Talk:Pornography/Archive 4

message: I was add link to site http://www.fleshka.net , i think it is a great site , on this site i found more 250000 pornography galleries in all niches . 
Thanks\zxWAvr3qbr
:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a repository of links.  This article is not meant to be a list of places to find porn, but rather an encyclopedia discussion of pornography.--Bibliophylax 16:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why my link was removed ? 

message: I think the page is protected. I want to add the term Carnography under See also. Would someone be able to add it? 156.34.222.231 13:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. -- Beland 02:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks 156.34.220.66 19:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please Add This 

message: Here's the current contents of "Religious Objections."
Fundamentalist religious tradition generally limits sexual intercourse to the express function of procreation. Thus, sexual pleasure or sex oriented entertainment, as well as lack of modesty, are usually considered immoral by conservative religious sects. Additionally, many religious groups view pornography as contributing to 'immoral' behavior in society.
Since I believe a very significant portion of opposition to pornography is religiously- or morally-informed, the sparse, stereotyping treatment here surprises me.  I see that this was discussed recently (on the most recent archive page), but no significant action was taken.
Here's what I would recommend, combining text from the current article, the talk page, and my own writing (as a new user, I can't make the change myself):
Religious groups often discourage their members from viewing or reading pornography, and support legislation restricting its publication.  These positions derive from broader religious views about sexuality.  In some religious traditions, for example, sexual intercourse is limited to the express function of procreation. Thus, sexual pleasure or sex-oriented entertainment, as well as lack of modesty, are considered immoral.  Other religions do not find sexual pleasure immoral, but see sex as a sacred, godly, highly-pleasurable activity that is only to be enjoyed with one's spouse.  These traditions do not condemn sexual pleasure in and of itself, but they impose severe limitations on the circumstances under which sexual pleasure may be properly experienced.  Pornography in this view is seen as the secularization of something sacred, and a violation of spouses' intimate relationship.
In addition to expressing concerns about violating sexual morality, some religions take an anti-pornography stance claiming that viewing pornography is addictive, leading to self-destructive behavior.  Proponents of this view compare pornography addiction to alcoholism, both in asserting the seriousness of the problem and in developing treatment methods.
I would link to pornography addiction in the second paragraph, and add that link to the "see also" section at the bottom of the article.
I've removed the word "fundamentalist" in the interest of NPOV.  It's heavy with connotation.  On the one hand, anyone who espouses this view is labeled as out-of-touch or extremist.  On the other hand, it implies that those who have different religious views on sexuality are less "fundamental" than those who take this particular view.  I think we can just say "some religions" without unnecessarily labeling them.
These changes should probably also be merged into the main article -- Anti-pornography movement.
-- Smith.dan 22:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revise "Religions Objections" 

message: I wrote the following "pornography and religion" addition, before seeing the above contributions.  It disappoints me that God's moral objection to such pornography does not feature on the wiki article Internet pornography also.  
Several religions, including Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism and several other religions contain references within their religious texts outlining how sexual misconduct (and the diversionary lustfulness associated with both the generation, purveying and viewing of that material that would be associated with such misconduct – namely, pornography) is often considered wrong/evil.  
See fitna, and Puritans  
Anyhow, I think that the link to fitna and Puritans should ideally be included both within this article, as well as within the Anti-Pornography Movement Article.  
PornIsEvil 16:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some More on God and Pornography

message: Apparently I can now edit the page.  Made my suggested changes myself.
-- Smith.dan 13:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: lex

message: Pornography may use any of a variety of media — printed literature, photos, sculpture, drawing, painting, animation, sound recording, film, video, or video game, and may even be performed in a live venue, possibly in front of a live audience.
I question the notion that pornography "may even be performed". The word root -graphos means that pornography must be in the form of some distributable medium. The subject it depicts may be (almost always is) a live performance, but IMO one cannot perform pornography. That does not rule out that that a live performer's emulation of sex acts could be described as pornographic (adjective) i.e. "like pornography". (cuddlyable3)84.210.139.189 18:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to be a gray area between the technical definition (as cited above), and common useage. There is certainly a long history of "live sex shows" which feature "lascivious" performances designed to tittilate and arouse the audience. These might well qualify as pornographic performances for that reason. Doc  Tropics 19:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Heh. I stand corrected; you are absolutely right. Also, I've added your name to my list of "Editors I won't disagree with, because they will kick my metaphorical butt in a debate".Doc  Tropics 20:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Can pornography be performed?

message: i read somewhere, in a sex/health magizine (no not a porn mag) that statistcally those who watch porn, and masterbate more often are better at sex, i guess from "learning from example", does anyone know if this is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.226.37 (talk • contribs) date
:Most sexual acts in pornography are over done, and not 'realistic', in the sense that more often than not, underwear doesn't rip off that fast, or that way. Pornography is merely for entertainment, and that sexual education videos should instead be used for learning, instead of something that was done mainly for entertainment and, quite frankly, something to jack off to instead of reproducing in reallife. Disinclination 07:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suspect this is a case of correlation rather than causation. Rosemary Amey 00:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  practice makes perfect 

message: How come an article on pornography doesn't have a pornographic picture to illustrate it? Xiner (talk, email) 17:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does, as you'll see the rack of movies along there. We don't need naked pictures of people doing it, irregardless if Wikipedia is censored for minors. This is about the industry and what it is. If you wanna see what happens IN a pornography, check out sexual intercourse or something similar to that. Disinclination 21:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Xiner (talk, email) 22:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. Well. I had no idea HOW the original pornography image was removed, but I found it. Still unsure of why the Pompeii image was added. Going to find the reason as to why, and maybe put it to a better place (aesthetically pleasing), and shrink it down as well. Disinclination 23:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm curious. 

