Talk:Pornography/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Introductory Photo

I am uncertain as to why a photo of a "mature interest" rack is required for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Browilliams (talkcontribs) 01:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is not censored. If anything, the subject of the article would be better illustrated if it included a rack of even greater mature interest.--Father Goose (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Pornography External Link

{{editsemiprotected}}

The following external link would prove beneficial to pornography researchers; if it were listed in the history section.

The History of Modern Pornography--BlakeHitchens (talk) 04:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done  fetchcomms 20:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Legal to pose topless at age 16?!

I would very much like somebody to tell me where in the danish law it says, that woman can pose topless at age 16. I live in DK, and have never heard anyting else than the age of 18. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.238.115.145 (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Search Engine Manipulation

I would like to see some treatment of the reports of search engines being used to manipulate the mass consciousness by the broadcast of disturbing or frustrating erotic material in an attempt to elicit some reaction, whether it is viewing cessation or active rage.

98.230.60.95 (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Arkhamite

Definition of Pornography

The term pornography originates in the Greek "Porno graphos" Which means indecent images and acts. Hence even live sex acts are by definition pornographic.

Technically, only if it is a production. People engaging in sex are not inherently pornographic. Also, only live sex acts that are indecent would be pornographic. That is largely subjective. Atom (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Even more technically, I would like it noted heavily that pornographic images are not entirely sexual -- ex: the news showing the video of a man perishing over and over could be considered "pornographic" -- pornography could be more broadly defined as any purely exploitative and gratuitous use of media to evoke animal-based urges. I know that definition needs some cleaning up, but it's much more broad than sexual. And, in fact, many sorts of exploitative and gratuitous acts (including but not limited to sexual) could be deemed pornographic; if you use it in casual vernacular, it would fit, along with the first gentleman's comment on it's origins including "acts".Bullercruz1 (talk) 07:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I think that there's a couple of misonceptions here.

There's a long running debate where people have tried to re-affirm the definition of obscenity so that it doesn't refer exclusively to sexually explicit material, but rather to material that is offensive/disgusting etc. The etymology of obscenity, from Greek, refers to the violence that takes place within a place but is not depicted on the stage - it is literally off-scene, because it was considered too foul for depiction. However, even in 16th century British law, it is clear that the material is both disgusting AND sexual. However, people often use the term obscene to refer to things that are outrageous/unacceptable but not necessarily sexual. So, the correct technical use of obscenity is contentious. However, the meaning and etymology of pornography is much more straightforward (to a certain point, anyway). (See Feinberg, 1985 for his attempt to re-define obscenity. See Hunter, Saunders & Williamson, 1993 for why he's stretched things a bit too far, and to no avail).

The first use of pornography in the English language came from the translation of (German art historian) Muller's use of 'pornographen' (coming from the Greek word 'pornographoi' found in the writings of 2nd century Greek historian Athanaeus), which means literally 'whore painters'. The authors of these works were of more concern than what they depicted so the word 'pornographer' actually entered the lexicon prior to 'pornography'.

So, pornography is always concerned with sex but moreso it's concerned with the depiction of particular kinds of sex, specifically the sex that is outside of marriage/reproduction.

Live acts can not be pornography because pornography (as suggested by the 'graphy') is always mediated (whether it be writing, drawing, painting, photography etc etc). Lewd acts belong in another category. (See Kendrick, 1987: 1-32)

Defining pornography as "as any purely exploitative and gratuitous use of media to evoke animal-based urges" is not wise because it serves some form of Christian/Cartesian idea about the nature of corporeality. Aren't all media experiences, like all experiences, embodied? Further, the pre-narrative 'Cinema of attractions' (See Tom Gunning) was a spectacle but would not have been mistaken for pornography in its day, nor would it come across as pornography for contemporary audiences (ideas about porn being in the eye of the beholder notwithstanding). Defining pornography is such a broad way could only confuse the situation to a greater extent and it's already something that both the law and society seem to have a hard time coming to terms with. I think it's best to insist that pornography refers to sex and then it's a peripheral issue about the ways of representing sex that constitute the pornographic. If you move to broaden it in the way the author suggests then the idea loses all traction and it becomes a word to slander the things you don't like.

Anyway, I hope this helps. I'm happy to help re-write this page when I finally get some holiday time! 121.216.22.62 (talk) 09:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Panda Porn

I'd like to see a link to and perhaps some mention of the article on panda pornography, because it shows an (unusual but noteworthy) example of effective pornography intended for non human use(though created by humans) . which I think is interesting and relevant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panda_pornography —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.224.25 (talk) 04:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 41.205.173.196, 31 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}


41.205.173.196 (talk) 23:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: No request given. If you see something you wish changed, feel free to repost the {{editsemiprotected}}. Intelligentsium 00:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Further Reading needs work

The advocacy/opposition section needs to be fixed. For starters, the two books by Williams, Hardcore; and Porn Studies (she acts as editor on the latter) are not in opposition to pornography. This is particularly true of Hardcore, as it's work of a single author and so the claim can be made with confidence. Neither should be misrepresented as opposition to pornography, however. Similarly, a lot of the material that's listed as 'advocacy' is not e.g. Kimmel.

One text that does belong in advocacy is: Bill Thompson (1994) Soft Core: Moral Crusades Against Pornography in Britain and America. Cassell: London.

Perhaps what you need is a new section that details historical/cultural approaches to pornography. The books by Williams would certainly belong here (and you put Thompson in as well although his piece certainly is polemical). Additionally, you could include the following:

Feona Attwood (editor) (2010) Porn.com: Making Sense of Online Pornography. Peter Lang: New York. Lynn Hunt (editor) (1993) The Invention of Pornography: Obscenity and the Origins of Modernity, 1500-1800. Zone Books: New York. Walter Kendrick (1987) The Secret Museum: Pornography in Modern Culture. University of California Press: Berkeley. Alan McKee, Katherine Albury & Catharine Lumby (2008) The Porn Report. Melbourne University Press: Carlton. Laurence O'Toole (1998) Pornocopia: Porn, Sex, Technology and Desire. Serpents Tail: London. Dennis D Waskul (editor) (2004) Net.seXXX: Readings on Sex, Pornography & the Internet. Peter Lang: New York.

One text you could add to the opposition category is: Catherine Itzin (editor) (1992) Pornography: Women, Violence & Civil Liberties. Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Considering that MacKinnon and Dworkin are mentioned in the partially annotated advocacy section, it would make sense to mention some of their works in the opposition section. Diana Russell would also be appropriate to mention there. Although this may sound like a joke, perhaps someone should list the title of a religious anti-porn polemic. I'm not familiar with any specific titles, so can't suggest one, but I'm sure that someone who's contributed to this page can think of one. I think it would be useful to emphasise that opposition to pornography doesn't emanate soley from (anti-porn) feminists.

Speaking of the annotation, I think it's best to delete the annotation unless we consistently provide annotation for the prescribed texts.

Personally, I think it's worth considering the collapse of the Further reading into one section (as opposed to proliferating the categories). Alternatively, it could make sense to arrange things according to their discipline as what social psychology has to say about pornography is quite distinct from radical feminism which is quite distinct from media/cultural studies etc. etc. The existing dichotomy doesn't work though.

All apologies if I've made an error in uploading this response. 121.216.22.62 (talk) 08:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

History

Small edit to be made: a paragraph in the history section begins with the excavation of Pompeii in the 1860's; later in the paragraph, it says "soon after" to refer to a law passed in 1857. Clearly, either dates are wrong or the historical causality is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.38.68 (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Problematic article

{{editsemiprotected}} There's a long list of advocates and only one "critic" (if indeed Luben can be called that since she is not an analytical critic, but criticises on the basis of her personal experience). If this article is to be balanced there needs to be a list of critics of pornography, of which there are many well known ones. Moreover if writers such as Rushdie are quoted in defence of pornography then why are no writers of equal calibre (e.g. Martin Amis) quoted in opposition? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2001/mar/17/society.martinamis1) In the meantime the article should be marked as not balanced!Mondoallegro (talk) 12:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

As the commenter above mention - Linda Williams book does not count as "Opposition", it's a text book that survey's pornography as a film genre. Also, "Michael Kimmel. "Men Confront Pornography". New York: Meridian—Random House, 1990. A variety of essays that try to assess ways that pornography may take advantage of men." is listed in Advocacy, clearly it should be moved to Opposition. If "Scott Tucker. "Gender, Fucking, and Utopia: An Essay in Response to John Stoltenberg's Refusing to Be a Man"[28] in Social Text 27 (1991): 3-34. Critique of Stoltenberg and Dworkin's positions on pornography and power." is listed in Advocacy as a response to Stoltenbern, where's the mention of the article it's responding to?

Also - The sub-genre "Orgy Pornography" to the wikipedia article "Group Sex", which is misleading - Group Sex is not pornography.

