Talk:Pornography/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Pornography. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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 (talk • contribs) 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)

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

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)

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 (talk • contribs) 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.

Movable type was invented by the Chinese with wooden block printing.
The Chinese did produce pornographic prints.
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

Ackman, Dan. "How Big Is Porn?" Forbes. May 25, 2001.

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

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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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.

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.
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? skak E L 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 (Discussion, Contributions) 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 (Discussion, Contributions) 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 (talk • contribs) 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:

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.
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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

This edit request to Pornography has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2014

This edit request to Pornography has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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)

sign your posts.

corrected

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 (talk • contribs) 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)

^ Ziv, Amalia. 2014. Girl meets boy: Cross-gender queer and the promise of pornography. Sexualities 17: 885-905. Retrieved November 20, 2014.
^ Ziv, Amalia. 2014. Girl meets boy: Cross-gender queer and the promise of pornography. Sexualities 17: 885-905. Retrieved November 20, 2014.
^ Ziv, Amalia. 2014. Girl meets boy: Cross-gender queer and the promise of pornography. Sexualities 17: 885-905. Retrieved November 20, 2014.
^ Ziv, Amalia. 2014. Girl meets boy: Cross-gender queer and the promise of pornography. Sexualities 17: 885-905. Retrieved November 20, 2014.
^ Ziv, Amalia. 2014. Girl meets boy: Cross-gender queer and the promise of pornography. Sexualities 17: 885-905. Retrieved November 20, 2014.
^ Ziv, Amalia. 2014. Girl meets boy: Cross-gender queer and the promise of pornography. Sexualities 17: 885-905. Retrieved November 20, 2014.
^ 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.
^ 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 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 22 November 2014‎

"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

This edit request to Pornography has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

116.74.99.113 (talk) 11:43, 17 December 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, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2015

This edit request to Pornography has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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 (talk • contribs) 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)

Paragraph for review

There's a large paragraph added in a single edit that cites just one source a dozen times: A following study examined the ways... ... ...shame and sometimes resentment. It's probably Undue Weight, and definitely worthy of review. I tried checking the source but my browser is going into a redirect loop. Can anyone else access the source? Alsee (talk) 09:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2015

This edit request to Pornography has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like for the lock to be removed for porn17:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)68.8.212.56 (talk) 68.8.212.56 (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

That is not an edit request. If you wish to request the removal of the lock, you should ask at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (in the 'Current requests for reduction in protection level' section) - but you will have to come up with a better justification than that you would like it. The page is an obvious target for vandalism, and non-registered users always have the option of making a proper edit request. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Move the external video to another section? NPOV issue?

I think having the External video at the top of the article being against pornography is a violation of NPOV. It's giving undue immediate weight to a position in the subsection of feminist debate. There are better places to put this video other than at the top of the article, such as in the Feminist Views on Pornography section? Breckham101 (talk) 23:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Porn revenue greater than Google + others combined?

The following paragraph contradicts itself: "As of 2014 the porn industry was believed to bring in more than $13 billion on a yearly basis in the United States.[33] The porn industry alone brings in more revenue than the combined industries: Netflix, Google, eBay, Yahoo, Amazon, Microsoft, and Apple.[33]"

Google's 2014 revenue was 66 billion. The source [33] doesn't claim this data either. The content of the paper is about something else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.193.180.190 (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Apple's revenue in 2015 was $58 billion. 91.66.178.72 (talk) 07:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. The source isn't loading for me for some reason, but that seems implausible enough that I've removed the line pending further discussion. Grayfell (talk) 08:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Heading text

This edit request to Pornography has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

176.106.46.128 (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Association: Correlation does not imply causation

I have linked to Correlation does not imply causation, because many articles claim association, not causality. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Changed. I also changed the heading of this discussion section with ": Correlation does not imply causation" so that it is clearer as to what the section is about and is easier to find once archived. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, we know this mantra, but ordinary readers couldn't be (all) expected to know it. What solution for this problem do you have in mind? Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a need for the overtagging, if that's what you mean; that's why I made this edit. Just like readers can click on those small templates you added, they can click on the links in the big one I added; the big one also comes with an explanation of what's wrong first; it has links for the reader to see what we mean. The vast majority of readers will not understand what we mean by citing WP:MEDRS anyway, even after reading that guideline; I've seen this time and time again. It's usually up to the experienced editors to clean up articles. And I again note that the effects of pornography are not studied as well as many other fields; so use of WP:Primary sources for it is understandable. WP:MEDDATE is clear about this.

If you mean the wikilink, there is no need to state "main article"; the "see also" link suffices. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I agree. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pornography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100822002054/http://www.kochvision.com:80/product.aspx?number=741952635291 to http://www.kochvision.com/product.aspx?number=741952635291

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pornography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://websearch.aic.gov.au/firstaicPublic/fullRecord.jsp?recno=203812

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Snuff films

I believe there recently were documented cases of films (videos) of murder being sold/distributed. I don't recall if these involved overtly sexual acts. This article claims that there are NO instances (which may be true if a "film" is narrowly defined as something which isn't digital, perhaps..). Also, didn't the US Supreme Court weigh in on a definition of porn which left it to "local" determination "know it when I see it"? I might be wrong here...Abitslow (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Religion and Pornography

I think that there needs to be more information on what religions think about pornography, as well as adding in how other countries besides America feel about it. 107.194.225.162 (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)Dakota Himmelman 9/23

See Religious views on pornography. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

We need a more precise definition of pornography

In the main article it is defined as pornography not only the visualization or depiction of sexual acts but also nude photos presented with the intent of sexual arousal. In my view, sexual arousal cannot be the factor to define pornography, as many non-pornographic events or depictions can induce sexual arousal.

The human body, fully dressed, partially or totally naked, should never be considered pornographic. That is the way we were born and we must respect Nature and our nature. The definition of pornography should be restricted to the public exposure of sexual acts, nothing more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martago54 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Basically, Wikipedia follows what reliable sources say. We don't concoct our own definitions. See WP:DEM. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Pornography is not a precise term. I think you should check the dictionary. It seems you would want to specify types of pornography if you want a narrower definitions. Jefferythomas (talk) 05:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Missing primary:

Pornography after the greek era, was primarily a counter to theological dictatorships, in both word, coining of word, changes in word and definition, and in image. Commercialization of pornography is usually very low in any nation that does not have a severity of theological impositions. Examples of nations with high theological impositions: United States, Middle East.

The sale of sex can also occurr in nations/regions with a lousy economic prognosis, or with high overpopulation with respect to their internal potencial quo. Examples of these: Asia/bangkok, middle east.

The sale of sex does not necesarily go hand in hand with pornography, there being many a nation with a severity of fascist theological impositions where sex is sold at a gross for a cent, but pornography is low to none existant.

I do not see this anywhere within this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.77.87.71 (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The two articles don't seem overly long. I think it would be simpler for readers and editors if the content is in one place. This follows a trend of merging articles on effects with their main topic (e.g. Health effects of caffeine, Effects of MDMA on the human body). Sizeofint (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Sizeofint, the Effects of pornography article is a WP:Notable topic, and there is a lot that can be covered on that topic. When it comes to how that article will look once I am done with it, it's clear to me that its content would overwhelm this article. Even in its current state, it would be a significantly big section for this article unless it is drastically cut down. Drastically cutting it down would leave out important material, however. And if it were merged, it would just be broken out again anyway once I've re-introduced the article. So I don't see any need for a merge. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I was unaware you were planning a large expansion of the article. I'll withdraw this for now. Sizeofint (talk) 05:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Merging in hardcore pornography article, splitting out pornography industry

I think we should definitely merge the hardcore pornography article into this one, and perhaps split out a sub-article on pornography industry for the commercial aspects. -- The Anome (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Why do you want to merge the Hardcore pornography article into this article? Both hardcore pornography and softcore pornography have their own Wikipedia articles. I see no need for either of them to be emerged into this article, and I state that as someone who is often for merging. If anything, they could be validly merged into one article called "Hardcore and softcore pornography." And the pornography industry topic is already covered well enough by the Sex industry article, where it currently redirects to, and this article. I am usually only for creating separate articles when necessary. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Failed verification

At [6] I have removed a claim which fails verification. At the cited source there is no mention of either "drugs", "tolerance", "performance" or "sexual response". Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Good catch. Thanks for your diligence. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 21:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

MEDRS violation

At [7] I have reverted a WP:MEDRS violation: first, it is a WP:NPOV violation, since it states contested (purported) facts as if they were consensual (see WP:FRINGE, the 2013 DSM-5 consensus is that there wasn't enough peer-reviewed evidence for deciding whether a sex/pornography addiction would exist). Second, WP:MEDRS requires us to cite reviews indexed for MEDLINE. If they are not reviews and/or they are not indexed for MEDLINE, those papers should not be used for making medical claims in the voice of Wikipedia (best is to avoid such papers completely). Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing. pp. 481, 797–798. ISBN 978-0-89042-555-8. In addition to the substance-related disorders, this chapter also includes gambling disorder, reflecting evidence that gambling behaviors activate reward systems similar to those activated by drugs of abuse and produce some behavioral symptoms that appear comparable to those produced by the substance use disorders. Other excessive behavioral patterns, such as Internet gaming, have also been described, but the research on these and other behavioral syndromes is less clear. Thus, groups of repetitive behaviors, which some term behavioral addictions, with such subcategories as "sex addiction," "exercise addiction," or "shopping addiction," are not included because at this time there is insufficient peer-reviewed evidence to establish the diagnostic criteria and course descriptions needed to identify these behaviors as mental disorders. ... Excessive use of the Internet not involving playing of online games (e.g., excessive use of social media, such as Facebook; viewing pornography online) is not considered analogous to Internet gaming disorder, and future research on other excessive uses of the Internet would need to follow similar guidelines as suggested herein. Excessive gambling online may qualify for a separate diagnosis of gambling disorder.