message: Someone has written grafittis such as "I like vaginas" in this article.  So I hope that someone can correct it as soon as possible? I like vaginas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.131.36.144 (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I like vaginas 

message: Because it seemed extraneous, I removed the following sentence from the topic "Production and distribution by region":
*"Pornography is now a major part of life for some, with many couples swearing by it to relieve themselves sexually."
ChrisWinter 04:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed a sentence

message: The history section of this article has been vandalized. I am unable to repair it.
59.167.130.181 04:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Is there anyway to censor out the stand, not completely remove it, rather, blur some of the images out casually? Many kids at my school seem to love getting legitimate sites blocked. Hell keep the stand and boobies, just blur out the penis/vagina parts on the stand, and their aren't many to begin with. People may argue that this is extremist religious censorship, rather, I plea on behalf of the people at my school, The Administration will simply block the complete site, due to their horrid policies and slacker motto. 
76.184.219.16 22:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I sympathize with your situation, but Wikipedia really shouldn't change its policies or content so it fits with the policies of a particular school.  Some religious schools may also block material they deem offensive, but does that mean we should censor the atheism article? Jeff Silvers 20:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censoring the pornography stand 

message: This could be a very interesting article if it didnt read like it was put together by some very strange individuals. lock it up and get some people with intelligence on it please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.243.220.42 (talk) 02:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What parts in particular do you refer to? -iopq 05:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  this article is rubbish 

message: The stag video doesn't play anything. This threw me for a loop so I downloaded every codec for each direct play viewer, and Wiki Browser and still got nothing. This depressed me because I would like to upload some video content to wikipedia, and thought I couldn't view it. As a last ditch effort I tried one of the other wikimedia video files. Lo and behold it played in each of the players.
Long story to quick point: If the stage video doesn't work or has been censored, can it be removed? If it shouldn't be removed, can a working version be uploaded? Having a link that goes nowhere is a tad disturbing, especially to newbies and/or "old porn" addicts. :p
Ara Pelodi 04:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Included Media Content [http://www.xvids.info/ "Stag Video"] 

message: Hallo, I want a your opinion about the Pornography  on italian wiki : what do you think about the photo "porno.jpg"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.15.100.179 (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What difference does the opinion of contributors here make?  Unless you're suggesting that the picture be used in this article, I really don't see what useful comment can be added by us.  --Robert Merkel 05:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  italian photo 

message: Anyone else think the Village Voice quote in the 'pornography by and for women' section is kind of irrelevant? I guess I can see how it might not be -- but it's long, and I don't really think it pertains. Anyone disagree? Eeblefish 02:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a few days. I'm removing it unless someone disputes it. Eeblefish 04:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  By and for women 

message: * Milton Diamond and Ayako Uchiyama in „Pornography, Rape and Sex Crimes in Japan“ (International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 22(1): 1-22. 1999) online  „Pornography, Rape and Sex Crimes in Japan“:Our findings regarding sex crimes, murder and assault are in keeping with what is also known about general crime rates in Japan regarding burglary, theft and such. Japan has the lowest number of reported rape cases and the highest percentage of arrests and convictions in reported cases of any developed nation. Indeed, Japan is known as one of the safest developed countries for women in the world (Clifford, 1980). (...)...: Despite the absence of evidence, the myth persists that an abundance of sexually explicit material invariably leads to an abundance of sexual activity and eventually rape (e.g., Liebert, Neale, & Davison, 1973). Indeed, the data we report and review suggest the opposite. Christensen (1990) argues that to prove that available pornography leads to sex crimes one must at least find a positive temporal correlation between the two. The absence of any positive correlation in our findings, and from results elsewhere, between an increase in available pornography and the incidence of rape or other sex crime, is prima facie evidence that no link exists. But objectivity requires that an additional question be asked: „Does pornography use and availability prevent or reduce sex crime?“ Both questions lead to hypotheses that have, over prolonged periods, been tested in Denmark, Sweden, West Germany and now in Japan. Indeed, it appears from our data from Japan, as it was evident to Kutchinsky (1994), from research in Europe, that a large increase in available sexually explicit materials, over many years, has not been correlated with an increase in rape or other sexual crimes. Instead, in Japan a marked decrease in sexual crimes has occurred.
* Berl Kutchinsky, Pornography and Rape: Theory and Practice? in: International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, Nr.14, 1991, p. 47-66--Nemissimo II 10:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some Sources

message: This article has a lot of See also links (no wonder because it's a big topic). I just made an attempt at categorising them. If someone can do better, please do so. - Face 19:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: See also links

message: I fail to see a direct relationship. is this really necessary? (quote) "It also provides lucrative employment for armies of lawyers, on several "sides." " —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ariel Hoffman (talk • contribs) 15:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lawyers and pornography 

message: Are there any citations available for the following statements from the introduction:
* pornographic industry has skyrocketed due to the technological convenience of VHS and DVD, and in particular the rise of the Internet.
* most distribution is by sale.
Regarding the first statement, i have read that within the first 5 or so years of the introduction of the camera, London officials confiscated 2 tons of photographic pornography.
with regard to the second statement, any place that sells adult videos/DVD's also does a good business in rentals.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.69.137.14 (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations needed 

message: The mention of C Everett Koop should be a link to the article on him, especially since he is a controversial figure in many ways.  I can't edit the page myself because of the protection. Vcdevx99 02:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Linkage

message: This image needs to go, yet certain people insist on keeping it. Why? Wikipedia is here to teach people, and the photo does not teach anyone anything. I shouldn't have to tell anyone that images like this expose Wikipedia to public scrutiny which can only be a bad thing. Shreditor 03:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, it should be changed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.77.237.201 (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a depiction of pornography, in an article about pornography. WP:NOT censored, so I guess I'm failing to see the problem? It's not gratuitous. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 05:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case, a visual aid is always nice, as long as it's not unnecessarily distracting.  I believe that we can do better than the current image (though I like that the current photo's subject is extremely typical and demonstrates an everyday reality), but I am adamantly opposed to omitting a visual example from the lead section altogether.  A good article almost demands good visual aids.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 05:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Visual aid for what? Pornography is the depiction of sexual behavoir in order to excite sexual desire. I don't think anyone needs a "visual aid" to understand the concept. The only reason why I'm making a big deal of it is because I like Wikipedia and I don't want it ending up as a sensational story on the 6 o'clock news about how we're peddling porn to minors. I appreciate that Wikipedia is uncensored. In order for it to stay uncensored, let's use some self-restraint. Shreditor 21:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have shown restraint and good taste, IMO; barring restraint, you'd see some much more exciting photos in this article than a pedestrian snapshot taken in a Tel-Aviv flea market.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 11:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What if I were to take a photo of the covers of some pornographic DVDs and magazines, sans the depictions of fellatio? The most you'd see is exposed breasts, which you can see many other places on Wikipedia. It would also be higher quality. Takers? Shreditor 00:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The covers and the like would still be copyrighted, even if you took a photo of them, and we always prefer a free-use image to a fair-use one. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 01:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, it would be preferable to have a photograph that does not include felatio or penetration.  The image we are using here is not free since it is a photograph of cover art, which itself is copyrighted. Johntex\talk 01:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Main image

