Talk:Reality pornography

message: I've reverted this page to include the examples that were deleted in the last edit. I think they add a lot of value to the page and are worth keeping. I'm not a Wikipedia policy expert but I don't think that just because there are links to commercial sites that is enough to remove them. I am absolutely not trying to start a revert war here but think this should be discussed before such a sweeping change is made to this article. I would be amenable to the idea of removing external links without removing any of the verbiage. --05:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. I think that if we have any external links in this article, they should be to non-porn websites which discuss Reality porn. We are just promoting these select few commercial websites by linking to them. -- Masterpjz9 04:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. Linking to "samples" of commercial websites about this topic seems like free advertising to me. If it were an article about a certain series of websites and all the websites were linked, that'd be a different issue, but this isn't any different from linking to, say, Apple's music store in band articles. — Ashmodai (talk · contribs) 23:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I may agree. Which of the following are you saying: a) You want to remove the external links to the example sites or b) you want to remove all the information about the example sites? Update, later: Never mind. There are too many people who are making edits without discussion, it's not worth fighting over to me. --04:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Include examples?

message: anyone want to make a reference to meat holes, it's touted as the most denigrating towards women, ill do it myself later if no one else does, no time now> exams!
:Well, it's one of several violent deep-throat focussed websites out there, along with GagSchool and Gag On My Cock and then some. I think it's also one of those girls-write-the-site-name-on-their-foreheads sites and that probably counts as a degrading practice too. All in all, from their promo galleries, I'd say I've seen far more degrading and misogynic sites out there.
:As a sidenote, although that probably doesn't count for much, IIRC it's also one of the sites where the girls either state the action that will take place is one of their personal fantasies and/or afterwards say they enjoyed it.
:I'd say the violent sex alone doesn't account for any misogyny. It's probably mostly the presentation that makes it offensive. Still I'd rate most of these sites a lot more degrading towards women than, say, for example anything German Goo Girls ever produced, although their material tends to be a lot more violent or extreme.
:Notably, many websites revolve around the supposed "tricking" of the would-be victims by using a false pretext to engage in a sexual activity and then dump them in an oftenly humiliating manner (Bang Bus and Back Room Facials being two notable examples).
:BTW, the word is "degenerating", or more accurately "degrading", not "denigrating", although that may have been a Freudian slip on your side. -- Ashmodai 14:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: meat holes

message: I've removed both sites from the examples since neither can be considered prominent by any measurable means. In Alexa traffic ranking, realsexinrussia.com ranks #118,165 and asiaerotica ranks #2,218,328.
Each of the other listed site except GGW ranks in the top 5,000 while GGW's content is mostly offline but the site still ranks in the top 10,000.Ytny 04:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''real sex in russia'' and ''asia erotica''