Quted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

So, it has nothing to do with the "historic definition of addiction". Such definition was already done with in DSM-5, which includes one behavioral addiction as a mental disorder. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

So, the Hilton, Meerkerk and Korkeila sources and the 2007 Science editorial were already weighed and found unconvincing by the APA, and the fightthenewdrug blog is rubbish, we do not use self-published pamphlets for medical claims. Neuroethics is not indexed for MEDLINE. Ditto for Sexual and relationship therapy : journal of the British Association for Sexual and Relationship Therapy. And, it may amaze some, "Random Samples, Officially a disease now?" is not even indexed for PubMed (I mean PubMed: everything indexed for MEDLINE also appears in PubMed). Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Conclusion: all the removed sources are bunk according to WP:MEDRS and they oppose the 2013 medical consensus explained by the sources cited at [8], which indicates that the begging of such conclusion fails WP:PROFRINGE. Quoting such WP:ACTIVIST blog, lambasted by scientists for misrepresenting science (see Fight the New Drug), can be seen as soapboxing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Changed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I knew that scientific knowledge changes with time. But it will take longer till pornography addiction will be backed by conclusive evidence. Some people have no patience for the scientific process to do its job. They want to state now that pornography is universally harmful. Well, that's like stating that wine is universally harmful. I know that some do that such position, but for Wikipedia it is a WP:FRINGE stance. Wikipedia has the same attitude towards bigotry as Harvard and Oxford. "Science has already established the hard fact that porn is universally harmful" is characteristic for the bigotry of that blog. I know that for a scientist is good to have strong opinions, but making bogus scientific consensus claims is totally not done. But the blog is not written by scientists and does not take science seriously, it merely pretends to do so. It has an axe to grind against pornography and since the fire and brimstone story is no longer convincing, it couches its propaganda in scientific-sounding terms. Their conception of science is ancilla theologiae, they're not interested in the pursuit of objective knowledge. That's why everything coming from their website is to be distrusted. They did not say "Porn kills love for 0.5% of the population", did they? Their approach is labeling perfectly healthy people as mentally disordered sexual deviants. (But that's something their religion likes: the more sinful one feels, the more need for religion, Mark 2:17.) Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Conflation of erotic art and pornography

At the moment, the article treats erotica and pornography as synonymous, but surely this is a dubious assertion? The etymology of pornography, from the Greek, is literally "prostitute", "illustration".... so the key thing here is money being involved. Also, in the introduction, we claim that "Pornography is the portrayal of sexual subject matter for the purpose of sexual arousal." Can we have a reference for this assertion? The purpose of pornography is for those who produce it to make money from exploiting the subject matter, it may provide a function of providing sexual arousal to its consumers, but this is only secondary to why it is made. Claíomh Solais (talk) 01:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

This argument relies on a very narrow definition of "purpose". By the same reasoning, the purpose of restaurants and supermarkets isn't to supply food to consumers but rather to make money from exploiting consumers' hunger. Similarly, gas or petrol stations may function as a delivery mechanism for fuel to power private vehicles, but that is only secondary; their purpose is to make money. In some countries, there is no noble purpose even in medical care; it's mostly just a way for doctors, nurses, and other healthcare professionals to make money. Really? I don't know. Even allowing for this narrow definition, the argument completely falls apart when one considers the vast amount of pornography that is available free of charge. Incidentally, while there was once perhaps less of a distinction between illustrating and writing, the combining form "-graphy" is derived ultimately from a Greek word meaning principally the latter. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Claíomh Solais, the Classification section in the article clearly states, "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." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

The main aspect is thus the intensity of sexual arousal in the two cases of pornography and erotica. The next paragraph after the end of sentence containing the arousal of quick intense reaction says that both type of pornography includ nudity. The Psychology Today source says it is much more overlap between the aesthetic and the erotic than between the erotic and the pornographic. Is there some citable (psychological or physiological) scale of sexual arousal to differentiate quantitatively between the two cases of pornography and erotica to be included in article?--82.137.14.248 (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2018

This edit request to Pornography has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Article improvement addition to economics section, it's suggested to mention the highest priced domain sales.

Sex.com was reportedly sold to Escom LLC in January 2006. At a reported $13 million price, the domain name had widely been cited as the highest priced domain sale at the time.

^[1] PornHistorian69 (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

References

^ https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20101117007122/en/Escom-Sells-Sex.com-Sedo-Record-13-Million

Not done: For starters, if it was "widely cited", perhaps you know of a reliable source. (Business Wire is a disseminator of press releases.) I'm also unsure if this information would be especially encyclopedic and fit the article, so I'd suggest seeking consensus here on the talk page. It's not necessary to make a formal edit request to continue the discussion. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 22:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Turin Erotic Papyrus Scene.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 13:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2018

This edit request to Pornography has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the introduction, the sentence "Child porn is a $3 billion industry.[9]" should probably be removed, the source link is broken, and the Internet Archive version doesn't explain where the numbers come from, it doesn't seem to be a reliable source anyway. 207.81.151.106 (talk) 22:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Done have concern about its reliability too –Ammarpad (talk) 10:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2018

This edit request to Pornography has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"to much" = "too much" 2605:E000:9149:A600:F536:ACE2:31DC:5AC1 (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Done Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 15:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2018

This edit request to Pornography has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I want to edit this topic because I have to add something specific to this topic. As the history of Indian Pornography, I want to add something. Allabout9957 (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Kpgj hpjm 15:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Hie

Zaidkhan90 (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2018

This edit request to Pornography has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

24.218.181.84 (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)porn fuck ugh daddy pornhub.com go there an go to Lyndsey to view me

Not done: This is an encyclopedia page, and should not be used for promotion. --DannyS712 (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Aspect missing

There is one aspect missing from the article and that's the fact that sexually explicit productions are not always deemed pornography. For example, TV shows such as Game of Thrones and Shameless contain depictions of sexual acts to a degree they would have been classified as softcore porn in the 1970s; there are also films depicting unsimulated sex acts that are considered mainstream films and not porn (Gaspar Noe's Love 3-D comes to mind). There was even an internet meme a few years back "It's not porn, it's HBO". Sourcing, etc., would need to be done, but this I think is important to discuss in the article. 50.66.121.20 (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Yup, drawing the line depends on time and place. Agree. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

What is Not Pornography Section

The second paragraph under this section caught my eye. It appears to be more of a quickly jotted note rather than a fully formed point (I believe there's a typo as well) and cites an opinion piece from more than a decade ago that makes some points that are likely out of date and debatable. There certainly could be more fleshed out discussion here, but I'm not entirely sure this is the most appropriate way or source.

If the point, as I infer it, is that what is considered pornography changes over time, then it is part-and-parcel to the definition of pornography and social acceptance. These are not so clearly defined. Fleshing this out would probably lead to other changes in the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephmey (talk • contribs) 08:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Better WP:SOURCES are always welcome, preferably sources which don't have a dog in this fight. Neutral, independent commentary is preferable to activist sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Are you asking me to do that? I suppose I could, and I do have professional experience in a clinical setting as a guide in the search, but I feel this is more a matter of sociology and philosophy. I'm relatively new to Wiki editing anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephmey (talk • contribs) 15:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

For Wikipedia sources aren't reliable in general, but for a specific claim. So, yes, if the claim is pretty uncontroversial, a newspaper article will do. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2019

This edit request to Pornography has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Request to delete the subsection entitled "Statistics" under "Study and Analysis". The source for the statement "More than 70% of male Internet users from 18 to 34 visit a pornographic site in a typical month." is very very shaky. The website this is sourced to, "safefamilies.org" is a Christian anti-porn online mission and is therefore suspect as a source for neutral information on the subject. It sources the information to "comScore Media Metrix" and does not link this information. The information was also published in 2011 and is very likely outdated. The reason I request for the entire subsection to be deleted is that it is composed of only two statistics. The other statistic, while well-sourced, is trivia on its own. Perhaps it would fit in to a rework of the section in context with other statistics but as it is, it would be jarring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleural (talk • contribs)

I agree with the issues.

Doing... DannyS712 (talk) 03:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Done

For the record, the content removed was:

More than 70% of male Internet users from 18 to 34 visit a pornographic site in a typical month.^[1]^{[unreliable source?]} A 2009 study published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives found that Utah was the largest consumer of paid internet pornography per capita in the United States.^[2]

References

^ Statistics on Pornography, Sexual Addiction and Online Perpetrators and their Effects on Children, Pastors and Churches. Safefamilies.org. Retrieved 2011-04-21.
^ Edelman, Benjamin. "Red Light States: Who Buys Online Adult Entertainment?" Journal of Economic Perspectives, Volume 23, Number 1 (Winter 2009), pages 209–220.

DannyS712 (talk) 03:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2019

This edit request to Pornography has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the Study and analysis section, suggest adding reference to website with list of supporting science. Source lists exclusively primary sources, and is written by a collection of PhDs. As: Several studies conclude the liberalization of porn in society may be associated with decreased rape and sexual violence rates "Real Your Brain On Porn". 2019. Sciencearousal (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Usually we don't use WP:BLOGS, especially for WP:MEDRS content. This being said, there are high-quality sources which make the same point, so we could copy/paste those sources from another article. ... oh, my bad, those sources are already cited. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Stick to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources for stuff like "decreased rape and sexual violence rates." Rape and other sexual violence are social topics, but they are also medical topics. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Not done: Better to cite the studies directly (or reviews of said studies) than a random website. NiciVampireHeart 23:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

suggestions for upgrade

Mostly notes to myself, I suppose.

Production and distribution by region could mostly be folded into Economics just above it.
And half of what remains slots into Technology, again above.
Significant portions of History of erotic depictions and History of erotic photography really belong in this article, seeing as how they explicitly go on about pornography rather than anything "erotic."

Later, perhaps.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

If adding material from other articles to this article, editors need to be careful not to unnecessarily expand or bloat this article, or take away material from the other articles that should be covered in those other articles as well. Wikipedia:Content forking#Related articles is clear. We have spin-off articles/sub articles for a valid reason, as made clear by WP:SIZE, WP:Spinoff, and WP:Split. We employ WP:Summary style when a topic has its own article for more in-depth material. And as is clear by the "History of erotic depictions" article, the modern concept of pornography cannot be accurately applied to ancient texts and a lot of other historical erotic depictions. So editors need to be careful about characterizing certain things as pornography. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2019

This edit request to Pornography has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Request to add a "further reading" resource in the "neutral" section for new website ^[1]. Written by scientists, provides primary source materials and direct quotation of those materials without any additional editorializing, including making full-text linked when possible.~~

References

^ Science about pornography from actual scientists. Retrieved 2019-04-14.

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

According to [9], the blog seems legit (belonging to mainstream scientists). Yup, it redirects there. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Hope I'm doing this right, but I think the review by Tgeorgescu is a "second" useful to show consensus by consensus? SecondaryEd2020 (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Allow further comments for one week and if nobody opposes inclusion, I shall add it to the article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Closing request until the consensus is made (after the week as suggested above) -- Dane ^talk 03:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@WanderingWanda: Here it was discussed. These scientists are against the idea of porn addiction, but not exactly a porn advocacy group. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, see also the discussion below. WanderingWanda (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what I've said there. Just because it isn't a WP:MEDRS, it does not mean it's bunk. Few of the sources listed there are MEDRS, if any. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2019

This edit request to Pornography has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "Votive Plagues" to "Votive Plaques" 2601:49:C201:6540:C1FA:A1E1:5128:3DE7 (talk) 00:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Done —C.Fred (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2020

This edit request to Pornography has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change the bracket insertion for the quote by Henry Brod, move its position and slightly reword it. Also, remove the redundant [Brod] insertion, as there already exists a signal phrase for the author in the preceding sentence.