Section: Legal status - should actually list the legal status by country, in fact the list of countries from Anti Pornography Movementy could be moved here. Mondoallegro (talk) 12:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion this article is biased towards pornography, in order for the article to be credible at least as many critical references should be listed as advocacy (as is customary with other contentious subjects).86.135.69.60 (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, just looked at the version from Aug. 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pornography&oldid=72643317) which is much more comprehensive and makes a lot more sense - what happened to this version? It really looks like this article is a hollow shell of the former.86.135.69.60 (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done for now: Any significant changes to this article need to be discussed. Once the editors of this page reach a consensus on such changes, feel free to restore the {{editsemiprotected}} tag. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Dabomb67, how long does it take to reach a concensus? This article needs editing.Mondoallegro (talk) 19:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

article feature picture?

can some one tell me how a woman in glasses, pretending to be a sexually seductive "teacher" is meant to represent pornography?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondoallegro (talkcontribs) 21:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is the cover of a porn vid. Rpm2005 (talk) 11:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed.TheThomas (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

statistics

'More than 70% of men from 18 to 34 visit a pornographic site in a typical month' according to the page, but which men from 18 to 34 is it talking about? In the world? In the USA? In Saudi Arabia? Also, the website that the statistic comes from looks like an anti-porn campainging site. Is it reliable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.177.8 (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

History

I have a (serious) question about the introductory sentence of the first paragraph in the section History. "Depictions of a sexual nature are as old as civilization (and possibly older, in the form of venus figurines and rock art)..." How can pornography (or anything else that is a creation of mankind) be older than civilization? Surely it is impossible for us to have created something before we were around to create it. Having looked at the citation from Books.Google.com, I fail to see how it is relevant to the claim. Capedude2005 (talk) 07:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to argue that when the venus figurines are referenced as being figures with exaggerated sexual characteristics, you apparently haven't seen any women of a plus size nature. You are completely ignoring the fact that this non-civilization was probably very rich prosperous. It is idiotic to assume that in this time frame there was nothing similar to our time frame and describing them as "sexual" makes wild accusations as to the nature of the object. Porn is not a nude figure. Porn is merely a nude image used with the intent of achieving sexual gratification. To say that the nature of an archeological artifact was explicitly sexual when it was basically dug out of the dirt is making wild assumptions that one simply cannot make. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.57.200.94 (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe the issue Capedude2005 and 69.57.200.94 raise comes out of how poorly worded the claims are. Humans have existed before civilizations arose, otherwise there would have been no populations to 'civilize'. But if we assume that the development of culture is central to the definition of civilization, then it would mean that any meaningful and shared depictions of anything occurred congruently with the dawn of civilization. That is to say, any man-made depictions, sexual or otherwise, could not predate civilization, because the very creation of these depictions illustrate the very beginning of civilization.
Secondly, I should like to point out that any fertility symbols such as the venus figurines are clearly meant to sexually arouse. If these figurines exist to increase the fertility of a person, couple, or society, then sexual arousal is absolutely necessary in achieving this goal. A fertile woman cannot bear children without the act of sexual congress and sexual arousal (especially for men) is necessary for the act of sex.
That said, I hardly believe that a 'non-civilization' could produce such prosperity so as to create obese women to idolize. But I do believe that a prehistoric civilization is capable of such a thing. So I believe an edit to "Depictions of a sexual nature are as old as prehistory..." or "Depictions of a sexual nature predate history..." or something to that effect would be better than what we have currently. Joshuaism (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Anti-porn movement

I think that section of this article is slightly lacking. So the only reasons to bash porn are feminism, legal reasons or religious reasons? What about moral reasons, or let's say, public opinion section? This is not neutral enough... --~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.222.165.32 (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to 'bash' pornography. You can oppose the production of pornography for various reasons, but arguments against porn generally come from feminist, legal, or religious thought. Perhaps there may be room for an anti-commercialism argument against pornography, but I doubt many people have moral objections against pornography based in communist thought. If you think there are a number of moral objections not rooted in these other sections then I recommend you be bold and create them. Have no shame in pseudo-anonymously admitting your interest in the topic of pornography, garner enough reputation so as not to be confused with a troll or vandal, and add your objections with proper sources so that they may be recognized. Otherwise, take solace in the fact that American obscenity laws are clearly based on public opinion with its calls that obscenity be defined based on community standards. But please do not call for neutrality if the edits you request would neuter all meaning from the discussion and thus say nothing about why people oppose pornography. Joshuaism (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Correction needed for recent Alexlange edit

Editor AlexLange removed a phrase about pornography driving the development of printing because Gutenberg invented movable type and he did not produce porn...if I have restated his reasoning correctly. This is incorrect on several counts.

  1. Movable type was invented by the Chinese with wooden block printing.
  2. The Chinese did produce pornographic prints.
  3. Just after Gutenberg produced Bibles, Martin Luther produced obscene imagery of the papacy in his many pamphlets to dramatize Papal departure from that Bible. It was the printing press that distributed his obscenities to a wide audience. This imagery would most likely be considered unfit for children in the modern day.

BTW: Martin Luther not uncommonly used obscene language (scheisse, etc.) even while praying in describing the enemies of God.
Also BTW: I recommend a thorough study of Christian history regarding nudity in religion, especially holy communion in the nude in 4th C Spain, topless clothing styles in the court of King James (namesake of the KJV), Stirling castle, many others. I would correct this but somehow I'm not "autoconfirmed" despite being an editor of several years. Any assistance would be appreciated. --ClickStudent (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

better pictures

I am sayin we need more "porn" on wikipedia, but 2 pictures of statues, a sex shop, and a non-explicit porn box in my opinion do not show what porn is. I remember when there was a video on this page a long time ago. how about reinstating that video? 99.20.100.127 (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I'm a bit fuzzy on this whole "pornography" thing, some visual aids would help me to comprehend the concept. Rpm2005 (talk) 11:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

To quote Avenue Q, "The Internet is for porn." And to quote many a teacher, "Wikipedia is a starting point only." If you want to dig deeper, by all means, do so. But if you expect us to do your porn-homework for you, then you're soundly mistaken. Wikipedia is not censored, true; but it's also not a porn site. -- 198.150.224.111 (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
AgreedTheThomas (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid I, too, have to concur on this point. Ideally, some additional training and exposure to this topic might also be in order. After all, we Wikipedia contributors want to be as knowledgeable about a topic as possible. Capedude2005 (talk) 07:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree as well. A video would be a highly appropriate means through which us wikipedians can gain an understanding of this "pornography" phenomenon. After all, wikipedia is not censored, and the subject is pornography. Its simple logic - we need a video of pornography or some clearer images for this page to better explain the term. Also hopefully it will, as a side effect, lead to less thoughts such as "I'm ashamed of having a penis", or "sex is evil", which are undoubtedly insane and outdated modes of thought for our modern society, which is supposed to cultivate intellectual, emotional, and yes, even sexual freedom. Especially when no one can give one good argument as to why it should be censored (as if wikipedia's policy wasn't enough) 24.150.131.48 (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
See my above post. It pretty much touches on whatever you're trying to convey here... --198.150.224.111 (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
WP:SOFIXIT ¦ Reisio (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Here are two pictures from the archives that are legal to use (they have shown up on the page before for long periods of time). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ChinaScrollPN3.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pb1253.jpg There is a user David Shankbone who takes pictures and has supplied videos for this page before if anyone wants to coerce him into rejoining this constant edit war.72.187.99.79 (talk) 02:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources

WhisperToMe (talk) 08:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Header

Pornography or porn is the portrayal of explicit sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual excitement and erotic satisfaction.
Pornography may use any of a variety of media, ranging from books, magazines, postcards, photos, sculpture, drawing, painting, animation, sound recording, film, video, or video game. However, when sexual acts are performed for a live audience, by definition, it is not pornography, as the term applies to the depiction of the act, rather than the act itself. Thus, portrayals such as sex shows and striptease are not classified as pornography.
There is two chapters after these two, and then citation [1]. Is it meant that all four chapters come from that source? However, it seems odd to claim that live shows would not be pornography. Yeah, it is not the act, but there is the show. The act is also in video and magazines, so there is no point for this kind of 'classification'. 82.141.119.195 (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Deciding factor in format wars? Maybe once...

"and in the Blu-ray vs. HD DVD format war (the high-def format war)."

As Bill Hunt put it so well during the height of this war, not to sully the good reputation of the porn biz, but this argument is so twenty years ago. When VHS and Betamax were fighting it out, the only way to view porn was to go to places on the wrong side of town, and be in environs that punters might find disfavourable or even outright repulsive. So when VHS allowed pornographers to distribute on the format, it was obvious that a lot of conservative or average family punters would go for it.

This was not the case with Blu-ray Disc or HD-DVD. By the time these formats were finalised, the ease with which young adults could access pornographic material online made physical media distribution of pornographic material a moot point. The lower quality available on the Internet also turned out to be advantageous, because reports of how unforgiving to models' bodies a 1920 by 1080 progressive picture can be circulated faster than the pros or cons of either format where adult material was concerned.

The sole deciding factor in the high definition format war can be summed up beautifully with the magic phrase "consumer choice". Retailers were finding they could make more money with less floor space from Blu-ray Disc, and the fact that five out of eight studios were releasing material on Blu-ray Disc clinched it. If you look at the history of the format war carefully, you will discover that it took mere months for Toshiba to throw in the towel after Warner Brothers announced they were going Blu-ray exclusive, effectively putting over two-thirds of the market in the hands of Blu-ray Disc.