message: --- Lexi 
There has also been a recent increase in sex crimes in Japan which parallels an increase in all crimes. Some in Japan have blamed the increase on violent pornography and indeed, some sex offenders report having been inspired by themes in commonly available pornography. The counter argument is that some sex offenders will likely use any defense they can to lower their culpability.
Why is this unsourced? 
--- Lexi ---
:This should be cited if possible. If not I would delete it. Shreditor 00:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sex crimes in Japan

message: please remove the top image. It is very disturbing for many individuals, and it is unnecessary. please remove that image. 66.214.242.93 06:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:NOT#CENSORED. There are far worse images out there then that one, and it depicts the subject of the article without being gratuitously explicit. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 06:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I am in partial agreement with the first point. I do feel that this image is rather explicit when there are many other images (soft core) which could be used in its place. I agree that an image should be in this article and personally I do not find this picture offensive - however perhaps a more appropriate image could be sourced. After all, there are many hard core images that could be used to highlight the Zoophilia article, but they have chosen to go with an artistic representation rather than a graphic photograph. Any thoughts - Regards - Munta 09:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  !!!!!!!!! 

message: The composite picture at the top of the page of copyrighted DVD covers is a violation of copyright laws.  
If there is a "need" to have an image, it should be an image of ancient greek pornography or the like, (or perhaps from Victorian England) which would not involve a copyright violation...presuming the photographer grants permission.  The only reason Wikipedia would not be sued for violating the copyright of the porn covers shown is that the porn industry welcomes the publication as free publicity.  Nonethless, this is a violation of copyright law unless the companies give written permission to Wikipedia.
Has anyone noticed that there are explicit images in the main picture. Or if this isn't an issue, why not have some real hardcore pictures - closeups of anal sex, cumshots, etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdw052 (talk • contribs) 
:Because its unneeded. Disinclination 19:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because, as you'll see, that the pictures are depicting what was seen as pornography in both modern and ancient ages. The rack of pornographic videos and the painting on the wall are seen as enough. You have to realize that people object to this thing all the time. All thats needed is a few tastefully chosen images, and the rest should be text. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It is about text, not about images. Images are just references. Disinclination 22:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ironically, you really can't see anything in the image unless, of course, you click to enlarge. as an encyclopedic image it's perfectly fitting for all the reasons listed above (and come on, the entire talk page is pretty much exclusively about the image). Complainign about the content of the image once you've enlarged it is like complaining about violence in a boxing match. (or perhaps something that makes a tad more sense) Maybe we could solve the whole issue by locking out the image to prevent enlargement. Gene S. Poole 00:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Afraid that's been gone over and over. Wikipedia is not censored. We don't allow the gratuitous use of sexually-explicit material, but illustrations which are appropriate to demonstrate an article's subject certainly may be allowed. In this case, it's a picture of pornography in the article about pornography, seems perfectly alright to me. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Penis Picture -- Copyright violation 

message: I'm very interested in the powerplay that exists between the female actors in pornographic films and the men on set, in the films, producing the films, watching the films, etc. When I hear women talk about the "degredation" and "dehumanization" that occurs when a woman is submissive in bed or on film, I immediately think that these woman have possibly not looked at the deeper powerplay being acted out; sexual submission does not explicitly denote a lack of control or power, when it is looked at more closely than at face value. I've become aware of the fact that the submissive woman or man (or the "sub") often paritipates in said role (in a real life interaction, not necessarily on film) because he or she gets something out of the dramatiziation of being used. To speak more loosely, they get off on being the sub, or they wouldn't do it. In a way, they are using the dominant figure as much as the dominat figure is using them. 
I go through all of this because there is a parallel in the sex/adult industry: women in pornography are paid about ten times as much as men are (from my own research with people who are in and who make pornographic videos-- woman are paid about $2,000 for vaginal intercourse, men are paid about $300 for the opposite end of the same act, if both are paid up front), while men are often considered to have a harder job. Men are expected to stay erect, not ejaculate and ejaculate on command, whereas women can fake their orgasms or have a real one, and have no sex organ to prepare for intercourse, as lubricant is often used. It is not an across the board truth, but many women get into pornography to make money they cannot make with the education and/or experience they have, usually a high school diploma. It's been called a woman's industry because in a way, the women in it are exploiting the men they work with and profitting off their often times innate sexuality. Adversely, women who sleep with lots of men in american society are called whores and sluts, men who sleep with lots of women in american society are siad to "have game" or be studs. These women are often aware, at least partially, that the adult/sex industry "exploits women," weather true or false. They still go into these films willingly for money or sexual gratification, or because that is the most appealing avenue available to them. 
The discussion question I wanted to post is, all of the above information considered, who's more expolited in pronography, men or women? And is it really correct to focuss on the exploitation of women in anything more than a historical section of the article?
Functionvsaesthetic 09:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  sociological aspects of pornography 

message: Porngraphers has abused the freedom of speech to promote filth in the media.
:This talk page is for discussion of the article, not of your opinions of pornography. Jeff Silvers 20:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  misue of freedom of speech 

message: q pongan mas imagenes
 Sorry, but am I really the only one to notice the first line of this article? 85.16.7.55 23:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain what is it you want. the  tag is only to be used when a request to edit the page is being made. Harryboyles 09:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  da 

message: Women campaigners against pornography such as Dworkin should consider which countries they'd rather live in: Holland or Denmark say where pornography is freely available; or Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia where is there is no pornography. Bit of a no-brainer isn't it? SmokeyTheCat 10:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andrea Dworkin etc 

message: I believe that the "Religious Defenses of Pornographia" section does not live up to the style standards of Wikipedia.  It is written in a highly subjective style, which of course goes against the Wikipedia policy of neutrality, and employs a conversational, argumentative tone.  As for the non-neutrality, the language includes multiple instances of subjective terms like "absurd" and "absurdity" and points a negative judgement call at the Catholic Church ("This absurdity is surprisingly similar to historical Roman Catholic doctrine").  If we are to accept such language on Wikipedia, we are only to ruin the efforts of the countless users of Wikipedia to uphold the site to the standards, therefore revoking Wikipedia's status as a reliable resource.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by J-t-m (talk • contribs) 03:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subjective point of view 