From: "I [Brod] would argue that sex seems overrated [to men is] because..."

To: "I would argue that [to men] sex seems overrated because..." Quoth Ravant (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Done Both insertions are redundant in context, which is clear from reading. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

"Porn++" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Porn++. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 01:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

"Sexually suggestive content" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sexually suggestive content. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

"Sexually explicit" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sexually explicit. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

the colors in the map in "legal status" don't match

there are two red colors and only one red in the key SarumanTheBlack (talk) 02:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

SEXUAL HEALTH PRACTICES

Would like to add more information regarding sexual health practices. This would include STD screening, safe sex and birth control methods in the industry as well as law regulations and much more. This would be under a subject heading "SEXUAL HEALTH PRACTICES" or something similar, to provide unbiased information about health practices in the porn industry. BabyRoman (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, be sure to read WP:RS, WP:MEDRS, and WP:NOR first. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Yup, WP:SOURCES make or break the article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

We have a Sexually transmitted infections in the pornography industry article. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I believe even with the article mentioned above, it does not hurt to add this information here as well for convenience and education of readers. BabyRoman (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

No relationship between pornography and any sexual dysfunctions

Should add such information to the article

According to the latest literature review(link below) there is no association between pornography and any sexual dysfunctions

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6679165/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.78.118.185 (talk) 14:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but MDPI does not pass WP:MEDRS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Addiction

Should include a link to planned parenthood or other sexual health organizations to help people. Also a pornography addiction hotline for victims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.220.242.212 (talk • contribs)

Pornography addiction is not recognized by DSM-5, ICD-10 or ICD-11. Hypersexuality, excessive masturbation and compulsive sexual behavior disorder are recognized by at least some of those. They basically use the compulsion or impulse disorder model, which trumps the addiction model. In the Netherlands a working group tried to add a diagnosis of sex addiction under "Other specified mental disorder", but according to https://www.jellinek.nl/vraag-antwoord/bestaat-seksverslaving/ it did not get mainstream acceptance. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2020

This edit request to Pornography has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Laws and Regulations section

Child pornography is child abuse and treated as such by law enforcement; therefore...

Change this: "Child pornography is illegal in most countries, with a person most commonly being a child until the age of 18 (though the age varies). In those countries, any film or photo that shows a child in a sexual act is considered pornography and illegal."

To this: "Child pornography is illegal in most countries, with a person most commonly being a child until the age of 18 (though the age varies). In those countries, any film or photo that shows a child in a sexual act is considered child abuse and illegal." Mjoc27x (talk) 10:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Not done. Please provide a reliable source that supports this change. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2020

This edit request to Pornography has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

On the legality map The United States should be colored yellow and not green as child pornography is illegal but adult pornography is legal 71.254.11.93 (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. KRtau16 (talk) 12:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, child pornography is illegal in most countries, meaning all countries should be colored yellow in your scenario. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Should include links to pornographic sites as an example of what pornography is and safe sex guidlines.

It would be helfpul for people who don't know what pornography or sex is. Eg. Pornhub.com, xhamster.com oglertube.com

That is not generally done. I do not know of a Wiki policy against this (can someone more knowledgeable step in if there is an existing policy on whether external links to porn sites is allowed?), but the general practice with pornographic material or actors is to link to their IMDB, IAFD, etc., pages. Even linking to official websites of actors is common, but not tube sites like the ones you suggest. As for safe sex guidelines, Wikipedia already has a page for that. MabuseTest (talk) 19:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

best quality

Isnt 'best quality pornography' a highly subjective, and due to that, inappropriate term for wikipedia? ShalokShalom (talk) 13:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. A more accurate adjective should be used, or maybe just get rid of it altogether and refer to them simply as "...in which several pornographic..."MabuseTest (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi Protected Edit Request on 30th of August 1998

Change the text from:

Pornography (often shortened to porn) … A distinction…

To: Pornography (often shortened to porn) derived from obscenity (see above reference) is an extreme form of obscenity, nudity with depictions of sexual activity, real or simulated, and is generally intended solely for the purposes of sexual arousal. A distinction…

Wikipedia is not a dictionary and the lede has been reached by consensus. So unless you build a consensus for this change it won't be changed. Please sign your posts with four tildes. Thanks Robynthehode (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

The majority of US men

This needs some explanation:

for all US men (aged 18-115) it is maybe not clear enough;
for all US men (aged 18-60) it is highly probable;
for all Americans (men or women, most of them aged 18-35): it is overly clear, for both sexes, see https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+men+use+porn&oq=how+many+men+use+porn

Conclusion: multiple sources suggest that the majority of US men use porn and it is an established fact that the majority of US population, aged 18-35, use porn. CycoMa: too few sources are more problematic than too many sources, especially for difficult to evaluate percentages as porn users. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu some of the sections I tagged are like only one or two sentences long and use only one source.CycoMa (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

And I'm not even speaking of estimates of unknown reliability, such as 64% of Christian men and 15% of Christian women say they watch porn at least once a month. https://www.covenanteyes.com/pornstats/

And Overall, 64 percent of American men reported that they view porn at least monthly and 18 percent of all men said they are either addicted or unsure if they’re dependent upon smut; this proportion jumped to 33 percent for men between the ages of 18 and 30. https://web.archive.org/web/20140831055210/https://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/08/28/shocking-statistics-about-porn-epidemic-and-christian-consumption-a-very-real-addiction-that-can-spiral-out-of-control/

Alexis Kleinman is a journalist, not a scientist, but we may assume she did her best to find out the truth about porn consumption and that she cited (or at least checked) legit sources, as she said she did.

Conclusion? The people who say porn use is paraphilia should suck it up and be a man: they lost the debate, so they should quit whining. Why? Because if the majority of the population does X, doing X is axiomatically clinically normal in psychiatry. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu why not just put all that in there. You have reliable sources for your claims just go for it.CycoMa (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: My point is futile for the medical profession: they already know that pornography use is not a mental disorder. DSM-5 code for pornography use? Not any. ICD-10 code for pornography use? Not any. ICD-11 code for pornography use? Not any. So, of course it isn't paraphilia. A psychiatrist cannot diagnose someone with pornography use: all other MDs would laugh at such diagnosis and the medical insurance companies will never cover it. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu not disagreeing with you man. And all honesty I don’t care. I just here to make sure no one is edit warring or being disruptive.CycoMa (talk) 22:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: Yup, this majority thing simply upgraded it from theoretically known fact to painfully obvious fact. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ngandolf.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Lede

I've just removed this recent addition from the lede: Historians have considered the earliest surviving pornographic film to be Le Coucher de la Mariée produced in 1896 by Eugène Pirou. Initially this was uncited. It was later restored, citing a Google Books search string. [10]

It should first be noted that Le Coucher de la Mariée is already discussed in the article body. In my opinion however, it doesn't belong in the lede - and certainly not in the middle of a section discussing changing social attitudes. And if it did, the result of a random Google search (which isn't a proper citation at all) isn't sufficient for assertions about 'Historians' in general. Even if the source was properly cited, 'Serving Online Customers: Lessons for Libraries from the Business World' is hardly likely to be authoritative on such matters. Ledes are not a dumping ground for random assertions, and in any case other sources discussing Le Coucher de la Mariée seem to be more equivocal about labelling it 'the earliest' anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Why would Andy Warhols Blue movie be allowed in the introduction but not Le Coucher de la Mariée which is also mentioned lower in the article? Here is a better source and there are countless: https://books.google.com/books?id=yxcaEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA130&dq=%22first+pornographic%22+%22Le+Coucher+de+la+Mari%C3%A9e%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwidzNfz57X3AhWPW80KHRLIC0sQ6AF6BAgEEAM#v=onepage&q=%22first%20pornographic%22%20%22Le%20Coucher%20de%20la%20Mari%C3%A9e%22&f=false

Foorgood (talk) 03:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

The lede is a summary. The section in question is discussing changing social attitudes. Even if Le Coucher de la Mariée was the first pornographic film (or even the first surviving one), its creation isn't evidence of changing social attitudes. Warhol's film (or rather its theatrical release) was, since it marked the beginning of a trend. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

First of all you say it's a summary so therefore somewhere in the lede it should announce a very crucial fact such as the first pornographic film. Secondly this source describes how an earlier film by Edison was denounced whereas Le Coucher was so popular in France that remakes were ordered- that's a change in attitude: https://books.google.com/books?id=PYoBEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA168&dq=Le+Coucher+de+la+Mari%C3%A9e+popular&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjI8v2J67X3AhVeAZ0JHdREC-4Q6AF6BAgLEAM#v=onepage&q=Le%20Coucher%20de%20la%20Mari%C3%A9e%20popular&f=false Foorgood (talk) 03:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

The first anything is rarely crucial, when discussing long-term social trends. Widespread adoption matters, not the first occurrence, especially when discussing things where the historical record is likely to be incomplete. As for how Edison's reception vs that to Le Coucher de la Mariée, I'd have to say that your sources rather suggest that this was down to differing attitudes in France at the time, where still photography considered pornographic elsewhere was (sometimes at least) seen as legal. Attitudes seem not to have changed, just the medium.

If you want to argue for including Le Coucher de la Mariée in the lede, find sources that actually suggest its release had a significant impact on attitudes to pornography, and add content to the section in the article body based on such sources. Then maybe we can consider changing the lede. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:59, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

The sentences before say "Various groups within society have considered depictions of a sexual nature immoral, addictive, and noxious, labeling them pornographic, and attempting to have them suppressed under obscenity laws, censored or made illegal. Such grounds, and even the definition of pornography, have differed in various historical, cultural, and national contexts." You see it's talking about the different views even between different nations so it is fitting to then add a sentence of the difference in attitudes between Edison's release in America vs the release in france of La Coucher de la Marie and then the sentence of how it finally was positive in America with Andy Warhol. Your seriously excluding viewpoints of other countries and only keeping America's.Foorgood (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd agree with you regarding the suggestion that the lede (and indeed the article as a whole) unduly focuses on the United States. It needs work, certainly. As for the rest though, you still need a source that says that the release of Le Coucher de la Mariée was indicative of a change in social attitudes towards pornography. Change over time, not difference from place to place. The history section of the article does a reasonable job of illustrating the interaction between new forms of pornographic media and changing social attitudes in different cultural contexts, without resorting to the reductionist argument that it was all driven by technology, and I really don't think the article lede should fall into that trap. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

As I said the sentence prior says "differed in various historical, cultural, and NATIONAL contexts" so it is entirely appropriate the talk about the differences between two countries but even in France alone the earlier painting titled Le Coucher de la Marie was denounced as obscene whereas the film years later was received positive and popular:https://books.google.com/books?id=9fG9CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA79&dq=le+coucher+de+la+mari%C3%A9e+reaction&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjtxuuP-rb3AhVYCc0KHQ6cBpMQ6AF6BAgIEAM#v=onepage&q=le%20coucher%20de%20la%20mari%C3%A9e%20reaction&f=false.... So I can state how in France the earlier painting was denounced as obscene but later the film was received positive and popular.

