Talk:Non-nude pornography

Links or no links?

First, I agree with Cgros841's revert. The {{spam}} template does not belong in the article; it should be addressed in Talk or User_Talk space to the target of the spam allegation. Secondly, I think there is policy, or at least precedent, for including links to commercial sites as representative examples of a particular type of site, to illustrate the assertions in an article. They should probably be in the article body, however. MCB 17:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the first statement here, and that is exactly why I removed the {{spam}} template. Not only does it look ugly and out of place, but the material could have been discussed behind-the-scenes rather than out in the open, where comments can be humiliating and harmful to a contributor's reputation. As to the precedent for including links, I believe it definitely exists, and I did not add external link examples to my page without first visiting other, similar articles. Furthermore, my links were removed under the assumption that they were links to my own pages. If said user - the one who decided to edit the page - had bothered to look at the pages first, they would have seen that this is both unlikely and untrue. I am in no way connected to any of the sites listed. The sole reason for their inclusion on the page was to illustrate the various types of non-nude sites. Considering that those who visit this Wiki page are most likely interested in the topic - otherwise, why would they be reading it in the first place - external links are most likely beneficial to the aforementioned surfers, not damaging. In addition, the three links to the more modern, forum and message board-based non-nude sites were not even commercial. A trait of that style of site is that they are essentially non-profit, and rely on communities of users to supply the content. Therefore, the links can hardly be considered commercial. As to the non-nude model sites, I merely picked two of the more famous and long-standing models in the community, who are often referred to and recognized on a first name-only basis. Listing their sites in no way constitutes bias on my part. I do not work for these models, have no subscription to their services, and have never been affiliated with them in my life. I would appreciate it if questions were asked and investigations done before major edits are made. Sorry this was so long-winded, but I have a lot of respect for the non-nude community and its inner workings.Cgros841 14:41, 3 October 2005 (CST)

Grammatical Errors & External Links

This article has minor, yet noticeable grammatical errors. There are a few run-on, or otherwise stringy sentences. Notice that the initial sentence lacks commas that would indicate a brief pause for the reader.

• Non-Nude is an underground, primarily online movement which aims at distributing photographic (and sometimes video) content of a sexually suggestive and provocative nature but that does not feature explicit nudity as its selling point.

Use of vocabulary is biased or compromises the neutrality of this article. For instance, the word “pristine” implies that something is perfect, untouched, or pure. Yet it fails to explain why “Non-nude Pornography” is pure, perfect, or untouched. Someone might read this article and find it impure and appalling. Try convincing readers with such reservations why the subject is pristine, or omit the word from the article. Additionally, this article fails to address the controversy pertaining to the social issues of the topic.

No links to any commercial site with the intention to gain revenue should be added to any article outside of context. It may appear justifiable to add a link to one or two models’ pay sites, but I’m confident that there are many more sites that deserve the same recognition. Obviously it would be a long list, but Wikipedia shall not be used as a promotional tool to gain revenue. Additionally, those so-called free-sites with forums depend on traffic and ratings to help pay for hosting costs. Wikipedia is a source of acquirable knowledge, not a source of traffic.

Adding a grammatical tag, or removing links is not to be perceived as an attack on the personal integrity of the contributor. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic website viewable by the public, not limited to school-aged children. Every article must serve as a positive, academic model for people of all ages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.73.202.198 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 3 October 2005 (PDT).

I tend to agree about the need for cleanup of the grammar and usage. More importantly, please feel free to edit the article to address those problems, or in Wikipedia slang, {{sofixit}}.

On the links issue, it is de facto policy/precedent to include links to other web sites, including commercial sites, to illustrate the type of site being discussed in the article. This has the side effect of creating traffic for the linked site, but to my mind, that's de minimis compared to the usefulness of being able to cite actual examples of what you are talking about. Essentially every article about a notable commercial company contains a link to that company's web site. This is not considered controversial, even though the companies stand to gain revenue from that traffic. The best way to explain something is often to show examples. MCB 05:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Conservative Bias

With the unknown contributor's above statements in mind, I feel I have to respond. At the time of writing, his or her suggestions have been implemented. The grammar in the introductory sentence has been fixed (to the best of my knowledge), and the "offending" use of "biased vocabulary" has been removed entirely, since I am not sure how to phrase the section otherwise. I will deal with it later, I assure you.

