-pornographic prejudice. I suggest either the links removed and replaced with ones that actually advocate pornography in a sociological sense, or that the heading be changed to "Criticism". -ApeX

"Advocacy" in this context refers to advocating a position - any position - about a subject. There's no way Wikipedia is going to require links to be favorable about pornography; that would be a blatant violation of neutrality. So would a section for "Criticism" without one for "Promotion". If you feel that there are pro-porn external links that should be added for balance, please add them. Tverbeek 00:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Plagiarism

I'd like to point out that vast sections of this page are direct copies of Seth Grahame-Smith's The Big Book of Porn.

Can you tell us which sections of our article fall into this category? -- z

I'd like to make a contribution

..but this page is blocked. I'll just post it here, and somebody with the proper access can post it for me, ok? Pornography does not always refer to sexual situations. Pornagraphy is any media that envokes strong emotions. An good example of this is Vegan Porn http://www.veganporn.com/

i think that's just a sarcastic usage of the term. -Joeyramoney 03:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Dvorak's article on the .xxx domain deserves discussion

Ubiquitous Porn: Alive on the Net By John C. Dvorak

In a column I wrote in the 1990s, I proposed the creation of an .xxx top-level domain to make it easier to prevent what I then described as a porn storm. These were onerous self-spawning pornography page attacks that took place on the desktops of unsuspecting users. This phenomenon evolved into the "pop-ups" that we still see today and is essentially driven by a flaw in the design of browsers. Since most of these storms were created by porn sites, it seemed as if the easiest way to control them would be to create an .xxx domain for porn and filter the storms out unless you actually wanted to see them.

I harped on this topic on and off for a decade, and it was finally going to happen when, in a surprise move last week, Vint Cerf removed the initiative from the agenda of an ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) board meeting. It appears that a mere 6,000 canned letters sent to the Commerce Dept. did the trick. These apparently stemmed from a cell of evangelical organizations. That's all it took.

If ICANN cannot resist pressure from clichéd theopolitical zealots, then the chances of the organization maintaining control of the Internet—instead of handing control over to an international consortium of United Nations connivers—is nil. This episode marks the beginning of the end for the Internet. It does not bode well for ICANN, an organization that I supported until now.

Exactly how these folks became enamored of resisting the .xxx domain is somewhat mysterious, and I suspect the pornographers themselves are behind it. These women have been tricked. Who benefits from the death of .xxx? The pornographers, that's who.

The idea behind the .xxx domain is to make it brain-dead easy to keep porn out of the American family home. That's the reason it was proposed. So why do these people oppose it? The argument against the .xxx proposal seems to indicate either an incredible naïveté regarding the workings of networks and computers or an extreme distrust of computer users themselves. Perhaps it's a combination of both. Concerned Women for America claims that the .xxx domain will increase porn by giving the pornographers a "new platform." What? Can someone tell me exactly how this creates a new platform? Don't these people understand how a ghetto works? Do they know what a platform is? Do they understand that this is like the warning stickers they themselves insist should be put on records and games? How do they not get that?

More: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1896410,00.asp

Opposition

Maybe I missed something in the article, but I think there deserves to be a broader "opposition" section in the article. Just focusing on the religious and feminist angles misses a broader reason that pornography is often opposed - participants in a lot of mainstream pornography tend to be homeless and runaway youths. I'm going to broaden the section title and add that, if nobody minds... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.224.182.201 (talk • contribs) .

bizarre classical statue towards the top

what exactly even is that and how does it add to this article? an image does not have merit if one cannot even determine what it is. i suggest that it is replaced. Joeyramoney 03:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Loop

Could someone have a look at Loop and incorporate the paragraph there into this article somehow? It reads,

• A loop is industry vernacular for short pornographic films, many times without sound. Most are cheaply made and of poor quality. Before the advent of home video, such films were typically viewed by a single person in a booth, and the film was "looped" so that it could be played repeatedly when activated by a coin payment slot or similar device.

Maybe it should even have its own article; I don't know. Thanks, Melchoir 02:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I have added a search engine

I have added TGP-Shark Porn-search to adult-databases as it's one of the biggest adult search-engines with millions of links in it's database. I think it deserves a link, but if you are against it - remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.192.0.116 (talk • contribs)

I didn't remove it but since I don't see it there, it was removed by someone. Probably because the site is obviously commercial Coolmojito 00:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Male hetero article

Both photos in this article are of women - that's not cool. Obviously for all the feminist reasons of objectifying women, but that can be left aside because it is about pornography. But it gives a partisan view of pornography, that it's only enjoyed by heterosexual males. Joziboy 15 March 2006, 14:52 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion regarding [[: regarding [[:{{{1}}}]]]]! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.