A complete archive of Bill Hunt et al's commentary on the format war is available at http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/soapbox/soap021908.html The post in which he puts the "porn decides anything" ignoramuses (my words, not his) in place is at http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/soapbox/soap060107.html

Much as I admire anyone's talking up of pornography as a propelling force in media, I feel that the article concerned here should have its facts straightened. The reason VHS' victory was decided in part by porn was because VHS made porn a little more discreet or clandestine for customers. Buying porn on either Blu-ray Disc or HD-DVD would have been a step backward in that regard, and the effort to which both camps went to court mainstream studios is reflective of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.243.232 (talk) 11:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

One inaccurate stat should be deleted

This article reference #31 refers to safefamilies.org, which in turn cites comscore.com to say that more than 70% of 18-34 year olds access porn. I searched comcore and found this article: http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2004/03/18-34_Year-Olds_Are_Habitually_Online According to the article, 72% of 18-34 year olds are ONLINE, so somehow I doubt that 70% are accessing porn in a given month -- I could not find any such stat in their news releases, though I know they would have data available only to paying customers.

Most other stats I've read put the rate at 50% of men and 20% of women). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.250.123.155 (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Venus of Willendorf

I don't see how this picture belongs in the history section. Isn't this taking it a bit far? We're calling a fertility statue pornography now? It seems we are only using the 'graphos' portion of the word, yet anything to do with sex is now a whore, with the broadened use of porne-. The above thread on the etymological research is of interest, as it would be informative to readers when the term broadened from describing harlotry to describing any and all sexual acts regardless of whether or not money changes hands or even if people consent to it. Bonechamber (talk) 09:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this too. I agree completely.
  • For example, some try to say that because pornea(sp?) i.e. prostitution is in the Bible, that means pornography is condemned. Thus, all heterosexuality is harlotry. The silliness of this is illustrated by a simple example. One could similarly argue that aircraft and airplanes are in the Bible simply because air and craft and planes are there.
  • But it seems to me that the real issue (that I think should be emphasized) is the >1000year campaign against marriage, and even sex within marriage, conducted by the Roman Catholic church. "Victorianism" often is mistakenly blamed. That did not spring up in isolation. Its context was the theology of Thomas Aquinas, the Roman Catholic theologian, when he wrote Summa Theologica.
  • One more thought. The British "Channel Four" documentary "Pornography" presents a stunning argument that our modern P word was invented in direct response to the discoveries at Pompeii. It traces dictionaries, legislation, individual artworks, etc. It shows how 19th C European leaders recoiled in panic when murals and statuary depicting copulation (every form) were discovered by the hundreds in the gardens, kitchens, dining areas, entryways, public congregation areas, everywhere in Pompeii. The history in the first paragraph does not come close to capturing the pervasiveness of the Pompeii erotica and the fear of 19th C legislators...that led to the creation of the secret museums, etc. And some is still secret! I've transcribed quotes from the documentary for my own notes. Truly amazing.
Is that pornography? or just erotica?
  • The above begs some questions: Did they copulate on street corners and restaurants? What would such a society be like?

--ClickStudent (talk) 08:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Origins of the word πορνογραφία (pornography)

Citation number 3 which indicates the word pornography came into the United States through New Orleans when clicked takes the reader to a site for selling products sponsored by www.bluehost.com, not to podictionary.com as it purports. I do not know (despite reading the wikipedia rules) how to remove the spam citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khawk858 (talkcontribs) 22:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

A citation is needed for the origin of the Greek word πορνογραφία. The English word is very recent. From where do we get this Greek conjunction? Is it ancient Greek? It does not appear in the Bible. Is it in the Koran? ...other sacred texts? Does it appear in any historical document or literary classic before 1880?
As it stands, it seems misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClickStudent (talkcontribs) 22:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC) Sorry about forgetting to sign this --ClickStudent (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Bible or Koran were written in Greek? They were not. 82.141.119.195 (talk) 20:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank You! That's my point. Sorry I didn't make it clearer
Only the New Testament of the Bible was written in Koine (ancient) Greek. And it does not have the πορνογραφία word. I don't think the conjunction existed in Koine Greek. It doesn't even have any form of "eros", a good valid word from ancient Greece. We get "erotica" from that. Funny that the Bible is considered to be against these things when no form of eros is mentioned anywhere within!?!
So, why is the Greek form of the word, having questionable historical origins, even mentioned in the historical origins section?? I have no idea.
I think the Greek stuff should be removed in its entirety.--ClickStudent (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
A lot of words in various languages have been coined using Greek.Just like using Latin.Think "dinosaur".Furthermore Babiniotes dictionary reads that the word "πορνογραφία" in Greek is an antidaneion from French "pornographie";I don't know the proper term in English: a loanword to language A from language B that was coined using words (and rules) of language A.Now what is cool is that the Babiniotes Dictionary traces the etymology of the latter back to Greek : (French) pornographie < pornographe < (μτγν meaning more recent(a bit vague) Greek) πορνογράφος, that is "one who writes about prostitutes".So after two full circles we're back at a vague and unknown time in Greek.But wait, it gets even cooler:Triantaphyllides dictionary states that "pornographos" is of Hellenistic (koine Greek) origin(and therefore traces also back "pornographia" like this: < γαλλ. pornographie < pornograph(e) < ελνστ. πορνογράφ(ος) -ie = -ία).Now if you go to LSG you can see that "pornographos" is indeed of Hellenistic-Koine origin but of the later Greco-Roman period.It's found in the works of this gentleman: Athenaeus.You can read the text and find the word here.So stating "No date is known for the first use of the word in Greek." is more or less accurate cause the issue at hand is rather complex.Perhaps someone could expand the wiki text following the backtracing I've just made?!?!... ;-) ********* Now as far sex and the Bible or the Bible not been written in Greek is concerned, sorry but I will abstain from commenting: I'm not interested at this moment in having a fight/argument...Thanatos|talk 16:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Awesome response Thanatos666 !!!
So I seem to understand you saying Greek -> French -> Greek AND English ?
It is also curious that the word existed during the writing of the Christian bible but nobody thought it relevant enough to mention. Instead, there is Mt 5:27-28 that uses a generic word for desire and a generic word for wife (of somebody else). See entries in lust --ClickStudent (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
A.Greek -> French -> Greek AND English AND numerous other languages. B.i)What word are you referring to? Cause I'm not certain I get your point.Is it "pornographia"? Ok it seems it's not attested for some reason until indirectly in Athenaeus' pornographos times.Perhaps it hasn't survived in writing.Or perhaps it hadn't been coined yet.Or perhaps it was meaningless and hence useless for the people of the time cause erotic art might not by definition mean prostitution to them.Who knows???? :) An expert historian of pornography is needed for this... ii)I don't get the Mt 5:27-28 or the lust part.This article is about pornography which may perhaps be in extension connotated nowadays to prostitution,at least etymology-wise.It's not about desire or lust per se,and certainly not prostitution or adultery or lust in the Bible.Are you referring to the verb "moicheuein"?I don't speak Hebrew or Aramaic therefore I cannot speak of the relevant connotations and meaning of the relevant Hebrew or Aramaic O.T. words and I'm certainly not a specialist or an expert on the subject but perhaps,if I am undertanding you correctly, you should consider studying or reading about the Septaguint(and also the original Greek N.T.) because it is it that the New Testament quotes(this is anyway what I have read, know and understand);that is the Greek translation of the Old Testament and not the Hebrew-Aramaic text.And that's pretty rational cause the Greek language had long been (and would continue to be for many centuries more) the main language of the eastern mediterranean,being much more than a lingua franca(see in example why the Septaguint came into existence in the first place).In the Greek text the relevant commandments are Ex 20:13 and Deu 5:18 hence I guess the wording and meaning of the passage (starting from and emphasis on "Ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη τοῖς ἀρχαίοις, Οὐ μοιχεύσεις") in Mt 5:27-28.For more and for more precise info ask a real 'n' serious Bible Scholar.Emphasis on scholar intentional cause I certainly don't mean a mere preacher or (tele)evangelist.Now enough of offtopic.If you have any other offtopic questions on or need help in Greek feel free to ask at my personal talkpage.If I can I will be glad to be of assistance...Thanatos|talk 21:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Nice find Thanatos. I ran your Perseus link through Google translate and pornography does show up as a word in it:
Theomandron son of Cyrene, whom is in this fisi Theophrastus on Bliss periionta epangellesthai teach happiness erotodidaskale: nothing so any different Amasios of 'Eleans, whom Theophrastus is in this Erotikῷ Around Love gegonenai says quite a terrible sin if it in good and pornography, as a Aristeidin he Pafsian Most importantly tech Nikofani painters, he refers to them as well however was written is in this War on the measures in Tables Sicyon, oh good erudite men friends, its grammar far, [p. 64] does oud egkalyptetai but strongly on the Eyboulos aiei Kerkopon says:
Perhaps by looking at dated references using the word, we can create a timeline of the word to show its observations over time and determine what was indeed the earliest. Bonechamber (talk) 09:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Usually at the Perseus Project there is also an English translation available; but unfortunately not this time, not for this work.So for you the non hellenophones, for your convenience and for any future reference :) :[1], [2] P.S.The relevant passage begins at Theomander (or Theomandrus) of Cyrene. Thanatos|talk 10:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I read somewhere that about 3 centuries ago in England someone wrote a book called "A Pornography or Description of the Prostitutes in the City of Bristol" or similar. At this time, English books were often given a second title in Latin or Greek, and here "A Pornography" is that second title, being a nonce composition in Greek meaning "prostitute writing", "a writing about prostitutes", which is what the book was. As the book described the prostitutes salaciously and not plainly, the word "pornography" from there gradually got its modern meaning. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Uses

Phornographic images are widely used for a great variety of goals. The reaction to them can seem childish, as many persons wouldn't say what they actually feel about those images when they see it at first, and wouldn't admit of feeling exposed to an aggressive act. Depending on the age and the culture of the person, it can be considered an act of aggression to expose this person to those images, word and material; but this act is still legal, especially if the person has more than 18 years, and the exposure can be used to manipulate this person. This behaviour is not sactioned, in the mentioned case, and is still considered a problem of the person being manipulated. It is used in the coercion of many behaviour considered wrong but not actually punished with detention. This coercion is a substitute for imprisonment, in those cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acamellini (talkcontribs) 15:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Consuming Porn...really?

