Talk:Revenge porn

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


Conflating two concepts[edit]

I share some of the concerns expressed in the "problems with the article" and "intent" sections above. I see these concepts:

  • Revenge porn is posting sexually explicit images online with intent to get revenge or cause harm
  • (some other term) is the loss of privacy or consequences of being exposed online in any case, whether consensual or not, regardless of whether it is legal or ethical

Perhaps "identified exposure" would be a term to describe the concept? I do not want to coin a WP:NEOLOGISM, but people are talking about a concept and there is no article for it nor do I know where to find literature on the concept.

When I think of "revenge", I think of malicious intent. But the harm does not come from the intent; it comes from both the exposure and having the exposure connected to a person's identity. People are not harmed by identification, and not harmed by sexually explicit images when no one can determine who is featured in the images, so the two have to be paired for "revenge porn" to happen.

The reason why I want the other term is because exposure can happen in other ways. It might not even be sexually explicit - exposure can mean capturing anything personal, like a private expression of grief like crying, but there is something similar in being exposed while in private whether it is nudity or anything else not for the public. Also, people who consent to be exposed, such as porn actors, may incur costs as a consequence. "Revenge porn" seems to not be a term to apply to porn stars, and yet they also experience life changes that a victim of revenge porn may experience, and yet they agreed to the arrangement. For that reason, "non-consensual" is not a characteristic of the concept I wanted to capture.

I was examining this in the context of the article on privacy. I wanted to find a term for the invasion of privacy which happens when something taboo to show in public is revealed about a person. That could be nudity, using the toilet, crying in a time of personal mourning, someone being photographed before they have had coffee in the morning, or just sharing any unflattering depiction of a person. I feel like this article is a close concept but I am not sure what the root concept is, or where I can read more. Any ideas? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

  • @Bluerasberry: - I assume this was just some syntactical ambiguity, but to be clear, porn stars can absolutely be victims of revenge porn. Choosing to be a porn star, even professionally, does not equal automatic consent to anything. If I was dating a pornstar, but released private images of the two of us with the intent of harming her reputation (many porn stars refuse to perform acts professionally that they perform in their private lives for instance,) the fact that she was a porn star wouldn't make it not a case of revenge porn. Even if they were images within what they normally performed professionally, if harm was intended, it'd still easily fit. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Kevin Gorman I agree with you for the case you describe, but that is not what I was addressing. In your example you are still talking about the negative consequences of non-consensual distribution of porn. I am talking about negative consequences of media which the performer provides for the purpose of distribution. This means the featured consensual recorded performance of the actor, that perhaps they later come to regret. This article seems to group that kind of risk of harm with revenge porn, and in my opinion, there should be a distinction between what is consensual and what is non-consensual. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I figured that was what you meant, but just wanted to clarify it, since people who choose to perform sex work are often incorrectly assumed to have revoked their concept to consent to sexual activity, when even an act a prostitute commits can be consensusal vs nonconsensual. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Astute analysis. I think you are on to something here Bluerasberry. I have been writing a novel and one of the issues in it is this whole notion of public-private space and how it relates to freedom. My thinking kind of goes like this. In the public space, what we do, wear, say, how we act and so forth is rather constrained by group norms; that such and such behavior is permissible while some other behavior is not; and the line between what is considered permissible and what is not is not always clearly defined, a blurry line, changing with the times, as it were. In the private space, we have MUCH more freedom to do what we want, when we are alone, and for this space to exist we have to have a shield around it, such as the walls of our apartment, or our personal files on the Internet password-protected, perhaps. It can get tricky when our private world includes our personal self plus another, or a few others, or some subset of the general population. Like, if a couple does something in private, it is somewhat public to both of them, but private to the wider world. It is freeing when people know that this private space will remain private, since they know they can do behaviors which are beyond the bounds of normal public respectability, but things which they want to do, such as have sex with whoever they want. And it is a good thing in general for people to know that they have this privacy, that is, it equates in a real sense to long term freedom. Now how does this tie in with revenge porn: it is when information which was presumed private and presumed to have stayed private is posted publicly. It is a form of violence. If people have a right that their private-information about sexual matters or nudity is going to stay private, then broadcasting or publishing this information -- with the identification component that you rightly focus on -- with intent to cause revenge or harm or debase a person's reputation -- then this is revenge porn. You make a good point in that if nudity or sexually explicit photos are published without identifying the particular person in them, so that they are essentially anonymous, then this is not as serious of a matter, although one can argue that sooner or later, the persons depicted might be recognized in some public context where it could hurt their reputation. I somewhat agree that a new term is needed, somehow, not sure how to go about it, but in further reading and researching, it may be revealed that such a term appears.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Tomwsulcer I see things as you do. I will post here if I find sources. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey Folks, if I might add my "2 cents" here. Lets keep in mind that this is a global phenomenon or issue. Granted, the U.S. has received a fair amount of coverage, but its not the focal point like it is, for example, with the actual porn industry. Also when when we discuss aspects like "privacy" or "right to privacy", there are clear distinctions between U.S. law and the laws of other countries. Since this is a global article, it should reflect this. This article has previously has problems with geocentricity. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Peono numbering[edit]

Hey C1cada - thanks for your recent work on the article, I appreciate it. Pretty much to satisfy my sole curiousity, can you give a little background about what peono numbering is? I don't get it offhand a a reference. Ignoring that: the reason I put the online reaction section in, is because I suspect people will continue to update the article with info about the reactions of particular websites to revenge porn/their individual policies. I didn't want to delete that wholesale without discussion, but also felt that (especially when this article is appropriately expanded) it should not form a significant part of the 'background' section. Hence the new online reaction section - which can likely be discarded eventually - as a place to shephard information about site policy reactions currently. Eventually I suspect such reactions will be worth their own - much smaller section - but for now I suspect the section will keep expanding. Given that expectation... I'd rather avoid keeping it just in the background section. (Similarly, I feel the nuptial section needs to be incorporated elsewhere, and a lot of the US law stuff condensed.)

