Talk:Pornography/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archives

3. July 2006 - October 2006

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. --

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Well, I kind of disagree with this one. Which articles were you thinking about? I can figure out what

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)

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)

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)

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)

Quote: " can figure out what sexual intercourse is without a picture of two people engaging in it" I dont know how porn looks like and this article doesnt show me. I need a picture :P

I think there should be one and it should be included at the bottom of the article, since after all this is what anyone browsing this article is really looking for.

I was looking at the list, and asked myself "Oh my god, how can this list not include Boogie Nights?!"

Anyway, I was thinking we should split the movies section into porn movies, and porn-related movies, but I can't think of a whole lot of famous ones in the latter catagory. →Raul654 08:17, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

In my honest opinion, pornographic movies are too repetitive, and they also waste packaging. (Is it necessary for porno movies to use bigger boxes for their videotapes than regular movies? Come on!) If you want to do porno well, why not include an engaging plot, for once? Try

Uh, Y Tu Mama Tambien was not a porno movie. It had pornographic content, but there's a ***HUGE*** difference between it and actual pornographic movies. →Raul654 19:37, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Rickyrab on the use of porn movies. Now you just need to convince a porn producer to make those movies that teach morals. ;-) —64.25.14.157 19:59, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Um. If you want to do porn well, you create a movie that people will want to buy and masturbate to. Teaching morals? Engaging plots? No thanks. That's what we have regular movies for. Superking 12:12, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, however, some people prefer to masturbate to movies with engaging plots and (why not?) morals. You forget that everyone is aroused by different things - you probably won't like some of the porn I like and vice versa. There probably is a market for smarter porn, though it remains to be seen how large it is. Paranoid 16:08, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, if you'd asked me 4 days ago what I would be discussing on Wikipedia I would not have said the above ;o)

I had a problem with one of the lines in the article, namely:

"In judging whether an image is pornography, the display of urination or defecation is sometimes claimed to be a factor. ([1], p.4)."

To my shame, I confess, I did not notice the citation. I deleted the line for the following reasons:

• It seemed to have no surrounding context.
• The statement seemed dubious and needed, at least, explanation (but, as mentioned, I missed the citation.
• If taken at face value, I do not believe it to be true.

I should say at this point, the citation is not in English (it's possibly Swedish?) and I cannot read it.

Patrick has since reinstated the line with modifications:

"It is sometimes argued that the display of urination or defecation contributes to the conclusion that an image is pornography. ([2], p.4)."

I still think it either needs to be dumped or explained. Perhaps someone would be so kind as to translate the relevant part of the pdf doc? --bodnotbod 13:46, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

You did not overlook the citation, I added it later. It says in Dutch, as something separate also included in the definition of child pornography:

het op ontuchtige wijze afbeelden van mictie (urineren) en defecatie (ontlasting) van een jeugdige

i.e. lewdly depicting urination or defecation of a child.

--Patrick 14:31, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

You've put me in a dilemma here, so the best thing I can do is grin, offer you a cup of tea, and see what you think of what I'm about to say.

Please note that I'm not trying to be unduly combative, I merely want to see the Wikipedia be the best it can be, I hope you feel the same. So, with that in mind:

• I'm still unhappy about a non-English pdf being in the English version of the 'pedia. A pdf has a longer download time and there is no warning to the user that they are unlikely to understand what they find there - even assuming they have the Acrobat Plug-in.

• In any case there is no indication what links 1 & 2 point to. These should either be made explicitly labelled links or cited at the end of the article.

• The English language link has little context. The page displayed gives no indication what site it is on. And when you go to the root to discover that it is the Arizona State Legislature you have no indication of how the referenced page fits into the scheme of things. Is it a State law?

Please note, I firmly believe there is reason for including defecation and urination in a discussion of pornography - I am not fighting you out of prudishness. I just feel that, putting myself into the shoes of someone who is unfamiliar with pornography, I would remain baffled.

However, I grant that I'm unable to offer any easy solution or substitution for what you've written. I confess I'm not keen to get too bogged down in it as I'd promised myself I was going to concentrate my efforts elsewhere.

