Talk:List of pornographic subgenres

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Sexuality (Rated List-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Pornography (Rated List-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Formatting of inter-Wiki links[edit]

I made some major changes to the structure and categorization of this article, which I consider improvements. One of these is that every genre of pornography is referred to with the word "pornography", to avoid sentences like "Rubber involves rubber, latex, and similar materials".

The word or phrase describing each genre of pornography is bolded. In the cases where there is not a specific article associated with the genre, such as "Spanking pornography", a link is provided to the subject itself, (spanking, in this instance) but the word "pornography" is kept outside of the link and is not bolded.

However, if a type of pornography already has its own article, there is a complete link to it. As in the case of "Amateur pornography", the word "pornography" is included as part of the link and is bolded. This allows a visual representation of which genres have an entire article written on the topic. Joie de Vivre 23:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Lesbian genre[edit]

Hey, Iamcuriousblue. I saw your concern in the edit summary, and I don't think the description implies anything about what "real lesbians" do. I think it's fair to say that most performers in lesbian pornography for men are slender and depilated. I don't think it's appropriate to say they are "attractive by typical heterosexual male standards". One, because there isn't one uniform "typical heterosexual male standard". Despite the uniformity in the genre, I have observed no uniformity of preference among even the most attractive men I know, and regardless, we don't have sources for that statement anyway. Two, I think it's superfluous to say they are "attractive"... I mean, that's kind of a given, right? Any porn producer, unless there's some intimidation or gross-out factor intended, seeks the most attractive performers possible. So, I think the current physical description is sufficient, rather than going into what a "typical heterosexual man" wants; that's outside the scope of this article. Obviously, judging by the very wide variety of porn genres here, there isn't just one body type or kink that turns everyone's crank.  :) What is "typically attractive" really depends on the person. Let me know what you think. Joie de Vivre 15:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see the point. However, the problem is that part of the description is distinguishing lesbian-oriented lesbian porn vs "hetlez" girl-girl porn for a male audience ("hetlez" is a protologism I've been seing around the blogosphere, but because its a protologism, I didn't mention the term in the article). And the characteristics you've given, at least the shaving thing, don't really differentiate the two – true, most "hetlez" performers are depilated, but so are a lot of women in lesbian-made porn, particularly when you're talking about femme women. I think the website or Pink and White Productions are prime examples – they're lesbian-oriented companies and their models look different from those in hetlez porn, but most of the women at least have shaved legs, many have shaved pubic hair as well. So that's not really a terrible good marker for differentiating the two. Iamcuriousblue 03:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me. The statement about depilation isn't meant to differentiate the two. It's just an observation about the first one, and I think it's accurate. The performers in lesbian porn for men are typically (if not almost always) slender and depilated. That's just a statement of fact. It has nothing to do with the content of the "for women" description. Do you think either description is wrong in some way? I think it looks pretty good as-is. (P.S. I had never heard of the word "hetlez", pretty funny.) Joie de Vivre 05:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Another thing I realized: many of the genre descriptions include a statement of what is "typical" for the genre. The reason we don't have one for the Lesbian porn for women is that variety is typical. Joie de Vivre 14:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


"Murder of another person is illegal in almost all areas." WTF?!?! Only in almost all areas??? Where is it legal to kill someone else then? 23:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