Eurocentrism in the History of Pornography

This article examines the history of pornography in Europe - a German artefact, erotic artwork in Pompeii, the spread of pornography after the invention of the printing press, etc. What comes to mind to me from a non-Western tradition is Japanese erotic woodcuts (a phrase which always makes me smile), the Kama Sutra (not pornographic, perhaps, but where there's smoke there's fire - I'm sure there's a history of pornography on the Indian subcontinent)...Anybody feel up to the task of removing this NPOV bias? The Disco King 04:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The concept of 'pornography' is a European social construct that spread to America and the the rest of the world. It did not really exist in the cultures that you mention.

--Train guard 12:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? The Disco King 17:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The Kama Sutra is most definitely not porn! It is only humorously associated with porn precisely because of Western bias. Sutra's are religious texts in Buddhism and Hinduism, equivalent I suppose to the word 'gospel' in English, and Kama is the god of love. Joziboy 27 March 2006, 15:42 (UTC)

So the Kama Sutra is not porn because the ladies there are not prostitutes, is that it? I wonder about old chinese and japanese images of sex acts that I have seen. Are these also not of prostitutes? Does anyone know? DanielDemaret 18:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little confused as to how you got "not prostitutes" from anything that Joziboy said... I don't think I'd count most women in typical Western porn as prostitutes anyway... but that's all semantics, and I'm not sure it's actually worth discussing. ;) Hbackman 20:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Both of your examples would probably work better in the erotica section (the Kama Sutra would most likely work, I'm not quite sure about the wood-cuts). The main difference (as far as I can make out) is that pornography has a more commercial/arousing purpose, whereas erotica is more of an artistic representation. Edit: Japanese Pornography has it's own section, as does the Kama Sutra, so similar works would probably be appropriate in those two articles.

Can I try and clear up some misunderstandings? The definition of erotica is fairly straightforward. It is the depiction of sexual acts, pure and simple. The depiction may be arousing or it may not.

In some cases, the depiction has a religious significance, usually relating to fertility. In many civilisations, the depiction of sex is a reference to an everyday part of life, just as one might depict any other activity. This applies to the erotic Indian temple carvings as well as the Kama Sutra.

A sutra, by the way, is not necessarily a religious text - it just means rules. The Kama Sutra is intended to be a guide to enable an Indian courtier of a particular historical period have a happy, contented, and spiritually fulfilling life. Parts of it relate to etiquette, the sports he should play, the food he should serve guests, what he should read, and a number of other matters. But it's only the part dealing with sex that anyone talks about!

Someone mentioned Japaneese erotic woodcuts. These refer to 'Pillow Books', and they were traditionally given to newly married couples as a form of sex education.

The people who were responsible for these depictions would have been positively amazed that people would create a special category to describe depictions of sex made for such a variety of purposes - religious worship, a lifestyle manual, a book of sex instruction.

In the West, we created a category of printed and illustrated material in the nineteenth century, called it 'pornography', and sought to control it. There are a variety of religious, cultural, and political reasons for this, but they all stem from a desire to attempt to control human behaviour through controling the sexual aspect of people's lives.

In the history section, I have reluctantly used the word 'pornography' because it is not a neutral term. But, as most people associate the things that I wrote about with the word, I let it stand. Perhaps we should have a proper discussion of these issues somewhere in the article.

--Train guard 16:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I have added the gist of this comment to the introductory section of the article.

--Train guard 09:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

(My comments in brackets.)

Wait- you added this to the article???

(Yes. Why not?)

For starters, this definition of Erotica: "It is the depiction of sexual acts, pure and simple" Has no citation. Who came up with this definition?

(Generally speaking, librarians and art historians. It is their definition, and unlike 'pornography' is a neutral one, since it does not imply a value judgement.)

Because it is pretty much a crock as far as I'm concerned.

(Oh! Why, pray?)

What about the notion of suggestion, which seems the major distincton between erotica and pornography.

(I have no idea what this means.)