Thanks for listening. --bodnotbod 15:58, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

Patrick, that's great. Thanks for the extra effort. --bodnotbod 18:01, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

i could be wrong here - i could definitely be wrong. but it seems to me that defecation and urination are not truly _pornographic_, they would rather be formally described as _obscene_. not all things pornographic are obscene; not all things obscene are pornographic. just thinking out loud here. i mean, i'm sure there are people who become sexually excited at the sight of a photo of stereotypical librarian getting a paper cut; classifying that image as pornographic because of one person's particular fetish seems...a bit to broad. same for defecation and urination. but i think i may be wading into territory i'm ill-equipped at (see "i could be wrong") ;^)

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)

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)

Article from the Feb 2, 2005 LA Times (Once-Conservative Adelphia Adds Hard-Core Porn to Cable) makes the following statement: "Single-X-rated movies feature nudity, long-range or panoramic and medium-range camera shots, simulated sex and sex between women. Double-X-rated movies show intercourse, oral sex and close-up shots. Triple-X-rated movies feature anal sex and visible ejaculation." I have an email into the journalist requesting a source. 67.21.89.216 22:29, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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)

These ratings derive from the original MPAA rating of

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)

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)

Catgirls are frequently the subject of pornographic images. Jar-Jar is not. This alone would make catgirls a more suitable example than Jar-Jar. Your insistence that people can draw catgirls or that false ears and tails and fur can be used to simulate a catgirl, and therefore Jar-Jar is a better example, is ludicrous. People can draw Jar-Jar, too! People can put on Jar-Jar costumes! There is little that can't be faked with costuming and nothing that can't be faked with drawing. I specifically addressed, in fact, the advantage that makes CGI even remotely preferable to the far simpler, far more affordable approach of simply drawing whatever floats your boat, and that is that CGI offers the potential to render the subject photo-realistically. Jar-Jar Binks may be a computer-generated character, but the article is about pornography, not about CGI, and so he is not a good example. Holding Jar-Jar Binks up as an example of a pornographic subject is not going to clarify anything. Antaeus Feldspar 23:13, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That's exactly why catgirls are a bad example. They were drawn in hentai since the dawn of time. CGI tech is mostly irrelevant to catgirls and I don't see a sudden surge in CGI catgirl porn. :) With Jar Jar Binks the situation is different. First, he is not a fictional character from animation or comics, so drawing him is not a perfect option for knock-off porn. He is a photo-realistic CGI character, so the situation calls either for live filming (very difficult, we need a Gungan porn actor) or CGI. And, as one can expect, the improvement in CGI technologies leads to more CGI Jar Jar porn, such as this. CGI Jar Jar porn is real, as well as some Alien CGI porn and probably some other similar fantasies. But JJ is a specific example of this.

Drawing something is not an option, since drawn porn does not appear to be popular enough outside certain niches (hentai, Disney comics, fanfiction and furry fandom), and no significant improvements in drawing techniques are to be expected. CGI, on the other hand, may have the potential to attract mainstream porn consumers, and so if you want to sell some unusual fantasy, CGI is the best option. If for some reason you don't like Jar Jar porn :) feel free to offer another example of something that was made possible only with the development of CGI. Paranoid 05:43, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'll repeat it again. Anything can be drawn. If that disqualified something from serving as an example of a pornographic taste made easier to satisfy due to CGI and photomanipulation, then you were wrong to put "children" in there, since they have been drawn as sexual subjects before anyone even thought of catgirls and definitely far before Jar-Jar Binks.

If you haven't seen a sudden surge in catgirl porn due to CGI and photomanipulation then you haven't been looking; there's plenty out there. Someone grabs an existing photo of a sexy girl and goes to work with fur-pattern brushes and ears and tails carefully lasso'ed from reference pics and presto, porn of a catgirl or a doggirl or a turtlegirl or a birdgirl or a snailgirl and yes, I have seen all of these, whereas I have yet to see even one example of CGI Jar-Jar porn in the wild. Even if I were to see one, it would not change the basic facts: people use CGI and photomanipulation when that's the most effective reward-for-effort means they have of producing what they want to see. CGI is still very rarely used because it does not actually have a very good reward-for-effort ratio, so people usually use photomanipulation instead. Do people use photomanipulation to produce catgirl pics? Yes they do. Do people use photomanipulation or CGI to produce Jar Jar porn? Only in aberrant circumstances when the creator actually wants people to respond with stunned horror, not because anyone actually ever stumbled out of a showing of The Phantom Menace moaning and rubbing their crotch and saying "Oh, Jar-Jar, Jar-Jar.... make me your slave, oh emperor of passion..." Antaeus Feldspar 17:16, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You are right - being drawn does not disqualify catgirls from being a photomanipulation example. BTW, do you have an example link handy? Just curious - I missed the sudden surge in catgirl porn, only seen photorealistic images once or twice and not as porn, but as "funny" pics on humour websites.