In Iran. Joie de Vivre 15:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I seem to recall capital punishment being fairly widespread in places besides Iran. Murder is generally construed in a different way, as an individual killing another individual, intentionally, without just cause, and often is defined to require forethought. We coudl argue that capital punishment is murder, but I would say this is no place to point fingers at Iran (not that I support capital punishment there or anywhere else - I don't). I've made edits to hopefully avoid any unclear language. Cheeser1 15:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
That was just one example, meant offhand. Incidentally, the public execution of two teenagers, who were executed because they had sex with each other, is a fine reason to point fingers. Joie de Vivre 16:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, "murder is illegal almost everywhere" is a pretty weaselly statement and can be easily avoided. As for fingerpointing, I don't think I could have made it any more clear that I wasn't supporting those executions in any way, only pointing out that it is highly irrelevant to this article and this discussion (as simply saying "capital punishment" would have sufficed). I never said there was no reason to point fingers, and don't appreciate you insinuating that I did. All I said was that this isn't the forum for that kind of statement. This isn't a place for making incidental points, not a one. Cheeser1 18:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I think I understand your position. I would like to explain. I was the editor who added the "almost everywhere" statement to the article, back in April. I wrote it that way to avoid making a definitive statement about the laws of the entire world, which I would have been unable to source. I didn't realize at the time that it was a weasel-worded statement. The statement remained just sitting there since April, and so hopefully it is clear that it was not created as a loophole to finger-point at Iran or anywhere else. It was a mere oversight. It was only after the anon asked, "where is it legal to kill someone else?", that I answered the question offhand.
As far as the subject matter goes, please understand that the execution of Ayaz Marhoni and Mahmous Asgari traumatized people worldwide. I found it so upsetting that the best way for me to deal with it was to talk about it, which is why I felt moved to mention it here. It's true that capital punishment is legal in many areas. However, it is particularly trying on the soul when capital punishment is applied to teenagers who were caught in bed together.
You did a good job de-weaseling the statement. That's all. Joie de Vivre 21:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey guys - for future reference, murder is illegal everywhere, by definition.
The word murder means "the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law," or "the unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice." If it doesn't break the law, then it might be horrible and barbaric, but it isn't murder, because "murder" means "a certain kind of illegal killing."
Example: if you lived in a crazy country where you could chop people's heads off for fun, then it would be wrong to say, "I live in a crazy country where murder is legal." You would have to say, "I live in a crazy country where chopping people's heads off isn't murder."
I don't mean to be pedantic. In common parlance you can use "murder" to indicate a killing that is brutal, personally motivated, or morally unacceptable, but it's not encyplopaedic, and it's meaningless to suggest that murder might be legal somewhere (more correctly, you would say that something classed as murder in X country might not be murder elsewhere).Señor Service (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
For further pedantism, technically, if someone filmed a legally justified killing, ie a non-extra-judicial killing, (say, self defense) it could conceivably be released legally as a film. The questions are: has anyone ever tried to do this, or, if not, has anyone written about this, about whether any filmed killing could be distributed. of course, filmed deaths are commonplace, and some people have argued that films like Faces of Death are a violent corollary to pornography. i guess the term would be carnography.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Lolita pornography categorization[edit]

I understand that it is "age" related, but the fact that it is women over 18 who are pretending to be underage girls makes it predominantly a fetish. The genre does not actually center around their age. It centers around a fetishistic fantasy that the adult performers are portraying. Joie de Vivre 05:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It is an age-related fetish and to my mind belongs in the "age" category. Part of the problem is that I really don't think there's much of a distinction between "barely legal" teen porn and "lolita" porn – they're basically the same genre. The only distinction to my mind is between legal teen porn (aka "barely legal" porn), which involves models over 18 (though still typically 21 or under) and illegal teen porn, which is more or less a subset of child pornography, at least legally speaking. You could say "lolita" porn means the actresses pretend to be underage, but that's kind of subjective. In most porn of this kind, there is no explicit statement that the actresses or the characters they play are under 18, its just that they're presented in settings and costumes that suggest "high school girl". And that tends to be true of "teen girl" porn across the board, whether they're calling it "lolita" or "barely legal". Iamcuriousblue 00:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Animated child pornography categorization[edit]

It should be under the illegal section as it is illegal in many countries. See Lolicon for information on national bans. Joie de Vivre 21:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I've read this and I'm still under the impression that this kind of material is not banned in most countries of the world. It certainly isn't in Japan, it isn't in the United States (in spite of perception to the contrary), and it isn't in most European countries. So being placed in the category of "generally illegal" simply isn't accurate. Iamcuriousblue 00:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Latina porn[edit]

A simple google test reveals "latina porn" is by far the most common term for heterosexual porn in this genre, followed by "latin porn". "Latino porn" is less common and "hispanic porn" has very little usage by comparison. So I say keep using "Latina/Latin pornography" as the title of that section. Iamcuriousblue 21:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

teen pornography[edit]

the teen pornography sub-genre has a broken link that needs to be fixed.

The previous article there was deleted because it was vandalism, not because the subject is unfit for an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to merge lolita and teen pornograhphy into one entry in this article? Both the entries emphasize a genre wherein actresses are barely at the age of consent or pretend to be.--Kevin586 (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment regarding subsection[edit]

Can anyone do anything with the "Art Porn" entry in the article? Considering it has so many links to non-existent artcles someone could delete it without any reprocussion. On the other hand, does its only active link, Erotic art deserve a mention in this article?--Kevin586 (talk) 18:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Rationale for latest edits[edit]

I hope that no one will mind my latest as I do plan more. In the upcomming days and weeks, I will be trying to sort these subgenres into specific catagories; I do not think is encylcopedic to have sections like general "other fetish" subsections without a specific context.--Kevin586 (talk) 22:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


