Talk:Hardcore pornography

message: I've cleaned up the article somewhat and made it generally more presentable. I am not keen on the For and Against sections as they are just a list of vague objections/defenses with no real discussion. I suggest improving this section or deleting all of it except to mention the controversy among crackpot Christians and others. After all, this is dealt with in the main pornography article. -Neural 22:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: In reference to the image on the right. Is "New Devil In Miss Jones" really a classic? It came out in 2004, wouldn't it take a little longer for a movie to get "classic" status? - OPaul 06:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Devil In Miss Jones 

message: I think an example of Hardcore porn should be placed in the article.  I think the cover art is not a good enough example.  There should be a film screen shot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Nirvana Rules (talk • contribs) 
:Hear, hear. I am all for it. What does the the people say? A little consensus before going hardcore would be very nice. Aditya Kabir 16:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you say the same thing if it was a straight porn picture? And I don't think we can make assumptions about the motivations of the uploader. Mdwh (talk) 23:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Needed Example

message: :Image:Newdevilinmissjones dvd.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Newdevilinmissjones dvd.jpg

message: It would be interesting to know what was illegal in the various countries - e.g., production, publication, distribution and/or possession? Mdwh (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legalization? 

message: I just received an email from Mr. Knowles telling me that indeed, the photos in question are available for use under the Creative Commons License.  I also learned that the photos accompany an article called "One Fine Day on a Porn Set" []. The talent in the photo are Mikey Butders and Cali Chase for The Naughty American website. The Director of the shoot was Brett Brando and the photo(s) we have seen are taken by Larry Knowles, who wrote the article and took pictures to describe the quirkiness of the goings on behind-the-scenes on a porno set. The photographer we see pictured in the photos is only identified as Nicole in the article.--Feddx (talk) 17:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My thought too.  I tried to and just couldn't figure out how to edit the table or the image page (I see no, "edit this page" tab). If someone would take care of that, and feel free to edit the caption here as well, just citing the original article, I'd appreciate it.  Thank you.--Feddx (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I updated the info on Commons.  Now I will update the Caption. Atom (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Porn Set Photos and Larry Knowles  

message: Hey guys - so just by skimming the discussion, it appears a new photo is desired?  Can someone please sketch out the criteria and I will try to upload something that meets it?  --David Shankbone 12:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a couple, David: that it has the appearance of hardcore but with no genitals showing (which was the objection to 7), not narrow in focus (objections to 6 were that it is niche, not representative etc.). Also, some photos in the series show the production side of things, such as in 3 and 5, so it would be good to include that if possible. Objections to 5 were that it was too soft and the objection to 3 came from yourself. 3, 5, 6, 7 were out for different reasons, but if the reasons are taken into consideration when finding a new photo there shouldn't be any objections to it. 58.172.32.51 (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the article as it is.  If we exaonded the text from being regional to also describing different Genre's of Hardcore, then additional photos could possible be in those sections.  But, as it is, do we put a photo for each region?  I think, for the moment, the article is okay, and needs no more photos.  Atom (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he is referring to one all four of us can agree to, and I just submitted #15 as a compromise.  Pretty good one, too - shows motioning by the director, no genitals, clearly hardcore filming...production, etc. How about this to replace? --David Shankbone 23:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed, 15 is a more appropriate photo, and the various objections to 3, 5, 6, 7 are not relevant to 15. 58.172.32.51 (talk) 03:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I think 15 fits the criteria.  Atom (talk) 22:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If 6 needs to go then the image to the right (15) seems suitable. Anyone? Anyone? Beuller? (waits for the anons to come out of hiding)--Feddx (talk) 03:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria?  Arbitrary break 

message: It says:
    * West Germany in 1976. (East Germany, which never legalized hardcore pornography, was unified with West Germany in 1990.)
    * Denmark in 1980
    * Sweden in 1990
    * United Kingdom in 2000
    * Norway in 2006"
That sounds pretty bogus. For example, it says at [] that Denmark was the first country in the world to legalize pornography in 1969. The 2000 and 2006 dates I cannot believe at all. If no-one provides sources for those years, I will remove them altogether. –Kloth (talk) 04:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if either statement about Denmark is true, but the 1969 is for porn in general, it doesn't specify hardcore, so the sentences aren't necessarily icconsistent. I'm not sure why you can't believe the 2000 and 2006 dates - the date for the UK is correct (I have added sources), and  actually claims that as of 2006, it's still banned in Norway. Btw, you can also use the  to mark unsourced statements as a warning in the text, before deleting them. Mdwh (talk) 02:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legality 

message: the image currently here featuring intercourse is up for deletion, and will probably be deleted. however, even if its not, its inappropriate for this article. An image here should be one that would be appropriate for hardcore pornography, but not so much for pornographic film or pornography. thus, it should be a common or avearage image from a hardcore pornographic work produced since the term was coined. this image is a highly unusual choice, its focus is on raunchy, debauched humor, hardcore content is secondary, and doesnt adequately portray the subject. If we had an article on humor in pornography, it would be ideal for that. the commons has this :File:Pierre Woodman at work in Australia.png, which is better. the image we have here from a porn set is good too, i suppose. sorry to add more fuel to the fire, but i really think its got to go. and if we dont have an image from an actual hardcore porn work thats free use, then this article just wont have an image like that.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a pretty good image featuring explicit depiction of penetration and oral sex at :File:Strap-on pegging.jpg. I realise it's not a professional pornographic production, just an amateur photo, but I think it'll do better than :File:Pierre Woodman at work in Australia.png, which doesn't show typical characteristics of hardcore pornography (you can't even really tell whether they're making a hardcore or softcore film). Dcoetzee 06:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images, redux 

message: I've removed this text from the article because it is not about "hardcore" pornography.  The videos offered in Marriott hotels are certainly not hardcore.
:Recently, several prominent people in the porn industry have said that due to internet and free competition, porn sales are far below those that are reported.Hard Times for the Porn Industry?, Brian Braker, Newsweek, February 8, 2007; access August 4, 2008 Paul Fishbein of trade magazine Adult Video News said that due to free and amateur Internet competition that rental sales are off 10 percent to 15 percent.Turns Out Porn Isn't Recession-Proof, Betsey Schiffman, Wired Magazine, July 21, 2008; accessed August 4, 2008
:Hardcore porn remains controversial in the United States, and is used as a campaign issue for politicians. Mitt Romney decried the "cesspool" of pornography, but came under fire from social conservatives, including Tony Perkins, because he sat on the board of Marriott International, whose hotels profit from porn movies.Romney Criticized for Hotel Pornography, Glen Johnson, The Washington Post, July 5, 2007; accessed August 1, 2008 Pay-per-view pornography generates a lot of revenue for hotels. Anti-porn activist John L. Harmer, who served as California's lieutenant governor under Ronald Reagan, estimated up to $500 million is generated industrywide.
Maybe some of this could/should be used in Pornography in the United States. Gronky (talk) 09:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed text about hotels and Mitt Romney 

message: Hi  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.254.249 (talk) 07:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Me 

message: Should there be an image in hardcore instead of none? or is there a reason there is not one. (Mudak568 (talk) 11:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree. Enjoyer of World (talk) 02:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image for hardcore porn? 

message: Doesn't this article need a history section? Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  History? 

message: We have some figures on the size and turnover of the porn industry which are now over a decade out of date. In recent years, the free availability of porn on the Internet has made making pornography more and more difficult to monetize, and I would expect this to be reflected in the sales and production figures. This definitely merits a section in this article: would anyone be interested in writing it? -- The Anome (talk) 10:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decline of the porn industry