Foorgood (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Have you ever read Wikipedia:No original research? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

What of what I'm saying is original research I have two sources saying those two points.Foorgood (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. Two sources, saying two different things about two entirely different subjects (have you actually looked at Bauduin's painting?). Which you are using to synthesise a single statement about changing attitudes in France. WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok youre saying i cant use two sources to say one thing synthesis i understand. But the one source(two actually) that both say that there was a difference between Edisons film reaction in america vs Pirous film reaction in France is completely valid for the lead after the sentence talking about how the views differed in DIFFERENT NATIONS.Foorgood (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I've already answered that. We have sources saying that attitudes to pornography differed between America and France. We don't have a source that states that Le Coucher de la Mariée had any effect on such attitudes. 16:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Youve already "answered" but you are deciding you only accept a source that says attitude change in france but im repeating to you that its entirely acceptable to talk about different views in two different countries following the sentence in the lede that says "Such grounds, and even the definition of pornography, have differed in various historical, cultural, and national contexts.[3] Social attitudes towards the discussion and presentation of sexuality have become more tolerant in Western countries..."Foorgood (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

So what specific text are you proposing for the lede, and why does it belong there, rather than in the article body, where we already discuss Le Coucher de la Mariée? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Right after the existing sentence that says "Such grounds, and even the definition of pornography, have differed in various historical, cultural, and national contexts." I would add: "In the late 19th century various films by Thomas Edison were denounced as obscene in america whereas in France Eugene Pirous le coucher de la mariée became very popular." This is described exactly in both these sources: https://books.google.com/books?id=PYoBEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA168&dq=Le+Coucher+de+la+Mari%C3%A9e+popular&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjI8v2J67X3AhVeAZ0JHdREC-4Q6AF6BAgLEAM#v=onepage&q=Le%20Coucher%20de%20la%20Mari%C3%A9e%20popular&f=false and https://books.google.com/books?id=JBctCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA11&dq=le+coucher+de+la+mari%C3%A9e+explicit&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi22uHhgLf3AhWbKs0KHYXjDoMQ6AF6BAgEEAM#v=onepage&q=le%20coucher%20de%20la%20mari%C3%A9e%20explicit&f=false. We can't only allow Andy Warhols film to be mentioned when this is considered the first pornographic film and is described as such a sharp difference between two countries following the existing sentence about views of different nations. If you prefer, the alternative sentence can be "While Le Coucher de la Marie by Eugene Pirou had a popular release in 1896 in France, it wasn't until Andy Warhols Blue Movie in 1969 that America had it's first popular theatrical release."Foorgood (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

You are still using two different sources to make a contrast between Pirou and Warhol, in your second proposed text. And comparing two very different things. Pirou's film was risqué for the time, but hardly pornographic by modern standards. It certainly can't be used to suggest that the French permitted material at the turn of the century that the US didn't allow until the 1970s.

I'd be interested to see what other people have to say on this though. There must be others watching this page. Anyone else want to chip in? Maybe someone has something to say on the overall emphasis of the lede, and whether it really is an appropriate summary of the article body? I don't think it is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok then forget my second supposed text and read the first one again. You have two sources saying the same thing about the difference between America and France in the 1890s and it's a very important moment because Le Coucher is considered the first pornographic film by endless sources.Foorgood (talk) 20:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Andy I am ready to edit right after the existing sentence that says "Such grounds, and even the definition of pornography, have differed in various historical, cultural, and national contexts." I would add: "In the late 19th century various films by Thomas Edison were denounced as obscene in america whereas in France Eugene Pirous le coucher de la mariée became very popular." This is described exactly in both these sources: https://books.google.com/books?id=PYoBEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA168&dq=Le+Coucher+de+la+Mari%C3%A9e+popular&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjI8v2J67X3AhVeAZ0JHdREC-4Q6AF6BAgLEAM#v=onepage&q=Le%20Coucher%20de%20la%20Mari%C3%A9e%20popular&f=false and https://books.google.com/books?id=JBctCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA11&dq=le+coucher+de+la+mari%C3%A9e+explicit&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi22uHhgLf3AhWbKs0KHYXjDoMQ6AF6BAgEEAM#v=onepage&q=le%20coucher%20de%20la%20mari%C3%A9e%20explicit&f=false. This is extremely important because Edison is considered the inventor of the motion picture camera and Le Coucher is considered the first pornographic film.Foorgood (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok, if you really want to. Though as I wrote earlier, I think the lede may want further work, and I'd like to see what other people have to say about it, so there's no guarantee it won't get removed again. Please ensure you include proper citations, not just Google search URLs: per Wikipedia:Google Books and Wikipedia a search URL isn't guaranteed to always return the same content, making it unreliable long term. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes sir I will do it later tonight and I agree we should work on the lede together with others but as we said it did only focus on America. I think the le coucher and blue movie are perhaps the two main pivotal moments in the history of pornography we shall see what others add .Foorgood (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Foorgood, see WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. This really isn't something that should be in the lead. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Of course it follows the body Le Coucher is mentioned as the first pornographic film in the body. If you want I can add the bit about Edison in the body too as LEADFOLLOWSBODY says to simply first add it in the body then to the lede.Foorgood (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Laws and regulations

In the "Laws and regulations" стадіон there is an image on which the Crimean peninsula belongs to the territory of Russia. 176.80.113.239 (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

"Pornog" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Pornog and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 8#Pornog until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TraderCharlotte (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

"P0rn" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect P0rn and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 8#P0rn until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TraderCharlotte (talk) 03:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Red flag

WP:REDFLAG because To begin, the vast majority of research utilized nonexperimental, cross-sectional designs. This type of methodology tells us nothing about the causal impact of SEM and SVM exposure on DV and SV attitudes and behaviors. Rodenhizer and Edwards (2017). So, welcome to the world of medical porn research, wherein causality can seldom be shown.

Doran and Price (2014) is not indexed at all for PubMed.

About Research shows a clear association between pornography and sexual and dating violence. Across 43 studies, teens and young adults who consume more sexually explicit and sexually violent media were six times more likely to be sexually aggressive toward others we know the mantra correlation does not imply causation, but the quote offered is too bold and cocky, since it suggests much too much a causal link between pornography and sexual and dating violence. I mean: for the medical professional, it doesn't, but for the "laity", it does. Even journalists who lack scientific literacy could be fooled by such incendiary statements. It takes high scientific literacy to see through such statements. So, such statements are misleading because we write for a general audience. We do not write for experts.

Basically, there are no empirical data about the impact of porn upon youth. Most studies thereupon are navel-gazing, instead of responsible statistical processing of empirical data.

E.g. this is a PhD research thereupon from the Netherlands: https://www.uva.nl/binaries/content/assets/uva/nl/onderzoek/promoveren/samenvattingen/2020/01/samenvatting-klaassen-marleen.pdf

Its conclusion: low statistical correlation and causality cannot be shown.

See its precedent upon https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/08/14/children-who-access-internet-porn-more-likely-to-have-sex-younger_n_7365794.html Miranda Horvath stated about this: "But it is not possible to establish causation from correlational studies, and to say whether pornography is changing or reinforcing attitudes." Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22987051

Positive knowledge (as opposed to speculation or moralism) is extremely hard to come by, and to the extent that it exists, it does not support the bold claims of the moralists.

Or, as the biologist Steve Jones, Emeritus Professor of Genetics at University College London said about something else "a classic case of Arts Faculty science. Never mind the hypothesis, give me the data, and there aren’t any".

The problem with researching porn effects upon teens is, as Rory Reid (UCLA) declared "Universities don't want their name on the front page of a newspaper for an unethical study exposing minors to porn." Suppose an evil dictator would solve such problem, well, this would be only solving the minor problem. The major problem is finding a control group, i.e. teens who have never watched porn. Even if those teens take an oath on the Bible that they have never watched porn, that still isn't conclusive evidence that they have never watched porn. Teens lie a lot, especially if they have to tell about their own porn consumption while their parents are religiously conservative.

Peter and Valkenburg (2016) 20 years review: causality cannot be shown. Brown and Wisco (2019) review: idem ditto. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:39, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2022

This edit request to Pornography has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Replace “sexual arousal in adults” with just “sexual arousal” in lede. Pornography is consumed by minors, and the age of the viewer is in no way part of the definition. 165.124.85.62 (talk) 08:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Done 3mi1y (talk) 08:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Article image

Do we really think a "XXX" symbol is the most representative image for this lead? Compare the porn star article, which contains a relatively tame image of pornography being produced. We could use something similar here. I searched for previous discussions and found only two, one of which was from 2007 and involved a lot of pearl-clutching about putting images like that on Wikipedia, and the other is about a previous image that was apparently very old art that was possibly not pornographic at all. I like the idea of using a historic image as well, as long as it's well-established to be actual porn. WPscatter ^t/_c 07:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2022

This edit request to Pornography has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I'd like to add one more book to the Neutral or Mixed section of Further Reading:

Robert Rosen, 2010, Beaver Street: A History of Modern Pornography. London, Headpress. ISBN 978-1900486767. A first-person account of pornography in the age of the computer, from the invention of phone sex, in 1983, to the financial collapse of pornographic magazines as they're replaced by free online pornography in the early 21st century. Masterofsyntax (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@Masterofsyntax:

Done Colonestarrice (talk) 06:38, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Some suggestions

While reading some more Papers, i would like to prupose an addidion to the deffinition of Pornogarphy. Since my first proposal is Wikipedia:REDFLAG, i used seven Systemtatic Reviews to support the claim.

Scientific definition

In academia, pornography is not uniformly defined. When researching pornography or pornography and adolescents, terms such as Sexually Explicit Media (SEM), X-Rated, erotic, pornography, or pornography is not defined, many refer to sexual arousal. It was considered useful to define pornography in a uniform way. There are as many definitions of pornography as there are researchers who have explored the field, and the definition of pornography can vary depending on the area of research, with some researchers defining pornography as "sexually explicit material as content, "professionally produced or user-generated images or videos (clips) intended to arouse the viewer sexually. These videos and images typically depict sexual activity such as masturbation and oral sex, as well as vaginal and anal penetration in an undisguised form, often with close-ups of the genitals", still others "sexually explicit websites as those that "describe people having sex, show clear images of nudity or people having sex, or show a film or audio describing people having sex". and still others "as pornography may consist of videos, images or written texts. Such sexual images or texts are sometimes referred to as erotica" some referred to, "material intended to sexually arouse the audience". In the research on pornography,[1](P.10/14)[2] (P.13, 15–16, 17,)[3](P.24–25,) [4](P.4)[5](P.1,7,10,) 67.9% of the studies defined pornography as porn, pornographic material, 9.2% were content specific, 7.5% referred to X-rated, and another 6.9% to sexually explicit media/materials, 5.6% referred to erotica or cybererotica, 2.6% multiple methods 0.3% adult materials and 0.3% of the studies did not define pornography, none of the studies referred to a legal definition. There is also a question of whether Playboy/Playgirl (legal definition is interessting here) and similar media should also be seen as pornographic or not,[6](P.4) [7] (P.17-19)

Source 1,3,5,6,8 are in MEDLINE. The others arnt. Since you @Tgeorgescu are a friend of mainstream science, may you please criticise what i prupose?