When I enjoy art, or watch John Wayne gun down the bad guys in an orgy of revenge, nobody calls that "consuming art" or "consuming movies", crime, murder, etc. Why should the word "consume" be used for porn, ever?
Its probably religious in some fashion. Where did it come from?
And if we really wish to be objective, shouldn't we lose this metaphor? ClickStudent (talkcontribs) 19:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It may seem like an abuse of language, but it is actually quite fitting. It has nothing to do with religion, but rather with the discipline of economics. Economics is the study of production/sale of things and the use/purchase of those things, and the relationship between these two sides of an economy. The representative or "standard" things which were and are studied are physical goods. The use or final purchase of these things was termed "consumption" since they are used up, either nearly immediately (like fresh fruit usually) or at least eventually (like a house, which will eventually burn or fall down, intended or not). Since economics also involves the study of purchasable things apart from physical goods, such as goods like reproducible representations (like pornography or science fiction) and services (like legal advice or a dental check-up), the final purchase of those things (or of a license for their use) is still called consumption, even though in common parlance one is hesitant to say that an indefinitely reproduced print or recording, or a service, can be "consumed". So, to contradict you a little, someone would readily say that you are "consuming" when you watch John Wayne films and that you are a "consumer" of those films, if that someone is an economist. That's why there's nothing non-objective by calling it the "Consumer Price Index" when it includes things like the price of going to the theatre or the doctor.--Atethnekos (talk) 09:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


Ok, I grant that I'm a consumer...as is everyone in a Capitalist society. That's valid to say in a micro-economics class. A Wiki-entry on porn is not that. To "consume" porn is used even outside business and finance. So I still see several problems with this argument.
  1. When I do the laundry, watch tv, or hire a plumber, nobody (except in micro-econ) says I'm consuming those objects. I've never heard that outside class...ever. But I ALWAYS hear "consume" as the transitive verb for porn. I hear it in the most casual contexts. Porn is unique in this respect.
  2. Pornographic imagery never gets "used up" in the chemical sense. It is not oxidized, dispelled, erased, or diluted to unusability (like soap). So I can't consume porn as in the casual sense of Mr Smith's monologue in "The Matrix" or as the aliens do in "Independence Day."
So I'm a consumer. Granted. That's great parlance for micro-economics. But I "consume" products and services only in that theoretical sense. Full stop...EXCEPT for porn. Porn is again unique.
Another example (apologies for making a joke at your expense): if I tell people I consume Sani-Flush, they're gonna call 9-1-1. LOL! Try it! Tell your doctor! Can I watch? Pardon the absurdity. But reductio ad absurdum is my point. QED --ClickStudent (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
You're perhaps right that the term is overused by many discussing pornography; maybe it's for rhetorical effect, or maybe just sloppy writing. I didn't mean to imply that the term is always well-used when referring to pornography, and I think you may well be on to something, but now this seems too general a discussion for the article talk page. Here in this article, as it is now, the term (base consum-, in "consume" or "consumption" or "consuming") is only used once. It is rightly conjoined with "production" and in a paragraph that is focused on the industry of pornography (id est, economics). If it is great parlance for economics, then it is probably at least not bad parlance here, since the paragraph is about economics. Maybe the terms can link to Production (economics) and Consumption (economics), so that they are cleared up.--Atethnekos (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Grins, thanks for doin' my homework for me. lol...I meant to check how many times that metaphor was used. Instead it was just a useless rant. I had expected it was used more. Sorry. (open mouth, spit out foot). --ClickStudent (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

How telling that so-and-so objects to the "weighted" term Consume. I don't see him or her objecting to the fact that the number of pro-pornography resources in Further Reading disproportionately outweight the number of resources against the industry and its product, despite the fact that countless, and more far recent, resources exist in that area of research. Is it any wonder that academia rejects Wikipedia as a credible source when it's populated and plagued by such ideologues? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.145.125.74 (talk) 07:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll reference some academic work which criticise pornography and its dissemination to help alleviate your concern. --Atethnekos (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Should probably also include the "scientific work" of Samuel-Auguste Tissot for balance. Its a great example of how politics and religion got mixed with science in this topic. --ClickStudent (talk) 10:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

would it be possible

is it possible to add a link to http://www.porniki.com - the porn wiki? It's not all that yet, but I am working on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.210.17 (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

That would probably count as touting your own website. Wikipedia would rather you not do that here. --Reichax (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
There already exist several porn and pornstar wikis, including http://www.wikiporno.org, http://www.adultwikiweb.com, http://www.boobpedia.com, http://everypornstar.com, http://thepornstarwiki.com, and http://www.pornstarwiki.com/ ; I'm noticing http://peachywiki.com/ and http://www.nikkiwiki.com (both of which tried to get linked from Wikipedia) are not in business anymore. Since wikis are self-published sources, these sites are not considered reliable enough for use on Wikipedia. And obviously these are not uniquely valuable resources as Wikipedia:External links recommends.
Anyway, many if not most Wikipedia articles on porn movies and actors already link to Internet Adult Film Database and the Adult Film Database, so I think that void is filled. Good luck with your site. / edg 02:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

what do you call it when someone uses non-porn for arousal/ stimulation? is there a wiki article?

Pornography or porn is the explicit portrayal of sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual arousal and erotic satisfaction.

without being too cute about trying to define 'what is porn?' I want to ask, what about when someone uses images not created primarily for "the purposes of arousal" for arousal/ stimulation? what is that called?

this becomes a question like 'here's a pic of x. what does this person use it for? what purpose was it created or distributed to be used for?' where do I go on wikipedia for this? skakEL 14:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The Humanities or Miscellaneous reference desks would seem an appropriate place for your question. I am nearly certain that there is no particular word for exactly what you are describing. You could generally call any object such as the images you mention, a sexual fetish, though. I think you are quite right to note that your question raises ontological issues concerning artifacts and art (including pornography), and so as to whether such images would be pornography or not would depend on controvertible commitments in these fundamental matters. You can ask similar questions about other artifacts. As a chair is an object for the purpose sitting down, if you sit down on an old tree stump is it therefore a chair? Or does the object have to be fashioned with the intention of using it for sitting? So then, an object which looks exactly like the chair I'm sitting on right now but was fashioned by its quirky builder for the purpose of holding books, it wouldn't be a chair, but it would be a bookcase? Perhaps the best thing to do is just be a touch more verbose and make a distinction and say both: what it was made as; and, what it is used as. In your case then you could say that the images are being used as pornography even though they were not made as pornography -- not too complicated. This article, perhaps smartly, avoids the issue altogether. --Atethnekos (DiscussionContributions) 10:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Devil's Advocate: Why don't I see vaginal penetration here?

Okay, this question might seem extremely moronic, but over at the hentai article it seems to be the requirement. I know WP:NOTCENSORED but comparing this page to that one seems to be comparing a well-written, well-discussed article to the reason people hate Wikipedia. --Reichax (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Just wanna say it's OK for you to delete this thread in its entirety, but it's unlikely anyone else will do it. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Type

Are striptease/masturbation included as pornography? -- 121.216.40.20 (talk) 07:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Since pornography must be representative (i.e., a portrayal), the answer to your question is strictly "no", since neither a striptease nor masturbation is a representation. However, representations of striptease or masturbation (e.g, a video recording of a striptease) could be pornographic if made in such a way.--Atethnekos (DiscussionContributions) 09:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"various correlations, and correlation does not imply causation." is patronizing and meaningless

Please cut out the part that says "and correlation does not imply causation" - it's simply useless here, and sounds really patronizing. We all know what correlation means. 137.30.122.155 (talk) 05:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced generalization in lead section

The lead section makes this unsourced statement: "The consumers of porn (particularly hardcore) are assumed to be men, and thus most production targets their presumed tastes." This needs a source, especially if this article aspires to be a featured article again. Plus, it is an incorrect statement as hardcore porn made for women has been marketed for years; for example there are a series of hardcore videos produced by Playgirl magazine which, although it does have a sizable male homosexual readership as one would expect, is nonetheless de facto aimed at a female audience. Filmmakers/veteran porn stars such as Gloria Leonard have also produced porn over the years with females as the primary demographic, and there is also a portion of the industry aimed at lesbian audiences. The point being the statement is an incorrect generalization, and even if it were 100% correct, it still needs a source. 70.72.223.215 (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Statistic in the Statistics section is not actually sourced

The statistic that "More than 70% of male internet users from 18 to 34 visit a pornographic site in a typical month" is from www.safefamilies.org. However, they are not the source of the statistic -- if you visit the link, they source 'comScore Media Metrix.' safefamilies does not link to the number/research report, and a cursory examination of the comScore website reveals nothing. Looking around Google, it appears that many advocacy organizations use this number (e.g. christianbroadcasting.org in their article about Waging War against pornography), but there is no attempt to describe the methodology used to create the number, and any research actually done to create that number does not appear to be accessible. I would submit that the number is likely fake, or at least generated using an extremely dubious methodology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerdbound (talkcontribs) 21:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

First 3d porn movie?