By the definition you chose to attribute, a depiction of an individual in a suggestive pose (IE not a "sexual act") is exempt from being called "erotica" .

(Ah...now I see. But is not a 'suggestive pose' a deliberate sexual act?)

While I respect the need for clarity here, I think this current definition misses the mark.

(Why?)

Why not refer to a dictionary definition, and leave POV out of it.

(You think that dictionary definitions are totally objective?)

-Thank you.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.22.226.16 (talk • contribs) 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Look, I am trying to steer a middle course. I hate the term 'pornography' since it is a social construct that I cannot agree with. But the term now has such a wide currency that many people would consider it interchangable with 'erotica'. You then get the common argument that erotica, like beauty is 'in the eye of the beholder'. So I wanted to insert a post-modern definition of pornography in the introductory section.

All this is not POV, by the way. I have quoted some scholars, but can I refer you to the recent television series 'Pornography - the Secret History of Civilisation', which incorporates much of the latest thinking on the subject.

--Train guard 14:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Ukraine

Just to be 100% sure (my apologies if I misunderstand the phrase) but in the Legal Status section of the main article, the Ukraine bullet point simply says "Pornography is Compulsary". I'm quite sure this needs a re-write, citation source, context or complete deletion as it don't really make much sense! Thanks, Jhamez84 00:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

That was added by an anon very recently, and is very likely vandalism. I removed it. Hbackman 05:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The Picture

Is the picture featuring the video rack really necessary? I think it should be removed, considering that two penises can be seen clearly, as are a number of vaginas - not very appropriate, methinks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.155.1.244 (talk • contribs) 14 April 2006 (UTC)

don't agree. they might be seen only if one would view image in high resolution. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 09:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Umm, given that this is an article on pornography, should we even be that worried about explicit pictures? Wikipedia is not censored. Hbackman 20:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I would have to agree that the pictures should not be taken away but the video rack to me does not really add to this article. Then again am not sure if a better picture would do either.

Yes, we should still worry about explicit pictures. Sometimes, people refer to WP:NOT as a justification for including explicit or shocking pictures. However, if you read it carefully, it does not provide any such justification. It mainly puts people on notice that we can't prevent all vandalism, so a shocking image could potentially appear in any article at any time. It also puts people on notice that we may include nudity, profanity, etc., if we feel it is relevant to the article. But NOT censored does not mean no editorial contraints. We are trying to build a reputable encyclopedia that people will take seriously as an academic resource. A picture of a penis at penis is probably consistent with this goal - pictures of hardcore pornography are probably not. Johntex\^talk 17:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the picture should just be a big censor sign ;) ReelGenius 04:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think there should be some better examples of pornography, perhaps some hard core images involving 2 or more women to show that pornography is rarely representative of normal sexual activity between a man and a woman

Wiki tolerance of Ponography Makes Me sick!

I was molested at age 7 by a guy who had piles of ponography all over his house and a Nazi flag in his den. It was SICK, SICK, SICK, Dont come off and tell me its harmless as long as whatever. Normal Pornography, when in the hands of some asshole who is "infatuated with children" can cause him to do "EVIL" things that he might not have done otherwise. These asshole criminals should be "CASTRATED" while awake, "REAMED" and then sent to jail with tattos on thier heads that say "Child Molester!" There is a conection between pornography and child molestation... wake up and see it! --merlinus 16:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you had such an awful experience. But I am not aware of any studies conducted by neutral organizations that connect pornography (other than child pornography, which is illegal and for good reason) with molestation. If you know of one, please direct me to it.

People who are screwed up are going to do sick things regardless of whether they have pictures of naked people or not. Pornography does not cause child molestation. (If it did, given the proportion of guys who watch porn, child molestation would be much more common than it is now.) A person's disordered thinking/lack of morals/other internal issues cause molestation. It sounds like the man you describe was plenty messed up; I doubt that pornography had anything to do with it.

Also, Wikipedia is not censored.