And a Review about Sex in Porno. The Other Karma (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@The Other Karma: First, I do not WP:OWN pornography articles from Wikipedia. Second, Wikipedia is a community, sometimes cooperative, sometimes adversarial, but we have procedures for resolving conflict.

Third, as the boilerplate says, be bold, but not reckless. You don't have to ask for my permission to perform changes.

Fourth, perhaps I repeat myself, I would not expect pornography research to provide large correlations and show causality. I don't say that is principally impossible, just that I would be highly amazed to see that published and indexed for MEDLINE.

*d) When it comes to fiction, the main purpose is escapism and wish fulfilment, not critical analysis. Dimadick (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

The quote above shows that we should not see entertainment as having too much impact on real-life behavior. Subtle influence, perhaps, but not brainwashing. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2023

This edit request to Pornography has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to add an extra paragraph stating the effects and safety risks of pornography in a young childs mind Lemonlebob23 (talk) 06:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 06:23, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

To cut a long story short, there is some research about it, but:

shown correlations are low;
causality cannot be shown. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Motivated reasoning is all the rage when it comes to pieces that argue "science confirms my bias!" jps (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 07:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The sources of the Huffington Post

If you want to hide its sources, you may comment out the sources for the Huffington Post report. But either comment them all out, or let them all be, no in-between.

The point is: it is not an original report by HP. So, it does not matter if HP is reliable. HP picked the report from a web forum. And it does not matter if the web forum is reliable, since they report the sources of their information. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

On the opening definition provided by the article

Pornography (often shortened to porn or porno) has been defined as sexual subject material "such as a picture, video, or text," that is primarily intended to assist sexual arousal in the consumer and is created and commercialized with "the consent of all persons involved."

It seems to be a working definition for social studies research on non-criminal pornography, not intended as a general definition of the word pornography, and definitely not accurate to the common usage of the word. In fact, the authors define it as such specifically to exclude things commonly referred to as pornography, but outside the scope of their research.

Pornography can be defined as "material [e.g., pictures, films, videos or text] deemed sexual, given the context, that has the primary intention of sexually arousing the consumer, and is produced and distributed with the consent of all persons involved" (McDonald & Kirkman, 2019, p. 163). Central in the definition of pornography is the consent of all persons involved. Therefore, materials that were produced or distributed without the consent of at least one person involved (e.g., "revenge porn," "child pornography") were excluded from this definition (McDonald & Kirkman, 2019).

From What does ‘pornography’ mean in the digital age? Revisiting a definition for social science researchers (McDonald & Kirkman, 2019):

Our concern was with non-criminal use of pornography; we thus excluded papers reporting research on criminal behaviour. This exclusion rendered ineligible research on child pornography: we wanted to avoid introducing ethical and theoretical matters beyond the scope of this review.

The use of "has been defined as" particularly bothers me, since it suggests that the editor knew it's not the common definition and chose to purposefully mislead readers. Fechisama (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Specified it concerns legal pornography. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

That's better, though I don't see why it needs to be mentioned in the opening definition when there's an entire section dedicated to its legality, or how the citation is relevant at all. Fechisama (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually, different kinds of pornography are legal in different areas of the world, so the definition of "legal pornography" doesn't work. Fechisama (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

There's not one single definition for the word "pornography" that's been agreed on by both the anti and pro pornography groups of people. They have defined it either in disparaging or laudatory terms. Researchers however have agreed on a 'working definition' for the word "pornography" as sexually arousing material. That's the reason why "has been defined as" is used (present perfect progressive tense - for action that remains open and unfinished ~ https://www.grammarbook.com/blog/verbs/have-been-vs-has-been-vs-had-been/); these points regarding the definition have been elaborated in the 'Etymology and definition' section of this article. Rim sim (talk) 13:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I accept the use of "has been defined as", and I'm happy with the current definition. However, I still reject the citation; a definition specifically crafted to be used within a very narrow research area (social studies on non-criminal pornography) should not be used as the opening statement of the article, even if it happened to coincide with the more general "sexually arousing material" definition, which it doesn't. I'll try to dig through the old versions of the article to find a more fitting source when I have time.

I understand there's very passionate and vocal people on both sides of the discussion, which is why I was worried about the use of "has been defined as" to propagate a seemingly fringe definition while still being technically correct. Fechisama (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

Unsuccessful. Z1720 (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pornography/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Z1720 (talk · contribs) 14:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section):

b. (citations to reliable sources):

c. (OR):

d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects):

b. (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Hi, before going into an in-depth review of the article (it's very long, so it would take a long time) I am going to give general comments on things I found in a skim. When these are addressed, I'll go more indepth into various sections:

The lede is too long. While this is an extensive topic that has many facets, the lede should be shortened to provide an overview that does not overwhelm the reader. I think four paragraphs is appropriate, but the length of the paragraphs should be shortended.
There are many one-sentence paragraphs, which are not recommended per MOS:PARA. I suggest merging these paragraphs, expanding upon them, or removing them.
There is some major MOS:SANDWICH happening in the "Pornography throughout history" section with the quote and the top of "Legality and regulations".
Ref 28, 42 57, do not point to a citation.
Sutherland, John (1983) and Klein, Marty (30 October 2016) are not used as inline citations and should probably be removed.
"Further reading" should not be divided by position as it might be against WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Even better, these sources should be placed in the article as inline citations or removed.
The "External links" section looks like it should be in Further Reading, or removed per WP:ELNO
History.com is not a reliable source on Wikipedia and should be removed from External links.
Gover, Dominic (13 August 2013), Buchholz, Katharina (11 February 2019)., Richter, Felix (21 August 2013, Steinbuch, Yaron (2 December 2022)., News.com.au. and imdb are not considered reliable sources as should be removed.

Please ping me when the above are addressed and I will give more comments. Z1720 (talk) 14:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

all the concerned issues have been addressed. Rim sim (talk) 07:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Z1720, Rim sim any updates? (t · c) buidhe 17:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I got busy in real life and haven't had a chance to pick this up again. I am hoping to take a look at it by later this week. Z1720 (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about the delays. I am returning to this review, and I'm going to start by looking at the sources and what they verify. This is not a spot check yet, but I will bring up concerns below:

Source review: Books and News sections:

"Gupta, Mahendranath (1942)." This is only used once, to verify a fact about Hindusim, but the publisher is a sect of Hinduism and might not be representative of the whole religion. I suggest replacing this with a peer-reviewed academic source.
"Leahy, Michael (2009)." This is used to verify "Pornographic websites are often visited during office hours." There's another source that also verifies this, and this book has a bias towards stopping people from engaging in pornography so I think this can be removed.
"Monaco, James (1999)." I think this is James Monaco. It is only used once in the article, and there's a CBS source that is also used to verify this. I am dubious about the reliability of this source so I think it should be removed.
"The Hindu Kama Shastra Society (1925)." Considering the age of this source, and the bias that this group has towards this information, I think better, more recent sources can be found to verify this.
"Stone, Lyman (26 June 2019)." This is used to verify "The vast majority of US men use porn." Since this is a Christian magazine, I do not think it is the best source to use to verify this information. I suggest replacing it with a better, academic source.
"Weiss, Daniel (November 2022)" This is used once to verify "Some Christian denominations consider pornography use among Christian men and women as engaging in "digital adultery." I am not sure this information is necessary in the article, but if digital adultery is going to be introduced in this article I would expect an explanation in the article and information from other sources.
Some of the journals are wikilinked in sources, and some are not. I suggest picking one format and standardising it.
The page numbers for the "Sources used" section are not necessary as they are cited in the inline citations. Examples include "Black, Jeremy; Green, Anthony (1992). " and "Browne, Pat (2001)." These page numbers should be deleted. An exception to this is in edited works like "MacKinnon, Catharine A. (1989a)."
"Pornography: A Secret History of Civilisation"." There is no inline citation pointing to this, so this can be deleted.
The Further reading section does not need level 3 headings, per MOS:OVERSECTION, and most or all of these can either be incorporated as inline citations or deleted.
"Susannah Breslin (20 December 2013)." This is written by a Forbes contributor and is therefore considered unreliable. It should be removed.

General comments from skims

There should be an inline citation at the end of every paragraph, minimum. Exceptions include the lede. Examples of where a citation is missing include:
- "The Meese Report in 1986, argued against loosening restrictions on pornography in the US. The report was criticized as biased, inaccurate, and not credible."
- "Some people, including pornography producer Larry Flynt and the writer Salman Rushdie,[h] have argued that pornography is vital to freedom and that a free and civilized society should be judged by its willingness to accept pornography." And this note h is not necessary and can be removed. (this whole paragraph can probably be removed as a topic as broad as this probably doesn't need individual opinions.)
- "The UK government has criminalized possession of what it terms "extreme pornography," following the highly publicized murder of Jane Longhurst."
The Economics section seems to just be a listing of estimates of the total monetary worth of the industry. I think this section should instead focus on how the industry is monetised and generates revenue, with the total worth of the industry today included in that paragraph.