message: This article is expressed as being general but in fact is about western culture since the nineteenth century.  Representations of human beings, and particularly of women with little clothing, have been taboo in various Moslem and Jewish cultural contexts, among various early Christian sects and the iconoclasts of Byzantium, and following the Reformation England, Scotland and no doubt elsewhere. There needs to be some recognition of this in this article.  Deipnosophista 08:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural focus 

message: The first external link, "The Impact of Pornography on Men" by Antonella Gambotto-Burke, goes to a web-site that has pictures of a copyrighted magazine. 68.222.34.38 02:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Site seems to be Antonella Gambotto-Burke's personal homepage so there propably isn't any copyright problem.  --Zache 04:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: A link to the author's own website should be okay. The article itself however seems to be mostly opinion, and lacking quality information. / edgarde 04:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting removal of external link 

message: Enjoyed most of the entry, found it reasonably balanced (discussion on anti-porn stances are important in a free society) and informative none the less. Recognising the varying degrees of porn is an important point, but how about bringing in a definition of erotica as a sub-family genre of porn? 
Someone elsewhere described erotica as soft-porn...I couldn't disagree more. Erotica can be thrown under the label of porn but includes a higher degree of implied and contained stimulation beyond the obvious. 
Porn may be an image of 2 people having sex...location irrelevant, pose irrelevant etc...where as erotica still is a picture of people having sex but it is set within an evironment or includes reference to a broader context that offers multiple levels of stimulation, or expands the basic stimuli. In my opinion only of course. 
Just a starting point if anyone wants to begin a discussion. Worthy topic within the "pornogrphy" realm IMO, given an increase in acceptance of "erotica"/porn overtones in general society (movies, advertising etc).
- Madison H —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madison H (talk • contribs) 02:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Porn vs Erotica, discussions on differences important 

message: A "citation needed" tag was added to the assertion "movie rental stores such as Blockbuster and other large video-rental firms avoid porn", and someone used Blockbuster's FAQ as a citation.  However, I just reverted that, because I checked out the FAQ and I don't feel the statements on that site sufficiently support the idea.  The question which was pointed to as the citation was "What movie ratings does BLOCKBUSTER® carry?", and the only statement I can find in that answer that seems to support the assertion is "we generally do not carry films with ratings of NC-17 or X."  Aside from the fact that the term "generally" is used, and therefore the possibility of finding porn at a Blockbuster is not entirely eliminated, another question I found while trying to verify the citation is "Why does BLOCKBUSTER Online® carry Playboy titles?"  The answer reads, in part, "Playboy movies are just one of many movie niches fulfilled on BLOCKBUSTER Online®."  Unless you want to get into an endless, pointless, circular debate (of a nature that doesn't really belong on a Wikipedia talk page) saying that Playboy is not porn, then I don't think you can claim that Blockbuster doesn't carry porn when their own website acknowledges that they carry Playboy titles. - Ugliness Man 05:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faulty citation 

message: Why are there no pictures?  If pornography is "a place to record prostitutes," demonstrating a common form of that record – pictures – would be more accurate and appropriate than simply describing it.  Is it censored?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.38.244.123 (talk • contribs) 20:57, August 11, 2007 (UTC)
*As it states in the picture guidelines for Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography why we're avoiding all unnecessary explicit images: "The reason for this is to avoid any legal entanglements due to the 18 U.S.C. 2257. We are here to create an encyclopedia, not a porn farm." Tabercil
And, why is this video here? It seems fine to have it, but to call it non-pornographic is to contradict the information in the entry.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.211.47 (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No pictures? 

message: Would 
:"This article is about the genre. For the album by The Cure, see Pornography (album).
:“Porn” redirects here. For For the eye disease"
be better than the current:
:"This article is about the medium. For the album by The Cure, see Pornography (album).
:“Porn” redirects here. For For the eye disease"
(with duplicate For For, etc)89.240.76.210 16:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't need a copyedit, it needs an  template.  Consider it done.  WLU 17:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyedit needed? 

message: Nudity vs. Pornography
Some groups within the industry and general populace seek to separate nudity from sexual pornography. Entire websites have been devoted to providing photos of "simple nudes". These sites do not allow portrayal of sexual positions, but instead promote the beauty of the human body for its own sake, and compare admiration of the body to the admiration of lions or gazelles. i.e. Appreciation of the beauty of nature.   Even at the legal level, it has been acknowledged by some jurisdictions that nudity and pornography are separate entities. In the United States, the federal Supreme Court since the 1980s has consistently upheld that photography or art portraying nude people,((would this even be pornography?)  (Yes many sects such as Christians view nudity as pornography.)) even of children, is allowed under the law & protected by the Right to Free Speech/Expression. However pornography portraying sexual situations is limited to those 18 or older, and thus falls under different legal standards from nudity.
;References
:Use the following citation template for references added:

Also, if unfamiliar with citations, see WP:CITE.  WLU
I'm not sure what's wrong with the phrase "some jurisdictions"?  Some juridictions allow pornography (like the US and EU) and some juridictions do not (like Iraq or Saudi Arabia).  Thus it's an accurate statement to say "some". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theaveng (talk • contribs) 
:'Some' is non-specific, it's a generalization that is unattributable to any single entity.  Better is to say "US,[1] EU,[2] Canada[3] and Barbados[4] allow pornography, while most Muslim countries do not[5] because it is banned by the Koran.[6]"  Of course, that's a gross generalization, those numbers need to be blue and have sources.  This needs to be done for just about all the groups discussed on a page as controversial as porn.  If some Christian groups find nude depictions pornographic, cite the specific group with a reference.  WLU
I like sex  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.154.121.183 (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Working section

message: What does it mean to say that erotica "hold[s] or aspire[s] to... historical merit"?  I can't decipher this at all.  --Rrburke(talk) 17:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Historical merit"? 