Now, on to my other concerns: I do not feel that I failed to illustrate why the latter, more modern version of Non-Nude entertainment is "pristine." You yourself referred to it as meaning "untouched," and that it is. The process that leads to the create of the more modern type of non-nude photography was explained in the article. I will try and edit the selection in coming days, however, to address your concerns.

Again, however, MCB has a point: if you feel the article is in need of revision, please edit it accordingly and add any pertinent knowledge, rather than just preaching about the mistakes. You are are capable as any of adding your own opinions to the page, especially in regard to the apparent "controversy pertaining to the social issues of the topic." Obviously you know something I don't, or else I would have explained the subject further. Please feel free to elaborate in the future.

Lastly, I again agree with MCB about the use of external links. They were not created for the purpose of generating revenue, as you have said, and so they did not violate the primary reason you used as the basis for their deletion. Unless you wish to take it upon yourself to prove otherwise, I must ask that you allow them to remain on the page for the very reasons MCB has stated.Cgros841 14:41, 3 October 2005 (CST)

And again...

My apologies, but I had to remove a reference to a specific website on the basis that a conclusion has not been reached. A neutrality dispute tag has been added to the article. A request for comments from the Wikipedia community has been implemented. Please do not make any more changes to the article until a conclusion has been reached.

My reason for removing the website reference is as follows.

• It’s unverifiable if the sole author of this article, apparently being Mr. Craig M. Groshek, is or is not affiliated with the website in question.
• What’s to stop anyone with affiliation to Non-nude websites from adding their URLs for their own personal interest? Obviously anyone, including Mr. Groshek who released a sample photograph into the public domain, can start a website and post a link in this article.

Anonymous users

You "had" to remove a reference to a specific site on the basis that a conclusion was not reached? Preposterous. Precedent has shown that links illustrating the topic at hand are not only beneficial, but even when featuring commercial sites, cannot immediately be construed as "generating revenue" for the linked-to sites. This was explained by MCB earlier, who possesses far more leverage here due to their contributions, as opposed to the comments of an anonymous user who dares not reveal their identity.

I have and will continue to make changes to the article as I deem fit, so far as they correct the "mistakes" listed. You sole qualm was that the site again contained links or references to external sites which display bias, and this problem was obviously resolved by removing said references. However, after prompt removal of these links, without discussion, you then ask me to sit back and wait for further comment by other users? Again, preposterous. You have removed the portion of the article which you had issues with, and so there is nothing to discuss. I am apalled that you yourself would make such an edit when a verdict has not been reached.

Although you claim that you want more feedback on the situation, you took it upon yourself to delete portions without discussion, and so did not give anyone the chance to debate. Considering a conclusion has not been reached, the links and references should remain, at least until someone can prove they are in fact biased, or use precedent to show that this is against Wikipedia policy. So far, precedent has shown the exact opposite, which is that links to external sites, even commercial ones, can serve as better illustrations of the topic at hand than mere talk.

I believe you are mistaken in your logic, and I request that, in the future, you follow your own advice.Cgros841 11:21, 5 October 2005 (CST)

Careless and undocumented article editing

After leaving this article sit for some time I returned to find that it had been mangled by individuals who have no respect for the value of debate and discussion, who deemed it necessary and their "right" to remove elements of the page (i.e. images) permanently without arguing their case first in this discussion page. User Thivierr, in particular, offended me a great deal by failing to read any of the discussion about screenshots and the like. I am not again going to remind anyone again that screenshots are considered public domain, if used in a certain way, and the one featured here qualified as public domain. This is stated very clearly during the uploading process. It does not matter that "the article does not critically discuss the specific image [or] even the specific web site," as Thivierr stated. The screenshot featured is representative of the style of site discussed in the paragraph it was placed next to, and so is not out of context. Furthermore, prior discussion dictated that it was not "okay" to place links to particular sites within the article, as they were quickly removed on the grounds that they were "spam." So the links were removed, but the photo was allowed to remain because it was a visual depiction of the discussed materials.

