Talk:Tijuana bible

Is it ok to refer to Playboy as the example of a pornographic magazine?

Was Playboy a pornographic magazine then? Is it now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.179.10.192 (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and yes. Our article Pornography starts with a fair definition of the term. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No, Playboy was very careful NOT to cross the line back then, kind of dull by modern standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skylerspal (talk • contribs) 14:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree, ironically because of your good definition. Pornography is an explicit representation. I haven't looked at Playboy in many years, but the closest I remember to anything "explicit" was a sequence of shots of a nude Kris Kristofferson and Sarah Miles in bed to promote The Sailor Who Fell from Grace with the Sea. The photos suggested some form of sexual activity, but did not show anything specific. (Nevertheless, Rita Coolidge, Kristofferson's wife, was not happy.) I would consider these photos erotic, not pornographic.

The confusion occurs because both erotic and pornographic art seek to sexually arouse the viewer/reader. The distinction is that eroticism is not explicit. In this context, "explicit" means the graphic display of sexual acts. I find James Bama's depictions of cowboys and mountain men arousing, but that doesn't make them pornography -- at least, not with respect to Bama's intent.

I'm getting a bit OT here, but it might be useful to consider the brief scene in Deadwood where the bartender is having sex with one of the prostitutes. We see no genitalia, only his buttocks. Does that make the scene sufficiently explicit to be pornography? I don't know, but I'm inclinded to say "no".

With respect to this article... It would be more correct to say that the rise of general-circulation magazines that showed frontal female nudity (such as Playboy), as well as the general lessening of legal restrictions in the US against the explicit depiction of sex, reduced interest in Tijuana Bibles.

WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 14:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Lists .... ?

I'm not sure the lists of cartoon characters and celebrities adds a lot to the article. Thoughts? 66.191.19.68 (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I think you could craft a sentence or two that lists some examples of characters and celebrities that appeared in the bibles, and then drop the lists. ike9898 (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clean up work. 66.191.19.68 (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Why bibles

Should French bibles redirect here - seems rather strange —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.229.37.77 (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tijuana bible. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120315184042/http://www.tijuanabible.org/articles/birth-of-the-8-pager-by-donald-h-gilmore-phd.html to http://www.tijuanabible.org/articles/birth-of-the-8-pager-by-donald-h-gilmore-phd.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)