3D Sex and Zen: Extreme Ecstasy is not the first 3D porn movie. For two reasons: 1) it's not a porn movie; 2) there has been 3d porn movies before 2011: for example, Erotek Dimensions 3D (http://www.tgdaily.com/games-and-entertainment-features/52814-first-blu-ray-3d-porn-movie-strips-in-the-wild) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.203.30.215 (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

No mention of the purpose of pornography

Can't help noticing that nowhere in this article is the reason people look at pornography ever mentioned, not even in passing in the overview. If I was an alien that had just arrived on Earth and read this article I would come away having no idea what pornography is for or why it exists. 203.96.144.136 (talk) 11:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

This ties in to the fact that the definition here "Pornography or porn is the explicit portrayal of sexual subject matter. " is quite incomplete:

  1. Pornography is produced with the explicit aim of causing sexual arousal in the viewer (to answer you question therefore: people watch pornography in order to become sexually aroused). A film depicting sex explicitly is not neccessarily pornographic.
  2. The etymology of pornography (depiction of prostitutes) makes it clear that the sexual performer must be paid. People who just film each other for fun having sex are not producing pornography.86.173.105.81 (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree to this points. This should be corrected or added to the article. --/人 ‿‿ 人\ 署名の宣言 23:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

"Olympia" should be italicized

I don't have the permission to do this, but it should be a quick change. In the early sections, the title of the Manet piece, "Olympia," should be italicized, since it is the name of an artwork. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.17.82.160 (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Misspelled word

Under religious objections, "effect" should read "affect", as it is a verb in this instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.71.184 (talk) 02:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggested addition to lead

The intro to the story makes the distinction between a pornographic actor and a model (primarily that one participates in filmed/video depictions, while the other in still photos). For the sake of completeness, it should probably be mentioned that many people do both. 70.72.215.252 (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

i luv porno ≝ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.250.68 (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Increased neutrality regarding feminist perceptions of pornography

Some references sourced in the "advocacy" section (relating to sex-positive feminism) need to be transferred and integrated into this section of the article, as this article currently only references feminist oppositions to pornography. See "feminism/pornography" Wiki page for more detailed examples on sex-positive feminism/pornography. LLLookAtYouHacker (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

That section is called "Anti-pornography movement" so obviously it explains the opposition to pornography which comes mostly (but not exclusively) from feminism and religion. Not all feminists are opposed to porn and not all religious people are opposed to porn, but the section is about criticism of pornography and therefore it only describes the anti-pornography arguments of feminists and religion. There is nothing POV here because the section is about the anti-pornography movement not about opinions on porn in general.2A02:2F01:1059:F001:0:0:BC19:9E7B (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to that. I was referring to how the "advocacy" section is mostly constructed via references, rather than (akin to the "Anti-pornography movement" section) subsequent, textual information. Nevermind. LLLookAtYouHacker (talk) 05:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Lede

The lede reads:

"Pornography (often abbreviated as "porn" in informal usage) is the explicit portrayal of sexual subject matter."

It should be changed to "Pornography (often abbreviated as "porn" in informal usage) is the explicit portrayal of sexual subject matter for the purpose of sexual gratification."

Mere portrayal of explicit sexual subject matter is not necessarily porn. Explicit sexual behavior may be portrayed for various reasons: eg. as a documentary, for medical/scientific reasons, may be needed for a police investigation etc. All these are not pornography.2A02:2F01:1059:F001:0:0:BC19:9E7B (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Non-sexual use in popular culture

  • Proposal for a section devoted to uses of the term "porn" in popular culture to describe graphic depictions of non-sexual indulgences. Examples include "torture porn" to describe gory torture-oriented horror films like Hostel and the Saw series, "food porn" to describe pictures/videos of tempting cuisine, "bike porn" for high quality images of motorcycles, etc. This is a relatively recent but quantifiable usage of the term, and although colloquial, should be mentioned as common pop culture. Any objections? 50.98.17.237 (talk) 03:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Referenced examples of this usage would be needed. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Image in lead

The lead image is incredibly hard to make out. As such, it doesn't really do a good job as a lead image. While having an image of prehistoric pornography is a good idea for a lead image (less likely to have "shock value", sets an academic tone, etc.), one that's this hard to make out is just not worth it. 67.20.195.122 (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Also it is WP:OR to classify this image as "pornography" (rater than an artistic depiction). It is not a representative image for the subject; and if the lede of an article has an image, it should be a representative one.Skydeepblue (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I removed it.Skydeepblue (talk) 15:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
As for "prehistoric pornography", if you add such images, you'll have to find reliable sources classifying them as pornographic (which is quite difficult since sources do not always agree on this). Not all images depicting sexuality are pornography, as is explained in the article.Skydeepblue (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Economic Depression in the Industry???

Recently watched Louis Theroux's Twilight of the Pornstars. In it, Theroux talked to many in the industry and they all said that not only the free tube sites have depressed the industry as well as the direct download killing off DVDs. One talent agent said that the latter was responsible for the porn actor's suicide in 2007. Anyone know about any other sources depicting an industry wide porn depression???User:JCHeverly 23:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2014

5.108.227.77 (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Effects

This section seems rather superfluous to me, since it's all about how pornography 'may' affect behaviour. The only source is one pertaining to addiction. //erik.bramsen.copenhagen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.56.66.137 (talk) 11:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Psychodynamics of Pornography

I included a section called the Psychodynamics of Pornography--[which is cached here]--with two long quotes from Susan Sontag & David Foster Wallace because I thought that this strata of the topic should be addressed at some point on this page. AndyTheGrump reverted this edit for the following two reasons recorded in the page history:

(Revert new section - this reads like an essay, and such extensive quotations are probably pushing the limits of copyright. Please discuss on the talk page before restoring.) (undo | thank)

1. This reads like an essay.

2. Such extensive quotations are probably pushing the limits of copyright.

Partly I wanted to create this section so that other Wikipedians who came after me would add readings by other scholars who'd researched this subject. As such the text enframing the quotes is meant merely as a package for the quotes, I did not intend it to be "original research" or to read like an essay. I can minimize and neutralize that text even further, and I think I can pare down the quotations. I didn't consider the quotes to be bordering on copyright infrigement since they are both taken from essays that run to 60 or 70 pages--the David Foster Wallace quote for example is quite literally one half of one footnote from his essay "Big Red Son." This in an essay with 58 footnotes. Nevertheless I think it will be possible to pare down the quotes.

The question remains, however if I perform these surgical moves, do you think it's worth including a section on this strata of the subject AndyTheGrump? Horselover Fats (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

With hindsight, perhaps 'reads like an essay' doesn't really sum up the problems accurately. The real issue is that you seem to be conducting your own analysis of material on the 'Psychodynamics of Pornography', rather than simply reflecting the sources you cite - something that Wikipedia's policy on original research forbids. As to the best way to proceed with this, I'd quite like to see if others will respond here - I'm not particularly familiar with academic literature on the subject, and have mainly been watching the page due to the obvious issues with vandalism etc which it attracts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Andy on the lengthy quotes. Granted, I like a good direct quote as sometimes the best way to convey an idea is in its original form, but volume of material you are quoting just screams for reduction and paraphrasing. And like Andy recommends, a simple reflecting of the sources you cite. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 02:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

the venus statue is quite factual exaggerated breast and child bearing organs.

The venus is not porn and has no right in this arcticle. even with breast a breast feeding mom like the isis horus statue is diffent from Katy peery spuing whipped cream. This shows the brainwash woman as sex object lie blinding the author of this page. choose actual sexual images. even though sex is related to reproduction one can tell the difference between the motives in the above example. The Venus honors gestation. Feminist acknowledge that this was an idol of worship of mother goddess a creator of the universe. This shows the areas a woman would emhasiize, and do today. other reasonable interpretations would be a medical record, a portrait of a revered individual. oddly there is pregnancy porn today, but that is depicted with with a huge bump., and shows the genitals and her receiving the imagined Action by the male. heck, they could have been worshiping fat people as a food source like cows, she gives milk! She has no face that is the factor for me. So it is odd for a female artist to do that, but would if a depiction of a medical condition were the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.238.205 (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

the casual use of the word 'porn'

Should there be a section discussing the new tendency to use the word 'porn' as a suffix along side words such as foodporn, earthporn, or any of reddit's SFW porn terms? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.22.239.98 (talk) 07:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2014

180.183.20.222 (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 03:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2014

85.99.148.118 (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 12:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

top picture

Question. Why do we have a photo of a italian prostitute right up front. I mean after all this isnt the prostitution page. Maybe a picture of a well known porn actress would be more to the point. I dont know about anyone else but I've never heard of the lady in the photo.The Dark Lord Sauron (talk) 17:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you. The picture must be removed; it's not a picture depicting pornography.Skydeepblue (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Looks pornographic to me...--Auric talk 19:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
That picture does not depict pornography and isn't necessary pornographic. Pornography is the depiction of explicit sexual subject matter for the purpose of sexual gratification. That picture shows partial nudity, and nudity =/= explicit sexual subject matter; furthermore there is no evidence that the purpose of that picture is for it to be used for the sexual gratification of the viewer. Obviously whether something is pornographic or not depends also on the context in which it is shown; however you'll have to find a source which says that the picture is pornographic.Skydeepblue (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
"Pornography is the depiction of explicit sexual subject matter for the purpose of sexual gratification." No, that's erotica. And, arousal is a better term than gratification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.15.175 (talk) 10:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually it is quite appropriate as the original word is "Porno graphos" which means "The Writings of Harlots" and a prostitute / whore / charlatan / harlot etc; is what is displayed in the image.The Geologist (talk) 12:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

What about something earlier? Isn't the earliest occurrence of pornography supposed to be a cave painting? It would probably be appropriate to include an image of the Kama Sutra and similar texts. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

pornography is a biased loaded Puritanical term — this should be noted in the opening summary and better handled in the article

Erotica is a neutral term. Pornography has a negative connotation. There is no objective reason why sexually arousing materials should have a negative connotation.

