Talk:Cartoon pornography

message: We should replace that picture as it may be illegal.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.138.199 (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The image is fine (except for the fact that it's not considered cartoon). The only problem is that it needs to mention that it is Japanese, which is a fact. Sandenig (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

text: And whether that girl looks underage or not is your own opinion, but I don't think she is. Edit: Actually, she does kinda look underaged, now that I think about it. I can see what you guys are saying about the irony now... Sandenig (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: The girl we see in the picture looks underage

message: I am wondering why this page has links to pornographic sites. Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of information, not a porn directory. If someone wants to find these kind of sites they can use a search engine. And the last link is a pay site, which means that this page is basically advertising for that site. I'm removing the links to the sites containing pornography but leaving the other link since it is informative in nature. TSchellhous 04:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur with your actions. --LeyteWolfer 17:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Site links

message: I resent having my contribution being labelled as "vandalism", according to an edit from February 3. I was simply adding a section of my own knowledge of the Cartoon pornographic sites I have been forced to censor to avoid my children from seeing. I notice a pattern and decide to let people know about it. Sadly, that word "vandalism" proves that Wikipedia is run by people who are inconsiderate bullies. 71.194.44.46, 17:36, 7 February 2006 (GMT)
:yeah, um....[Your edit] was no more than removing the entire guts of the article, maybe it was just a mistake, but wholesale removing of sections like that is generaly frowned upon. --CH 18:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism?

message: I fail to see how cartoon pornography can be considered parody or satire.--Orthologist 23:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disneyland_Memorial_Orgy is a pretty good example of how you can combine famous characters with sexual situations.--CH 16:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: While it is true that most parodies usually are humorous works, a parody dos not necessarily need to be comedic and satirical in nature.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.210.41.184 (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Still I removed the statement regarding parody as not being allowed. There are lots of pornographic parody videos out there (see This Ain't Avatar XXX and Pirates). More generally, parody is seen as a fair use so unless you can point to some case law regarding parody in pornography I am inclined to argue that it is legal.129.7.240.199 (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Parody/satire

message: Someone has changed the picture... this might be more appropriate.--Orthologist 00:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The original image that was started with the article featured copyrighted characters and was deemed replacable. I worked with the artist of the original image to make the new image wikipedia friendly. --00:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone added a picture below the one already existing. Should we find a replacement? This one uses copyrighted characters and, as far as I know, there are a lot of pictures like this one without copyrighted characters.--Orthologist 13:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The new image attribution states the image may not be reproduced despite being licensed under CCA2.5, im going to remove it and tag it for speedy deletion, because an unknown artist cannot give permission anyways. --72.67.29.95 20:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: Regarding the "differences between cartoon pornography and hentai" I fail to see the validity of that article and it's claims that those are two different art forms. Especially as the source seems to be a payable hentai service. It seems obvious to me that hentai (actually called Adult animation or erotic animation by Japanese people) is a form of cartoon pornography, not a completely different art form. It's the same as anime can be called a type of cartoon which emerged in Japan. Hentai is just a type of adult cartoon which is also anime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.206.233.213 (talk) 08:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, hentai is certainly a subsect of cartoon pornography, unless of course it covers erotica not considered to be pornography. I think in general terms, pornography covers this but certain definitions of it (like not having artistic merit) make people rightfully not want to call it that. Tyciol (talk) 14:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that hentai seems to be a subset of cartoon porn, and it's unclear to me how they are different. Any objections to me removing "It is distinguished from Hentai", or perhaps even replacing with something like "and also includes genres such as Hentai"? Mdwh (talk) 23:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree with you as I say, but "distinguish" to me could imply that it's distinct, as opposed to a subset. If we agree that it's a subset, does anyone object to saying this more explicitly? E.g., we could include it in the previous sentence: "Cartoon pornography includes but is not limited to parody renditions of famous cartoons, comics and Hentai."? Mdwh (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reworded the sentence to remove the claim hentai is different from cartoon pornography so it simply explains what hentai is Nil Einne (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Hentai

