Talk:Pornography/Archive 1

message: This stuff added by some IP number person seems to be more a sketch of ideas than an addition to the entry, so I moved it here -- till we *) 15:11 Nov 3, 2002 (UTC)
Why study pornography?
Pornography, a subject part of social studies, is studied because of these four issues:
a. Used as documents in crime processing.
b. It can promote disesases and/or pregnancy.
c. It is sometimes compared with State-sponsored sex-education.
d. It is related to the control of child/adult prostitution.
e. it is a sexy way to pass the time
f. It is a way for horny men, as well as women, to relieve themselves
General opinion
Nude Photography is not always equal to Erotica although
nudity can be viewed with an erotic perception.
The people involved in intercourse pornography are real
and could be prostitutes. They could develop sex diseases. 
Their partners could be a complete stranger or their spouses.
Their activities were often made with cameras.
Porn pop-ups are a nuisance.
Known industries/trades
Youth exhibitionism (child, students, workers).
Sex exhibitionism (mild, exotic, films).
Nudity (partial, full, photography, painted).
Highlights/Summary
In the USA, some states allow the trading of pornography
to above legal age. In China, nude photography exists along with nude paintings.
Taiwan imports, produces suggestive publications. Many islamic
countries ban pornography but allow polygamy. Many westernized countries
allow their businesses to broadcast films that carry adult themes(graphic violence,
graphic sex etc.).
Definition of Pornography
Usually human-participants in film/video/photo/drawing are depicted in an
excessive, non-modest beautiful sexual manner; Deliberate material aimed at 
arousing male-ejeculation or female-orgasm and encourage further consumption; 
suggestivity to intercourse; organizational interpretations and individual 
interpretations; anything used to encourage payment for goods; used to project sexual 
imagery (and to cause recall) on the consumers; may suggest obscenity; the word is often 
intersected with obscenity(bad-taste), oral/genital intercourse and nudity (whether 
partial or full); includes any sexual imagery imagined by anyone whether by chance 
or by influence; sometimes used to project dominance over another; used as a 
weapon by foreign women (United States) against men in other countries;
Censorship suggests that the information is controlled.
Falsified material and claiming genuity (people, rape-acting); To cheat
subject of profit or good-name in the industry.
Concerns
Porn that suggests prostitution is going on somewhere in the world;
Worries over existence of pornographic material whoose consumption by
males that might promote traits such as: masturbation, violence, inhibition,
obstructing learning or thinking, wishful thinking, mental illnesses, obstruction
to daily activities. Teaching the young of the wrong values: reveal the state 
of virginity?; 
Legitimate commerce in some countries; illegitimate commerce in others.
Piracy of porn;
Man-woman intercourse-diagrams as examples used by gvt. agencies to enhance
hetereosexual marriages.
The people of porn:
Well-paid stars (usually video/photo stars).
Student promoters to sexual material.
Student prostitutes.
Threatened participants.
Alien-prostitutes (on worker's pass).
Moon-lighters.
Paid-painting-stills.
Sometimes the stars are famous, sometimes they are not.
Most participants are women(so that men are attracted to those services)
Most are not so tertiary-educated. 
The idea that porn is a source of income for the participants who 'feel'
poor or are excited at the chance to be famous. Men financing them
to do those, women managers in the act of record
ing porn.
Women as passive-prompters (claims to human right of exhibit) and the males as
promoters in a more active-manner (just looking for income) only to 
reveal other stories (due to mathematical nature of human behaviour: binomial scope).
Used as documents in crime processing.
When a person is convicted of a crime, his possessions
are reportedly confiscated: magazines, digital-film-discs, computers etc.
for evidence against the person.
It can promote disesases and/or pregnancy.
With the influence of pornography, people may be cheated by others
into non-consensus sex. Pornography is reportedly used by some males
in parts of the world to ejeculate at home or else-where. Contact
with semeninal liquid can be dangerous.
It is sometimes compared with State-sponsored sex-education
It is related to the control of child/adult prostitution
Comparisons and other ideas
Material that is purely about sex.
Material that includes sex as 'genuine' to the story.
The pop-star/musician as inspiring, the porn-star as 'promising'.
Often due to lack of all-round body warm-ups?
Silky world of porn/glamour;
Hardship world of landmines, illnesss and a short-life;
----
The previous person to work on this page edited it to claim claim that the internet resulted in a rise in the incidence of kiddie porn.  This claim is often made - it is less often backed with real evidence.  Please provide some if you want the claim to stand.  --Robert Merkel
: How can this be in dispute?  Isn't it an obvious fact that the Internet increased the incidence of ALL types of pornography, and made it infintely easier for people to acquire?  I can't imagine that there is any dispute about this.  This, however, is a separate issue from whether the Internet has increased the number of people who want child pornographu; that is a different issue. I only claim that the Internet has made it more common and more accessible. RK
::Try downloading kiddie porn from the net and see how long before the FBI or their equivalent are knocking on your door.  
:::Uhm, I'm sorry, but this is incredibly naive. Now if you change downloading into uploading, your statement could at least begin to try to conform to reality, though it still would fail the check. 
:::I won't even comment on the assumption that the FBI has any power over some Wikipedia contributor you don't know much about. --AV
::As for the increased accessibility of pornography, have you ever visited a newsagent?  For fsck's sake, you can buy Jenna Jameson videos and DVD's at the Virgin Megastore in Times Square.  --Robert Merkel
----
Would a list of newsgroups routinely carrying child and adolescent pornography be good enough? It's a plain fact that child pornography is available on the Internet, and before
there was Internet, it was not available on the Internet. However you look at it, the appearance of a new medium with unparalleled distribution abilities must result in a rise in the incidence. In my opinion, your deletion was too hasty. --AV
It is inappropriate to lump together pornography and child porn in the same category.  Two consenting adults having sex in front of a camera is not a crime; having sex with a 5 year old boy is a crime.  Unless this differentiation is made, the entry will imply that all pornograohy is evil, and that all people who have seen adult moview are as bad as people who desire kiddie porn.  Let us make the distinction extremely clear. RK]