The part about differentiation from erotica later in the article is quite dubious and misses the real point — that pornography is used the vast majority of the time to describe erotic materials because of a desire to condemn them to a greater degree than the term erotica facilitates. The etymology points toward this, conflating erotica with prostitution.

"Pornography is often distinguished from erotica, which consists of the portrayal of sexuality with high-art aspirations, focusing also on feelings and emotions, while pornography involves the depiction of acts in a sensational manner, with the entire focus on the physical act, so as to arouse quick intense reactions."

I am calling BS on this dichotomy. As for this happening "often", I doubt that, too. A quick intense reaction is hardly incompatible with artistic aspiration. In fact, a lot of artists would give their left arm to cause an intense physical response in their viewers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.15.175 (talk) 09:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

"Sensational manner"? What exactly does that mean? Where does it say in on a stone stab of the Rules of Proper Art that "high-art aspirations" can't have sensation, physicality, and quick intense arousal? This is just purely personal taste and "morality" masquerading as an objective definition.

Now, if the article were to call out the term for its bias and point out that attempts to justify it with elitist nonsense about what is and what isn't art, then we'd be getting somewhere.

Erotica has its own article. Are you suggesting that they be merged or something else? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
And if the IP were suggesting that, I'd disagree. When the term erotica is used, what is commonly meant by pornography or porn is usually not what the person has in mind. And that is why the Erotica article addresses that topic. Flyer22 (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you Flyer, I'm just trying to understand what the IP is talking about as opposed to a rant which doesn't belong here if that's the case. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Who made up porn?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Moneyman200000 (talkcontribs) 01:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTFORUM. This talk page is intended solely for discussions directly related to article content, and is not a forum for general discussions relating to pornography. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Money, its in the History section of the article. If its not detailed enough for you, please feel free to find references and expand it. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The word "explicit" in the lead

The abbreviated lead reads "Pornography is the portrayal of sexual subject matter for the purpose of sexual arousal." The lead used to read "Pornography is the explicit portrayal of sexual subject matter for the purpose of sexual arousal." I restored the word explicit after it was removed without comment by a new user. User:Drbogdan restored it suggesting the original text is better, and pointed to WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS, which is a little confusing. For one thing, "explicit" has been in the lead for many years. For another, it seems a little strange to point to those policies after a single reversion. Anyway, I'm not that strongly attached to its inclusion, but I think it's worthy of discussion.

Although explicit is an admittedly vague term, the notion of non-explicit pornography raises a lot more questions than it answers. As a matter of internal consistency, Erotica implies that being explicit is part of the distinction between pornography and erotica. Likewise pin-up girl and glamour photography distinguish themselves from pornography. Human nature being what it is, I'm sure there are other possible examples of "non-explicit pornography", but you get the idea.

A large problem is that "pornography", "explicit", and "graphic" all link to each other in a circular way. That's on Wiktionary, but I doubt that's uncommon elsewhere. I grabbed a few dictionaries off the shelf, and the American Heritage uses the word explicit, but not Merriam-Webster or Longman. I can see an argument that it's not informative, or confusing, but it still seems peculiar to leave it out. Grayfell (talk) 05:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

This and this are the edits in question. I agree with Grayfell that the word explicit helps clear up matters when defining pornography (which is why I thanked him via WP:Echo for reverting the other editor, the one before Drbogdan showed up to revert). Despite Drbogdan citing WP:BRD, I considered reverting him; but then I looked at the Classification section, which currently states that softcore pornography is non-explicit, and I Googled "Pornography definition" to see how dictionaries define the term and saw that the word explicit is usually absent. So then I became confused, and decided to see if another editor would revert Drbogdan and/or if Grayfell would bring the matter to this talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 06:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and WP:BRD is not a policy or a guideline; it's simply a commonly invoked WP:Essay. Flyer22 (talk) 06:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Right, essays, thanks. At first, "explicit" seemed obvious, but the more I think about it, it starts to resemble the Stewart Test. Part of the problem is that explicit has two major definitions, both related, and both pretty broad. Explicit can be used euphemistically to mean sexual, which is too circular. Explicit also has lexical overlap with unambiguous, which seems like the important bit. Softcore is described as non-explicit because the sexual activity is implicit, which makes sense, but "implied sexual activity" suddenly seem way, way too broad of a definition. Think of all the PG13 or R-rated movies that have tacked-on sexual content which appears to be for the purpose of sexual arousal. Shouldn't the lead avoid giving the impression that this is widely considered pornography? Than again, taken out of context, those scenes would be much more likely to be classified as pornography. I can also see that it might be making things way too complicated for a first sentence. I guess, as usual, it boils down to what sources say. Grayfell (talk) 07:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I was also thinking about how explicit can be defined differently. And, depending on how one defines explicit, some R-rated film sex scenes are explicit, but hardly ever are the scenes classified as pornography; even if the creators of the scene wanted to sexually arouse their audience by the scene, those scenes are supposed to be an aspect of the bigger story, a plot point to help move the story forward, which is not how pornography is usually defined. If you didn't notice from the Google search I listed above, Encyclopædia Britannica has an entry on pornography, in which they define pornography in their first sentence without the word explicit and then address distinctions regarding explicit vs. non-explicit material, such as erotica. Whether we use explicit or not for the lead of the Wikipedia article, I feel that we should also address the distinctions in the lead, per WP:Lead; it would be a summary of the Classification section that already makes the distinctions. It is also worth examining the way books on Google Books define pornography. Flyer22 (talk) 07:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

FWIW - Thank You for a *very* interesting discussion - yes, I reverted the use of the word "explicit" since I thought that the original text was "sufficient" in "briefly" presenting the notion - extra wording seemed unnecessary - the EB definition and OED definition, without "explicit", seem worthy - the Oxford definition, with "explicit", seems worthy to me as well - but none of the definitions seem to overly present the notion - at least imo atm - my present position is "flexible" - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Thanks again for the discussion - it's *very much* appreciated - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Grayfell and Drbogdan (linking your usernames even though you clearly are both watching this article), would you be open to a compromise of including both "especially" and "explicit," so that the first sentence reads as "Pornography (often abbreviated as "porn" or "porno" in informal usage) is the portrayal, especially the explicit portrayal, of sexual subject matter for the purpose of sexual arousal."? Or maybe "especially explicit" worded in some other way? Flyer22 (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
@Flyer22 - Thank you for your comments - at the moment, the original text in the article seems better to me - and seems close to the EB definition which also avoids the (interpretable?) "explicit" wording - but still (briefly) conveys the essential notion - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Drbogdan, I noted above that the Encyclopædia Britannica (EB) version, in a way, addresses the explicit aspect; it states: "The distinction between pornography (illicit and condemned material) and erotica (which is broadly tolerated) is largely subjective and reflects changing community standards." As noted above, erotica is often distinguished from pornography not only because of the illicit nature of pornography but the explicit nature of pornography. And considering that pornography being explicit or non-explicit is a significant topic regarding the genre, which is why the lower part of the Wikipedia Pornography article makes "explicit vs. non-explicit" a matter of discussion, it is something that should be addressed in the lead (per WP:Lead)...even if not in the first paragraph. And we obviously do not have to take the Encyclopædia Britannica's approach. Flyer22 (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
@Flyer22 - At the moment - the EB definition - with the followup sentence(s) - again without the "explicit" wording - seems *very good* to me - one concern I have with the "explicit" (conflated with "illicit"?) wording is interpretation - this may be *very* different from one person, community, culture, time - to another - a mere suggestion may be "explicit" to some, classical greek sculpture may be "explicit" to others, etc - and - as before - using the word "explicit" seems unnecessary - esp since there seems to be other, maybe better, ways of briefly conveying the same basic notion - as presently done in the original text of the article imo - nonetheless - perhaps a well-worded (without the "explicit" wording) followup sentence - like the EB definition - would help? - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
No, Drbogdan, I have not conflated the word illict with explicit; that's why I stated "not only because of the illicit nature of pornography but the explicit nature of pornography." I don't understand your objection to even mentioning "explicit" in the lead, especially since it is mentioned lower in the article. But, per what I stated above, it should be noted in the lead. Yes, we've already addressed above that opinions on what is explicit can vary. The lead can obviously address different interpretations of "explicit" with regard to pornography, and that can obviously be further elaborated on lower in the article. The lead should summarize significant aspects of the topic/article, and the explicit vs. non-explicit aspect is a significant topic of pornography, easily identified by WP:Reliable sources.
Also, since I'm watching this article, you don't have to ping me to this discussion. I didn't ping you in my "15:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)" reply because it's clearly unneeded. Flyer22 (talk) 17:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments - no problem whatsoever - my comments are above of course - nonetheless, my position, as before, continues to be flexible atm - maybe best to hear from others? - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Maybe we should consider adding a 'definition' section to the body. As difficult as the word explicit is, I think we're kind of stuck with it. I don't know if it's first-sentence material, but Explicit material redirects here, and the word is so often used that it seems odd to avoid it. I think a better approach is to make it clear how diverse the definitions of pornography are. This is implied in the body, but it could be made explicit (hehe) and added to the lead. If we make it clear that it's not a simple, resolved issue, the word explicit seems like it would be a more manageable problem. I dunno, I'm still undecided on the word itself. Grayfell (talk) 03:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