Also, users took it upon themselves to remove the featured image at the start of the article, which was taken by myself, without explanation. I assume this was because they found the material to be offensive. In any event, a photo depicting the style of material being discussed is beneficial, and should remain as such, unless a better photo can be found to replace it. I refuse to allow the deletion of an image on the mere grounds that it is offensive, as it creates an impediment to knowledge. The image featured no nudity, was not obscene in any way, and had inherent value. It will stay unless an argument is brought forth beforehand.

Lastly, other users deemed it necessary to delete a majority of the categories associated with this article, again without an explanation, even though they were quite accurate and helpful in forwarding users to related materials. I am particularly upset that the "Pornography" category was removed, considering the very name of the agreed-upon article is Non-Nude PORNOGRAPHY. The user who removed this cat ought to be ashamed. Whether the other categories should stay or be deleted if up to debate, but without prior discussion, and no mention of why such a major change was made, I must reject them. The users who have chosen to delete elements of this page or add spam without prior discussion are not helping, and those who deleted images because they found them offensive are inexcusably interjecting their bias into the article by such an act.

I personally invite anyone interested in making such changes to the article to suggest them beforehand here, and see what the rest of the community thinks. Some of the changes made were irreversible, and that is not appreciated. Cgros841 18:15, 17 November 2005 (CST)

Well put. I believe, however, than in the case of screenshots (and other images which may have been here, excepting the main intro photo which you released to the public domain) you probably mean "fair use" rather than "public domain", though, right? MCB 00:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

article title

typically the article title is in bold at the beginning of the article, however this article begins with non-nude. Calling this pornography seems like a matter of opinion, albeit a common opinion. Should this article simply be moved to Non-nude? currently that is a redirect to this page. I'm not voting it should be, simply presenting the idea. If it isn't moved then the beginning of the article should be changed to non-nude pornography Vicarious 09:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

A somewhat parallel article with that title was merged into this one (well, it was more the other way around), but the consensus, which I argued for, seemed to be to keep the name "non-nude pornography". (I'm not sure exactly where that discussion was; it may be in the history of the redirected article, or on one or more editors' user talk pages.) The problem with the simpler "non-nude" is, "non-nude what"? (Playing cards? Movie stars? Cigarette lighters?) It seems clear to me that while the type of images discussed here may not be sexually explicit, they are nonetheless intended for sexual arousal and titillation and would meet many definitions of pornography. (There don't seem to be any good alternatives; "non-nude photography" is inapposite, since, well, most photography of persons is non-nude, from news photos to advertising.) In any case, I fixed the bold title at the beginning, which was probably left over as an artifact of the merge. MCB 02:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Well said, I'm satified. Vicarious 03:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Vicarious. As it is, I'm not totally happy with the situation (but can't think of a better alternative), and the article could definitely use a fair amount of work, hopefully by someone who knows more about the subject than I do... Cheers, MCB 06:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Probably, but I've got more substantial articles to worry about then this. Vicarious 01:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Major rework, cleanup, expansion, fact-check

This article in its current form is very limited in scope, has a number of omissions and minor errors, and has a lot of not-so-well-written POV on both sites, pro-NN and anti-NN. I'm going to do some work on this article and invite others to help. I am "pro-NN" in the sense that I've been a dedicated NN collector for years, have participated in a number of NN forums here and there, and have studied the history and culture of NN over the years. I will of course be doing my best to be NPOV, and I have good knowledge of the NN controversies and criticisms, so I think I can create balanced material, but I would love to have others (especially any sane anti-NN folks who might be reading this) to POV-check my overhaul. Even if you don't have any interest in or knowledge of the subject, I'd appreciate someone doing a quick spelling, grammar, and sanity check to spot any typos and silly errors I missed.

Instead of having a dedicated "controversies" section, I'm incorporating criticisms, legal issues, and controversies into the appropriate paragraphs of the main article. Anyone disagree?

References are going to take a little while; it's hard to find stable references about an online movement/community that's somewhat underground and has such a high turnover rate. Am I correct in understanding that the Wikipedia "spam" policy severely limits linking to commercial NN sites? That will be an impediment to fully sourcing everything.