message: I have some questions regarding pornography, and found on the UPS, USPS, and Canada Post websites, that it is illegal to move pornography between jurisdictions or to mail it...
#Why is this so?
#Why is it illegal to move pornography between states?
#Why is it illegal to move/import/export/purchase pornography from canada and the USA to each other?
#Is it illegal if you're bringing it with you for your own personal reasons, such as moving from one state/province to another, or visiting and bringing it for personal reasons?  RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 02:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Questions like this should go to Wikipedia:Reference desk (tho they do not dispense specific legal advice). Article talk pages are for discussions about editing the article. / edg ☺ ★ 05:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks! I'm not looking for legal advice, as i dont' live in the united states...i'm just trying to figure out why the laws say what they say regarding these issues. I just think it's a bit odd to render moving pornography from one state to another illegal.  RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 14:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the USA, I would imagine it's because pornography laws potentially are different in each state.-Wafulz 03:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions on the legality of pornography 

message: A section on this is necessary, help from somebody with knowledge would be appreciated. Thanks. Lara_bran 04:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Porn actors and actresses 

message: :"(Pornography) immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world"
Says a leading religeous figure. LOL Just thought I'd mention.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kung Foo (talk • contribs) 00:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religeous protestors 

message: The entire controversy about the John Holmes (actor) trial in the early 1980's was contrived to affect the drug legalization issue in California, if not the entire nation.  Porn stars always state their anti-drug use ideals, they always say that their form of entertainment is drug-free and that they are certainly more morally sound than the average street junkie.  But what happened with Holmes was shown in Wonderland (film), a film that totally misportrayed the real occurances in 1981 and was immediately taken out of the theaters after its release.  The fact that Holmes was a police informant (as was David Lind, a known gang member) shows that his contact with pornography was more that of a police officer than a pornographic "actor," and shows that the events described (or omitted) in Wonderland were those whose express intent was to cause much more legislation to be put into effect, curtailing civil liberties in many respects.  Both Holmes' and Lind's attempts to enter witness protection (Lind was actually allowed into the witness protection program) shows this to be true, even though Wonderland glosses over the political aspect of the crime.  It's also said that Holmes was an Army veteran; it can now be shown that he should have received a medical discharge early on in his enlistment unless he was serving another purpose during his tour in Germany.  What it was, who can say, but Holmes has had a negative effect on civil liberties in the nation, and both Lind and he have damaged the witness protection program perhaps beyond repair.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.159.55 (talk) 13:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Holmes was a [[fraud]] 

message: Any reason why the further reading is entirely advocacy? Just seems a little strange to me. Richard001 (talk) 07:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if there is a particular guideline for such a section. I agree the list seems quite POV and doesn't help the article much. / edg ☺ ☭ 09:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks, but much writing exists on this subject, and the link you propose isn't very informative, so I don't think it would be good to include even as an editorial representing a position. Also, I think there are WP:COI concerns. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further reading 

message: The movie in the Media section, with the topless blonde woman, not only that it is not porn, and therefore has nothing to do with this article, but it's completely irrelevant. Diego pmc (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 19:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The movie would indeed pass for porn at the time it was made.  Admittedly tame by today's standards, I see no reason why not to include it. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not censored. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I know it isn't censored, and that's not the reason why I asked for it to be deleted.However, it should be mentioned that it was porn at that time, as some people (including me), surely aren't aware of that, and might consider it irrelevant. Diego pmc (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I opposed the removal of the media. It is a good example of pornography, and it is not something that someone today would be aroused from; no one is going to use that for any purposes other than educational ones.--eskimospy (talk) 03:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I did  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.104.50.163 (talk) 14:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Petitions mean nothing on Wikipedia. Since there is consensus among editors to have this media, you would have to make a case that Wikipedia policy dictates removal of this content. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Movie is quite irrelevant in the article. I don't see why article must have a media file for it's own sake. Link to the media should be enough. --Thialfi (talk) 11:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Petition: remove movie in media section 

message: The word "Jewess" is a pejorative, anti-semitic word and should be replaced with the phrase "Jewish woman". The "-ess" ending (meaning female) is usually pejorative (specifically, a diminutive) and in modern usage has mostly been avoided; for example, we are more likely today to say "server" rather than "waitress". Although the "-ess" feminine ending is still considered acceptable in a few cases (for example, "actress" or "lioness"), the term "Jewess" is clearly pejorative or at least diminutive (for example, nobody calls a Christian woman a "Christianess") and should be avoided.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.234.3 (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary pejorative term 

message: "Pornography or porn is very fun the explicit depiction of sexual subject matter, especially with the sole intention of sexually exciting the viewer."Seems like someone was messing around.Rastafaria (talk) 02:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence: grammar 

message: I would repsectively ask that the Silent Stag Film be removed at the bottom of the page. While i have not read ahead through all the archives to see if this has already beed discusses, and i also know that wikipedia is an unbiased information source that does not limit information, I don't think that an actual video of pornography, no matter what genre or classification it has, should be able to be played right off this websight. Numbers of people use this sight, and many are younger. While it is not up to us to determine what is "right" or "wrong" to show, my persobal preference is not to make pornogrophy avialble to watch on an informational websight. I would also like to point out, like before, many younger kids use this for reading, and whether you determine it is ok for them to watch, i would ask for the sake of their  parents to remove it. I would definately not want my kids exposed to porn now, or throughout their life if i had that power, and would hate restrict their access to this websight when it can be such a benefit. While you can probably tell I have a Christian perspective, i also am looking at this from a objective standpoint. I Apologize for the long rant, and i guess to sum this up, As a parent i would like to prevent my kids from getting into pornography as much as possible, and a large number of other parents probably feel the same way. I ask that out of respect towards the parents who disagree with pornography, to remove it. This article gives information on the subject clearly enough without a visual aid, and any guy who is determined to find porn can easily find it just about anywhere else on the internet. Lets not include that in a encyclopedia please. I will understand if there are disagreements, but I ask to please realy consider what I've said tonight. Thankyou. 66.78.69.82 (talk) 11:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I sympathize with your position, at first glance. It's not clear to me what useful information this film clip provides beyond simply being an example of what is meant by "pornography," of which there are already others on the page. I would have little objection to it on an article about stag films, but I'm less sure on this page. There was a discussion of the clip already on this talk page, and I'm reading up on the details of Wikipedia's policies/suggestions regarding obscenity/pornography. Given that Wikipedia is by default not censored, you might want to do the same and see if you can find a policy reason to remove it. --George (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * I'm not the type that usually supports censor, and I appreciate that Wikipedia is not censored, but he has a point. There's a pretty clear line between not censoring, to provide a clear picture, and common sense (yeah, it's a POV). Then again, that video isn't categorized as porn nowadays, and scenes similar to that can be seen in most of today's movies. diego_pmc (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request 