In structuring this so far, I'm basically combining "what I think sections would like like if the article was nice and fleshed out" with "where are sections necessary to hold content that should eventually be greatly trimmed or incorporated in to other parts of the article. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kev. Likewise thanks for your contributions. Was that a typo I did on "Peano numbering" and yes, it looks as if I'm guilty of some sort of nologism (i.e not a neologism). I meant subparagraph numbering 1.1.1 style. I always thought that was called "Peano numbering", but it seems I'm wrong searching Google. As a matter of interest what would that be called?
Hah - it's called "Peano paragraphing", sort of. I use it to program the tree functions I use the world is not really ready for yet.
Anyway the point about the remark was that you were indenting quite deeply your section headings day before yesterday. I think after the third indent or so it becomes a bit intrusive and unhelpful. But don't let me bully you out of it if that's what you think is needed. As for "Online reactions" I don't think that's a very usual or necessarily good way of expressing the equivalent of "Implications for websites" (whatever), but I can't think of a better heading. Is a sub-heading really necessary there? Can't see it is really.
Added: Hmhh ... looking at it again I see you're right about the need for a heading after that paragraph about legislation being slow to emerge. Perhaps that paragraph better as a lead paragraph for the "Legislation" section? c1cada (talk) 05:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Although another paragraph should probably be included later on with similar content, I feel that something about legislation being slow to emerge probably belongs in the background section to. I don't really like the extra subheading for websites, but I think it's useful for now, because people are likely to continue to add info about new website policies, and I'd rather have it in a subheading that makes it distinct from the general background section until we figure out what we want to do with it. I'm a big not fan of the super-indented US stuff, but that's a result of the article having written before being organized by area. Before those sections are combined (and many of them likely should be,) the super deep headings probably sadly need to stay. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Not sure how the article will develop. Just let it grow I say and fork out the bits that become excessive. c1cada (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Half-assed inclusive nod[edit]

an act whereby the perpetrator satisfies his anger and frustration for a broken relationship through publicizing false, sexually provocative portrayal of his / her victim, by misusing the information that he may have known naturally and that he may have stored in his personal computer, or may have been conveyed to his electronic device by the victim herself, or may have been stored in the device with the consent of the victim herself; and which may essentially have been done to publicly defame the victim

Never once is it suggested the victim is not a woman, thought the perp. himself or herself gets one inclusive nod. — MaxEnt 23:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 23 May 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Kostas20142 (talk) 09:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)



Revenge pornRevenge pornography – “Revenge pornography” is formal, whilst “revenge porn” is informal. Why is the article about pornography titled “Pornography,” not “Porn,” when this article is titled “Revenge porn”?
PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 00:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose, that is, Keep revenge porn as is. My sense is that for Wikipedia naming conventions as per WP:MOS that we should use the term that is most used commonly, to refer to the subject. My sense is the most used term is Revenge porn not Revenge pornography, but when talking about pornography in general, it is simply pornography, with porn being an abbreviation. It is simply common usage, how it's happened to be called over time. If one can demonstrate that the term revenge pornography is more common than revenge porn, I could be persuaded to change my mind here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Isn’t “revenge porn” merely an abbreviation of “revenge pornography”? PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 01:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Of course. But the shorter term is what is used in common parlance. If you google "Revenge porn" (in quotes) you'll get 446,000 hits; googling "Revenge pornography" gets only 56,000 hits. It's just how it is.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
By your logic, Pornography should be moved to Porn, because on Google, “porn” gets two billion results, whilst “pornography” gets only 84.4 million.
PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 03:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
It is not about 'logic' but about usage. Wikipedia's Commonname policy (see below) suggests we use the term which is commonly used. For reasons I don't understand, and can't explain, most people talk about it as "revenge porn" -- they don't say "revenge pornography" -- why this is, I can not say -- maybe there are too many syllables? With the latter case, "porn" versus "pornography" -- again I can not say, maybe the latter term is preferred because the word "porn", by itself, does not convey enough information, or may be confused with similar sounding words such as corn or torn maybe? The idea behind the Commonname policy is not to confuse readers, to mirror, as best we can, what is actually said or typed in everyday usage.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
The reason we don't consider "porn" alone the WP:COMMONNAME is because we are interested not in the most common name in general, but the name which is most common in English language reliable sources. Broadsheet newspapers seem to use "porn" and "pornography" with about equal frequency (at least, that is my impression from a brief sample of articles from the Guardian) though their news stories use "pornography" more and their opinion pieces use "porn" more; scholarly articles use "pornography" fairly universally, as far as I can see: searching google scholar for "porn" simply returns articles written by scholars with the surname "Porn" for me (though searching for "revenge pornography" without quotes, gives lots of hits for articles which use "revenge porn", and include the word "pornography" when talking about porn generally. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
site "revenge porn" "revenge pornography"
theguardian.com 442 ghits 149 ghits
bbc.co.uk 192 ghits 45 ghits
nytimes.com 99 ghits 16 ghits
jstor.org 42 hits 6 hits
scholar.google.com 1460 ghits 234 ghits
The table to the right shows some usage in reliable sources. (The hits are clickable links, so you can verify the results).
Note that the news media prefer "revenge porn" by a ratio of between 3:1 (Guardian) and 6:1 (New York Times), but the scholarly source JSTOR prefers the short form by a margin of 7:1. Google Scholar shows a ratio of 6:1. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME. Revenge porn is overwhelmingly used amongst reliable sources ranging from academic books to newspapers. AusLondonder (talk) 17:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.