I am going to review the News and Websites section after the above are addressed, but in general please ensure that all websites have an access date. Ping me when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, have made changes as per all the recommendations listed, you may continue the review process now. Rim sim (talk) 11:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@Z1720: pinging you, the review can be continued now. Rim sim (talk) 14:00, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Continuing review:

I do not think that we need a list of the net worth of pornography in the Economics section for specific years. Instead, this section should focus on how the economics of pornography has grown, with specific mentions of years where there were major changes.
"Bhasin, Puneet (29 November 2014)" What is the editorial policy of this source? Are articles reviewed before it is published?
"Comenas, Gary (2002)." Same as above.
"Dave, Hiren (2 July 2020)." This source is not necessary and the editorial policy is dubious, so I recommend removing it.
"Kernes, Mark (24 June 2014c)." Title has all-caps, which should be removed.
"Lipton, Josh (28 January 2010)." I could not find the editorial policy of Minyanville so I suggest removing this.
"Layne, Ken." I think this is just a general opinion site and should be removed.
"Masnick, Mike (4 November 2011)" I can't find this site's editorial policy and I think it can be removed.
"Maxwell, Andy (6 February 2012)." Wikipedia's website identifies this as a blog, and Maxwell is the site's creator. Thus, I do not think this should be used.
"O'Connor, David (September–October 2001)." I do not know what this website is, and I think it can be removed.
"Rodley, Chris;" This is not used as a source and should be deleted.
"Spencer, William David (2010)." This is a conference paper: should it be in this section?
"Salter, Michael (2013)." Same as above.
"SPINA, J. (9 July 2014)." This should be cited to the supreme court's website, not another outlet.
"Williams, Mitchell (21 November 2012)." This was written by a contributor and not considered reliable per WP:HUFFPOST
""AMERICAN PORN". " The all-caps from this reference should be removed.
""Bhagavad Gita: Chapter 7, Verse 11"." This should be cited to the actual book, not an external site.
""Bulk Alexa rank checker"." Why is this reliable?
""Denmark - the first country to legalize pornography". " This reference needs to be cleaned up: the author and other information is given in the archived site.
""pornography – podictionary 943"" Why is this reliable?
""pornography". Online Etymology Dictionary." Why is the online etymology dictionary reliable?
""STI Testing in the Adult Industry: Exposing the Truth"." Why is this a reliable source?
""πόρνος". " Why is this a reliable source?
"""πορνογραφία""." Why is this reliable?
""20th Century Nudes in Art"." Why is this reliable?
Adult Video News vs AVN: These seem to be used interchangeably: one of these should be chosen and used in the sources.

This type of article is popular and thus editors often want to add less reliable sources. I highly recommend that you seek out the highest quality sources possible from reputable publications like peer-reviewed journals supported by universities and new outlets that have a record of independent, editorial oversight. In the next step, while reading the article I will check who is supporting that citation, and if there is a large claim I will look to see what source is supporting it, and if it is a lower quality source I will mention it below. I suggest that you do a readthrough of the article to see how the sourcing can be improved. Z1720 (talk) 22:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

@Z1720: Have made all the requisite changes and improved the article accordingly. Kept the online etymology dictionary as it's considered quite a good source for non technical words. Hope the review is continued soon. Rim sim (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@Rim sim: Sorry for the delay. Here are some additional thoughts:

The lede is quite long. I would see if you could reduce it. A great place to start is to ensure that all of the information in the lede is also somewhere in the body of the article.
Per MOS:CITELEDE, the citations in the lede are probably not necessary.
The "Etymology and definition" Seems very repetitive and unstructured. I would copyedit this section and try to have a clear narrative throughout the section.
The erotica information isn't necessary in this article as it has its own article.
The 1964 US Supreme Court information seems too US centric and I think it can be removed.
"Further information: History of erotic depictions" All hatnotes should be at the top of the section not in the middle.
The blockquote in this section is creating MOS:SANDWICH with the images. I am personally not a fan of quotes in Wikipedia articles, and I think most of them can be removed.
"The society of ancient Greece was recognized" recognized by whom?
With the Hindu images and the Kama Sutra images, we have two blocks of images for one area of the world in the history section. Considering how many images are in this section, I think one of them can be removed.
The "Pornography from ancient times" section has ancient history, then goes to the early modern era. It also skips several areas of the world, like North and South America, Australasia, Southern Africa, and Western Europe. It is hard because you are basically creating a history of everywhere in the world at all times, but other locations should be mentioned and included, and information about the "popular" civilizations (Hindu, Greek, Mesopotamia) should be spun-off into other articles.
"Pornography from early modern era" Has two paragraphs devoted to Japanese, which I think should be chopped up and merged into one.
There's a lot of history of the Italian Renaissance which should be reduced.
"Criminalization" section focuses on Western Europe and the US. How did the UK's laws influence other areas of the world (especially with colonialism)?
The Criminalization" and "Legalisation" sections are too US and UK focused, and does not speak about Communist countries or countries that used to be colonies. I think this section needs to be reduced down and spun away into other articles, with more information about other parts of the world included.
"Modern-day pornography" can be reduced down, with most of the information spun-out into an article about the link between the internet and pornography. I do not know if such an article exists, or if one will need to be created, but this section is too long to encompass five paragraphs of prose for 40ish years of history.
"The seeds of modern-day pornography were planted" Avoid MOS:IDIOMs

I'll pause there. Let me know when the history section is revamped. Z1720 (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Rim sim: I'm going to close this as failed, as there is still a lot of work to do to bring this to GA status. This is a very large topic to pick as a first article, and I suggest that you work on some smaller articles related to this topic (Pornography in a specific location, or a type of pornography) that can be used to improve this article. That way, you can bring smaller topics up to GA status and continue improving this article. Let me know if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The luxury night

By ld after 212.60.77.113 (talk) 07:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

References

@Rim sim: Any explanation for [11]? tgeorgescu (talk) 09:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

It is now moot, I fixed it. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

What is that 212.60.77.113 (talk) 07:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2023

This edit request to Pornography has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the third paragraph of the lead section, there is a spelling error in the sentence "... others oppose censorship efforts insisting it is bengin." Change "bengin" to "benign." Aureate01 (talk) 02:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Psychological perspective section

This section seems to rely entirely on one Giorgio Tricarico. While reliably published, it isn't clear that he's particularly notable, influential, or WP:DUE. I was hoping the section would focus on WP:MEDRS to cover the psychology of porn (though it would belong in a top-level heading, not in a "Views on pornography" section).

The feminist section is also enormous! There's a lot to say of course, but since there's a dedicated article, I think it falls afoul of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. DFlhb (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Yup, analytical psychology is not particularly mainstream. Its founder, C.G. Jung is surrounded with controversy, the gist is that he did not do empirical science, but simply preached Gnosticism dressed as psychology. And to the extent he claimed he did empirical science, it was either a misrepresentation through not knowing better, or outright fraud. Details at User talk:Uncensored-reiki#Read_Carl_Jung.

The mainstream criticism is that psychoanalysis, except for a few concepts, is unamenable to empirical psychological research, i.e. it is basically accepted on faith.

Freud was to a large extent mainstream, with the accent upon "was", i.e. past tense. But that wasn't the case for Jung. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Seminar in Human Sexuality

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 1 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Carterand (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Carterand (talk) 00:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

18 us code 1465

18 U.S. Code § 1465 - Production and transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution 173.80.13.48 (talk) 12:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Comparative studies indicate higher tolerance and consumption of pornography among people tends to be associated with their greater support for gender equality.

What studies? Because there's studies that actually say the opposite like this one:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jcom.12037

So I think that statement should be removed unless an actual source can be provided. 2A04:4A43:436F:E703:0:0:1FBF:B9E3 (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Source: Pornography Consumption and Attitudes Towards Pornography Legality Predict Attitudes of Sexual Equality Journal of Sex Research. 58 (3): 396–408. Jan 2021

Lead text is summary of the article. All the claims in the lead are elaborated in the article's body with references, thanks. Rim sim (talk) 06:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

The first paper is not indexed for PubMed, the second is. The second paper is even indexed for MEDLINE. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

How is this a surprise? Pornography does not promote conservative ideas about gender roles. Dimadick (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it is a systematic review, but if it is a review, it is higher in the pecking order than a WP:PRIMARY study. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Good revert

The reverted edits are pseudoscientific ("The way of dopamine release is similar to addictive drugs such as meth"), antisemitic ("Not to mention, Roth was Jewish... Which the co-founder is also Jewish"), and a conspiracy theory ("The invalidation of obcenity laws went against the will of the american people, but multiple courts ensured it happened"). I mean, since the Bill of Rights declared that freedom of speech is holy, courts did not have any other option than to legalize pornography. They can claim that the Bill of Rights is the conspiracy, but that's a profoundly un-American view. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Seminar in Human Sexuality

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 4 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Carterand (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Zy175311460 (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2023

No usable sources have been provided, and this has long passed the point of WP:NOTFORUM

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This edit request to Pornography has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change what is being publicized as legal, because it's not legal in the America's. Research the topic further beyond disenfranchised infiltrators. It is federally illegal via 18 us code 1465. "Pornstars" are descendant of globally known kidnap/abduction victims or infiltrators attempting to usurp. It's been listed repeatedly as legal and it is not legal. 173.80.13.48 (talk) 12:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Porn is not legal in the US and as a whole is described as sexual entertainment. The reference is the keyword "production" in 18 us code 1465. Pornography is not a political cartoon nor is it an admiration of a healthy physically fit form. Pornography is not an artistic comparison of the human body to vegetation found in nature. Pornography is not legal by any means. It, definition, is obscene.

18 U.S. Code § 1465 - Production and transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution. 173.80.7.142 (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Change "Pornography is legal in the Us" to "Pornography is illegal in the US" referencing 18 US Code 1465. It IS obscene as indicated by its specific quality of lacking any value other than its usage and description of sexual entertainment. It is LITERALLY disinformation to say "Pornography is legal [in the United states]" 173.80.7.142 (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

That would need to be supported by a reliable, secondary source. Your (mis)interpretation of the US Code is not a usable source on Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

What dictionary should be used as a teritary source?

"...obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy book, pamphlet, picture, film, paper, letter, writing, print, silhouette, drawing, figure, image, cast, phonograph recording, electrical transcription or other article capable of producing sound or any other matter of indecent or immoral character, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

"The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) is widely accepted as the most complete record of the English language ever assembled." -https://library.harvard.edu/services-tools/oxford-english-dictionary#:~:text=The%20Oxford%20English%20Dictionary%20(OED,OED%20is%20a%20historical%20dictionary.

Oxford dictionary via google

Obscene: (of the portrayal or description of sexual matters) offensive or disgusting by accepted standards of morality and decency.

"obscene jokes"

Similar: pornographic

Lewd: crude and offensive in a sexual way.

"she began to gyrate to the music and sing a lewd song" 173.80.7.142 (talk) 01:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Lascivious:

(of a person, manner, or gesture) feeling or revealing an overt and often offensive sexual desire.

"he gave her a lascivious wink"

Similar:

lecherous

lewd

It is extremely clear...it's better to say illegal but not enforced rather than to blatantly claim that its legal...because that is BLATANT disinformation. 173.80.7.142 (talk) 02:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Your opinion does not matter. My opinion does not matter, either. You need very strong WP:RS in order to add your claim to the article. WP:OR won't do. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

It is literally the US code itself via Cornell along with Oxford definitions. What more do you actually feel like you need? There are other pages describing laws in other countries listed as illegal but not enforced, what is the actual problem? Which do you feel is an opinion? The definition to the words themselves or the "shall be [fined and/or imprisoned] section? It's literally not an opinion.