message: "Rule 34" directs here. Why, exactly?  There's a lot more to Rule 34 than Cartoons. It should have it's own article, or at least be mentioned in the text of this one.
XKCD 305  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.252.128 (talk) 04:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. Regarding Rule 34, I quote from urban dictionary, "[Rule 34 is a] generally accepted internet rule that states that pornography or sexually related material exists for any conceivable subject."  A simple Google search should render corroborating evidence.  An addendum to the rule is that if such pornography has not yet been found, it must be made.  A call for Rule 34 on a given subject is generally a request to present pornography of that subject.  Not all instances of Rule 34 are cartoon related, though many calls for Rule 34 are intended as shocking or satirical portrayals of beloved childhood cartoon characters.  Many calls for Rule 34 are intended to ridicule political figures, a given class of people, or simply present an absurd situation for humorous effect.  Some calls for Rule 34 are also made to satisfy a rare sexual fetish, and seeing unusual sexual situations may be a fetish in and of itself. (69.229.196.13 (talk) 10:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Redirection Rule 34 to Cartoon pornography is simply ridiculous. It's like redirecting anal sex to fellatio.. --Rmdsc (talk) 11:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Barring the existance of an article for that term, or another more appropriate article, it's better than nothing I'd say. Rule34 is fan-created and thus, pretty much always a cartoon in any way imaginable, unless you count photoshop shoops. Tyciol (talk) 14:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we should let Urban Dictionary determine how we craft this encyclopedia... Beeblebrox (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't at all advocate consulting UD, I'm not sure where you got that. I've researched all major rule 34-oriented things. While 34 can encapsulate real forms of pornography, considering the ease of which it is to draw a picture versus enact something, and how theoretical fictional ideas will always outnumber real possible ones, it's a fair argument to say that 34 is predominantly cartoon. Unless the term has it's own article, where's a better place to redirect it than here? Tyciol (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: pomni 182.2.52.214 (talk) 11:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Rule 34

message: I found that this page says:
"Currently no such laws are in effect in the US, as any laws of this nature have been struck down by the US Supreme Court on constitutional grounds. However this striking down of the law was not retroactive. Anybody who at the time has been sentenced for such a crime, is still serving their sentence."
while the Legal_status_of_cartoon_pornography_depicting_minors#18_USC_1466A implies that the law is still in effect and actively used to prosecute people (the simpsons case).
I'm not really sure which is accurate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.110.19 (talk) 07:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  discrepancy between US cartoon child porn page and this page   

message: As I was saying four years ago, there's a whole world of erotic comics that has nothing to do with illegal child pornography. This article is almost entirely about illegal child pornography, and should be retitled to make that clear, or be rewritten to fill in the all the material currently excluded. Mandrakos (talk) 02:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, some people do distinguish between pornography and erotica, as noted in the Erotic article. Flyer22 (talk) 14:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's not the issue with the article at all. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article still needs to be completely rewritten or else retitled, after four years no change! 

message: Personally, I feel this article is a bit one-sided. It could do with some criticism. - 2.97.74.198 (talk) 22:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: Of course, there's another perennial attempt to remove the image to the lead, based on it being "objectionable", when WP:CENSOR is the guiding policy here. The image has due weight in accordance with the fact that Hentai is the most popular genre of cartoon pornography, and as such, should be given its weight as an image on said page. There has not ever been a policy on here for removing images, solely based on being objectionable. Again, quite the opposite. Tutelary (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute about image 

message: Just because wikipedia isn't censored doesn't mean it needs to have hentai. It adds nothing to the article other than what is already written. El cid, el campeador (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I will use this headline as it makes clear what your objections about it. Again, as I was saying before, the article outlines Hentai as one of the more popular forms of cartoon pornography out there, and as such, should be given its WP:DUE weight. I however don't agree with User:Usernamekiran's addition of another image, and suggest that they revert it. It's now too much in the opposite direction, and violates a certain text to image ratio, since the article is not that long in itself. Nonetheless, your edit summaries, as well as this inflammatory headline seeks to present me this view that you find it objectionable in a personal way. There are certain ways to hide images on Wikipedia articles if you don't find them fanciful. However, your personal objections to this image should not constitute removal. Tutelary (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Tutelary is entirely correct about the original image. It is intended to illustrate and explain the topic of the article, and when the topic is the visual arts, a picture is worth a thousand words of description. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  So we include porn in the encyclopedia. Okay. I guess this is just another place in the internet to jerk off. El cid, el campeador (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  We include "porn" as you call it insofar as to provide encyclopedic value. Other stuff exists, but images that also including "offensive" images prominent within their relative articles are Fellatio, Anilingus, Anal Sex, and Gonzo_pornography. We're not doing it to provide "jerk off" material, but to adequately display encylopedic content. Just like the Elephant page includes an image of an elephant, the article about sex acts may very likely include an image of that sex act. Tutelary (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia as a smut store? 

message: The merger is being discussed here: Talk:Erotic_animation#Merger . Tutelary (talk) 01:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential Merger 

message: For the sake of peace, I'm going to plead the debate equivalent of nolo contendere, and redirect the better article title to this one, merging the contents in hopes of finally doing something useful with it. I think it's a mistake, but it isn't worth the kind of emotional distress this seems to be creating. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yield 

message: — Assignment last updated by Zy175311460 (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Seminar in Human Sexuality