I'm not happy with the article title, but I've explained in the opening paragraph that the phrase "non-nude pornography" is never used. I dunno about the images; some better ones could probably be used but I'm going to leave them alone.

Note: I am not affiliated with any NN site, although I have more experience with the subject than many would care to admit to. Also, I'm on dialup with a large ISP, so I'll be all over the 4.* IP space.

4.89.247.99 02:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I took my first stabs at revision; it's probably a little rough, but have at it. 4.89.241.24 02:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Is, or isn't it, pornography?

The article is called "Non-nude pornography", yet the intro has ambiguous comments like:

• "the material is often (but not always) sexually suggestive"
• "Still, some consider NN to be a form of pornography because of its basic purpose, being the sexual arousal of viewers and distributors. Others consider it an alternative to pornography, and many NN participants express a dislike for pornography."
• "The term "non-nude pornography" is never used within the NN community; "NN" and "non-nude" are the most common names, but "non-nude photography" is sometimes used."
• The picture caption reads "Often sexual and provocative, many consider non-nude photography an alternative to pornography".

A consensus should be reached one way or the other, and both the article title and the article should be modified to be consistent.202.45.99.190 11:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I am a participant in the NN community, and I can tell you that most people in the community do not call it or consider it pornography, but some outsiders do. Like many things, whether something is called "pornography" is often a matter of opinion. I am sad that some Wikipedia editors renamed the article "non-nude pornography" at a point in the past when there were no actual NN fans around to speak up, but for now we're stuck with it. I've made the article more factual but I can't change the title. There is no inconsistency in the article, just different points of view and a few distinctions that might be considered subtle. To answer the statements in question:

"the material is often (but not always) sexually suggestive" -- This is true; some of the material is sexually suggestive, the rest is images of people who are attractive/desirable, but not portrayed in a sexual context.

"Still, some consider NN to be a form of pornography because of its basic purpose, being the sexual arousal of viewers and distributors. Others consider it an alternative to pornography, and many NN participants express a dislike for pornography." -- This is true. Some (mostly outsiders to the community) do consider NN to be a form of pornography. The purpose of NN material is for arousal, but most of the material isn't provocative or sexually suggestive. Many people do not require material to be provocative or suggestive in order to use it for arousal; non-sexual photographs of attractive people are perfectly sufficient for many. And many NN participants do express a dislike for pornography and refuse to have anything to do with it; those are the ones who will get most upset if you refer to NN as "pornography".

"The term "non-nude pornography" is never used within the NN community; "NN" and "non-nude" are the most common names, but "non-nude photography" is sometimes used." -- This is true; I've never heard the term "non-nude pornography" used in the NN community, although "NN photography" is very common -- note that the end of the sentence says photography, not pornography. That is the term that is actually used.

"The picture caption reads "Often sexual and provocative, many consider non-nude photography an alternative to pornography"." -- This is true; NN material is often (but not always) sexual and provocative, and many do consider it an alternative to pornography. (Although, as mentioned, some outsiders consider it to be pornography.)

I hope this helps to clear things up a little.

4.89.243.11 17:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I've edited some of the statements in question to make them clearer. But as with all media, ultimately it is up to the individual observer to decide whether to label it pornography or not. 4.89.244.233 18:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Good comments. However, I disagree that the article should reflect what people in the NN community call the phenomenon. Wikipedia's policy is to title articles by what their subject is best known as to the public (that is, the vast majority of the public who are what you call "outsiders"). In the media, blogosphere, etc., it's "non-nude pornography" or a variant. The fact that a number of consumers of this type of image product don't want to think of it as pornography, or are "upset" at such a characterization, is an interesting psychological phenomenon (which, perhaps, you may want to write about in the article), but does not, to my mind, provide a reason to change the title. I could see possibly adding a redirect for "Non-nude photography", although, as I've written above, that's a misleading title. (For example, if I take a photo of my grandmother in her rose garden, that's "non-nude photography", but rather clearly not what's being discussed here.) MCB 18:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, but I personally can't remember ever hearing the term "non-nude pornography" in the blogosphere, media, or elsewhere. I have heard many critics comparing NN to pornography or accusing NN of being a form of pornography, but I don't think I've never heard "non-nude pornography". "non-nude photography" wins the Google test by a gigantic margin. The only references I can find to "non-nude pornography" are mirrors of this Wikipedia article and other articles that link to it. The "vast majority of the public" have never even heard of this genre and thus don't call it anything. But then again I don't really care too much what the article title is called as long as the article explains the truth, which it now does a better job of. A redirect would absolutely make sense. Someone wanting information about photographs of his grandmother in her rose garden would not search for "non-nude photography" since the question of nudity wouldn't even be an issue. In normal photography, nudity is assumed by default to be absent unless explicitly specified, so there's no need to call it "non-nude". But in NN, the lack of nudity and sexually explicit material is one of the major components of the definition of the genre.4.89.246.244 19:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You're not going to see explicit reference to "non-nude pornography" as a phrase, because when it's discussed, it's just assumed to be one of the very large sub-genres of pornography, so it's not spelled out as a phrase. (For example, "hentai pornography" gets only 700+ Google hits, while "hentai" gets about 40 million.) The Wikipedia entry is descriptive.

