Talk:Pornography

Semi Protected Edit Request on 30th of August 2021

Pornography

Change the text from:

Pornography (often shortened to porn) is the portrayal of sexual subject matter for the exclusive purpose of sexual arousal.[1] Pornography may be presented in a variety of media,…

To:

Pornography (often shortened to porn) is the portrayal of sexual subject matter for the exclusive purpose of sexual arousal.[1] A distinction could be drawn between erotic art and hard pornography.[ref] Pornography may be presented in a variety of media,

[ref] Lancet 11 June 1241/2 (1977), https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/148012?redirectedFrom=Pornography#eid

Etymology

Change the text from:

…As early as 1864, Webster's Dictionary defined the word bluntly as "a licentious painting".[21], The more inclusive word erotica, sometimes used as a synonym...

to:

…As early as 1864, Webster's Dictionary defined the word bluntly as "a licentious painting"[21], and the Oxford English Dictionary definition is from obscene painting (1842), description of obscene matters, obscene publication (1977 or earlier).[ref] The more inclusive word erotica when not demoted to pornography by censors, is used as a synonym…

[ref] OED, 2021, https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/148012?redirectedFrom=Pornography#eid

Absurd bias in views section

Holistically, the views section of pornography describes porn as being positive with few downsides. It downplays serious criticisms or addresses only the refutation side (such as in the psychologist section where it “refuted the notion” without giving any credence to said “notion”).

It basically flat out ignores that most of western, and eastern, society is ashamed by and negatively views pornography. It’s outright banned in a handful of Asian countries like China, Myanmar, and North Korea (not to mention a big chunk of the Middle East). It’s censored in Japan.

this section ought to be rewritten to address the overwhelming negative views of society at large. ~2026-14503-45 (talk) 00:24, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I think this is a valid concern. Looking the section over, the terms in which pornography is described (outside of the explicitly designated criticism subsections) look as though they could have been pulled from an article about poetry or music. The use of weasel words makes it seem as though most people (or at the very least most scholars) either explicitly view pornography consumption as healthy or otherwise are indifferent. There's even a specially designated "pro-pornography" subsection within a section that is basically promoting pornography already, and a good chunk of the limited criticism provided is about pornographic material being insufficiently diverse (???). Frequent orders for the reader to note things and some stuff I can't even put into words. I mean what even is this nonsense: Alec Metro, one of the men in line, ruefully noticed of the X-rated industry and Metro was already divining and those who are highly spiritually matured have less shame, while those not spiritually matured have high shame (I am beyond words). This might be the worst Wikipedia article I've ever read. I'm not up to take on another major project right now, but whoever cleans up this absolute slop will have my eternal gratitude. — An anonymous username, not my real name 01:34, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

This article will get a major overhaul soon, and for the negative views-the article Opposition to pornography exclusively addresses them. Rim sim (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean This article will get a major overhaul soon? This article is probably the worst article I've ever read (a conclusion An Anonymous Username also reached), and you wrote 79.5% of it, over nearly a thousand edits, including edits like:

• Along with showing "admiration, lust, gratitude, and desire", men show brazen hate and disgust towards women, this behavioural dichotomy had been ascribed to the "patriarchal hypocrisy" embedded in men. (original diff here, followup here)
• In a theological sense, all beings are spiritual androgynes. Human beings are sexually inclined because sexuality is God's creative energy, and a function of Its inclination to reunite the two poles of Its bipolar being., and
• In the Tantric sects of both traditions, one finds a living religious cult attached to the myth of a primal androgyne, to the union of male and female. ... The culminating religious rite of the Tantrics is sacramental fucking, the ritual union of man and woman which achieves, even if only symbolically, the original androgynous energy. (both from this diff. Note the "..." is part of the diff, not me editing, and the diff is not quoting anything)
• Performers working for pornographic film studios undergo regular testing for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) every two weeks. Before showing up on a set, they are verified if they tested negative for HIV, syphilis, chlamydia, gonorrhea, trichomoniasis, and Hepatitis B and C; they are then inspected for sores on their mouths, hands and genitals before getting a pass to work. (diff) (Every porn actor worldwide does these specific checks, exactly every two weeks? This is what you're claiming?)

