Talk:Opposition to pornography

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Brittanygore.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nkshepard.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

againstpornography.org, american-buddha.com, WP:RS, and need for direct citation to original sources

https://againstpornography.org is cited several times in this article. However, as an anonymously-written self-published website, with no visible external editorial or peer-review process, it does not qualify as a WP:RS in the narrow sense defined by Wikipedia's policies. However, it does cite a number of published sources to back up its statements, most of which appear on the face of it to be valid reliable sources that meet the WP:RS criteria.

The same appears to be true of http://www.american-buddha.com/anti-porno.htm , which also appears to be self-published, but similarly, also appears to cite reliable sources to back up its assertions.

Could someone please go through each of those sources, check that they support the statements made, and replace the citations to these sites with the appropriate reference to the original sources they are citing to support the specific statements made? -- The Anome (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Update: I've now removed the cites to both of these, and replaced them with {{fact}} tags. These should now be replaced with cites to reliable sources. -- The Anome (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Really poor citations throughout

Almost every citation in this article seems to be a cite-a-random-website cite, yet at the end of the article we have a whole list of published books in the "further reading" section, seemingly just as an unstructured dump of books that touch on the subject. Instead of just listing these books, would it be too much to actually cite them to support assertions in the article? -- The Anome (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)-

Here are some citations I plan on using when discussing conservatism, anti-feminism, and anti-pornography

Schreiber, Ronnee. Righting Feminism: Conservative Women and American Politics. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2008. Print. Marshall, Susan E. "Who Speaks for American Women? The Future of Antifeminism." The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 515 (1991): 50-62. Web. Shields, Jon A. "Between Passion and Deliberation: The Christian Right and Democratic Ideals." Political Science Quarterly 122.1 (2007): 89-113. Web. Duncan, Lauren E. "Tactics and Identity Politics: Understanding Socially Conservative and Economically Conservative Women's Political Organizations." Sex Roles 60.11-12 (2009): 912-4. ProQuest. 11 Oct. 2016 . User:Nora Shepard, 11 October 2016 --Nkshepard (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Content fork sections removed

I've now removed what were merely poor-quality partial content forks of the pornography by region and religious views on pornography articles. Now there is very little of what was previously in this article left, can we please now write a proper article on this topic, perhaps starting from the reliable sources cited above? -- The Anome (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

A possible approach to the subject

Here are some thoughts about article structure:

It seems to me that there is no single anti-pornography faction or movement, although different factions often support the same goals, and ally with one another to meet shared goals.

The different strands are:

• Feminist opposition to pornography, in that it demeans and/or harms women in particular
• Conservative opposition to pornography, in that it offends traditional social values
• Religious opposition to pornography, in that it offends traditional religious values
• Harm-reduction based opposition to pornography, on the basis that it causes objective, measurable social harm (of which the feminist harm arguments above form a subset)

On the other hand, their opposition consists of:

• Liberal and libertarian support, on the basis that the ability to produce or consume pornography is a form of freedom
• Feminist support, on the basis that the ability to produce or consume pornography is one aspect of general freedom for women
• Harm-reduction approaches, on the basis that it, overall, causes more good than harm, for example by the overall reduction of sexual assaults

Religious support for pornography seems to be notable for its absence. (Q: Is it? What about some of the sex-magic aspects in some religions, eg some of the ancient tantric traditions, whose ancient sex-related artworks might be considered pornographic by Western eyes? Are any of these traditions still extant, and if so, are any pro-erotica?)

Oh, and we should also treat the fact that the definition of "pornography" varies from place to place: what, for example, the Saudi Arabian government might consider to be pornography, would be considered completely inoffensive and non-erotic by even many of the most dedicated Western anti-porn campaigners, who would find many of the Saudi restrictions quite ridiculous. And there are even narrower distinctions to be drawn: is there a difference between porn and erotica, or are they just the same thing? What about lingerie advertisments on posters? From a radical lesbian separatist feminist position, are conventional bodice-ripper heterosexual romance novels pornography, but lesbian SM stories erotica? and so on...

Note that a single person may hold more than one of these positions, and even different positions, pro and con, for different kinds of pornography, simultaneously.