But I challenge the idea that referring to NN as pornography is limited to what you call "critics". It's a neutral, descriptive term, not a pejorative one. Look, I'm not at all a "critic" -- I don't think there is anything wrong with NN material, and I don't think there's anything wrong with pornography of other types, either. Some genres are interesting to me, and others are not, but I don't try to make a claim, in Wikipedia or elsewhere, that the stuff I like is somehow not porn (under some genteel euphemism like "erotica") while the other stuff is. In other words, I think trying to exclude NN from being described as pornography is itself a POV edit, since it would appear to me to qualify under any reasonable definition of the terms. It has nothing to do with being a "critic" or an "outsider". MCB 20:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Being "sexually suggestive" is the key requirement for pornography. While a lot of NN photography falls into this category, some does not. NN also includes shots of teens playing on the beach or nightclubbing in skimpy outfits, and some modelled pictures feature scantily-clad teens in natural or artful poses, rather than suggestive ones. As such, IMO, the NN category as a whole cannot be considered pornography. "Non-nude photography" would be an accurate description and would encompass both types. 202.45.99.190 22:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this, especially that a sizable chunk of NN is not "sexually suggestive". Especially the candid subgenre; if the subjects don't even know they're being photographed, and if they're not doing anything sexual at the time, how could the photographs possibly be sexually suggestive? Sexy yes, suggestive no. Many "street" pics don't even have skimpy clothing. However, I disagree that being merely "sexually suggestive" can qualify something as being pornographic; I would say that pornography is sexually explicit and not merely suggestive, but I guess that's an argument for the philosphers and the courts. 4.89.245.46 22:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Reply to MCB: I respect your opinion on the subject of whether NN is pornographic, but I couldn't disagree more with you, and I have trouble understanding how a person could actually hold such an opinion. I understand that opinions differ on what exactly is pornographic and what isn't, but if you define pornography as "anything that anyone masturbates to" or "anything that any person is aroused by", then it's hard to conceive of anything in the world that isn't pornography. Even people would be pornography under that definition; people like Emma Roberts and Emma Watson would be living, breathing child pornography because some people certainly are aroused by them. Even the Harry Potter movies would be child pornography because they show images of Emma Watson and many people see the movies just to be aroused by her.

The truth of the matter is that by the standard defintion of pornography agreed upon by most rational people (excluding religious fundamentalists), pornography is sexually explicit, and if it isn't sexually explicit, it isn't pornography. Even the United States Supreme Court agrees with this statement.

I'd like to do a bit of a real-world demonstration to show that your viewpoint is venturing into territory that could be considered silly. Please look at these photographs, all of which were taken by me and released to the public domain, and tell me what you think of them. Classify each as pornographic or not pornographic.

Exhibit A -- Porn or not porn? Why or why not?

Exhibit B -- Porn or not porn? Why or why not?

Exhibit C -- Porn or not porn? Why or why not?

Exhibit D -- Porn or not porn? Why or why not?

Exhibit E -- Porn or not porn? Why or why not?

Exhibit F -- Porn or not porn? Why or why not?