Hbackman 01:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It does the exact opposite for me: it makes me happy. People like you, however, who advocate the censorship of pornography, make me not very happy. Skinnyweed 22:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You said it well, I agree that pornography is not proven to be a direct cause of child molestation; on the same token, however, I find it difficult to believe that generally, a preson's 'disordered thinking...internal issues' cause molestation, just like being lazy does not cause one to be poor, for example. One could work as hard as the next person and yet be poor for other reasons, or a lazy person can be rich. Statistically, legal insanity is rarely ruled to be a defense or cause for sexual abuse; some, however, believe that those who molest children or commit sexual crimes must be suffering from a mental disease, but this view is also not widely supported scientifically or even anecdotally. Those who molest children or committ other atrocious crimes, such as mass murderers, or even ordinary thieves are not automatically 'crazy' or 'have something wrong with them', at least from a medical perspective, otherwise there would probably be a lot less crime today, if you could just give ordinary people a pill and treat them for "being perverted" or otherwise unruly.

Now, to counter the original point against pornography, it is obviously imperative to realize that the act of watching pornography is distinct from committing a crime against another person, even if there was in fact statistical evidence that porn-watchers are more violent than non porn-watchers. As a matter of fact, if someone does not enjoy sexual stimuli, that person may have an actual physical or mental health problem (see Sexual dysfunction).

Of course that doesn't mean that all rapists are in perfect mental shape, but this fact supports the idea that those who do not like porn are more likely to suffer from a pathological mental illness than those who do.

(Patrick 11:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC))

I feel that your rationale is flawed. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with having porn, it's what you do with it. Porn can't cause anyone to to bad things, it's the mindset of the person that can cause them to do whatever - it's their disposition, their thinking patterns, etc that can drive them to do whatever. If a purely hypothetical scenario, if I were to pick up a gun and shoot someone right now, would you blame the gun or the person holding it? "Blaming the gun" is flawed.

Porn isn't to blame for child molesters and sexual misconduct any more than guns are to blame for murders. People are to blame for murders and people are to blame for sexual misconduct. Rehabilitate the person and the person will no longer have the mindset to do the crime.

For the record, child molesters existed before porn was so widespread, and before the Internet etc. — nathanrdotcom ^{(Got something to say? Say it.)} 21:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I was molested at age 7 by a guy who had piles of ponography all over his house - clearly you are biased and unable to take an objective view, that is if your story isnt completely fabricated which i think it is. - andyjm

Please try harder to assume good faith. We all have had experiences in our lives and those experiences have led us to believe certain things. This is just as try for you as it is for the poster. Johntex\^talk 18:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

non-neutral essay

Hmmm. This article's new introduction/definition is well-written and thoughtful, but it strikes me as a section of an essay expressing a particular opinion (particularly closely relating the definition of pornography to that of social control) rather than an encyclopedia introduction. Ideally, we should summarise other people's definitions of pornography, if we can find them. --Robert Merkel 06:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the subheading, Hitler and Porn

I'm new in the wikipedia editing/comment/suggestion business, so please let me know if doing this is right:

I believe the subheading Hitler and Porn add absolutely nothing to the description or understanding of Pornography and should be totally discarded.

The fact that he used the words 'Pornographers' (and i'm not really sure what's the word he used in German) and added to it something about brothels doesn't seem to me to be sufficient to keep it in this article. Porn is not equivalent to Brothels, Brothels should and are considered in the Prostitution section. Furthermore, I believe that if it is kept the exact citation should be given (book page etc..). Also the relation between the alleged fact that most brothels were kept by jews (where in godsname did you get this information)and some kind of strange relations with jewish homosexuals LED to "perpetuate anti-semetic sentiments in pre-Nazi and Nazi Germany", does not relate to any kind of formal logic known to me. This kind of logic sounds a little too much to me like "Jews were pornographers and brothel keepers and therefor anti-semitism was perpetuated."

If you would like to add a section concerning the relation between historical figures and porn be my guest, especially if it sheds some light on some aspect of pornography and politics. Somebody may be interested in describing Ciccolina's coming to politics in Italy too. If you would like to talk about Hitler's obsession or fear of Porn, or sexual issues be my guest too, but add it to Hitler, not here.