I think we should not lump together photomanipulation and CGI. Photomanipulation is an important technique, used from airbrushing (and otherwise fixing) normal porn to creating new works like catgirl porn, celebrity porn, seamese twin porn, multibreasted girl porn, etc. But it is very distinct from CGI. You're rigth, CGI is not very efficient yet, that is exactly why it is used especially often to render really unusual things. Such as Jar Jar porn. BTW, there is at least one example [3] of Jar Jar porn "in the wild" and it doesn't appear that it's intended to horrify. Rather I would say there are people who are turned on by "Exclusive Moster Fucking Series" or "Goblin & Birtney Spears". Don't underestimate the depth of human perversion. :) So I think that

• an example of CGI use should be included, and
• digital photo manipulation should be clearly called such and not lumped together with CGI (though they may be covered in the same paragraph)

Paranoid 18:55, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The mention of Playboy publishing CGI images of BloodRayne points to a possible solution: if indeed to describe the possibilities of CGI porn with exacting accuracy and precision we need to select our examples from characters who are primarily CGI and thus rendered as such, then we have dozens to choose from in the world of videogames, from Lara Croft to the girls of Dead or Alive (video game). Porn of them is so prevalent, we may have to remove the "produced in limited quantities" language that has to accompany our current examples. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:22, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me that if we want to delve into the whole "CGI porn", the most productive side topic is "should it be illegal to create, possess and distribute CGI child porn?" The common explanation for the much more stringent rules applied to child pornography is that it's production *involves actual children*, and therefore has the child-abuse and reputation issues that this creates. But the fact that animated child porn *does not* bring up those issues seems to have eluded congress: they've tried to make that illegal as well at least once and maybe twice. So far, they've failed, I'm happy to say (and no, *not* because I'm worried about getting arrested :-). --Baylink 17:35, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

pornographic movies

is often minimal.

This sounds really strange to me, especially the first half of the paragraph. I think American pornography is much more varied than that, so I removed this. Paranoid 17:04, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I wish you hadn't. American pornography used to be more varied than that. Now, unless the subject of the production is some specific deviation from the porn-norm that is featured as the attraction ('Heavy Honeys 16', 'Redhead Sluts vol. 26') then, yeah, you can count on 80-90% of the actresses falling into that bad-girl Barbie stereotype. It's accurate information. Antaeus Feldspar 01:53, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mainstream porno in the US also includes 'girl-next-door' types such as Tiffany Teen/Allie Sin ect. -me

Should links like

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)

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)

The lack of an image on this page was mentioned in a BBC article today [4]. 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)

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)

If you put actual modern porn images into the article, then it will no longer be accessible by some people who either won't be allowed to view it or won't view it themselves to avoid looking at it.

Hayford, Schneelocke, please stop the edit war.

Hayford: Within the zoosexual community, "

Now -- as the article on zoophilia says, the actual dictionary term is "bestiality". I believe that this is reason to leave it as "bestiality" in the article. If you disagree, come here and give some actual reasoning, please. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:42, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is like someone going through the WP and changing "sixty-nine" to "gamahuche", or "fellatio" to "irrumation", then saying, Well, if you don't know what it means, you can follow it to the link. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia that explicates things, not makes them more obscure. "Bestiality" is a common word that has stood the test of time and means a specific thing to everyone who reads it and is not pejorative in the sense of "fag" unless you take political correctness to an insane level. "Zoophilia" is a word that Schneelocke and perhaps 3 other people in the world know, or care, about. If the four of them want to make a distinction between the two, fine, I have no objection. But please leave the English language in the articles as it is supposed to be used -- so that the average reader can understand what the article is about, not to feed your pet hobbyhorses. I myself have 8 or 9 dictionaries in my study, including the OED and Webster's 2nd Edition Unabridged, and I have no trouble looking up unfamiliar words. Not every visitor to WP is that fortunate or that interested in obscure words or recondite arguments about angels on the head of pin; why not tell them in simple, easy to understand language what it is they're looking for? Isn't that the whole purpose of WP? Hayford Peirce 04:27, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kindly stop your whining. "Gamahuche" is not a widely known word. "Irrumation" is not a widely known word. "Zoophilia" is. It is certainly known to more people than "gamahuche" and "irrumation" are, it is certainly known to more people in the world than four, and your whining like a brat on the playground that you didn't know it, and this should be taken as the standard being too hard rather than you not meeting the standard, means nothing. You can pull out purposefully obscure words until from now until doomsday and it will not be one whit of proof that the word you do not like is too obscure; you sound like L. Ron Hubbard "proving" that words cannot be understood through context because he could create a sentence that did not itself explain what "crepescule" meant. And the argument that WP readers will not be all fortunate like you and have the resources to look up what the word means when both words link to the WP article that explains it is frankly an argument beneath contempt. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:13, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't want to take any side in this dispute, but just wanted to point out the definitions of zoophilia and bestiality which are quite different and also depand on the context:

• American Heritage Dictionary
  • zo·o·phil·i·a also zo·oph·i·lism n.
    1. Affection or affinity for animals.
    2. Erotic attraction to or sexual contact with animals.
    3. Biology. A tendency to feed or grow on animal tissue.
  • bes·ti·al·i·ty n. pl. bes·ti·al·i·ties
    1. The quality or condition of being an animal or like an animal.
    2. Conduct or an action marked by depravity or brutality.
    3. Sexual relations between a human and an animal.
• Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary
  • zoo·phil·ia noun
    1. an erotic fixation on animals that may result in sexual excitement through real or fancied contact
  • bes·ti·al·i·ty noun
    1. sexual relations between a human being and a lower animal
• Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law
  • bes·ti·al·i·ty noun
    1. the crime of engaging in sexual relations with an animal —see also CRIME AGAINST NATURE

- John Ralston Saul wrote an entire novel called 'Voltaires Bastards' on how language has become completely inaccessable to the average citizen because of 'experts' throwing around their technocratic jibberish.

Regarding the picture User:Qwerty123456 has repeatedly added - please discuss your reasons for and against its addition here and don't keep adding and removing it all the time. I protected the page for now so you can reach a consensus on whether it should be added or not. Thanks. ^_~ -- Schnee 13:42, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's considered rude to use admin privileges to protect your own version of a page. silsor 15:15, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not doing that. I merely restored the version that was there before the edit war started; I personally couldn't care less about whether the picture's added or not. If that's a problem for you, too bad. -- Schnee 16:28, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You have a definition of "edit war" that I am not familiar with. Reverting a legitimate-but-questionable edit and then protecting the page is inappropriate. silsor 15:50, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

Repeated insertion (by one party) and removal (by another party) of the same text (or an image, in this case) into an article counts as an edit war for me, and protecting the page is the right thing to do in this case - it's not meant to make one party "victorious", so to speak,a fter all, but rather meant to force both parties to discuss their respective reasons on the article's talk page and reach a consensus. If you don't agree with that - tough. I don't care. All that counts for me is that the edit war stops. -- Schnee 00:08, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm more concerned with Wikipedia's integrity. For next time, see Wikipedia:Protection policy. silsor 01:53, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

13:40, Sep 15, 2004 Schneelocke m (Reverted edits by Qwerty123456 to last version by Silsor)
13:42, 15 Sep 2004 Schneelocke protected Pornography (edit war. see talk page.)

Don't be so condescending. -- Schnee 12:05, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Protection

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).

1. First of all, there is no "edit war". Nore more than 2-4 edits per day have been made here.
2. 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.
3. Noone has requested this protection.
4. The {{protected}} 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)

Do you mind if i'll put back the picture? why did u remove it? (see my talk page) --Qwerty123456 12:47, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I put the picture back... seems that nobody has a problem with that

if someone has a problem with the picture please disscuss it here!

I removed the following text from the article. In particular, I don't think it benefits from a long list of porn stars (authors, directors, publishers, editors, etc.). If a certain person is important enough to be mentioned for better understanding of the 'pornography' concept by the reader, the name should be incorporated in the text, explaining (in at least a few words) how that person is important. Ditto for publishers, films and magazines. The content can be included in a separate article(s) (List of blah-blah-blah) or just replaced by categories (such as Category:Porn actress or Category:Porn mag). The deleted text is below. Paranoid 20:48, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Start of deleted text

I see your point but I think that the deleted text was appropriate in the sense that there were articles in Wiki on many of the people and studios. If someone were doing a research topic on pornography, the links you deleted may be helpful to help them full out their papers or presentation. Maybe we should keep the links that have actual articles attached to them.Ramsquire 20:05, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There are recurring urban legends of snuff movies, in which murders are filmed for pornographic purposes. Extensive work by law enforcement officials to ascertain the truth of these rumors have been unable to find any such works. However, the propaganda material from the Abu Ghraib scandal and similar material from US-American military sources is often considered to fulfill this role.

I do not understand the point that the author made here (highlighted in bold). It seems to be a non sequitor so I deleted it. ~~

• Playboy (originally only in US, nowadays has editions in many countries)
• Penthouse
• Hustler Magazine
  (originally only in US, nowadays has editions in many countries)
• Blueboy (early California-based magazine with pictures of guys; singer Cyndi Lauper mentions it in her song She-Bop)
• Private (Established in Stockholm, Sweden in 1965 as the world's first full color hardcore sex magazine)
• Le Ore (Italy), once an ordinary newspaper, in the 1970s had a notable turn in editorial line and represents now the most important title of a wide network of sex related magazines in central Europe.
• Playgirl
• Freshmen (along with Men and Unzipped, a series of 3 gay-themed publications)

see also: List of men's magazines

• Black Lace
• Blue Moon
• Chimera Press
• Nexus Books
• Silver Moon

• Color Climax Corporation (Denmark)
• Falcon Studios
• Femme Films
• Titan Media
• Vivid Video
• VCA Pictures

• Marquis de Sade
• Leopold von Sacher-Masoch
• Anais Nin
• Henry Miller

See also the main list at

• Behind the Green Door
• Debbie Does Dallas
• Deep Throat
• Emmanuelle
• Flesh Gordon
• Mona - The Virgin Nymph
• Taboo
• The Opening of Misty Beethoven
• The Devil in Miss Jones
• The World's Biggest Gang Bang

• Ai Iijima
• Andrea True
• Annabel Chong
• Annie Sprinkle
• Aria Giovanni
• Ashley Blue
• Asia Carrera
• Aurora Snow
• Ben Dover
• Bob Guccione
• Bodil Joensen
• Brande Roderick
• Brigitte Lahaie
• Candida Royalle
• Chasey Lain
• Chessie Moore
• Chi Chi LaRue
• Chloe Vevrier
• Clara Morgan
• Danni Ashe
• Devon
• Dilara
• Dita von Teese
• Dolly Buster
• Dominique Simone
• Hugh Hefner
• Gauge
• Georgina Spelvin
• Gousgounis
• Ginger Lynn
• Gloria Leonard
• Hyapatia Lee
• Henry Saari
• Ilona Staller
• India
• Jack Napier
• Jade Marcela
• Jeff Stryker
• Jenna Jameson
• Jewel Denyle
• Jill Kelly
• Joey Stefano
• Johan Paulik
• John Holmes
• John Stagliano
• Karin Schubert
• Kawashima Azumi
• Kiko Wu
• Lexington Steele
• Larry Flynt
• Lauren Phoenix
• Linda Lovelace
• Lukas Ridgeston
• Marilyn Chambers
• Matthew Rush
• Mei Lue
• Moana Pozzi
• Neriah Davis
• Nici Sterling
• Nina Hartley
• Peter North
• Rocco Siffredi
• Ron Jeremy
• Sabrina Johnson
• Sahin K
• Savannah
• Solange Lecarrio also known as Solange, Solange van Hop
• Steven St. Croix
• Sylvia Saint
• Tera Patrick
• Tiffany Towers
• Tommy Cruise
• Traci Lords
• Veronika Zemanova

End of deleted text

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 (

The term "unter der Hand" means "under the hand", i.e. secretly, concealed or in private. --Eddi (Talk) 04:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

excellent! thank you very much. i'll reword it in that light.

Anastrophe

06:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

very good - thanks again.

Anastrophe

22:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

There is little consensus as to what constitutes "hardcore" and "softcore." Casey J. Morris

Softcore porn is people faking sex, hardcore porn is people HAVING sex.

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)

Your own experiences don't automatically apply to everyone else. Superking 19:47, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

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)

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

• This is an encyclopedia, not a discussion forum. This "talk" page is only here to discuss the content of the article, not to chat about pornography. JAQ 02:51, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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)

Sub-genres should just be a link to the other page. that's it. "The main genres of pornography sold are" is kind of a useless statement. It also has no facts/statistics to back it up. They'd have to be worldwide stats as well since Japan/Russia/EU/UK/Brazil all have giant porn industries. Even worse, the statement is taken from the main article on sub genre where it states generic hetero is the most common type of porn, yet it isn't included in the genres.

Current Introduction to Pornography: "Pornography (from Greek πορνογραφια pornographia — literally writing about or drawings of harlots) is the representation of the human body or human sexual behaviour with the goal of sexual arousal, similar to, but (according to some) distinct from, erotica."

I'm new here (thank WIRED magazine), and I'd like some input from interested parties before making changes.

From a books and literature perspective, it seems to me that Erotica is a Genre (e.g.; Mysteries or Science Fiction) that contains a number of sub-categories. Pornography would be one type of Erotica. OTOH, one might attempt to take the position that all Erotica is Pornography. Any thoughts on this?

My only source for this suggested change is my own instinct and my experience as a book dealer (Porn, ahem, Erotica included).

• I recently made some corrections to some typos and I check back later to find that they had all been reverted! COuld we go back and recorrect those typos? Jaberwocky6669 06:45, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

• • A)Who reverted your corrections? B)Is your statement directed at me or does it appear so as a fluke, due to your choice of formatting?

I suggest that we remove any entry in the "sub-genre" list which simply names a particular sexual practice or preference without any significant information about its appearance in pornography. As an example, it is significant to note that gay pornography is considered a sub-genre while lesbian scenes are considered mainstream -- but what significant information is there to be said about oral sex in pornography except "sometimes porn includes oral sex"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:15, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I see no reason not to. Another good example is the existence of both "Amateur" and "Exhibitionist Pornography" on the list. The latter is a type of the former, so there's no need for both. The list definitely needs to be cut. Superking 04:27, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I must agree. Such a list is ridiculously difficult compile and/or maintain. I've been trying to create one for YEARS. Every sub-genre contains, er, micro-genre, which in turn contain, forgive me, nano-genre. My work on such lists has been an attempt to categorize and stock the inventory at my store. - Valent Thorden Kenobi 04:39, 15 Mar 2005

Exhibitionism is not exclusive to the Amateur genre. There are professionally made exhibition videos featuring 'star' performers, as opposed to the "Girls Gone Wild" type of Exhibitionist feature. Often known as Public Sex or Outdoor Sex videos, these feature favored targets such as nudes posing with parked police cruisers or "Welcome to ..." signs. "Shane's World" is an excellent example of the public or outdoor sex genre, which sidles up next to exhibitionism. For more information, I recommend Google.Valent Thorden Kenobi 06:41, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)

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)

Excellent work. Thanks. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:25, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Teen, also known as barely legal porn, caters to consumers who are primarily attracted to 18 and 19 year-olds." it seems this was purposely given an almost fetish type condonation. why not say for every porn genre that "to consumers who are primary attracted to..."?

Any objections to moving the sub-genres section to its own article to help cut the size of this article? I'm not entirely sure whether it warrants its own article, but I think it might. Superking 18:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sub-pages for lists of magazines, sub-genres, movies, etc. would be a good idea.

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)

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)

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)

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)

Seems to be getting a lot of blanking vandals coming from a lot of different IPs but all blanking and posting the same message. Feel free to remove this protection later if I forget. CryptoDerk 17:10, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

I live in the netherlands. I'm not quite shure if kids aged 16 and up are allowed to play in porn movies. I'm do know that bestiality laws have become more strict recently. I wouldn't state in the wikkipedia the it is simply allowed - not anymore, but i'm nut quite sure of the exact current laws.

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.

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)

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)

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)

I've removed these claims from Danni Ashe. The

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 69.40.32.55 (talk · contribs), 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)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Pornography/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following

Last edited at 21:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 21:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)