What is not

I just added this section in "Legal status" based upon an article I found. If anyone is so inclined, I would appreciate assistance in expanding the section to cover cases in other states if they exist as well as in other countries. Regards, --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 19:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Oversights & Shortcomings

The article gives very short shrift to P's history. The writer(s) seem eager to get to the modern age. Is this owing to a paucity of research on the subject or simply a lack of interest in the writers themselves? Also, other cultures have been almost completely ignored. The section on religious objections should parallel that on feminism but it does not. No insight or fact is offered regarding what it is that the religious find objectionable in P. This sentence, " In the United States, religious beliefs affect the formation of political beliefs which concern pornography." besides being inane, has more to do with belief systems than with P. All in all, I detect a certain enthusiasm in the writer(s) that has been allowed to crowd out a more informed and objective treatment of the subject. 96.48.69.102 (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort that builds on edits by many people. This page, for example, has existed since 2001, and has over 3,480 distinct authors. You can be one of those authors, but if you're not willing to fix it yourself, what exactly are you suggesting? Saying that the article is too enthusiastic, or questioning the competence of editors because they didn't including sources that might not even exist... Well, that isn't really something that we can work with. Do you have any concrete suggestions on how the article could be improved? If you want to expand coverage of historical pornography, or "other cultures", please do so, but remember to include reliable sources to support your additions. Grayfell (talk) 22:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm one of several that took a shot at this. That was before I started researching who researches porn and the industry. Constance Penley, Ph.D., a professor with U.C. Santa Barbara, is someone that has researched the history of porn. Maybe her works would yield more material.
That said, I agree that content for other cultures could be expanded. As for what "the religious find objectionable", I think you're looking for the Opposition to pornography article. I guess we need to better link to it. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 04:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Wrong map of categories [Legal status] of this page.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography#mediaviewer/File:Pornography_laws.svg)

south korea porn is illegal, Please confirm

I`m korean, Why South Korea is classified as legal? Wrong information Map, south korea porn is illegal, until now

I want to correct by myself, but I do not have the English and wiki skills. sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comucomu (talkcontribs) 02:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for mentioning it. I will will try to find a reliable source and change it. Grayfell (talk) 03:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I found this source. I have changed the image at commons. Thank you again for bringing this to our attention. Grayfell (talk) 04:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


Mr Grayfell, very very thank you ^^* (from comucomu)

$97 billion claim

I am writing here to dispute the claim that is made in the intro, the claim that the porn industry is a 97 billion dollar industry. That claim has NEVER been substantiated anywhere, and is usually invoked by the radical gender feminists like Gail Dines, and the religious right. Zonafan39 (talk) 02:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The source cited wasn't Gail Dines, but the claim is dubious. It was sourced to quote in this CNBC article, from a sociology prof who's never published on the economics of the porn industry, nor seems to have any qualifications in that area:
http://artsci.nmsu.edu/sociology/wosick-correa.html
I don't know of figures for the porn industry worldwide, but figures from the US are a good start, because the San Fernando Valley porn industry is by far the largest. I replaced the figure with "at least 2.5 billion in the US alone", because the Forbes article cited under "Economics" was a much more solid source. Of course, that's just an estimate, and for the US only, published over 10 years ago, and not adjusted for either the financial decline of the porn industry later, nor, conversely, for inflation. I really don't know if there are any accurate and reasonably current figures for the porn industry worldwide. There are a whole lot of "pulled out the air" ones, especially from the antiporn movement, which is prone to exaggerate the size of the porn industry for its own purposes. Lets try to improve this, but I'm for sticking with cautious numbers until better sourcing can be found. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 03:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
[ WP:Edit conflict ]: Zonafan39, your edit to that line, first seen here, then moved to here, should have been reverted. We go by what the WP:Reliable sources state, not our own claims (or at least that's the way Wikipedia is supposed to work); if you don't have any WP:Reliable sources stating that the claim is disputed, you should not add that the claim is disputed to the Pornography article or any other article. The same goes for your claim that the $97 billion estimate is "usually invoked by the radical gender feminists like Gail Dines, and the religious right." The way Wikipedia substantiates matters with regard to article content is through WP:Reliable sources. I would have reverted your edit, but I left it to others to revert, and then forgot about it. As you can see from this edit, Iamcuriousblue removed the $97 billion claim and replaced it with material restricted to the United States, but I personally would have needed a convincing argument from you before assisting you in your desire to see the $97 billion claim removed. Flyer22 (talk) 03:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
C'mon Flyer, unless you're going to seriously claim that anybody cited in a newspaper source anywhere is a "reliable source", I think the CNBC article is a dubious source for this figure. I think you need to better source this figure before you can justify using it. In the meantime, there's at least at least a fairly reliable figure for the US in 2001, so that can serve as a placeholder until a better source for the size of the current, worldwide porn industry can be found. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 03:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Iamcuriousblue, I was commenting purely on Zonafan39's approach. As you can see, I did not comment on the reliability of the source or object to your reasons for removing the source. You looked beyond Zonafan39's reasoning, which is what any good Wikipedia editor should have done if removing that source in response to Zonafan39's comment. Flyer22 (talk) 03:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I see where you're coming from. Sorry, should have assumed good faith! I am looking for good estimates for the size of the porn industry, right now via Google Scholar, but surprisingly little out there! Iamcuriousblue (talk) 04:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Seeing this revert by IjonTichyIjonTichy and this revert by Scalhotrod, perhaps they want to weigh in on this discussion? IjonTichyIjonTichy, as you can see from above, Iamcuriousblue did explain the removal. And, Scalhotrod, Zonafan39's wording of "That claim is disputed." is still in the lead, simply in a different spot. Flyer22 (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

If I could get a quote from someone in the industry disputing the $97 billion claim, then would it be all right to put it in the article? It would go something like this: According to (blank) the industry worldwide makes $97 billion a year, however some in the industry dispute this (add citation). Something along those lines. Also Flyer22, you are right, I should have disputed the $97 billion claim here instead of in the article. Zonafan39 (talk) 05:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
First off, the article is about Pornography worldwide unless the title has changed to make it U.S. centric. Second, the source is by a New Mexico State University Researcher, Kassia Wosick, Ph.D. (previously with U.C. Irvine, so I don't think her degrees are the "mail order" kind), who studies the "sex industry" which would include financial information to properly understand its inner workings. Granted, it would better in this instance if she were an economist, but she is a published academic who was subsequently quoted in mainstream article, so I don't understand the desire to challenge her work or credentials. Third, why are any of us working to undermine a source when it would far more productive to find MORE or other sources that we can all agree on? Case on point, here's an article in the Economist that disputes the $2.5B number from Forbes [3] and puts it at $6B, so now what, which is correct? But wait, I started looking and ran across this 2001 interview from Frontline with Dennis McAlpine, an analyst at Auerbach, Pollak and Richardson, an investment banking and brokerage firm, who has covered (at the time of the interview) the entertainment industry for nearly two decades. He states that the Internet portion of the industry is $20B. Are any of us naive enough to claim that it has become smaller in the last 13 years? I quoted the most mainstream source I could find when I originally added the ...nearly $100 Billion... statement. I invite everyone to find better sources. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 15:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I missed this several months ago, but your revert was wholly inappropriate, and I'll be reverting it back. I have explained what is wrong with Kassia Wosick as a source upthread. Your only justification is that "she's a PhD" who "studies the sex industry". First, just because somebody has a PhD does not make them inherently an expert on the topic in question - there are many academics that make unsubstantiated claims outside their field of expertise. This is clearly one of those cases. Wosick simply a sociologist who claims to have done some study on the effect of pornography viewing on dating relationships, but does not have expertise on the sex industry itself. Her "100 billion worldwide" is a guesstimate on her part given in an newspaper interview, not an academic source, and seems to be based on similar anecdotal figures largely circulated by the antipornography movement.
As I said, I will be reverting this, and will keep reverting it until a non-anecdotal source is given for this "100 billion dollar" figure. There is a very good reason to use this "US-centric" figure - 1) There simply are no good estimates of the size of the pornography industry internationally. 2) The pornography industry *is* US centered. Yes, there is pornography produced in a number of other countries (notably in Central Europe and in Japan), however, the US industry dwarfs the size of porn industries elsewhere and most of the world is a net importer of US-made porn. The 2.5 million is a reasonable, evidence-based figure, and there is no reason to believe that the size of the industry internationally is much larger. The 100 billion figure is a gross overestimate beyond all reason, and I challenge proponents of that figure to prove otherwise.
And on the point of the industry "becoming smaller" - if you'd read The Economist source more carefully, the 6 billion dollar estimate is pre-recession, and the porn industry was hit pretty seriously by the 2008 recession, as well as factors like piracy and the growth of free porn sites. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Addendum - I am willing to compromise on this. It would be worthwhile to have a section discussing the size of the porn industry, and give a simple range of estimates in the lead. I'll discuss this further below. (Scroll down to end.) Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Size of the porn industry