message: Firstly, what I am writing here takes the interpretation that there is a difference between erotica and pornography. The O.E.D. definition merely refers to pornography as something produced for sexual stimulation, rather than artistic content. Without bothering to cite authors at this point, porn, as distinct from erotica, is often seen as being exploitive. Exploitive means that someone is suffering a degree of abuse through the production of the material, or the material is disrespectful of others rights or well being, or it incites people to behave in an exploitive manner. Eroticism, on the other hand, merely incites people to enjoy themselves. 
Secondly, I feel obliged to say here that Jesus was not exactly a prude. He was the chap who cooked barbecues on the beach, is said to have produced something in the order of 40 gallons of wine for a wedding breakfast, who was criticised for hanging out with drunks, prostitutes and (would you believe it) tax collectors, and who healed the so-called "servant" of a Roman Centurian (they were the despised conquerors, and this was almost certainly a homosexual relationship.) Jesus didn't just hug babies... he hugged lepers. 
That said, this is the quotation I have just changed: 
:The New Testament does not forbid the production of pornography, but rather its use. Jesus states, "Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt not commit adultery: but I say unto you, that every one that looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." (Mathew 5:27-28). In the first verse Jesus is quoting the Torah (Exodus 20:14).  
*It is ludicrous to suggest that "The New Testament doesn't forbid the production of pornography, but rather its use". 
In fact, Jesus had a profound understanding of human nature. He understood "sinful" behaviour in all its forms. He encouraged people to obey all the reasonable laws of the church and the rulers. 
*However, Jesus very rarely "laid down the law". ie. he didn't usually tell people in specific terms, how to manage their lives. He gave them two overriding guidelines "Love God, and love your neighbour as yourself" He went on to explain that "your neighbour" was everyone, even your enemy. So, to put it simply, you ought not act in a way that hurts, insults, defiles, humiliates or is otherwise abusive to or regardless of the needs of, any other person.  
*Over and over, the thing that Jesus condemned was two-faced conduct. Jesus condemned the twisting of "words of the law" in order that one might suit oneself. The Gospels are full of Jesus challenging those people among the Jewish leaders who knew the law sufficiently well to break it successfully, and thereby set a very bad example. 
*What we have here, in this present mis-interpretation of Jesus' statement is exactly the type of conduct, exactly the type of twisting of words that Jesus despised and condemned. 
*It is correct to the letter of the book to say that Jesus did not condemn pornography. Nowhere did he say "do not write this, or make images of this..." Nowhere does he actually mention pornography specifically. Images of figures were not used by the Jewish people. 
*So what did Jesus mean? (Remembering, of course, that he is talking to a group of Jewish people and they all know the Ten Commandments off by heart).
::His meaning is clear. "You all know (by the Ten Commandments, Leviticus and so on) that adultery is  wrong. But what I'm telling you is this....Don't get too above yourselves, just because you function to the letter of the law. Because, regardless of how you may act, if your thoughts are immoral, then so are you!". 
*Jesus' apostle Paul, who wrote and travelled indefatigably, and who established the "Christian Church" as an organisation in many cities, was absolutely clear in his condemnation of "immoral conduct" of all sorts. He encouraged the individual members of the churches that he wrote to, to be pure in both mind and body. This really cannot be reconciled with the "production of pornography". 
*So, all we can say is, the Early Christian Church condemned anything that focussed in an "unholy" way on the body. Sex between married couples was condoned, and both the men and the woman were expected to give of it to the satisfaction of the other, except when they abstained by agreement. (Paul wrote this... Jesus never made any such specific statement about marriage)
*Just to round this up- Jesus was challenged to pronounce judgement on a woman who had committed adultery (we are not told the circumstances). The mandatory punishment was to be stoned to death. Those who challenged him wanted to find out whether he would keep the law in this matter. His answer showed the most exceptional insight into the minds of those self-righteous accusers. He said "Let the person here who is without sin throw the first stone." The crowd broke up and went away. 
:Jesus said to the woman "What, has no-one condemned you?" ... and then, the telling words "Go your way, and sin no more." 
*The point here is that some other religions (and some branches of Christianity) seek to maintain control by fixed rules, set in cement. (St Paul's letters are often interpretted as fixed rules). Jesus did not do this. He led by example, and established a very few of the loosest, yet most binding laws that have ever been given or written down. That instruction "Go your way and sin no more", was a very hard ask. Putting other people first is a very hard ask. 
::::.... and neither of those thing leaves any room for making an interpretation that "The New Testament does not forbid the production of pornography, but rather its use." (In saying this, I refer you back to the small print at the top of this edit, for the definition that I am using to interpret "pornography".) 
Please do not twist the teachings of Jesus in this way. Amandajm (talk) 09:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Jesus and two-faced conduct

message: The article says 16 years, but that's not what I can find:
:"Den, som udbreder utugtige fotografier eller film, andre utugtige visuelle gengivelser eller lignende af personer under 18 år, straffes med bøde eller fængsel indtil 2 år eller under særligt skærpende omstændigheder med fængsel indtil 6 år"
It means (any danish can correct me if I'm wrong, I'm a swede so I'm not 100% sure, but pretty) the following:
:"Anyone who spreads sexual (not sure on the exact word here, but somewhere between "sexual" and "sinful" and "naughty") pictures or film, or other visual reproductions of persons below 18 years, are to be punished with fines or up to 2 years in prison, or in particulary bad situations up to 6 years of prison."
That is for all I know the word from the actual law, but as I said, I'm only 99.9%... 81.235.198.225 (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minimum age in denmark 