Exhibit G -- Porn or not porn? Why or why not?

Exhibit H -- Porn or not porn? Why or why not?

All of these pictures were taken by me for the primary purpose of sexual arousal and gratification. And without getting into any gory details, they were all used repeatedly for that purpose by me. They were also shared with other NN fans, both privately and on various forums. I got "props" from NN fans who considered the pictures, and many others like them, to be quality works of NN photography. They were shared with others to be used for the same reasons that I created & used them, and I assume that others did actually use them for that purpose. But I challenge you to state directly that all eight of these photographs are pornographic. Find me one court in a civilized country that would classify all eight of these photographs as pornography. Most of the subjects of these photographs are under 18 (as was I when I took them); will I be arrested for child pornography? If they were hosted by a provider that bans pornography on its servers (which they are -- Imageshack), would they be deleted for violation of the policy? Would anybody looking at these pictures label them pornographic? If the entire contents of your hard drive were replaced by these pictures, would you say that you have a "pornography collection"? I allowed several of these pictures (maybe not these exact ones; it's been nearly 10 years and I can't remember) to the school yearbook -- was the school yearbook pornographic? Are you starting to see my point?

4.89.245.46 22:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

And on another note, in a reply to your earlier comment, I think it's a bit of a low blow for you to claim that anyone who disagrees with you by rightly refusing to tar non-sexual images with the "pornography" brush, is suffering from a (quote) "psychological phenomenon". Different people have different standards that have to be met before they'll label an image pornographic, and I seriously doubt that those of us who use the accepted mainstream definition, and thus refuse to call non-sexual images pornographic, only feel that way because we have a mental problem. 4.89.241.230 00:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. Please -- I am assuming good faith here on your part, and would like you to do the same. Taking the last issue first, please note that "psychological phenomena" does NOT equal "mental problem"! And I certainly don't characterize anyone as "suffering from" it. People have different reactions to various words, for all sorts of societal, historical, etc. reasons, and sometimes exploring those reasons is of encyclopedic value for Wikipedia. (An example involves terms like black, African-American, etc.)

As to the pornography issue, I think you might be confusing "pornography" with "obscenity". Courts don't rule on whether material is pornography; they rule on whether it is obscene, or in some cases, if it is "sexually explicit", or so-called "harmful matter" (which is defined in some jurisdictions). To me, and to Wikipedia, pornography is a neutral, descriptive term pertaining to material that is intended for the purpose of sexual arousal. That's all. In the case of NN, while individual images may not have been created with a sexual purpose (although, from your message, many are), the NN movement -- that is, collecting, maintaining, classifying, trading, and publishing the material, clearly is. It is very difficult for me to understand what the objection to this is. (Your proposal that I classify various images as porn/non-porn does not really shed any light on this; there are a lot of genres of fetish porn, like trampling fetishism, that I would not personally think of as sexually arousing, but it nonetheless is intended as such, and therefore referred to as such.) The question is not whether any given person was aroused by a particular image (as you say, there are people who find all sorts of things arousing), but whether the collection of images is intended for sexual arousal or gratification. MCB 01:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

First, I apologize for misinterpreting your comment about the psychological issues. Moving on. Courts do rule on whether material is pornographic in some cases, such as for child pornography, which requires sexual explicitness; the law defines a clear list of what is legally classified as "sexually explicit" and I've very seldom seen anything on an NN site that meets any of thos criteria. I think your definition of pornography is a minority one; if we accepted your definition then 90% of television would be pornographic, because nearly all television shows cast attractive actors and actresses (to gain viewers from the arousal factor) and dress their actors and actresses in attractive or skimpy clothing to further arouse the audience. Do you consider virtually all television shows to be pornographic? Non-adult magazines put sexy people in sexy clothing on their covers to arouse people into buying the magazine; is this pornography? Every lingere/swimsuit scene in every movie exists primarily to arouse the audience; is that pornography?

On the subject of the "trampling fetish", I haven't watched any videos about that subject since I have no interest in it, but I've seen a handful of fetish videos about other paraphilias, and no, I would not classify most of them as pornographic. If they have no nudity or sex, they are not porn videos, they are fetish videos. The women in those are fetish actresses, not porn actresses. Women who have appeared in sex-free fetish videos have won slander/libel lawsuits against tabloids who claimed they appeared in "porn videos". Producers of sex-free fetish videos do not have to meet the government's record-keeping requirements that porn producers do.