OK, I've tracked down the origin of the "97 billion" figure, which as I thought, does not originate with Kassia Wossick (so I think we can finally dispense with evaluating her veracity as a source). After tracing down citations for the 97B figure, including via academic sources, they come back to this article [4] by Jerry Ropelato in Internet Filter Software Reviews. While I stand by my opinion that these numbers are grossly exaggerated (and frequently cited by those with an interest in maximizing claims about the size of the porn industry), nonetheless, it is source that is is more than an off-the-cuff estimate (albeit, the article basically compiles numbers from sources which are themselves anecdotal and often quite dodgy, including personal blog posts [5]), is actually cited by academic sources, and therefore I'd say it merits inclusion, in spite of these serious shortcomings. However, there are also sources that give a much smaller estimate of the size of the porn industry and these merit inclusion as well. The criterion should be that the source rises above somebody's off-the-cuff anecdotal quote, which unfortunately many newspaper articles go with.

I think this topic is important enough to merit its own section, with a brief summary of those figures given in the article lede. I also think that any figures given should include in parentheses the figures in 2014 dollars so that reasonable comparison can be made. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow, fantastic work! I haven't read the whole thing yet, but should be an interesting read. And yes, I'm all for a section and establishing a number that we can all agree on. Nicely done Iamcuriousblue. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced content

Scalhotrod, this article is chock-full of unsourced content. It seems unfair for you to remove my statement and ignore the numerous other examples.deisenbe (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

  1. sign your posts.
corrected
  1. OK, then lets remove all of it or get it cited properly. Are you willing? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Defining Pornography

So what if the average human being wanted to just be able to judge if their image is considered as pornography before posting it. Reading this article is quite time consuming We have a point blank systematic way of judging if an image is pornography or not. It is used quite often in the judicial system, so why can't it be used as a tool online as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EducateAmerica (talkcontribs) 01:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTFORUM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

A Feminist objections section and an Economics section

Amalia Ziv argues that the lesbian feminist movement in the 1980s was good for women in the porn industry. [1] As more women entered the developmental side of the industry, this allowed women to gear porn towards women because they knew what women wanted, both for the actresses and the audience. [2] Ziv argues that this is a good thing because for such a long time, the porn industry has been directed by men for men. [3] This also sparked the arrival of making lesbian porn for lesbians instead of men. [4] However the argument that man-on-man gay porn has influenced lesbian porn was also brought up. [5] This has been seen as a negative influence due to its incorporation of fisting, the use of dildos, and rough fingering. [6]

Lana519 (talk) 09:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

As of 2014 the porn industry was believed to bring in more than $13 billion dollars on a yearly basis, just in the United States. [7] The porn industry alone brings in more revenue than the combined industries: Netflix, Google, eBay, Yahoo, Amazon, Microsoft, and Apple. [8]

Lana519 (talk) 09:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Ziv, Amalia. 2014. Girl meets boy: Cross-gender queer and the promise of pornography. Sexualities 17: 885-905. Retrieved November 20, 2014.
  2. ^ Ziv, Amalia. 2014. Girl meets boy: Cross-gender queer and the promise of pornography. Sexualities 17: 885-905. Retrieved November 20, 2014.
  3. ^ Ziv, Amalia. 2014. Girl meets boy: Cross-gender queer and the promise of pornography. Sexualities 17: 885-905. Retrieved November 20, 2014.
  4. ^ Ziv, Amalia. 2014. Girl meets boy: Cross-gender queer and the promise of pornography. Sexualities 17: 885-905. Retrieved November 20, 2014.
  5. ^ Ziv, Amalia. 2014. Girl meets boy: Cross-gender queer and the promise of pornography. Sexualities 17: 885-905. Retrieved November 20, 2014.
  6. ^ Ziv, Amalia. 2014. Girl meets boy: Cross-gender queer and the promise of pornography. Sexualities 17: 885-905. Retrieved November 20, 2014.
  7. ^ Szymanski, Dawn M. and Destin N. Stewart-Richardson. 2014. Psychological, Relational, and Sexual Correlates of Pornography Use on Young Adult Heterosexual Men in Romantic Relationships. The Journal of Men’s Studies 22: 64-82. Retrieved November 20, 2014.
  8. ^ Szymanski, Dawn M. and Destin N. Stewart-Richardson. 2014. Psychological, Relational, and Sexual Correlates of Pornography Use on Young Adult Heterosexual Men in Romantic Relationships. The Journal of Men’s Studies 22: 64-82. Retrieved November 20, 2014.
Lana519 (talk · contribs), I see that you are with Education Program:University of Illinois/Queer Lives, Queer Politics (Fall 2014), and have began a WP:Sandbox for the topic of pornography. Your WP:Sandbox is the place for all of your work on this, not the talk page. If you want editors to know about your WP:Sandbox on this matter, all you have to do is start a section on this talk page about it, explaining it, and then link to the WP:Sandbox. You've obviously already started sections on this talk page. I have combined them under one heading. So this section will suffice for letting other editors know about your work on this case. Flyer22 (talk) 09:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Again, the talk page is not the place for this. Read WP:Class assignment for how you, as an editor assigned with the task of editing Wikipedia, should edit Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 09:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

footnote 48

"Currently, there is no evidence that visual images and films are addictive." yet everything in footnote 48 seems to contradict that— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.134.20.244 (talk) 23:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Word sometimes censored for offensiveness?

Do you think it could be censored as p***, p****, or p**********? The rest of the letters are replaced with asterisks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whoever456 (talkcontribs) 00:43, 22 November 2014‎

"However, the concept of pornography as understood today did not exist until the Victorian era."

"However, the concept of pornography as understood today did not exist until the Victorian era."

This unsourced sentence is dubious and should probably be removed. The Pompeii artwork by itself probably provides enough of a refutation to disprove the sentence, and I am sure there are many other examples throughout the ages. 50.49.134.141 (talk) 07:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

But isn't the sentence about the "concept" of pornography and not pornography itself which does exist - of course - for a very long time? --2A02:810B:8200:764:8902:20B9:3370:6313 (talk) 13:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2014

116.74.99.113 (talk) 11:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2015

The sentence " Currently, there is no evidence that visual images and films are addictive." in the 'Study and analysis' section is quite untrue. Incredibly untrue, to be honest. Proven medical research, has shown that such visual images release chemicals in the brain known as dopamine, oxycotin, serotonin and epinephrine which are the exact chemicals released during any compulsive, addictive behaviour/act such as drugs. The brain once again craves for the release and since viewing of explicit content has been practized before, the person once again looks at the images/films. Such research isn't new, it has been blatantly undergoing for a few years now, and a few brief references would be - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBtgA0ZLWo0 , http://www.webmd.com/men/features/is-pornography-addictive , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9lzRWxgmyQ , http://fightthenewdrug.org/get-the-facts/ and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/02/porn-less-gray-matter-brain_n_5418607.html

I duly request you to change this particular sentence as soon as possible, and indulge in further clarification of the subject. Or else, the viewers(me being one) will be terribly misled and deceived. And for anyone unaware, he/she might end up causing damage to his/her own life!

For further sources, please do research thoroughly, I am sure you will find many. AsifMahbub (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: None of these are WP:MEDRS. Some of them don't even discuss addiction. Cannolis (talk) 08:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed edits to the Pornography page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lana519/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lana519 (talkcontribs) 20:29, 21 November 2014‎


In the "Views on Pornography" section, you could include a sub heading 'Wikipedia and Pornography' and write that Wikipedia's "No censorship" policy allows users to post pornographic images. You could link to Wikipedia:Pornography.

I would point out somehow that this is a fault with Wikipedia, think of the children. Its not fair to the whole community of wikipedia. And , people hide behind policy and use it to justify their wrongdoings and avoid using self responsibility and just because wikipedia say its acceptable doesnt mean it is appropriate outside of wikipedia in the real world. also, Just cause you can jump off a cliff doesnt mean that theres nothing wrong with it. These perverts have been allowed to corrupt wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.174.47.195 (talk) 04:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

To do as you suggest would contravene Wikipedia policy. We base content on published reliable sources, and not on the opinions of contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Effects

Great sources... So so source, take it for what its worth...

http://business.avn.com/articles/legal/New-Study-Watching-Even-a-Little-Porn-Is-Good-For-Your-Sex-Life-591890.html --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

That source is not WP:MEDRS-compliant. And the sources it cites are discouraged for health information by WP:MEDRS, including the WP:Primary source that is that study. Peer review by itself is not the same thing as literature review or systematic review; WP:MEDRS prefers the latter two. Flyer22 (talk) 01:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah, thank you Flyer22, I was not aware of those guidelines. It's not often that I edit anything medical related, but its good to know about either way. Thanks, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 14:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)