Child porn is also category of porn, and distinction isn't really clear (for example are naked young girls a child or normal porn,
in which age does it change from child to normal porn) ? Also it might be a crime now in some western countries, but that
doesn't mean it is a general rule. For example in ancient Greece male teachers having sex with male students were not only allowed,
but encouraged. Taw
----
If your argument is that "kiddie porn, like all other porn, is now easier to obtain through the internet" why is is necessary to specifically mention it?  Why not just say that "porn is now easier to obtain through the internet"?  --Robert Merkel
:Because kiddie porn is much harder to obtain through older channels; the Internet changed the balance. --AV
----
In the Netherlands, is it legal for 16 year olds to act in pornographic movies and magazines? Also, what is the precise rule in the UK? --AxelBoldt
The exact rule in the UK is (if I remember correctly) that the material should not be likely to deprave or corrupt those who are likely to see it. Which could mean anything, of course. In practice, newsagents can sell soft porn, although erections are not allowed. (There is no rule against genitals being shown - the comment currently in the article is simply wrong.) Sex shops have openly sold hardcore magazines since about 1992. More recently, hardcore videos have started receiving certificates, so they can legally be sold in sex shops. I think some sex shops were openly selling hardcore videos before this, however. --Zundark, 2001 Oct 21
In the Netherlands the legal age has been raised to 18 in 2003.
Theodore W.
-----
Just the general observation that this article seems to focus almost entirely on visual pornography, without saying so. Distinctions such as hardcore vs softcore probably exist in written pornography too, but would have to be defined somewhat differently.
----
Sorry for this rant, but it's a subject near and dear to my heart:  on Greco-Roman phalloi - sure, Pompeii had whorehouses and pornographic art on the walls, but the big phalloi have little or nothing to do with that.  If a tour guide told you that people in the middle ages believed the world was flat, would you .... Oh.  That's right, most people believe that one, too.  Please see Inventing the Flat Earth, Jeffrey Burton Russell, ISBN: 0275939561.  Well, the phalloi weren't pointing you to the redlight district - they were pointing AT YOU so that you couldn't cast the Evil Eye on the occupants of the house.  Mediterranean peoples still believe in the evil eye - ever seen an Italian man with a coral horn around his neck?  His Roman ancestors wore phalloi.  Same deal.  Hold index finger and pinky out, other two fingers folded down;  hold it in front of your chest;  jab at ugly but probably harmless old woman and say "Avert!"  For lots of pictures of Roman Phalloi and explanations of why mosaic pictures on the floors of Roman bathhouses of Africans with big penises has nothing to do with homosexual miscegnation, see John R. Clarke, Roman Black-and-White Figural Mosaics ISBN: 0814713769. (clarke has a great new book on Roman sexuality).  Or, as Freud would have known if he had been a little better read in the classics, sometimes a penis is just a cigar. --MichaelTinkler
:Gee, that was quite a rant. :-)
:Seriously, though, I saw three of them on the streets of Pompeii, and they were all pointing directly at the same district where I saw the murals. And they weren't in front of houses but on the street corners. At least one was actually on a block in the middle of the street. The streets are lower than the sidewalks, and there are stepping stones so you can cross the street dry on a rainy day, with spaces between for wheels to travel. There's a picture (I don't know if it's one of the ones I saw) at http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Metro/7707/trip3.html about 3/4 of the way down.
:So in short, I think in this particular case the phalluses were there to point to the red-light district, although I agree there were many other symbolisms. If you still think I'm wrong, feel free to change what I wrote, or move it to Pompeii. --Dmerrill
:::Sometimes a phallus is just a directional sign, eh?  :-)
----
I elided child pornography and mention that the net is interesting for consumers of all manners of porn that is illegal somewhere. No need to restrict it to that kind illegal in the  US/Europe. --Robbe
:I think the recent proliferation of child porn swapping networks is a significant development which should be mentioned. --AxelBoldt
::My point is that the child porn trade is rising much slower than normal porn. Child porn was traded before the net existed. Semi-professional swap rings still prefer parcel post: safer and (for videos) cheaper ... I'm content with the current article status, though. --Robbe
----
:In most European countries hardcore pornography is shown on regular or pay-TV.
I believe that to be false. I know it to be false for Germany. Any other countries? Hardcore porn is available via satellite in the US, but not in Europe as far as I know. --AxelBoldt
:There are a few in Europe. See, for example, this page. Selling cards for them is generally illegal in the UK, but I think the UK is fairly exceptional in this respect. --Zundark, 2001 Dec 4
----
There is a whole feminist critique and style of pornography, and some Christian Fundamentalists and Marxist Lesbians who took it to some amusing extremes in the 1980s and 1990s.  Also "In Praise of Pornography" and other works by ACLU and tribal feminist types.  And an entire critique of how *ALL COMMUNICATIONS MEDIA* seem to get their headstart from a desire to communicate about sex - part of a larger critique of media and capitalism as systems driven by sexual attraction to the detriment of ecological survival.  Andrea Dworkin, Gloria Steinem, etc., need a mention here.
::I agree, the positions of the various pro and con feminist factions should be mentioned, and religious reservations. The Canadian supreme court decision in which Dworkin was involved should be covered too. AxelBoldt
-----
Can I question the appropriateness of including Playboy in a list of "pornographic magainzes," and Hugh Hefner in a list of porn "personalities"? Erotica, yes; pornography, no. (Unless you're Ed Meese, of course.) ---Michael K. Smith 21:22, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: If you accept the definition given in the first paragraph, then Playboy, would definitely be included. Personaly, I do not accept a definition that critically depends on intentionality. mydogategodshat 04:43, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pornography: Investigations and claims 