message: "A place to record prostitutes" seems like a fun inexactitude. "Pornography" would rather translate "the fact of displaying prostitutes".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.182.20 (talk) 16:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: These (commonly quoted) verses don't apply to erotic imagery and pornography for many many reasons. This is easily shown by reductio ad absurdum, reduction to absurdity.
*If these verses are taken in the asserted sense, then every married couple committed adultery before they were married because they desired each other so strongly they wanted to spend their entire lives together.  See  Lust for one's spouse
*Also, if drawn/painted erotic pictures of some generic non-specific opposite sex are arousing, then are we to suppose one commits adultery with the canvas? Perhaps one desires to marry a paintbrush? (No bibliographic reference is available for "Covetous lust for a paintbrush".)
*Also, adultery is a sin with married people, not the unmarried. The greek word for woman here (as well as by context) clearly establishes that some specific married woman is intended.
*Also, nowhere in the Bible is there any prohibition of either polygamy or even female concubinage. The most one can say is that the Bible indirectly suggests those practices are less than desirable. So to argue that erotic pictures are wrong when sex slavery is not wrong, is a foolish exercise.
*Also, the Koine greek word rendered here as lust is "epithumeo". It means "with strong desire". (BTW: Koine Greek was the original language of the New Testament Bible.) If it always means lust then there are severe Bible translation problems. For example, the same word "epithumeo" is used in many verses throughout the New Testament. Consider the following verses with this ridiculous rendering intact.
::*1 Timothy 3:1 "Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone lusts (epithumeo) to be a bishop, he desires a noble task". 
::*1 Peter 1:12b "... Even angels lust (epithumeo) to look into these things." 
::*Luke 22:15 Jesus Christ said, "I have lusted (epithumeo) with extreme lust (epithumeo) to eat this Passover with you before I suffer."
:::(BTW: This is Christ's statement about holy communion!!)
*Also, to the argument that only "romance" is meant to be acceptable, no such word uniquely exists in God's word. The word  romance didn't get invented until much later. Koine greek has only the word "eros" to uniquely describe the attraction between male and female, from which we obtain our modern word "erotic". God's word contains no condemnation of eros. Just the opposite is true, that prohibition of marriage is a mark of anti-christianity (1 Timothy 4:3), as taken by all the major protestant reformers.
*Also, it is primarily outside romance that causes husbands, wives, etc. to abandon their responsibilities and "run off" with another person. I have never EVER heard of someone "running off" with a picture, not even a .MOV!!
*Also, since eros includes romance bilaterally for either male or female, one must infer that romantic movies (like Gone With The Wind or Somewhere In Time) is eros and therfore, pornography. This is especially true since both movies portray fornication.
*Also, the word "pornography" didn't get invented until MUCH later. Modifying the Bible as mainline churchianity tries to do is both unjustified and dangerous.
*Finally, there is no simple direct subject_negated-verb_object prohibition of any erotic media anywhere in God's Word. The poetry of Song of Solomon (aka Song of Songs) is a perfect counter-example.
These verses are too irrelevant to keep them. Their history is well known and acknowledged. This is mere casuistic extrapolation in its weakest form.
I want to formally challenge the applicability of Mt 5:27,28. What is the best way to do it? --ClickStudent (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bible Quotation of Mt 5:27,28 Doesn't Apply 

message: Why does this page mention a mere catechism beside (and equal to) all the world's holiest writings? Anybody can create a catechism. Many churches do. It is their statement of POV. And that POV often changes. Even RC catechism has changed many hundreds of times throughout history. Whenever it is politically convenient, such things change.
:But the Torah, the Qur'an, the Bible...these are fixed. Many churches have C's that say outrageous things about RCism. So why have this statement at all? What is so damned special about RCism? This cathechism inclusion confuses the issue about what basic world religion actually STATES. Suggestion: break the religious POV stuff into a separate section, at the least. I thought POV was not allowed in wiki pages? --ClickStudent (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Why Is Roman Catholic Catechism Worth Mentioning?

message: The article cites multiple Bible verses, a book (several locations), and a video. Perhaps more are desired. But it is patently incorrect to say that no references are cited. 
As to POV, every point is cited in other sources, hence the above citations.
As to logic, reductio ad absurdum is a form of logic acceptable as a proof in mathematics. So that can't be POV.
But no substantive objections are available, so I can only guess what is meant.
I'm tempted to simply remove the challenges, given that nothing is said. I will do so in 48 hours.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.123.129 (talk) 05:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the 'Challenge to Religious Defenses' 

message: I'll admit,I did overstep the line with that being done,but I still think the neutrality of that section in the article is a little off.Because saying things like "some bible erotica isn't even poetic" and the reference tag that i put on that section was because of this sentence here:"but they are intentionally extremely erotic," and "some bible erotica isn't even poetic."I think that's pov being demonstrated.Once again,sorry about the wrongly placed referenced tag.Please see me at my talk page if you want.Sammy theeditor (talk) 07:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry about putting up the reference tags 

message: There is no specific photo in this article that depicts or gives an example of contemporary pornography. As an example of pornography cannot be shown through a drawing, I suggest that a photograph is included to give a specific visual example of an actual pornographic image.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.228.5.172 (talk) 14:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A specific photograph depicting porn... 

message: It appears this article does mention the word 'unhealthy' once.
There are a variety of unhealthy portrayals, or negative consequenes caused by this subject that are not identified and should be.  
Unhealthy on a variety of levels...There must be research on this somewhere.  If we can criticize Relgion surely we can find some things wrong about this subject relating to more than is on the current site ?
--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unhealthy dimensions ? 

message: Pornography or porn is the explicit depiction of sexual subject matter with the sole intention of sexually exciting the viewer.
I  have to suggest that this may be one of many 'intentions' of porn.  There are a variety of other purposes including 'political' and in the case of psychopathic producers some rather devious intentions.  The current intro is too selective.
*Some directors have the clear intent of expressing a hatred for people, be they men or women, and use film to express it.
--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intent ? 

message: I'm confused. The article defines pornography as: "the explicit depiction of sexual subject matter with the sole intention of sexually exciting the viewer." However, in the history section, the article goes on to define pornography in terms of the resistance against it or something, which makes no sense. Would it still be porn if it was not taboo? The lead says "yes", but this history section says "no". I move that the language such as "the concept of pornography as understood today" be modified to be less dependent on contemporary Western mores... it's totally slanted and confusing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.108.40 (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Totally inconsistent. 