As early as June 28th, 1955:

https://www.govinfo.gov/link/statute/69/183

18 U.S. Code § 2256 2. A. (v)lascivious exhibition of the anus, genitals, or pubic area of any person;

I can literally keep listing references... 173.80.7.142 (talk) 14:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Lascivious is legitimately used as an adjective to describe the [display]. None of this is an opinion. Its not "original research" either; I didnt reference myself. I referenced cornell, oxford, govinfo.gov, and now justice.gov

https://www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-obscenity

The examples literally include the words "erotic" and "lascivious". Ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated, masturbation, excretory functions, lewd exhibition of the genitals, or sado-masochistic sexual abuse. Along with the criteria of lacking serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

The definition wikipedia uses to describe it "...for sexual satisfaction" 173.80.7.142 (talk) 14:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Additional references, from wikipedia itself Pornography in the Us..."the U.S. Customs and Border Protection prohibits the importation of any pornographic material (19 U.S.C. § 1305a "Immoral articles; importation prohibited").[62]

And the source itself is the US code via Cornell: "...or any obscene.."

If I'm (mis)interpreting an entire US code that uses the same word(s) then how is that article truthful?

That is a clear contradiction. One of them is clearly domestic the other is foreign import surrounding the same exact topic...theres honestly nothing misinterpreted. This totals to approximately 6 references now. 173.80.7.142 (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Concocting your own original research or original synthesis (WP:SYNTH) is prohibited by website policy. So you still have a no, next week it will still be a no, next month still a no, and next year still a no. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

You said a newspaper article...as a secondary source...but not official US codes, multiple .gov websites, pdfs, and an official dictionary? The Miller test, which is repeatedly referred to, isn't even enough in YOUR opinion good enough to edit it to say "legal but regulated"?.

19 U.S.C. § 1305a "Immoral articles; importation prohibited" is good enough for the sentence via Wikipedia that the "importation of pornography is banned" despite the fact that the word "obscene" is what is used in the referenced US code..yet the same word "obscene" along with "lewd" and "lascivious" is what is used in 18 us code 1465.

Here's another definition: Prurient, the word used in the Miller test: having or encouraging an excessive interest in sexual matters.

Pornography

Oxford languages definition: printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.

Wikipedia's definition contains "explicitly for sexual arousal"

Explain how my claim fits original research when i didnt reference myself.

Explain how my claims fits the description of synthesis when I literally used the explicitly stated definitions, the explicitly stated synonyms, and the SAME exact word that is explicitly stated in another US code that is utilized for the sentence "[The importation of pornography is banned]" via Wikipedia's own article, Pornography in the US 173.80.7.142 (talk) 07:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:CIR. You're interpreting the law on your own, which is inherently unreliable (banned by website policy). WP:CITE a legal treatise from Harvard or Yale, not older than 20 year. Which has to make precisely that point explicitly. I.e. we don't want your own interpretation of the legal treatise. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

"The importation of pornographic material is banned" via 19 us code 1305a utilizing the word "obscene" according to wikipedias article Pornography in the US. Therefore via 18 us code 1465 Production and transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution; pornography is also illegal utilizing the words "obscene", "lewd", and "lascivious". If you think it's legal, the Miller test clearly gives restrictions.

"Federal statutes ban obscenity..." via wikipedias article US obscenity law. It's literally the same word buddy.

Obscene material covers work that “depict[s] or describe[s] sexual conduct.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/obscene

Im LITERALLY using definitions. That is inherently NOT my own interpretation. 173.80.7.142 (talk) 08:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

What do you think I'm interpreting on my own when I'm even listing wikipedias own words? You're asking for Harvard or Yale, what's wrong with Cornell? 173.80.7.142 (talk) 08:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Cornell is okay, too. But it has to be the interpretation of a full professor instead of your own interpretation of law based upon English language dictionaries. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I directly quoted sources...where in anything ive posted do you see my opinion or interpretation? 173.80.7.142 (talk) 10:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I havent added my own words nor conclusions to anything regarding sources and references. Its copy and paste buddy. 173.80.7.142 (talk) 10:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Pornography–"porn" or "porno" for short–is material that depicts nudity or sexual acts for the purpose of sexual stimulation. However, the presence of nudity or sexual acts in piece of media does not necessarily make that media pornographic

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/pornography

Obscene material covers work that “depict[s] or describe[s] sexual conduct.”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/obscene

"...the U.S. Customs and Border Protection prohibits the importation of any pornographic material (19 U.S.C. § 1305a "Immoral articles; importation prohibited")."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_in_the_United_States

"or any obscene book, pamphlet, paper, writing, advertisement, circular, print, picture, drawing, or other representation, figure, or image on or of paper or other material, or any cast, instrument, or other article which is obscene or immoral,..."

19 us code 1305a https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/19/1305

"for the purpose of sale or distribution of any obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy book, pamphlet, picture, film, paper, letter, writing, print, silhouette, drawing, figure, image, cast, phonograph recording, electrical transcription or..."

18 us code 1465

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1465

United States vs Kilbride

They distributed sexually explicit ads among other things...1465 is even one of the charges, they were convicted, they appealed, they lost AGAIN. (I had the link directly to the PDF but for some reason Wikipedia has uscourts.gov blacklisted...embarrassing..but its not even needed)

"The defendants were appealing convictions on 8 counts from the District Court of Arizona for distributing pornographic spam via email."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Kilbride

Are you telling me all of this is my own (mis)interpretation and conclusions? Copy and paste ALL day...its BANNED...PROHIBITED...ILLEGAL...Do you want me to find MORE court cases? 173.80.7.142 (talk) 10:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Stop citing dictionaries, even dictionaries of law. And Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, see WP:CIRCULAR. WP:CITE a full professor of law making explicitly that point or be gone from this talk page. We are absolutely not interested in your own syllogisms/deductions. Do you mean that in the past 20 years no full professor made such point? What do you think it holds for law professors, omertà? Omertà for law professors is such a ridiculous claim. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

How can you a adamently argue it? United States vs Kilbride. They got CONVICTED on 18 us code 1465(among others). They distributed pornographic ads. They appealed specifically on 18 us code 1465(among others), THEY LOST.

It's not a deduction nor transitional properties being utilized. It's a legitimate court case. What are you even talking about omerta? I am providing you with exact, copy and paste, no thinking is even required, no deductive reasoning is even needed. I. Provided. An. Entire. Court. Appeal. Do you want the pdf? This is becoming ridiculously asinine. The fact that there ARE convictions on it proves to suggest or blatantly state that its legal is ENTIRELY disinformation.

Wikipedia was the REFERENCE...the SOURCE was the conviction, lost appeal, along WITH the us code. Can you actually read? No one said anything about omerta. Are you suggesting wikipedia is ran by mafia and thats why theres such blatant contradiction despite there being severl court cases that BLATANTLY prove that pornography is illegal? 173.80.7.142 (talk) 14:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

That case was about email spam, i.e. sending porn to people who did not want porn. Apples and oranges. Analyzing court documents in order to draw your own conclusions is still prohibited as WP:OR.

That case shows that obscenity is illegal. But it does not show that porn is illegal. Do you understand the difference? If a customer wants to watch a lesbian orgy, they cannot claim it violates their own obscenity standard, since it is the customer themself who wanted to access such product. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Porn IS obscenity by definition, synonym, AND court case. That was an absurd analogy that IGNORED the fact the US law DEFINED pornography and gave criteria of whether or not something was pornographic, see previously listed definition cited on cornell. Furthermore if a glass smack addict wants glass and smack that doesnt make it legal to distribute glass and smack to them just because they wanted it. Why? Because drug laws federally outlaw it by what it is.

"it is well-established that "there is no constitutional impediment to the government's power to prosecute pornography dealers in any district into which the material is sent." United States v. Bagnell, 679 F.2d 826, 830 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1047 (1983); United States v. Peraino, 645 F.2d 548, 551 (6th Cir. 1981)."

Us v Thomas

https://casetext.com/case/us-v-thomas-333

EXPLICITLY stated. It's compounded from a total of 3 additional court cases, why are you even arguing at this point? These are convictions ON 18 us code 1465. 173.80.7.142 (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The fact remains, we cannot use case text, legal dictionaries, or direct cites to laws (or any combination there of) on Wikipedia, because combining sources in this way is textbook WP:SYN. You're arguing the wrong things and you will not get the article changed this way. MrOllie (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I provided multiple sources that all said the SAME thing. I didn't combine them to draw a conclusion. 173.80.7.142 (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Thats a lie. Wikipedia is full of "direct cites to laws", it also blatantly states several nations laws. Wikipedia does refer to cases as well. Wp:synth says dont combine sources to imply a conclusion that isnt explicitly stated. So someone isnt reading my cited exact quotes. 173.80.7.142 (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

This talk page is not meant for renegotiating WP:PAGs. You have to make your case at Wikipedia talk:No original research. If you're victorious there, we'll accept it.

So, if you seek to change basic website policy, you are free to try to do that. But here is not the place for doing it.

And there is a big difference between quoting "law A says B" and interpreting the law on yourself. Uncontroversial verbatim meaning of a law could be accepted, playing law professor can't. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Buddy I cited direct quotes. You keep insisting that its my interpretation, why are you listing a direct quote as my interpretation? I directly gave you uncontraversal sources with the quotes from those sources where it is explicity stated by word. To pretend that I didn't, is fundamentally flaud.. stop making insulting accusations 173.80.7.142 (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no accusation involved. It is just a statement of fact: your proposed edits are banned by basic website policy. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Your analogy suggests that as long as someone creates new slang for something outlawed that its legal until the slang term is included in a statute. I.e. I want 4 tons of sticky icky good good crypti-chroni-conalite with 5 magazines of smut and 15 tons of grouper. Porn IS obscenity. See Us vs Thomas in previously listed source 173.80.7.142 (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

"Porn IS obscenity." Nope, for Wikipedia purposes that is banned from our articles as WP:OR. Take it or leave it, it is part of the package. You're wasting our time with claptrap. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Dude...that is PROOF you're not reading the sources. ITS RIGHT HERE:

Section 1465 is an obscenity statute, and federal obscenity laws, by virtue of their inherent nexus to interstate and foreign commerce, generally involve acts in more than one jurisdiction or state. Furthermore, it is well-established that "there is no constitutional impediment to the government's power to prosecute pornography dealers in any district into which the material is sent." United States v. Bagnell, 679 F.2d 826, 830 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1047 (1983); United States v. Peraino, 645 F.2d 548, 551 (6th Cir. 1981). Thus, the question of venue has become one of legislative intent. Bagnell, 679 F.2d at 830.

US V Thomas https://casetext.com/case/us-v-thomas-333

The statute is being discussed AND pornography is explicitly stated! 173.80.7.142 (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

You're still wasting our time with claptrap. 1 (one) citation from a full professor would be enough for entering that information in our article. One law professor. Are we asking too much from you?