Can you really say that my collection of eight images above is pornographic just because I took them for the primary purpose of arousal/gratification? Can you find anyone who would look at the eight images and then back you up in describing them as pornographic? If I published those eight images on a website with the caption "these photos of attractive girls are provided free of charge in the spirit of good-will and cooperation to those who might find them to be arousing or otherwise visually pleasing", would you classify that as a porn site? Should porn-filter software block that page? If a child visited the page, am I guilty of exposing a minor to pornography, even though the child sees much "worse" than that at school every day? (The pictures were taken close to ten years ago and I know that high school girls now wear much less clothing than they did when I was in school.)

I haven't even proposed a page move, nor am I planning to, just having a friendly discussion. Peace out. 4.253.47.217 02:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm enjoying the friendly discussion, too. Good points. MCB 04:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I am suggesting a page move. Dictionary.com defines pornography as "Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal." (Wiktionary states something similar). As a whole NN doesn't match either of these categories. It's not sexually explicit, and though some of it is created with the "primary purpose of causing sexual arousal", a lot of it clearly isn't. 202.45.99.190 07:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Redirect request

I'm not going to push for an article rename (at least not in the forseeable future) but I hope that someone with an account would be willing to make some redirects to this page, alternate titles that someone searching for this article would be much more likely to use than the current title.

non-nude photography, NN photography, non nude photography, nonnude photography, nonude photography, non nude, nonnude, nonude

These are the widly-used terms frequently used both to talk about the movement/community and used within the movement/community itself. The current title "non-nude pornography" was likely invented by a Wikipedia editor who wished to give the article a less-ambiguous title than the previous non-nude (which now redirects here) but didn't have full information on the subject. 4.89.246.244 19:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

If you register an account, which is free (and, by the way, provides better anonymity than using your IP address), you can create these redirects yourself. MCB 20:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I can't think of a name to use, and I seem to recall that random strings of gibberish aren't allowed. I might have to come up with something at some point, though; I want to scan & upload one of my candid NN pics to contrast with the two (rather similar) posed & provacative pics we have now and I notice you have to have an account to upload. 4.226.60.244 20:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

In a benevolently mean (and now oxymoronic) act I'm not going to create the redirects because I'd also like to see you join. Vicarious 07:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I caved. Vicarious 18:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Slight format changes

I've made some slight changes that I believe make it easier to read, namely, making subsubheaders for the different categories of NN. Also, I'm not entirely sure if it is necessary to include a 2nd example picture, as it seems fairly obvious from the text and from the first example.

In terms of verification/references, there are a few things that could probably do with references, but I'm not familiar with the topic (was just browsing the copy edit list) so can't think of anywhere to find them. There are, for instance, frequent references in the categories to "Well-known Examples". Well-known by what standards/by whom? Also, is there anywhere else where these sub-genres are mentioned or are they the creation of the author(s)? --Despair 20:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Stupid page title

This is a dumb title for this article. Obviously a lot of photography is "non-nude", most of which is not discussed here. We have to find a better term. The fact that supporters of this 'genre' like to call it that is only vaguely relevant.

The little research that I have done does not indicate that this is the title of a movement. The phrase seems to be used only a) by Wikipedia in this article and b) as part of phrases such as "nude and non-nude glamour photographs". In other words nobody uses this phrase to mean what the article says it does except where other context is needed to make it clear it is a subset of glamour/erotic photographs. DJ Clayworth 16:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added a cleanup tag to specifically see if we can find an appropriate name for this article. Some specific questions:

• How is this subject different from glamour photography?
• How is this subject different from erotic photography?

the images

The images in question gratutious, the article can easily say what it says without the images. Their also exploitive, these girls are clearly underage.

DJ Clayworth 19:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

And may I add, their copyright status is at best doubtful. Pascal.Tesson 05:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

No, because the world needs to see what a bunch of stupid perverts these people are. Clearly, the subjects of the non-nude photographs are underage, unless proven by the person who took them. The subjects are meant to look like teens unable to pose in the nude because it is ILLEGAL, thus violating child pornography laws. Therefore, nun-nude presents itself as an alternative for the arousal of blatantly sick people. This is not entirely their fault. I love to blame the Sexual Revolution for promoting liberal views that its okay to look “sexy” in public. One cannot turn on the TV and not see something sexually suggestive. The thugs who pedal this stuff to the weak-minded on the Internet should also be held accountable for their crimes.

was the above entry meant to be a joke? 81.151.124.131 21:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope so, because it was retarded.--Threedots dead 19:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

hmmmm..

much 15 year old boys (having the most hormones of all people, and usually no sex) that have free acces to internet browse porn for sure, despite it being illegal. all of them. and when i was 15 i wasnt looking at girls of 18 or over much. also i dont see why someone of age 22 or 25 or whatever may not get aroused by 15 year olds. it may be somewhat divergent from the norm, but its only cultural that we are that much opposed to it, and it would at worst be a fettish, similar to foot fettishm or being into skinny girls, or the opposite sex for that matter, other then that (the way our sociaty is constructed) it would be wrong to actually engage in sex with minors in most cases since (assuming your not one yourself) they are in a much different state of their lives, and its illegal if there under 16 in most parts of the world. it is really sick that there is (from what i have gathered) a lot of illegal porn on the net, not just because of lawbreaking (i download a lot of music via soulseek too), but cause these laws arent made without reason, and the fact that it is allready against the law to create or publish such things makes it much worse since then it is allready illegal....

but if for some reason a depiction of a nonnude 16 year old floats someones boat, i dont really see much problem there. on the other hand, these girls are actually having there picture taken to be used as pin-ups, and you could argue about how appropriate that would or wouldnt be. but i think they can decide that for themselves, just as much as they can decide wether they will have sex or not. hell i wouldnt mind if it became legal for them to make nude erotic pictures of themselves from the same age its legal to have sex, as long as its done in comfortable circumstances (why the fuck not).

if you want a real problem, what about all those 14 year olds losing their virginity to 19 year olds predators because of their desire for affection and appreciation, and their undereducation.

this may be a long rant inappropriate for a talk page, but i saw quite some significance in this. sociomoral understanding at this age of technological and population-numbes explosion just remains so extremely limited· Lygophile has spoken 23:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It's posts like this one that remind me to add the "WP:NOT#FORUM" template.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Image(s)

The current main image (Image:1luda 087.jpg) is a result of consensus among editors after a long and detailed discussion about inclusion of images here. (Unfortunately, that discussion took place elsewhere, mostly on the talk pages of two deleted images, and in now-archived Images for Deletion pages. The image in question is somewhat "low-quality and amateurish", but the fact is that most of the types of images that this article is about are, in fact, candid or informally posed photos by amateur photographers and models; that's part of the nature of the genre. Image:1luda 087.jpg is a typical example of the genre.

There have been other photos featured as images in the article which may have better represented the genre, but they were deleted due to concern about the ages of the models as well as copyright and provenance. This image has the advantage of a reliable provenance and consent of the model who is over the age of consent. Unless you can supplement it with something much more representative that also meets Wikipedia's legal requirements, don't remove the image. --MCB (talk) 02:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I am in absolute agreement here with MCB. The reasoning and policy supporting the inclusion of the image here is sound. Wikipedia makes decisions through consensus, and if you wish to delete the image you need to create a new consensus through discussion with others, rather than unilateral reverts. VanTucky ^talk 02:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, ok, I'm not going to revert anymore. But this photo is really bad, it looks like someone took it in their living room and put it up as a joke or something. I would say this article would be better with no image at all than with this one. And anyway there must be some more professional-looking photo available we could use. But if consensus is for this one (hard to believe) it of course should stay. Plasynins (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The point of an image is to illustrate the subject as best as possible. If the subject is amateur and/or candid erotic photography then a professional-grade image is not a good way of illustrating the subject. Normally though, you'd be right. VanTucky ^talk 06:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Link

Should be a link to Pin-up (of which this seems to be the modern functional equivalent...). AnonMoos (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)