I tagged this an unreferenced and OR. There are countless works discussing pornography, so lack of referencing has no excuse, and some of these genres seem made up. I'm sure one can find porn feautring saliva, but am unconvinced this constitutes a "sub-genre".YobMod 10:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The genre is called Spit Swapping or spit swappers. Lostinlodos (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Error on page[edit]

"Double penetration" (DP) is two holes filled at one time. "Double Stuffed" (DS) is two items in one hole. Lostinlodos (talk) 23:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"Adolescent/Pre-teen Pornography" and "Erotic Preteen Video"[edit]

I don't see the distinction between these "genres" and child pornography. The article says that they're considered different (by who?) but doesn't contain any citations to back that up, or any citations at all to demonstrate that these are recognized as "genres" somewhere other than Wikipedia.Prezbo (talk) 05:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

By the dozens of countries where such material is legal. Russia, Romania, Chechnya, Georgia.... This entire article needs additional citations. Don't just hack and slash, add the citation tag, that's why it's there. Give someone time to get there and back it up with links. As for the EPT, the whole Teen Idol and Preteen Idol video phenomenon is exactly that, teens/preteens in skimpy outfits in erotic, but artistic, settings. Lostinlodos (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any reason there should be a preference for adding cite tags rather than just removing uncited content, often content hangs around for months without citations. I'll be back in a month to delete this stuff if there aren't citations to reliable sources by then, that's long enough.Prezbo (talk) 01:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
It's been a year and that statement is still there, unsourced and likely unsourceable. I removed it. (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Child erotica is defined as not being pornography so definitely doesnt have a place in this article, we now just cover child pornographySqueakBox talk contribs 04:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Furry pornography/fursuit sex[edit]

Should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Added on November 19 by me- Irazmus (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Porn for women[edit]

Pornography, writings about prostitutes, also includes writing, thus romance novels should be listed as a subgenre, as anyone who has perused one would know. also, i draw your attention to this series of books, [1], which has brief mentions on WP already. while humorous, they make a point about erotic imagery designed for female consumption. A section on this would help the article, along with actual citations for all the genres mentioned that dont have their own articles. this article shows extreme bias in listing all the search terms used primarily by men, who fetishize much more than women (in general). not to eliminate them, but just to bring awareness of other forms of pornographic expression.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources[edit]

if the genre doesnt have an article (or a section in an article on the term/practice) it requires a reliable source for inclusion. Reliable sources are very important for inclusion. Otherwise it could just be a list made by someone who watches a lot of porn and we cannot verify the truth or otherwise of the genres working thus. Rather than getting angry see this as an opportunity to develop articles or add reliable sources about other porn genres not currently included. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

That's fair enough, but you've basically eviscerated the article, most of which had related articles. Remember that "verification" comes into play only for information that is challenged or likely to be challenged. Many of the sub-genres you removed have millions of Google hits, which to me says that they're not something that can be readily challenged. We don't need reliable sources to say that the sky is commonly described as blue. Also, some of your reasons for removal seem to be of the JDLI variety. The one that really stuck out was "I dont think rape and snuff are fetishes at all" (see Rape fetish and Snuff film). "I don't think" is inherently OR and is not a sufficient reason for removal.
Looking at the article before your edits, there were only a handful of red links, and looking down the list of what you removed, I see very little that isn't commonly known about and easily verified as a common genre. I'd like to suggest that we restore the content and go through it with the approach you actually state, which is "remove it if it doesn't have an article". Let the notability and verifiability of those that do have articles come into play on those articles themselves.
On a final note, please consider making multiple edits all at once. The nearly two hundred edits you made could and should have been combined into one or two edits per day. It's not like this is a heavy-traffic article that needed item-by-item or section-by-section edits just to avoid edit conflicts. I note on your user page that you say your connection isn't very reliable. In that case, please consider saving the document locally and then copying it back to Wikipedia later on. RobinHood70 talk 00:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
In the absence of any feedback against the idea, and implied support from at least one edit summary, I restored the original list. After that, I removed those that were red links, and any unlinked sub-genres that appeared not to be notable. Many of these are judgement calls, and I won't take it at all amiss if someone thinks something should be restored or that I didn't remove enough. (Oh, and I didn't re-add Furry as a genre, as had been done in a recent edit, simply because that seems to be covered by the Yiff/Yiffy entry.)
That said, some of the existing links and subject matter could probably use some review and perhaps debate. For example, is there porn geared more towards middle-aged and mature people? You bet. It's not hard to find that as a category on sites like, for instance. But linking it to the article for Middle age, well...that seems a whole lot more questionable.
In short, let's have a discussion before we go mass-deleting genres that are easily confirmed as notable, but there probably could be some further refining of this list if people see a need. RobinHood70 talk 06:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)