message: There are a few articles on Wikipedia that would benefit from a pornographic/erotic image being posted in them. I've had difficulity finding a GPL/GFDL'd image gallery of pornography/erotica, any one else have any luck? Or are we out of luck and just have to admit Wikipedia can't fully cover those kind of issues?--Flockmeal 19:10, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting idea, a picture gallery of early 'erotic' art, now in the public domain, might be an excellent idea.  Few websites exist long because of the controversy and thus world knowledge on this subject is sparse.  Instead of erotic though i'd broaden it up to 'nude', and have erotic as a sub class of nude art.  I'll make a Nude_art_list if you want to help. --ShaunMacPherson 07:48, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: Well, I kind of disagree with this one. Which articles were you thinking about? I can figure out what sexual intercourse is without a picture of two people engaging in it. While I don't think Wikipedia has to be G-rated (and it certainly isn't currently), I can't think of any articles that really need porn pictures in them. Aside from Erotic art in Pompeii, I can't think of any articles that would benefit from such content. —64.25.14.157 19:59, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. However, I think the problem is that there aren't enough articles about pornography on Wikipedia (though it may not be the biggest priority). The easiest way to explain most sex fetishes in porn, for example, would be to display the sample picture. Ditto for porn conventions. And if/when a separate article on history of porn is written, it would be very useful. And then there is ethnic porn and national porn - again, it's easier just to display samples. As for the problem of public domain/FDL issue, I think contacting the webmaster of the site and politely asking to license the particular image under FDL (with a link to the site as credit and common courtesy) might be very feasible. Paranoid 12:20, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Why not talk to the developers, and have them install an optional filter? Each pornographic image can be flagged, and if the person has their options set to exclude such content, then it will omit it from their screen. Alternately, when people go to a page that has such pictures, then a window could pop up asking if they want the G-rated version or the X-rated version. It shouldn't be too hard to automate. All those pics could be flagged automatically by moving them into a certain category. 69.243.41.28 02:58, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now that sounds like a brilliant idea. Quite a few areas of wikipedia are innapropriate for children and such, despite their encclopedic content, and could probbably (sp) be installed as a cookie. Voporak 12:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia NEEDS PORN! 