Marc —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.65.63.47 (talk • contribs) 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"Gigity"

Is this really a widespread term? Google comes up with 34K results, all (or 99%) of which are quotes from Family Guy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ErikWhite (talk • contribs) 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Addition to "Anti-pornography movement" Section

In explaining its decision to reject claims that obscenity should be treated as speech protected by the First Amendment, in MILLER v. CALIFORNIA, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)the US Supreme Court found that

The dissenting Justices sound the alarm of repression. But, in our view, to equate the free and robust exchange of ideas and political debate with commercial exploitation of obscene material demeans the grand conception of the First Amendment and its high purposes in the historic struggle for freedom. It is a "misuse of the great guarantees of free speech and free press . . . ." Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U.S., at 645 .

and in PARIS ADULT THEATRE I v. SLATON, 413 U.S. 49 (1973) that

In particular, we hold that there are legitimate state interests at stake in stemming the tide of commercialized obscenity, even assuming it is feasible to enforce effective safeguards against exposure to juveniles and to passersby. 7 [413 U.S. 49, 58] Rights and interests "other than those of the advocates are involved." Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U.S. 622, 642 (1951). These include the interest of the public in the quality of life and the total community environment, the tone of commerce in the great city centers, and, possibly, the public safety itself... As Mr. Chief Justice Warren stated, there is a "right of the Nation and of the States to maintain a decent society . . .," [413 U.S. 49, 60] Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 199 (1964) (dissenting opinion).

John254 21:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I have added a webcam blog

I have added (commercial link removed) to adult-databases. I think it deserves a link, but if you are against it - remove it. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Snakehunter

Remove This Article

CAN SOMEONE PLEASE REMOVE THIS ARTICLE, IT IS VERY INAPPROPRIATE FOR AN ENCYCLOPEDIA SITE AND IT IS DISRESPECTFUL TO OTHER PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!--Jsalims 22:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

We cannot remove the pornography article simply because some people find pornography to be extremely immoral, as addictive as heroin, profoundly degrading to the relations between men and women, and a clear and present danger to public health and civilized society. However, Wikipedia has a policy that articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Since pornography is a highly controversial subject in America, and both pro-porn and anti-porn viewpoints are in the political mainstream, viewpoint neutrality in an article about pornography is achieved by treating both pro-porn and anti-porn arguments. If you have properly referenced information that will help to more fully illustrate the anti-pornography position, thereby creating an article that is more neutral, when taken as a whole, then you are welcome to add it. John254 03:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

n.b. I wrote the above response before reviewing Jsalims' edit to Tenebrae (film), so I apologize if my comments appear to be inappropriately conciliatory. Nonetheless, Jsalims is urged to contribute in a more constructive manner. John254 04:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it is how you look at it. You called inappropriate, disrespectful. But others, including me, would call it hot chicks and weiners. It's the human body. Just me? --tgs —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TommyBoy76 (talk • contribs) 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of unreferenced material added by 12.150.68.150

I have removed the following from the anti-pornography movement section, which I quote with all spelling and grammatical errors intact:

However many experts do recommend against the outlaw of pornography due to the fact that the obession has become so far out of hand that any attempt to outlaw the industry would become utterly useless as pornography would then become a possible bussiness venture for criminals and terrorist offering something a lot of people would want that is easy to make and distribute; much similar to the passing of the 18th amendment, outlawing the sale, production and importing of alcohol, which is historicly looked as one of the greatest disasters in history.

The appeal to the authority of unnamed "experts" to justify this claim appears to be a violation of the citing sources policy. John254 23:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal Of History Section

As I am one of the main contributors, I'm not best pleased. The section has a number of pictures, and I'm not sure how to deal with those. Can some kind person with the necessary skills please restore this section?

Thanks,

--Train guard 16:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have restored this section. Could someone add the pictures?

--Train guard 16:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone has removed it again, and I am in the process of asking him why he took this action.

--Train guard 10:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, according to Whomp (talk · contribs)'s edit summary, "history section is a copyvio from http://pentra.blogspot.com/2006/02/history-of-pornography.html". However, blogspot.com redirects to blogger.com. Blogger.com's URLs encode the year and month of their posting. Hence, we know that http://pentra.blogspot.com/2006/02/history-of-pornography.html was only posted in February 2006. This article has had a History section far, far longer than that. I'm afraid what is most likely is that pentra.blogspot.com copied us, either without attributing the text or attributing it in a way that Whomp didn't see. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Pornography and sex crimes section

This section really hasn't got a point in the article and on top of that - doesn't have any citation either - its only a hypothesis! Anyone else feel the same? --Pongles 23:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[1] I've noticed that this has been in a previous dicussion but it appears nothing became of it. --Pongles 08:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see this controversial page/section with images. Can trainguard tell me where I can find these pages?

cheers drashok --Drashok 05:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)