Talk:Pornography

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

why is is it called whore writing if there is also pictures? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.10.60.64 (talk • contribs)

it is called whore writing because it was around before pictures. back then it was only writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fastman (talk • contribs)

wow...what perv would make a wikipedia page on porn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.110.82 (talk • contribs)

What I don't understand is the very strongly negative bias the opening paragraph takes. It seems to draw conclusions about the nature of porn and imply that a minority of people consume it while a "moral majority" do not, and further that it is deviant by nature. It also groups child pornography in with other types "(usually a woman, a child or teenager)" as though they were interchangeable. I strongly disagree with the phrasing of this article, especially the opening. (Unsigned comment)


response[change source]

I don't agree that the paragraph suggests that a "moral majority" do not. I think that the implication is that a "minority" do not, for reasons of personal or religious morality. Moreover, it is hard to avoid some implication of bias, when pornography (excluding what might be called "soft porn") is considered sufficiently offensive to be banned in many countries.
Child pornography is obviously a criminal offence. But in the sentence that you have quoted, it is the "lack of respect" for the individual that is the point of the sentence.
There is a line drawn in the article between erotica and pornography. Defining pornography is not easy, using very simple language. It is not simply pictures and writing that are about sex. It is about sex, to the exclusion of, or the suppression of, other aspects that might be present in the material eg relational or narrative aspects. So that in a pornographic movie, the story is slight, being a vehicle for the sexual material. Because the story is slight, so is any relational content between the participants.
Can I suggest that you draft a different version and we talk about it on this page.

Amandajm (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tax-funded pornography in Nazi Germany?[change source]

"In fact, Orwell got this idea from what some countries such as Nazi Germany had really done. A short time after Adolf Hitler came to power, Germany was flooded with tax-funded pornography like never before." Where does this claim come from? To my knowledge this is completely unfounded. 91.64.190.79 (talk) 20:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you write "To my knowledge, this is completely unfounded", what do you mean?
Do you mean that you know that this is an unfounded allegation? Or do you mean that you have no knowledge of this purported fact?
I didn't write this part of the article, so do not know exactly where the information comes from.
However, my knowledge of European Art of this period suggests that it might be correct.
Amandajm (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean en:Sexual enslavement by Nazi Germany in World War II? --Eptalon (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I didn't write the sentence. So I certainly didn't mean the article that you are citing. Also, I think the "sexual enslavement" referred to in the article is something different to pornography.
Having done a search, I find that pornography was actually illegal in Nazi Germany. This fact suggests that it was not' tax funded.
  • On the other hand, there were many pornographic movies made by German movie makers and widely distributed and screened for the German military. The movies were also used to barter with, and gain influence with African and Middle Eastern leaders. This appears to have been sanctioned by German leaders. A great many pornographic artworks were created in Germany at the time, often showing the military.


Deletion of sentence[change source]

There is no proof that any government ever did actively use or even just allow pornography for these reasons, although some anti-porn activists claimed that porn was in this way used by Germany and Austria in the Nazi time.

I deleted this sentence on the following grounds

  • "There is no proof that any government ever did actively use or even just allow pornography for these reasons"

Can the writier reaaly make an unsupported claim that there is "no proof"? To make this claim would take a large amount of research into the actions governments worldwide. It would require looking at the "double standards " of many governments, (including the Nazi rulers of Germany) because laws and policies can be very different things.

  • "although some anti-porn activists claimed that porn was used in this way...." No. A statement that lays this claim on "anti-porn activists" cannot be made without support. Which "anti-porn activists"? Do we know that only anti porn activists have claimed this? Is it not possible that historians, journalists and and other such people may have made such claims, without being "anti-porn activists".

One thing is absolutely certain. That is that pornographic movies were widely mmade and distributed, were screened for the German military and were traded in Africa and the Middle East. These facts are documented. The movies exist and the female who took part in one movie at the age of 14 years has described the experience a recently.

Amandajm (talk) 06:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

""Für notwendig halte ich allerdings, daß in freiester Form den fleißig arbeitenden Gefangenen Weiber in Bordellen zugeführt werden"-
Heinrich Himmler im März 1942 (approx. translation: I do indeed think it necessary that women be made available in brothels to the laborious prisoners in the freest form possible." - H.Himmler, 1942 (Small note: "Weib" would probably mean "Woman"; in recent years, there has been a connotation as in "of low standing"; I could not really find out when this change happened, it was done by the 1960s though (could have been much earlier though. I therefore translated Weib with girl (with all the sexual connotations; When Himmler said this he could well have meant women; wip, where this comes from is related to Enlgish wife).--Eptalon (talk) 15:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting the way in which meanings of words change, both between languages and within any particular language. I am just reading a book which indicates the large number of derogatory terms that are used for women, and the fact that many of them were not originally negative. With regards to "weib/wife", although it now mean a married woman, previously in English it just t a woman.
Where did the quotation from Himmler come from? Amandajm (talk) 11:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
this website (though it is in German)--Eptalon (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting) Mozart wrote in his Zauberflöte: Mann und Weib und Weib und Mann / Reichen an die Gottheit an; In Old High German / Middle High German: wip -> woman of low social standing, frouwe -> woman of high social standing; Dame came from French in the 19th century, since then, Weib is often used in a pejorative/bad sense. However, in some dialects, and in spoken language it sometimes does not have this bad connotation, for example: Prachtweib (used for a woman that is very well-built or erotically enticing/stimulant). The Deutschenspiegel, a collection of German cusotmary law of the 13th century states:

Der man ist auch vormunt sînes wîbes
zehant als si im getriuwet ist.
Daz wîp ist auch des mannes genozinne
zehant als si an sîn bette trit
na des mannes dode is se ledich van des mannes rechte.

(Approx translation:

The man is also the legal guardian of his wife
from the time when she is wed to him.
The woman is the comrade of the man
From the time she steps next to his bed
After the death of the man, she is free form the mans claim/guardianship

(Please not that I do not study languages, this translation is approximate at best)--Eptalon (talk) 11:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"...into the world of sex"[change source]

That whole section called "What is not pornography" is complex, argumentative, and not useful in the argument at all... Telling someone what to think... If that appears it should be a personal quote and the person quoting should be a top pornographer. Actually, I will remove it. (if "world of sex" appears it should have it's own article) ~ R.T.G 06:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[change source]

"in a way that is often disrespectful of one or more of the people who are shown. In pornography, sex is the most important thing. It is also called "porn" or "porno" for short. Some people think Pornography is harmful because it can be linked to sexual abuse."

...the hell? "often disrespectful"? "can be linked to sexual abuse"? Linked by what studies, pray tell? This is blatantly non-neutral and unsourced. I'm removing it. --121.216.74.51 (talk) 08:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a quick search:
These are just two, resulting form a search of Google Scholar. Questions? --Eptalon (talk) 10:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both of them are probably more focused on legal topics (with regards to the situation in the US). --Eptalon (talk) 10:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Questions? Okay, what happened to wp:AWW? wp:NPOV? There are an equal number of studies showing the effect of pornography to be not harmful: [1] [2]. While a quick fix might be just to tack these on to the end of the introduction, I think that it would be best to leave comments on the effects for a section dedicated to that. Thoughts? --121.216.74.51 (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources. The first study here [3] “Pornography, Rape, and the Internet” by Todd Kendall, Department of Economics, Clemson University, comes at it from a point of view of an economist. What Kendall notes is that pornography suddenly became freely availabe to young men in their late teens, via the internet. It has been found in studies that the availability of the internet has apparently affected a reduction in rape. There seems to be a direct correlation between these two, while other crimes have not dropped. Kendall puts this down to the availability of "pornography", using that term rather than sexually explicit material which is the less sensational choice. (Other studies have shown that men are more likely to committ rape if they are brought up in a sexually oppressive family where access to sexually explicit material is forbidden)
Amandajm (talk) 03:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Needed[change source]

"Contrary to popular criticism, it has been shown that pornography contributes positively to developing sexual identities, as well as world economies and popular culture."

I don't want to take this out before giving somebody a chance to give this a citation. So. How has it 'been shown'?

I also think that that statement either needs a citation or further explanation. However, it's been there for over a year, and I'm tempted to remove it for now if nobody has objections. Kansan (talk) 01:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I didn't see this message, and removed it, to put it here for discussion. Amandajm (talk) 02:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This was removed when Classical Esther reverted the deletion of some material. Needs looking at:
The Internet has also caused problems with enforcement of age limits regarding performers and subjects.They belive that most porngraphy erotictizes the domination, humilitaion,and coericon of women, reinforces sexual and cultural attitudes that are complicy in rape and sexual harassment, and contriutes to the [androcentric] objectification of women. Amandajm (talk) 02:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that perhaps that edit could be merged into the current section on Criticism of pornography. There doesn't seem to be a lot there discussing it from a feminist perspective. Kansan (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, sorry. I undid the change because I wasn't sure why it was there, & thought it was a bit too complex for the article. If it's a bit simplified, certainly it can be put into Criticism of pornography as Kansan said. Classical Esther♣ 02:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning edit A: "Contrary to popular criticism, it has been shown that pornography contributes positively to developing sexual identities, as well as world economies and popular culture."

  • Firstly, this sentence muddles three issues, one of which has very little to do with the others. Some editor here has tried to make a single sentence that takes in all the possible benefits of pornography. This doesn't work, because each one needs to be discussed and argued separately. It is a very bad and uncyclopedic sentence.
Yes it is true that pornography can be beneficial to an economy. So was the slave trade. Very beneficial indeed. That has nothing to do with being beneficial for people.
And, yes, pornography does contribute to popular culture. So do cigarettes and designer drugs. This has nothing to do with being beneficial to people.
  • The most significant claim here, that really needs dicussing and referencing is the first one.
There have been studies published that shows that it appears to be beneficial for people to be exposed to "sexually explicit" material. The study shows that people who have access to "sexually" explicit" material are more likely to be comfortable with their sexuality and feel sexually fulfilled as adults and are less likely to have sexual problems than those who have been denied exposure to sexually explicit material as teenagers/young adults.

There are some problems with this:

  1. A lot of articles do not draw a line between "pornography" and "sexually explicit material". "Sexually explicit material" can mean anything at all that shows an aspect of sex. It can mean a diagram of a baby in the womb, a photo of genitals in a medical text book, a written description of fertilisation. It can also mean images of a couple "making love", images of a violent rape, or images of a woman who has been forcwd into sexually activity in front of a camera to make a pornographic video for a paying audience.
  2. Some online articles that put forward the case for "pornography" clearly have a "vested interest", a website that promotes prostituion, for example.
  3. Other studies appear to support "pornography" by saying that many rapists who are in gaol have used less pornography than non-rapists in gaol. But if you read the article carefully you discover that the big issue is not whether these men have had access to pornography, but whether or not they have had access to "normal" sex eductaion, meaning "sexually explicit material" about females, intercourse, babies and the like. Men whose parents have been so strict about sexually mmatters that they were forbidden and made to feel guilt seem to be much more likely to become rapists. The issue is not really about pornography, but articles can be written in a way that suggests it. For example: Porn: Is it good for us?

Amandajm (talk) 03:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(<--)May I kindly suggest a review of the literature of en:Masters and Johnson and books such as en:The Joy of Sex with the intent to review the positive aspects of pornography? Pornography can have very bad consequences for people with immature attitudes towards human sexuality, but it can also have very good effects with mature persons. A review of the various aspects of child pornography should also be discussed. References such as [4] should be reviewed and included. fr33kman 03:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding or removing images...[change source]

Hello all,

I have re-set this to the version that we have had for a long time. We are trying to build an encyclopedia, so some images are better than others. Especially if you are new here, determining if an image is a good choice for the article may be difficzlt. So I invite you to discuiss the matter here first. Eptalon (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pornography&oldid=8821335"