I agree that there should be an overhaul, but I think it should be undertaken by other editors. BugGhost 🦗👻 22:58, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I've just deleted 10k bytes, I encourage others to cut more from this article as its current length is still too long. BugGhost 🦗👻 23:13, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Yup, because evidence of negative effects of porn is either lacking or very limited. I mean inside WP:MEDRS. People might have moralistic condemnation of pornography, but that is by no means synonymous with "porn is objectively harmful". See e.g. pornography addiction and effects of pornography. In other words, yes, we can describe their beliefs; no, we can't say they're right. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu, the section is called "Views", not "Health effects of pornography". Therefore, non-scholarly views should have considerable representation. Also, for what it's worth, these were the top three results (in order) when I searched "pornography and mental health" in Google Scholar: (negative), (negative), (neutral). — An anonymous username, not my real name 19:06, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

As is stated by the other commenter, its views not health effects. Even if scientific views point strongly towards there being neutral or even positive effects, that shouldn’t outweigh the fact that views are, at least societally, overwhelmingly negative. ~2026-14483-03 (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

None of the sources is compliant with WP:MEDRS.

at least societally, overwhelmingly negative—citation needed, i.e. the consensus view of recent, mainstream sociology.

And, yup, totalitarian regimes fear pornography. Why? I don't know, it's just an empirical fact. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu, forgive me for discerning the quality of the sources sources more carefully (the second one looks fine to me but no matter), but in any case, they are not central to my point. The section is meant to be about all views, not the consensus view of recent, mainstream sociology (that said, it wouldn't hurt to provide a source for this claim either). If most people think pornography is bad, then the section should make that extremely clear (the same applies if most people think pornography is good). If most professionals disagree, that should be stated as well (though I would think the raw information about the effects of pornography should be primarily discussed in different sections; views should merely summarize academic consensus or lack thereof). — An anonymous username, not my real name 20:14, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah, okay, it's been awhile since I read MEDRS. Looking specifically at literature reviews, I'm still not seeing anything close to consensus that pornography is harmless; at best its effects on mental health are unclear. It also appears that, like many things, there is a noticeable difference between moderate and excessive use. — An anonymous username, not my real name 20:28, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Again: describe views: I'm all for it. As long as we don't endorse such views. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Then it would seem we are in agreement. The original comment by the TA is definitely loaded with POV, but so is this article, just in the other direction. I have no strong personal views here; I was just stunned by the incredibly poor quality of writing I came across. I certainly don't think the remedy to promoting pornography is to condemn it; it's our responsibility to do neither. — An anonymous username, not my real name 20:57, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

The medical consensus seems to be that "pornography is good" and "pornography is bad" are simplistic narratives; both are unsupported by the data.

In other words, countries which have prohibited pornography, did not ban it due to the consensus of modern, mainstream medicine. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

With respect, the medical consensus is only a single perspective in the broader views section. Societies views, at least in this case, aren’t really shaped by medicine. Medicine contradicting the views of society, religion, etc, should be briefly noted, but isn’t a central point. Additionally as you’ve pointed out, the medical consensus isn’t exactly simplistic, or even entirely established, so focusing on it isn’t particularly valuable in the first place.

its still worth pointing out countries which have banned it, and focusing on the views they hold which have resulted in them banning it. Hyper-fixating on whether that was done under good or bad science is a distraction, especially when the science doesn’t overwhelmingly say that they were right or wrong to make such a choice. ~2026-36578-97 (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Lead image

So I noticed @Lomekwian Llama changed the image from a general but not descriptive "XXX" sign to an obscure ancient clay plaque. Instead of reverting this, I feel like this is a good time to discuss the potential lead image for this article.