message: This article generally does not expand enough on anti-pornography opinions. These are not, by any means, small movements in some hillbilly town. It does not cover broadly enough the specific claims of negativity toward porn, all they say is "some politicians, religious people and feminists don't like porn and think it has degrading effects". For one, this being an issue of law makers makes it big enough to be on the societal scale. There's not many sources compared to that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.81.23.225 (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other problems 

message: There are kids who use this website. Whoever wrote this youd be banned. Kirby1103 (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey again Kirby. Just letting you know that you should perhaps read up on wikipedia's policies before you start getting involved in article disputes. For your information, Wikipedia does not censor. And as such nothing will happen to this article or any others involving censorship for minors. MattieTK 23:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is outragous 

message: Don't ask me what I'm doing on this page, but looks like there's a cite problem, with < ref> tags being used after the < references /> tag. Why do the sources have footnotes anyway? Stevage 22:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cite probs 

message: The article on Pornography links to the Porn (disambiguation) page for other uses. This makes it very difficult to look up, say, the Cure album "Pornography" which is only listed on the Pornography (disambiguation) page, which is not linked from this article at all.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.25.63 (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation on "Pornography" 

message: Some of the language in this article has questionable neutrality, for instance, the last sentence under "Legal Objections" that ends with, "...has not followed up on a single one."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kronos o (talk • contribs) 18:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: Can you replace the pic on the top (fair use) by a free (and modern) pic from Hardcore porn or from Commons.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.88.35 (talk) 18:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free pic 

message: From a search of the peer-reviewed secondary (review and meta-analysis) literature on PubMed: "despite the wide increase in availability of pornography to children, not only was there a decrease in sex crimes with juveniles as victims but the number of juvenile offenders also decreased significantly." - "Pornography, Rape and Sex Crimes in Japan" by Diamond M, Uchiyama A. in Int J Law Psychiatry. 1999 Jan-Feb;22(1):1-22. Review. Richardson TR (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparently awesome for Japanese a decade ago 

message: I have never seen a good report detailing how pornography actually drives technology in a significant respect.  It is an unsubstantiated myth with nothing to back it up.  I've actually seen authors outside wikipedia link to this portion of the page like this is some kind of reference, while the wikipedia reference "Some people claim..." has a big question mark behind it.  If pornography is such an important part of driving technology, a respectable source should be provided.  The line should be taken down or a suitable reference found.  Many subjects drive technology but unless pornography has some incredible and traceable reference, it shouldn't be mentioned.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strattonbrazil (talk • contribs) 16:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is pornography linked to driving technology? 

message: In the religion section are 2 typos: "Mathew" and "adulery" -- Christianity condemns both the production and use of pornography. Jesus states, "Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt not commit adultery: but I say unto you, that every one that looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." (Mathew 5:27-28). In the first verse Jesus is quoting the Torah (Exodus 20:14), reminding his Jewish listeners that adulery is forbidden.
Why is it stated that pornography does not include striptease, as this is a sexual act and not the depiction of a sexual act? In fact the distinction between stiptease and, for instance a pornographic film, is not that one is a depiction of a sexual act and the other is a sexual act.  Both are (depictions of) sexual acts. Surely the fundamental difference is that one is a live performance, the other is recorded. So the definition of pornography isn't that it is a depiction of a sexual act rather than a sexual act, so much that it is a depiction of a sexual act rather than a live sexual act.JohnC (talk) 08:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor typos under [[Porn#Religious objections]] 

message: Why is there a feminism section? I don't get it. Feminism is one of hundreds of fringe movements. Why is their opinion important enough to have an entire section in this article and even sub-sections?--AlekNovi (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Which other religions? There is already Pornography#Religious_objections, as well as Anti-pornography_movement#Religious_objections. Mdwh (talk) 09:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feminism 

message: I see that this page was previously a candidate for a featured article, and that it is now locked, due to a high risk for vandalism.  Strangely, I see no discussion of either in the talk page.  Furthermore, with all of the historical and academic examples of pornography available, and the fact that Wikipedia is not censored, there are no actual examples of modern pornography.  As far as I knew, nothing is to be assumed, as this is an educational tool, yet this omission assumes the audience is familiar with visual examples of pornography.  If this is due to the objections of one or many, we must remember, none can take a "moral high ground" when composing objective encyclopedic references.  Nullpersona (talk) 12:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship 

message: The MiszaBot I archiving this page is adding stuff to Archive 1 instead of Archive 4 which is what the box at the top of this page says is the last archive.  Do we need to upgrade to MiszaBot II?  More importantly, how can the chronological order be fixed? 99.35.129.210 (talk) 01:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive bot is broken 

message: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFthWqoZIog At 3:39 are the best scenes, although whole music video is full of them. The BDSM/fear play looks real awesome to me - Now I would wish to know where from these scenes are.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.237.10.210 (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This talk page is for discussing improvements to this article, not general questions on pornography. You can ask questions like this at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is this porn from? 

message: I've been looking around for a summary of effects on individuals of watching porn. There's a summary of it here, a summary of it in anti-pornography movement, and most of it in social effects of pornography (under #Controlled Studies, which is an odd place to talk about effects on individuals).  These probably need to be collated together somehow at a reasonable place, maybe including a rename of social effects of pornography to just effects of pornography to capture that it covers effects on individuals too.  Suggestions/comments?  —AySz88\^-^ 01:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we need to have a separate page for individual effects? I mean, what would such a page have which isn't in the other articles? Tabercil (talk) 02:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Aren't they already covered? myopia, Carpal tunnel syndrome, hairy palms... oh, there's a red link :-) Dekkappai (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization of info on effects of porn usage 

message: It would be interesting to here a study about how the thousands of free porn videos tube sites have affected the porn industry. Obviously it has provided a quicker and wider selection of porn to online viewers, but are these sites actually hurting the industry?  I guess time will just have to tell.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.70.211 (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there are any statistics available to prove either case. AinslieL (talk) 07:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is the pornography industry affected? 

message: If pornography exists in all or most cultures, it probably carries a lot of cultural baggage.  For example about half of the pornography of South Asia describes activities within the extended family.  Unmarried younger brothers having relationships with older brothers' wives.  Aunts (mother's sisters) sexually initiating a nephew.  Brothers and sisters.  There is a considerable amount of this pornography online, both in English and in Hindi and other South Asian languages in the roman alphabet.  Some useful keywords are "bhabhi" and "sali" or "saali" (sister-in-law), "devar" (younger brother-in-law).  What about other cultures? LADave (talk) 06:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cross-cultural perspectives