message: I've removed the dubious mention of "X, double X, 2.5X and triple X." -- as far as I know, these terms are not well defined or in general use. Deletion of these words does not alter the sense of the surrounding sentences. -- The Anome 23:55, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd think it deserves some sort of passing mention in the History section, with a note making it clear that they have no real legal force (so long as they don't claim to come from the MPAA), and studios are free to claim just about anything as "XXX" they please. - Korpios 00:41, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Within the porn industry itself, using the Xs as an actual rating system is rarely, if ever, used.  Porn is often called "X-rated" or "XXX" entertainment or somesuch, and XX is never used in any context.  I can only remember one instance of X, XX, and XXX being used as a rating system, and that was on Ten.com. Superking 05:02, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gradations of X-ratings 

message: Despite the famous test of pornography of "I know it when I see it" (which is probably information that should go in the article) I do not think we need to or should have an actual pornographic image on Wikipedia to illustrate what pornography is.  It degrades the seriousness of what we're trying to do.  If it were necessary to include a pornographic image I would advocate using a still from some work of more historical merit, like Deep Throat (widely credited with bringing pornographic movies into the mainstream) or I Am Curious (Yellow) (the importation of which was fought on the presumption that its sexual content made it pornography).  Antaeus Feldspar 15:19, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You could call that the "Stewart Test", after Potter Stewart, who's famous for it.  It is, of course, not a legal test.  The Miller test (community standards), on the other hand, is.  --Baylink 16:56, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Depictions of pornography 