We could then categorize and itemize these different strands, and for each, the arguments, the specific definitions of pornography vs. erotica vs. art (if any) made by that group, the theorists, the political players. -- The Anome (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Goodness, pornographic actors and actresses are caught up in their health hazards as well, apart from those watching them: 2 male porn performers test positive for HIV. Rongxiang Lin 07:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronggy (talk • contribs)

Refactoring started

I've now started to refactor this on these general lines, and, given the insight that there is no one single "anti-pornography moment" but lots of individual anti-porn movements with different definitions and motivations, moved the article to opposition to pornography: the Taliban and Catharine MacKinnon might both agree that pornography is bad, but they absolutely can't be regarded as part of a single "movement". -- The Anome (talk) 22:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Artwork

Perhaps someone can upload the linked image in the article as fair use for this article. Even if it does not last long, I think it would be a good iconic for this topic. http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/playboy-stormtrooper-the-art-of-borat-co-creator-jason-alper_b119096 --Zeidanam (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Introduction edits

I have restored my edits to the article. I do not see substantial justification for their removal. -Zeidanam (talk) 07:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

When you edit, you need to cite reliable sources. See WP:OR and WP:RS. 2A02:2F0A:509F:FFFF:0:0:50C:31FE (talk) 06:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I saw your headliner

I'm very erudite regarding sexology, libertarianism and human Anatomy. I'm very knowledgeable about human sexuality and politics and I would be willing to help ameliorate this article. Whatever it is that you want me to do to improve this article, please let me know so that I can augment the quality of this page. Thanks. Nashhinton (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Society

"...when society masturbates to rape scenes..."? Seriously? How does "society masturbate" anyway? This seems to imply that "society" is some kind of big monolithic bloc or object that is capable of masturbating. A percentage of people IN society masturbate to pornography. A smaller percentage of them watch rape pornography, yet the person who wrote that goes ahead and blames everyone, as "society" is general. Apparently we're ALL guilty in their mind, male and female, regardless. I disagree. AnnaGoFast (talk) 20:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Opposition to pornography. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.law.stanford.edu/display/images/dynamic/events_media/Kendall%20cover%20%2B%20paper.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120203171037/http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/BIB/DIAM/effects_pornography.htm to http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/BIB/DIAM/effects_pornography.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131517435500/http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/mcelroy_17_4.html to http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/mcelroy_17_4.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) 02:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Opposition to pornography. 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/20080115001619/http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_ovrvw.html to http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_ovrvw.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) 17:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Whether harmful (or not) is non-sensical. How can it be otherwise?

How can any debate exist when:

a) it mostly depicts the denigration of women, not only but most blatantly by their acting as though enjoying conduct plainly no sane woman, or alternately empirically very, VERY few women actually do enjoy engaging in (eg performing oral sex, accepting anal sex, being urinated or ejaculated upon, being forcefully penetrated orally, etc);

b) it mostly depicts 'conventional' intercourse in entirely unconventional ways, eg in detached [sic] styles devoid of any other intimacy (kissing, caressing, sweet-talking, etc) and fails to depict 'intimate' intercourse - as it is usually practised - merely because it fails to afford the viewer an explicit view of genitalia;

c) overtly seeks to normalise and proselytise paedophilia by depicting near-universal pubic depilation; and

d) it is unquestionably not being critically analysed by youth, of whom very many in their naivety believe it depicts sex as it ought to occur, when plainly it does not, but rather a fantasy of male aggression and dominance and female submission, which is NOT as it ought to be. 122.151.210.84 (talk) 08:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not our job to argue the case one way or another. It's our job to report on what reliable sources say. HiLo48 (talk) 09:58, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

a: you have a one-sided, stereotypical view of pornography and of porn actors;

b: same as above;

c: that inference is spurious, not to say Comstockian;

d: same applies to war movies, crime movies, SciFi movies, and ordinary cartoons, we don't ban those either; I guess more children were harmed by depicting a lady flying with an umbrella than by seeing porn movies.

What we do around here: we render the scientific consensus as the paramount view: does the American Psychiatric Association say that porn is harmful? Guess not. So, porn isn't medically speaking harmful. That's the WP:RS/AC and we kowtow to it.

The ethical or political dispute is described according to the mainstream views of the Western world, but our article does not seek to pick a side in such debates.

And this isn't Debatepedia, it is a hard-core encyclopedia like Britannica and Larousse, based upon WP:SPOV and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. It is not a WP:FORUM for debating whether APA or DSM-5-TR are right or wrong.

It does not matter how rhetorically skilled you are, since we do not settle disputes through rhetoric, but through citing mainstream WP:SOURCES. Here rhetoric never wins against the medical consensus. So, if you have an axe to grind against the consensus in psychiatry, take your business elsewhere.

Briefly: Wikipedia does not say whether opposition to pornography is right or wrong, but it does say that there are no prevailing medical reasons for opposing pornography. While some MDs may be opposed to pornography, medical science is not itself opposed to pornography. And since those MDs are not supposed to dictate their private ethical choices, that is also a problem of medical ethics. MDs are mandated to respect the moral choices made by their own patients, without becoming judgmental. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• a) How do you know what conduct is enjoyable to women or not? Do you hve available surveys?