It is none of our business to interpret the law of the land. Full professors have to do that for us. That's how Wikipedia works.

If you girlfriend exposes her genitals to you, what you're going to do: sue her for violating your obscenity standard? tgeorgescu (talk) 16:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

How feebleminded do you have to be to feel you think you need a random law professor's quote when I went further up the metaphorical hierarchy and gave you a judge and a court case discussing the statute and explicitly stating the word pornography itself along with the website for you to read it yourself. Your "girlfriend" analogies are equally irrelevant and worthless. The discussion is pornography. 173.80.7.142 (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

You're wasting our time with more claptrap. Your proposed edits are unacceptable because by design, that's not how Wikipedia works. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

"This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources."

The sources "us v kilbride" and "us vs thomas" either implied or explicity stated the words themselves. Again, heres the quote: "there is no constitutional impediment to the government's power to prosecute pornography dealers in any district into which the material is sent." 173.80.7.142 (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Individual court cases are not usable sources for this purpose, as has been repeatedly explained. Even if they were, that does not support what you're trying to add to the article. MrOllie (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

You have to comply with Wikipedia's sourcing standards and policies, not your own idea of what the 'metaphorical hierarchy' is. Also, see WP:NPA. If you keep up the personal attacks you can expect that this discussion will be closed and/or your IP address blocked. MrOllie (talk) 16:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

He's labeled my sources claptrap a couple times. Refused to the sources, then proceeded to blatantly insult my intelligence by referencing a hypothetical situation involving a girlfriend revealing herself when the discussion is pornography. 173.80.7.142 (talk) 16:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of what another person might or might not have done, or how insulted you might feel, making personal attacks in response is not acceptable. MrOllie (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The sources themselves aren't claptrap. The way you use them is. You simply cannot understand how Wikipedia works and you are unable to comply with our WP:RULES, see WP:CIR.

And the point of the example with the girlfriend is: difference between in public and in private. Suppose she is sexting you, so it's formally porn. But since it is done in private, it does not violate public obscenity standards (since there is no public). Same applies for porn: if you didn't ask for porn, it's in public; if you did ask for porn, it's in private. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

As has been said repeatedly before, you really need a reliable, secondary source to back up this claim. Such a source would be a (reliable) newspaper article stating – not arguing, but stating – such, or strong evidence of a successful recent prosecution on those grounds. Without such a source, your argument does not hold up to the standards of an Encyclopaedia. Frankly, your persistence on this matter despite repeated explanations of why the answer is 'no' may constitute disruptive editing, which could result in an editing ban. I would also like to remind you that edit requests are specifically for edits that are uncontroversial or have already received consensus, not for arguing about your personal interpretation of a law. If you really wish to take this further, there are other avenues for dispute resolution; edit requests are not such. I highly doubt, however, that further attempts will be successful, so my polite suggestion would be to reconsider if this is worth your time. See also: WP:STICK -- Irltoad (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

No one has negated any source that ive supplied. Another wikipedia article also agrees. No one has explained how ny sources fit "original research" or "synthesis" either, especially when whats being used are the same exact words that are written...Did you actually even look at my sources? 173.80.7.142 (talk) 07:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The "explanations" do not fit the criteria as I, by fact, copied and pasted sources which have yet to be negated. I have even referred to another wikipedia page United states vs Kilbride. They were charged, convicted, appealed, lost the appeal...SPECIFICALLY referrencing 18 us code 1465. "[They] distributed pornographic images" 173.80.7.142 (talk) 11:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

"it is well-established that "there is no constitutional impediment to the government's power to prosecute pornography dealers in any district into which the material is sent."" United States v. Bagnell, 679 F.2d 826, 830 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1047 (1983); United States v. Peraino, 645 F.2d 548, 551 (6th Cir. 1981).

https://casetext.com/case/us-v-thomas-333

It is EXPLICITLY stated.

What better source than ACTUAL COURT CASES? 173.80.7.142 (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

You're in the wrong place: that's not how Wikipedia works. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

A court case conviction on the matter itself PROVES that its illegal in the US. Ive provided a couple of cases/appeals. 173.80.7.142 (talk) 16:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

You have no authority to decide that for us. Our house, our rules. Full professors have such authority, you don't.

Full professors may establish the validity of claims for Wikipedia. Courts verdicts can't. Why? Because these are the WP:RULES decided by the Wikipedia Community. You don't play football according to the rules of handball. Different game, different rules. If you don't obey the rules of the game, your goals get discarded. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

You're being very insulting, dismissive, contradictory, condescending, random, and making irrelevant analogies. Where is your warning? I am not a dog and this isn't a game. Ive actually been adhering to the rules, you however have not. 173.80.7.142 (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Negate my US v Thomas quote and source. You honestly cannot pretend as if thats not explicitly stated along with the conviction on the violation of 18 1465. 173.80.7.142 (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

If you dont or cant negate those sources im GOING to use it in my next formal change x to y request...youve literally negated nothing but were simply dismissive while clearly not reading the sources...they are explicitly stated, there is nothing implied. 173.80.7.142 (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Wittgenstein had a theory about language games. Wikipedia is such a language game. WP:MMORPG.

That I violate WP:RULES it's just your pro domo sua opinion. It's not an objective statement about my edits, it's just your subjective opinion. Since I have edited Wikipedia for more than 20 years, I'm supposed to know what WP:OR does mean in practice.

If you seek a solution, I advise you to ask WP:DR. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Use whatever you like, but no change request will succeed until you accept and follow Wikipedia's policies. MrOllie (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh i am and i have, you ignoring them doesnt change them either. Merit to you for attempting to negate Us vs Kilbride. However, the words porn and pornography are explicity stated followed by convictions and lost appeals specifically for them violating 18 us code 1465. That is not a personal analysis nor a (mis)interpretation. I ask again that you negate the US v Thomas quote and source.

No, it's not a game and you sourced a "humorous essay" that "isn't meant to be taken seriously. Youve neglected to inform how my sources are "original research" when they all explicitly state the legalities of pornography and refer to obscenity and explicitly say either the words porn, pornography dealers, or pornography itself...therefore by the criteria of WP:OR, "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources." Again, it is stated by the sources. You were wrong in US vs Kilbride as both the "government" and the "defendants" explicitly use the words porn or pornography as an adjective followed by the convictions and lost appeals to 18 us code 1465. Its EXPLICITLY stated. 173.80.7.142 (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

As stated before, court verdicts aren't valid WP:RS for WP:V claims here at Wikipedia. I did not invent this rule, all editors have to obey it.

If you want to see an article which cites court verdicts, see Romanian Constitutional Bar. But, remember: no relevant claim is based upon WP:PRIMARY sources alone. All relevant claims are sourced to WP:SECONDARY sources, as required by WP:OR and WP:BLP. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

And I know that some people claim that obscenity laws have never been abolished in the US. But at the same time there are Supreme Court decisions which canceled some obscenity laws. So, the situation is at best murky, so we can't let you posit your pet legal theory as the unvarnished truth. All we can do is use WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, but for that we need a citation from a full professor endorsing that POV. That after so much bickering you couldn't find a single law professor who endorses your theory, it's fatal for your claim. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Im contributing to a discussion on the legalities of pornography using sources that explicitly state the words themselves, youre being dismissive and insulting by using adjectives of influence a humorous essay in an attempt to discredit the quoted sources. So if i say thats its a mediocre, half-hearted, and ignorant response to supply a hypothetical situation of a girlfriend revealing herself and referring to obscenity laws...when the topic is pornography, not debatable indecent exposure but the producing and distribution of sexual acts for the purpose of sexual stimulation therefore making it an irrelevant and worthless as a reply...is that a personal attack? Because me directly citing quotes that are literally the same format as other articles has been a "pet legal theory"...a pet...a domesticated beast that can no longer survive in the wild without a debatable parasitic or symbiotic relationship with humans...and claptrap...illogical nonsense that is also referenced as stupid...But if i say youve given quite a few index card replies with claptrap references is that a personal attack? Obey is a word of beasts..Adherence is for humans...youve used an analogy for stupid, obey, and then pet in between something that "isnt meant to be taken seriously"...Heres an idea...contribute to the discussion without a colorful adjective and explain how you think my citing of US v Thomas fits original research. 173.80.7.142 (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The fact that you don't understand WP:OR means that you don't understand WP:OR, which means WP:CIR. I'm tired of giving you explanations. I advise you to seek WP:DR. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2024 (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.

[9] ttps://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20101117007122/en/Escom-Sells-Sex.com-Sedo-Record-13-Million

[10] Statistics on Pornography, Sexual Addiction and Online Perpetrators and their Effects on Children, Pastors and Churches. Safefamilies.org. Retrieved 2011-04-21.

[11] Edelman, Benjamin. "Red Light States: Who Buys Online Adult Entertainment?" Journal of Economic Perspectives, Volume 23, Number 1 (Winter 2009), pages 209–220.

[12] Science about pornography from actual scientists. Retrieved 2019-04-14.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[1]

Introductory Photo

Pornography External Link

Legal to pose topless at age 16?!

Search Engine Manipulation

Definition of Pornography

Panda Porn

Edit request from 41.205.173.196, 31 May 2010

Further Reading needs work

History

Problematic article

article feature picture?

statistics

History

Anti-porn movement

Correction needed for recent Alexlange edit

better pictures

Sources

Header

Deciding factor in format wars? Maybe once...

One inaccurate stat should be deleted

Venus of Willendorf

Origins of the word πορνογραφία (pornography)

Uses

Consuming Porn...really?

would it be possible

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

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

Type

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

Unsourced generalization in lead section

Statistic in the Statistics section is not actually sourced

First 3d porn movie?

No mention of the purpose of pornography

"Olympia" should be italicized

Misspelled word

Suggested addition to lead

Increased neutrality regarding feminist perceptions of pornography

Lede

Non-sexual use in popular culture

Image in lead

Economic Depression in the Industry???

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2014

Effects

Psychodynamics of Pornography

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

the casual use of the word 'porn'

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2014

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2014

top picture

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

Who made up porn?

The word "explicit" in the lead

What is not

Oversights & Shortcomings

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

$97 billion claim

Size of the porn industry

Unsourced content

Defining Pornography

A Feminist objections section and an Economics section

footnote 48

Word sometimes censored for offensiveness?

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

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2014

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2015

Proposed edits to the Pornography page

Effects

Paragraph for review

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2015

Move the external video to another section? NPOV issue?

Porn revenue greater than Google + others combined?

Heading text

Association: Correlation does not imply causation

External links modified

External links modified

Snuff films

Religion and Pornography

We need a more precise definition of pornography

Missing primary:

Merge proposal