message: Should links like Child pornography or Bestiality be capitalised? Rafał Pocztarski 19:13, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalisation 

message: I know this can be a touchy topic, but how about a blurred photo so as not to offend people and not turn wikipedia into a porn-hub? Of course, we'd have to do this with a free picture. Any wikipedia model gals out there? ;) It's just that every article I see without a picture makes it feel lacking. Lockeownzj00 18:26, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comments on the issue in the "Depictions of Pornography" section.  I do not think we need an image of pornographic content just in order to demonstrate what pornography is.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:53, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  The lack of an image on this page was mentioned in a BBC article today . Admittedly, they thought that the omission was a good thing, but I'm not sure I agree that it is a "sensible" thing to do. How about an image that shows the commerce surrounding pornography? For example, a large porn movie store or something from one of the million porn web sites. It doesn't have to be explicit, although I wouldn't protest if it was. The purpose of the encyclopaedia is not to be politically correct and "sensible", but to reflect society as it is. Porn is a big part of it, so why hide what it looks like? — David Remahl 14:19, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd be happy to shoot an oblique of a rackful of DVD's/VHS's at my local smut shop, if anyone thinks it would be useful.  New digital camera, you see. :-)  --Baylink 01:09, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: I disagree with this page protection.  I don't like the picture addition either, but the more proper way was to hhandle it with the user, not by protecting the page (m:Protected pages considered harmful).
# First of all, there is no "edit war".  Nore more than 2-4 edits per day have been made here.
# Very little discussion seems to have been done with User:Qwerty123456 directly warning him about the repeated placement of the picture.  The only contact with him was made a scant 2 minutes before the protection was placed.
# Noone has requested this protection.
# The  marker has not been added to the page.
-- Netoholic @ 14:17, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)
:Unprotected. silsor 15:19, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
::See above. -- Schnee 16:28, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: Currently we have mention of the United States Supreme Court deciding that an image which appears to be child pornography is not necessarily illegal, if no actual child was involved in the production.  We should probably mention that over in the UK they seem to have come to the opposite conclusion (Indecent pseudo-photograph of a child).  -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:04, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hardcore pornography is restricted: Sellers have to make sure that the buyer is 18 or older and if the store is accessible by persons younger than 18, it may be sold by underhand dealings on explicit request only. 
it's not clear to me whether they are referring to blackmarket activity by the word 'underhand' or something else. i'm leaving that intact pending some insight.
Anastrophe 03:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The term "unter der Hand" means "under the hand", i.e. secretly, concealed or in private. --Eddi (Talk) 04:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: excellent! thank you very much. i'll reword it in that light. Anastrophe 06:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

text: on second thought, i think i'm going to leave it as is. i think there are nuances to it that i'd rather not try and reword, since i may do so inaccurately. Anastrophe 06:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hardcore pornography is restricted to buyers of 18 years or older. If a store is accessible to minors, the material must not be on display and must be sold discretely and on explicit request only. (BTW, the term "unter der Hand" does not imply anything as to legality, just secrecy.) Rephrase further as appropriate. --Eddi (Talk) 22:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

text:  very good - thanks again. Anastrophe 22:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal status of pornography 

message: I was a little confused reading the description of these two branches in the article.  Is it simply that hardcore shows genitalia and penetration and soft-core does not?  Or is it that in soft-core there is no penetration at all?
I don't know if it is possible to make a sharper definition of the two, but it may be something we can think about?Ramsquire 22:24, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hard Core vs. Soft core 