• b) Do you have available data on the types in intimacy depicted in pornography?
• c) Sounds like bullshit. If someone wants to protect children from paedophilia, banning contact with Christian priests would be a sound idea. Porn actors have moral standards, priests typically don't. (I still remember the local Orthodox priest who offered gifts to my teenage brother in exchange for sexual favors).
• d) When it comes to fiction, the main purpose is escapism and wish fulfilment, not critical analysis. Dimadick (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Misreading?

About assumed absence of studies on the effects of pornography on children meant it had no effect—no, I was not assuming that. I simply stated that no evidence=no knowledge. So, it has no known effects. And, yes, the authors of the review have an opinion, but there is no particular reason to trust their opinion, since they admit it is not based upon empirical evidence. And they don't even say if that's good or bad. Simply because young adults get different norms and values, it cannot be automatically equated with "harmful". Just because pornography disproportionately favors one side of the culture wars doesn't mean it's harmful. This boils down to: the claim that watching pornography is bad for teenagers is a political rather than scientific claim. Zillmann's decreased respect for long-term monogamous relationships, and an attenuated desire for procreation are politically undesirable effects, not medically undesirable effects. About the edit, see https://revisesociology.com/2016/05/29/sociology-value-freedom/ So, these are not medically or sociologically undesirable effects, but politically undesirable, as seen by the GOP. There are lots of progressives who disagree that these effects are morally or politically undesirable. So, yeah, Zillmann conflated the judgment of empirical science with his own political activism. He was entirely free to support conservative politics, but that should never be conflated with science. It's none of the business of sociology to tell you if such effects are desirable or undesirable. Those who propagate such crude moralism are not writing sociology. Nor psychiatry. Any undergraduate student from the sociology and psychology faculties which I have attended could tell you for a fact that sociologists and psychologists are not getting paid to write such moralistic craps.

Even if you wholeheartedly support family values, you will agree that in a free country other grownups are entitled to disagree with your choice.

This jeremiad is entirely fitting for the language of 19th century sociology: Prolonged consumption of common pornography spawns doubts about the value of marriage as an essential societal institution and about its future viability. Such language is obsolete by the standards of the 1960's.

And the various studies which did empirically investigate the matter (e.g. Miranda Horvath and Marleen Katayama-Klaassen) put their readers on a steady diet of low correlation and causality cannot be shown. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

MEDRS

@Carterand: Please obey WP:MEDRS. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

@Carterand: Again: please obey WP:MEDRS. Your sources are found wanting. E.g. there is no such thing as pornography addiction. That is a non-existing medical diagnosis. Generally speaking, "addiction" is not a valid psychiatric diagnosis. See WP:FRINGE. Diagnosing somebody with addiction is quackery. And no, the medical insurance company won't cover the expenses for such diagnosis. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

tgeorgescu I have also reverted Carterand again for not using sources correctly. It may be useful if the user reads up on reliable, independent and secondary sources. Zenomonoz (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I tried using primary sources at first and it was still removed Carterand (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

there is evidence here for it https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9922938/ Carterand (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@Carterand: WP:RS have a pecking order. The gold standard are systematic reviews indexed for MEDLINE, or higher quality sources, such as medical treatises from AMA, APA and WHO.

E.g. for Cureus: "Current Indexing Status: Not currently indexed for MEDLINE." From the horse's mouth: "We believe that post publication peer review, a focus of our journal through commenting and our unique SIQ process, is potentially a more powerful way to discern truth."

Not to speak that Pakistan (homeland of those authors) is culturally and politically very dissimilar to US and EU. See WP:MANDY. See why at [1] (I'm not saying that Dawkins was right, just that he was applying his theory of memes). Meaning: when their scientific results seem to perfectly align with state religion, that is a very good reason for skepticism.

According to WP:REDFLAG, from March 2022 (when DSM-5-TR was published) to January 2023 (when the paper from Cureus was published) there is an extremely short time for revamping the medical consensus. So, it likely did not happen.

And the diagnosis of addiction is not in the DSM for about 50 years.

Conclusion: that paper was published in a low-quality journal (meaning especially a problematic peer-review process) and displays several grounds for not trusting its reliability.

So, yes, we don't give the lie to the recently published DSM based upon a weak paper. We do record the difference of opinion between the DSM and the ICD, but editors don't take sides in respect to this difference. I'm neither for, nor against the diagnosis of CSBD. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)