This is something that has bothered me for a while, a lot of porn/erotica pages seem to have a bias towards old or even ancient images that would be more appropriate in the "History" section than the lead. Like, I get it, Vincent van Gogh and Sandro Botticelli are legendary artists and using their works as illustrations for Art is more than appropriate, but do you really think that this plaque is representative of what a common mind thinks of when he thinks pornography?

Like even the somewhat explicit Wikidata image is a better pick, as it doesn't focus too much on the anatomy, while portraying the actual intercourse in a context of recording (which is how porn is done). Even the previous "XXX" sign carries more weight than whatever these Mesopotamians made.

You might say, "but WP:LEADIMAGE instructs us to use the least shock value!" First of all, this rule is for images that actually illustrate the topic well. If the image is not controversial, but does not illustrate the topic well, then more offensive but informative images are preferred. Second, how are ancient plaques that show sex less explicit? How is "Sex, 2000 BC" less offensive than "Sex, 2026"? If you say "it's more abstract", than this also means that the image is less representative of the subject.

If anything, I feel like this article either doesn't need a lead image or something super generic, like the previous XXX image. Because putting an actually good example will result in edit warring between the WP:NOTCENSORED-knights and WP:GRATUITOUS-warriors. But what do you all think? Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 08:40, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Current lead image is not suitable per MOS:SHOCKVALUE, also the history section has text and links to these mesopotamian images. Reverting to previous generic image. Rim sim (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Proposed rewording of "almost always made for consumption by adults" for clarity and precision

In the lead section, the article states that pornography is "almost always made for consumption by adults." I propose we change this to "is intended for consumption by adults" or "is primarily produced for consumption by adults," and move the exceptions to a footnote or a later section.

My reasoning is based on three core Wikipedia policies:

1. WP:PRECISION and WP:LEAD (Unnecessary ambiguity)

The word "almost" introduces a vague qualifier that creates more confusion than clarity for the average reader. The lead section is supposed to be a concise, accessible summary of the topic. Using "almost" forces the reader to ask, "Almost? When is it not?" without providing that answer in the lead itself. This violates the principle of precise language.

2. WP:NPOV and WP:DUEWEIGHT (Disproportionate emphasis)

The only two documented exceptions to "made for adults" are:

(a) Computer-generated/simulated content depicting minors (illegal).

(b) Historical artifacts where the modern concept of "age of majority" did not exist.

However, these exceptions represent a microscopic fraction of a fraction of a percent of all pornography ever produced. By placing "almost" in the very first sentence, we are giving undue weight to illegal fringe content and historical anomalies. Doing so creates a misleading implication that pornography may sometimes be legitimately produced for non-adults, which is not supported by mainstream sociological or legal sources.

3. WP:SYNTH (Synthesis of material)

The current phrasing appears to be a defensive attempt to pre-emptively acknowledge child pornography and CGI exceptions. However, failing to specify what those exceptions are amounts to original synthesis. The reader is left to infer the meaning of "almost," and without explicit clarification in the lead, this inference is ambiguous and unencyclopedic.

My Proposed Solution

I propose we change the sentence to:

"Pornography is produced for consumption by adults, although illegal variations (such as child pornography) and computer-generated exceptions exist."

Or, more simply:

"Pornography is primarily produced for the sexual arousal of adult consumers."

This removes the vague "almost," states the primary intent clearly, and acknowledges the exceptions without giving them undue weight in the opening sentence. If editors insist on keeping "almost," I strongly suggest we add a brief parenthetical immediately after it (e.g., "almost [with the exception of illegal child pornography]...") so the reader isn't left guessing.

I look forward to hearing thoughts on this. If there is a reliable source that explicitly states that a statistically significant portion of pornography is not made for adults, I am happy to retract my proposal. Otherwise, I believe this change improves clarity and adheres to WP:PRECISION. Meliorist9 (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Sex hot bhabhi chudai

Chaudai

~2026-50588-45 (talk) 08:07, 19 September 2026 (UTC)