message: I think this page is lacking any serious discussion of the addiction that easily arises around pornography.  It is an industry that tends to exist for the addict, like casinos, bars, tobacco, fast food, etc...  I notice that the page had a brief inclusion of information about right wing and religous opposition to pornography, but why not be  honest and discuss the fact that what draws most of us to pornography is related to our damaged sexuality.  Maybe we were sexually abused, maybe we were exposed to it too early in life (i.e. sexually abused), maybe we discovered its usefullness to soothe us through a lonely and repressive adolesence and still rely on it.    I am not opposed to pornography, I just feel that we should be honest about it.  Sex and sexuality are all good, but it usually emotional blocks that we suffer around sexuality, an inability to express intimacy, that leads us to porn.  Porn isn't really about sex, at least not the sex that the majority of people in the world ever experience.  Porn is about shame and anonymity, the ability to see something of sex, maybe even feel like your experiencing sex, without having the messy entaglement of another invovled in it.  Porn is the medium of the lonely masturbator.
:Find some sound research which establishes some facts on the subject (rather than the stream of suppositions, opinions, speculations, assertions, and judgments you've presented here) and add it to the article. JAQ 18:40, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Your own experiences don't automatically apply to everyone else. Superking 19:47, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: There is a lot of anecdotal evidence about pornography addiction, but for obvious reasons, Congress hasn't funded a whole lot of studies into it. On the other hand, we do have a pornography addiction article, and an online pornography addiction article although someone should probably add a paragraph to the main pornography article about it, given the prevalance of this addiction (I know several people who admittedly suffer from it). 69.243.41.28 02:54, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: We would wish you well, but you can't be bothered to sign your name.  --Baylink 01:16, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Porn Addiction 

message: Couldn't we find a better lead picture than that marble sculpture? 69.243.41.28 01:16, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead picture 

message: Surely we don't need the list of sub-genres to include each and every possible descriptor word --  especially when they overlap each other to a degree that they would not merit separate articles.  (We surely don't need separate articles for "double penetration", "double anal", and "double vaginal"!)  Let's cut that list down. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:49, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of sub-genres 

message: Roman Sex by John Clarke gives a slightly different account of the terms origins than the one currently offered here.  According to him, it derives from the Greek "pornographein", meaning "to write about prostitutes."  Further, according to him there were men in Greece who did this, chronicaling the famous prostitutes called "pornai."  This contradicts the current article, so I will edit accordingly. Isomorphic 23:35, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent work. Thanks. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:25, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins of the term 

message: there has recently been a movie added to this page which is a 2.5 minute black and white silent film of a woman sitting/kneeling on the floor stripping for the camera.  while i am against censorship as a general rule (more than most) and while i dont feel this video is in particularly bad taste (the camera/model is positioned to only show breasts despite the undergarments being removed), i feel that the issue of what is and is not considered usefull to this article should be considered here.  there has been much discussion (and a few votes) about what isand is not inappropriate and they almost always come out saying that applying a standard of decency is impossible thoughout all cultures.  however, should this activity continue just a tad further, we could be looking at violating american laws (i have been told that the servers are in florida).  what i want to ask here is, 1. does this video lend significantly to the article and 2. are we allowed to show what we are, by their very inclutions, calling pornografic videos and photos (please do not get into if we morally should show it). Cavebear42 22:22, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is about pornography.  This movie seems to be a very good illustration and thus contributes very significantly to the article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:34, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

text: There are plenty of other articles that show nudity right on the page without any sort of warning (with this movie, you not only have to get the proper codec/player to view the movie, you have to click on the link and open the file).  The movie link clearly states what is in the video. I agree with Tony that it adds to the article.  As I recall, adding a public domain pornographic video to this article was originally the idea of Raul654, although he may now deny it. :)  brian0918™ 19:01, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: the fact that the video's codec is strange and took me a while to find it really isnt of incidence.  adding to the article, ok it seems tath uou are both on the yes side of this.  are we allowed to post pornography here, legally, for open download.  i understand that you may be less offended by this video than by one of ron jeremy doing bridgette doggy style, but by its very inclution here, we are calling it pornography and posting it to the world.  what are the implications of this.  what sort of rules are set forth to allow one and not the other (refering to this vs. more offensive) or what rules allow both or neither.  is there a standard at all? Cavebear42 19:33, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  movie 

