Talk:Pornified

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Pornography Mid‑importance

	Erotica and pornography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

NPOV issues

The articles seems too weighted in towards those that liked the book and agree with it's premise as it only quotes one critic of the book. I'm pretty sure given that there are still many critics of the claims that porn is harmful to society and given the prominence of this book I'm pretty sure there are other critics of this book that could be cited beyond just the one female sex therapist quoted in the article. Also, the article could go more into detail in summarizing what the author claims is the harm of modern porn. --67.101.223.215 (talk) 04:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is true, the book does not belong in Wikipedia

One sentence in the introductory section reads as follows:

Sex columnist Amy Sohn, on the other hand, cared less for the book and argued in the New York Times Book Review that "Paul never gives credence to the many women who enjoy consuming porn, alone or with partners".

I have never seen the book, so I don't know if this is true or is an exaggeration.

But if it is true, why is this book mentioned in Wikipedia? If it ignores the needs of women entirely, it does not belong here. 2601:200:C000:1A0:98EE:EC37:B711:F053 (talk) 05:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It belongs here precisely because it was discussed and argued about in sources like the one you quote. See Wikipedia:Notability for what warrants an article Qzd (talk) 05:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]