message: Is the use of the term ”pornography" really relevant to anything before the actual use of the term as we know it today? The contemporary use of the word is based on quite modern ideas about a very strict seperation of (very vaguely defined) obscene material and... well... everything else. This is simply not relevant to, for example, ancient Rome and even less so to cave paintings. While it should be mentioned that Victorian scholars placed many depictions of genitalia and nudity from Pompeii firmly in the annals of pornography, that does not mean they were correct to do so.
Peter Isotalo 17:42, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
:The line between erotica and pornography is subjective, but well enough understood, I think. "Erotica" can cover any artistic use of nudity and sex, while "pornography" deals with the prurient uses of such imagery as they are intended to exite and not just to represent. The third category is "clinical" representative depiction in medicine and anatomy. While this distinction may not be itself definitive, I would say that its a logical categorization and not just a subjective assertion. Time may bear that out. (BTW, Peter - very nice work on all the pronunciation files) -SV|t 20:41, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anachronistic pornography 

message: From "History":
Specific evidence suggests that depictions of sexuality and human progress go hand in hand and that pornographers today remain on the cutting edge.
What is that supposed to mean? I'm not sure what evidence there is (or could be) for such a claim. To me, it almost suggests an unbroken lineage of sexually explicit Illuminati, secretly planning history to guide humankind to its maximum potential. I would delete it, but as it's been here almost a year, I wonder if I just missed its significance. Anybody else have misgivings, or am I way off base here? Lusanaherandraton 13:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's complete nonsense and should be deleted instantly.  Dunno how I missed seeing it before.  What the guy is probably *trying* to say, is that pornography has supposedly helped implement the development (or at least the expansion) of photography, VHS, DVD, etc.  It's sort of a banal claim that is made from time to time. Lemme get my scissors.... Hayford Peirce 17:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  We are the porno makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams 

message: "It has long been theorized that there may be a link between pornography, particularly violent pornography, and an increase in sex crime. This theory has relatively little empirical support..."
There are many studies which proved, beyond any reasonable doubt, the connection between pornography and sexual crimes. In addition, many rapists, among them Ted Bundy and James Mitchell DeBardeleben, were deeply involved in pornography. This is not a myth, but a valid opinion backed up by a significant amount of studies. This stance should get a fair representation in the article. 
Although Japan does have a low rate of sexual crimes, results of Japanese studies cannot be apllied to the much different American society and, to a lesser degree, various European societies. In Japan, the level of a person's sense of responsibility is much greater than in American or European societies. Society also enforces this. a person who comitted a crime, no matter how small, will never get into any decent university, will never get any decent job, and will generally be considered a disgrace by society. His whole life could be ruined by one little crime, such as shoplifting or stealing a bicycle. Information concerning the connection between pornography and sex crimes can be found here: 
www.dianarussell.com/porntoc.html
and
www.mobmagazine.com/ManageArticle.asp?C=160&A=7626
-- unsigned comment by , who edited the comment after receiving responses to it.  See the original version of the comment. 
:Yes, we're quite aware that there are many studies out there that claim to have proved, beyond any reasonable doubt, the connection between pornography and sexual crimes.  The problem is that if those studies have procedural flaws, then there is plenty of reason for reasonable doubt.  And if the studies you're talking about are using the same logic as you are (i.e., Bundy and DeBardeleben were deeply involved in pornography, this must prove-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt that the pornography made them into sexual sickos, rather than their sexual drives causing their pornography consumption, or some other factor causing both) then it's no wonder there's plenty of room for reasonable doubt.
:By the way, you need to be a little more careful about identifying context.  The article does not state that a causal connection between pornography and rape is a "myth".  What it does is quote a scientific paper which states that such a myth persists despite an absence of evidence.  Stating something and quoting someone who stated it are two different things. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connection between pornography and sexual crimes 

message: Substituted at 21:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment