From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  • There is a draft of a proposed new version here.

Should there be an article on pornography

It would, I’ve no doubt, take a lot of patrolling to keep this article site appropriate – it may be a real target for vandalism—but that being said, pornography and how it should be dealt with is one of the major political issues of our times (less now than 20 years ago, admittedly) and if we are going to provide an alternative to Wikipedia this is a very important place to do so (especially as Wikipedia’s page on this subject prominently features an image that is clearly not appropriate for children.). I’d like to see this page unblocked so we can take a stab a writing a good article for it—I’d take a stab at one (I know enough about anti-pornography feminism to start and could look into 1st amendment law) if the sysops think that it is worth trying to write an article appropriate to Conservipedia on this subject.--Reginod 14:23, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Drop me a note at my talk page when you're ready to post your first draft. --Ed Poor 18:40, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Will do! --Reginod 18:40, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

First Draft

I never say your note, so I just went ahead and wrote my own diatribe. --Ed Poor 09:28, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

"the fact is that in the history of erotic literature it is virtually impossible to find any depiction of normal marital relations." That's just a flat out lie and misrepresentation. You seem to be forgetting books like the Kama Sutra, Joy of Sex and videos that are created for couples to use. And the 2nd paragraph is a POV. Jrssr5 13:24, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Not much about marriage in either one - the assumption is that you can go ahead and snuggle whenever and with whomever. I read Alex Comfort's book, a pernicious piece of polymorphous perversion.
Let's look at Reginod's draft: /draft. --Ed Poor 14:36, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
I like Reginod's draft save one bit. I think the intro should read "what is widely regarded as an intimate act" and not just "an intimate act." ColinRtalk 14:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Jrssr5--you forgot the Book of Solomon. And seeing how he had 50 wives, one assumed he knew a bit about marriage. --PassingThru 14:51, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't think there is a "Book of Solomon", and the Bible tells us he had seven hundred wives. Perhaps there is something faulty in your research methodology you should examine before making such obviously flawed assertions. RobS 15:12, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Might that comment be intended to refer to the Song of Solomon? - Suricou

Now that I am back, I would like to implement the draft I proposed along with the changes that Ed Poor has made (thanks for those, by the way). The only objection I’ve seen to the draft is that we don’t need an article on pornography at all on this site. I’ve explained above that pornography and how society ought to treat it is one of the more contentious social issues we face today (and it gets tangled up with a number of other ones). I’m open to hearing other concerns before I implement it, but I’m not going to wait to terribly long as anything that needs changing can be fixed once it is in the article as easily as it can be fixed in the draft.--Reginod 21:23, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Please add something about the word derivation, like: Pornography, from the Greek porne meaning "prostitute, ... Dpbsmith 21:32, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

I had no idea. Thank you for making that addition.--Reginod 21:41, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Reginod - you're welcome to use any of the following that's of any use to you. Shouldn’t an article on pornography at least have its definition correct?

The word "pornography" is about two hundred years old. It originated after the discovery of erotic drawings and sculptures uncovered in the archaeological excavation of the ruins of Pompeii. They included a sculpture of the god Pan having sex with a goat, and drawings of p.enises that were found painted on the walls of houses. The Victorians collected everything they found offensive and put it in a museum in Naples, which was called The Secret Museum. Only men were allowed in, and they were not allowed to laugh or make jokes. From 1849 to 1860 the Secret Museum was bricked up altogether.[1] Even today you need a permit and a guide to see the collection.

The word pornography derives from the Greek word porn, meaning prostitution, and graphier, meaning to write, and so it means to write of prostitution. The word was at first used to refer specifically to the Secret Museum, but began to take on a more general meaning by the middle of the 19th century.

Drawings and writings that were erotic were commonplace in earlier times, although they were not called pornography. In Samuel Pepys’ diary he writes about buying a French book called Escholle de Filles. The book is a conversation between Francine and Susanne about sex, the older one telling the younger one all about it. Pepys saw the book in a shop, thought it was lewd and disgusting and did not buy it. However, he went back three weeks later and bought "the idle roguish book, L'escholle de filles; which I have bought in plain binding… because I resolve, as soon as I have read it, to burn it." He drank lots of wine, locked himself away, read it then burnt it. He said it was an idle and lewd book but it a good read for a sober man such as himself to read so as to learn about the villainy of the world.

Before the fall of the Berlin Wall, Bibles and pornography were the two items most likely to be confiscated by the Soviet Customs on entering the USSR. The common question from border guards/customs officers was always: "Are you carrying Bibles or pornography?"

Women respond to pornography in a way that is more similar to the way men respond than was previously thought. Erotic imagery elicits a faster and stronger electrical response in a woman’s brain than any other kind of image, recent research reported in the journal Brain Research reveals. [2] The researchers expected lower levels of response, since previous research had indicated men that are more aroused by erotic images than women, but found that women’s responses were as strong.--Britinme 21:51, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

I’m not sure where exactly in the draft you want to place all that information, but go ahead and add it on in. (I’ve added a few more sections to help place the information—I’d put the Museum part in the Modern History section, and the female response information in the effects on individuals section) think the draft is (at the moment) in good enough shape to replace the current article, and since the article is (I just noticed) locked (and for good reason I’ve no doubt) I encourage you to just add to the draft, just like it was a real article, until a sysop can be found to implement it. But, as I’ve said, it is a rough draft—I wouldn’t turn it in to a professor in the state it is currently in, but the wiki process is a collaborative one so I’m more than willing to put my work out there as a base for others to build on.--Reginod 22:10, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
I would gladly do that, but I don't know where the draft is!--Britinme 22:45, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
Try here Talk:Pornography/draft --Reginod 08:37, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Pornography and erotica

Thanks, Reginod & Britinme. Good draft, coming along nicely. I'll just make one quibble:

  • Erotica uses sexually charged imagery for artistic purposes,

This isn't actually true. Not unless you think that "art" is entirely separate from politics, etc. Or unless you're trying to say that art is a category of free speech, which gets into the "P*** Christ" and "D*** Mary" controversies.

In everyday use, erotica is pornography. If I'm wrong, please correct me. --Ed Poor 11:08, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Pornography is something that has degradation as its intent; it does not necessarily even have to contain sexual content. Erotica is material connected with love rather than sex, (though the love depicted is often of a sexual nature). So that although there is a large overlap between erotica and pronography, something can be one and not the other. For example the biblical book Song of Solomon might be readily categorised as erotica on the basis of its content, but few would call it pornography. --Jeremiah4-22 11:16, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
As a literary genre, pornography is writing that has sexual arousal as its primary objective. Erotica is such material with artistic pretensions. Thus, the descriptive term pornography implies a statement about intentionality and instrumentality without reference to merit, whereas the term erotica is evaluative and laudatory. In Flesh and the Word, John Preston more baldly says, "The only difference is that erotica is the stuff bought by rich people." [3]
Certainly some pornography with artistic pretensions calls itself erotica, often to avoid legal prohibitions on the distribution of obscene material, for example. But this is in no way the same thing as being erotica. (That's a rather dodgy source you're using there, btw.) --Jeremiah4-22 11:34, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
I’m inclined to agree with you that erotica is pornography. I’d say that it makes up a subset of pornography – I’d be hard pressed to find a clear distinction. I think, in common usage, erotica=socially acceptable pornography, and pornography=socially unacceptable pornography.
Both erotica and pornography are intended to arouse sexual interest. Erotica, perhaps, more subtly than other pornography, but in the end it is about eros – love mingled with sexual desire. --Reginod 13:09, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
Erotica is pornography for those who have some inteligence. It requires a high level of literacy, and artistic appreciation. It takes skill to make, while plain pornography needs nothing more than a camera. But underneath, it is still pornography. It strives to be respectable, and to some extent suceeeds. But porn is porn, and thats all it will ever be. Just because its a well-written story, or a painting that takes incredible skill to paint, does not turn it magically acceptable. Erotica is a subset of porn, not something completly different. - BornAgainBrit
I'm not convinced by this. I wonder if we can make the distinction that pornography is solely concerned with sexual arousal and gratification through the graphic depiction of sexual acts, and that works of literary and artistic merit can contain passages of explicit sexuality that function as an integral part of the total work but are not intended purely for purposes of sexual gratification. The famous example of this in English law was, of course, the 1963 trial involving Penguin books and the D.H.Lawrence novel Lady Chatterley's Lover. I have read that, and it's true to say that the passages objected to in 1963 are fairly graphic (though perhaps less so by today's standards). However, they are not the central point of the book, and their purpose is not arousal but a deepening of understanding of the themes of the nove. IMHO they add a great deal to the overall merit of the work. Personally, I found a book like American Psycho a great deal more distressing in that it explicitly ties sexuality to graphic violence. It seems invidious to me to single out the depiction of erotica as pornography while ignoring the graphic depictions of violence that seem to pass unnoticed. --Britinme 14:18, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Needed fixes

Since the article is locked can someone make the following changes, marked in bold?

"Due to a series of liberal decisions beginning with the Warren Court, pornography is aggressively sold and distributed in the United States without meaningful law enforcement{{fact}}. It is a $12 billion industry that affects and harms 40 million Americans(POV). Pornography destroys relationships and exploits young people.[2]maybe include the article that claims this POV

Is there really such a large public concern about an alledged connection between pornography and porn? Check the link I provided in the debate about this subject for some statistics on the percentage of people who've ever seen porn or watch it on a regular basis, it might shock you to find that that multi-billion dollar industry only survives because it has many millions of consumers, not just the random perv, but lawyers, doctors, fathers and husbands.

I would also like to see a paragraph about erotica in ancient Rome, Greece, India, Egypt and the stone age, how it's related to human nature and that it does in some cases provide an outlet for potential rapists. Just to make the article more balanced (and more serious).

Middle Man

Middle Man I think if you look at Talk:Pornography/draft you’ll find a draft of an article that addresses some (but not all) of your concerns. Please add any relevant information to the draft. We are trying to get it into good enough shape that it can replace the current article.--Reginod 13:35, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

It still lacks a paragraph about the psychology/sociology behind pornography, but, it's definitely a lot better than the current version.

Middle Man

I have no idea where to start on that paragraph as it stands the draft is touching the far edges of what I feel comfortable writing on (any more and I worry a bad source could steer me wrong). But if you point me to a good source I’ll work on it, or you could add it yourself – feel free to treat the draft like the article, improve it as you can.--Reginod 18:41, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

shuld be in the Sexual sins catagory--duo 23:06, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

Needs Citations

to be in line with commandment 5. This page states much opinion and needs to be fixed by one of the people with the power to do it. Flippin 17:27, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

But speaking of citations... why are we linking to an islamic site? I'm sure the intention was good, but this is a christian encyclopedia... we shouldn't link to a site that promotes a false religion like that without a very good reason. NewCrusader 18:52, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Needs deletion

Simply put: terrible. --Hacker(Write some code • Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA) 18:10, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

A draft (which I think is much better) is being worked on. See somewhere above for a link to said draft. ColinRtalk 18:11, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I came to this page to try to add a UK context but see that it uneditable. This is the sort of thing I was going to add.

"In the UK pornography continues to be used by the mass circulation tabloids to bolster sales. Since the 1970's the UK 'red-top' tabloids, in particular the News International Corp owned 'Sun' and the 'Daily Star' have used images of naked or semi-naked women to attract a readership of B2,C,D males. They then fill other pages in the paper with biased articles pushing their political viewpoint in an attempt to control clearly influencible minds. The Sun in particular influenced the result of the 1992 General election with their pornography-ridden viewpoint that they claimed to have won the election.

Other tabloids such as the 'Daily Sport' and the 'Daily Express' are owned by David Sullivan and Richard Desmond, both of whom made their fortunes in pornography before moving into newspapers."

Can this be added please. --Commandment9 17:47, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Please add it to the draft at Talk:Pornography/draft . The draft is editable and the better it is the more likely we are to get it to replace the current article.--Reginod 17:51, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the advice. I've done that now. --Commandment9 18:10, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

What does "B2,C,D" mean? --Jtl 18:25, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

It a form a categorization of people by social position and available income. A's are higher earner or those with wealth, B's not quite so much, B2,C & D are the classifications for either unskilled manual labour, the unemployed or the underclass. In the US this equates to blue collar etc. These were the groups considered most easily influenced by pornography and propaganda. Without their media-led political bias in the 1980's the political landscape of Britain would have been very different. That's why I added my bit in the Social Effects of Pornography section in the new draft. --Commandment9 18:41, 11 May 2007 (EDT)


Pornography can be addictive, according to some source, especially ones involving violence. This fact should be added onto the article. Wooyi 22:32, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Liberal wants to help!

Okay, I am liberal. I admit it. I accept that conservatives and/or Christians do not like pornography, etc. and I respect your decisions. My ex-boyfriend is a Christian and didn't view porn and was waiting until marriage, etc. so I understand how people like you guys think (we're still friends). As much as I'd love to edit articles like this one, the abortion one, and the cannabis one for content, I understand that this is a conservative website and I would gladly respect that and maintain your right-winged perspectives. I am mainly on this site because I want to broaden my horizons and see what the other side of the arguments are. I'm curious about the right-winged perspective, and even though I don't agree, I respect it and want to understand it.

Now, here's my problem with conservapedia. It's not that this is conservative. You guys have every right to post this conservatively biased stuff because you're up front about it and say you're conservative and don't try to hide it. You display it proudly. More power to you. My problem is that a lot of these entries use vague words like "very bad" or, in the case of this porn article, you say that porn "has an effect." That is quite vague. How is it bad? What are the effects? What is "very" bad? Furthermore, many sentences in this site are just poorly written, grammatically speaking, and it is difficult to read. If you want respect from the liberal world, at least take the time to sound intelligent, back up everything with lots and lots of sources, use good grammar and strong vocabulary. "Very bad" is not a strong choice of words. "Harmful" might be. Then again, once you say "harmful," you'll have to say WHY it's harmful. In the sentence "everything is a perversion of one sort of another" ... well, "of" should be "or." I recognize this is a common typo, but I would love to edit it and make this site better! There's hundreds of entries where it is just poorly written and I'd love to edit it JUST FOR FLUIDITY. In other words, so it's more readable, free from typos and other errors, etc. Also, there are some things which are obviously biased, but I don't think has anything to do with being conservative or liberal, such as the use of "he" in this article. Anyone, male or female, can be desensitized to sex via porn, and as a female who happens to enjoy porn, I think that this article should recognize that people of both genders view porn, and that sex is not as stereotypically male as many people would like you to believe. After all, it takes two...

I've worked with a number of newspapers and I study linguistics. I've won numerous awards for my writing and read countless books on how to persuade people with words and make the most use out of every word. I regularly edit my peer's essays and I do not change their opinions, but make their opinions come across as stronger through a better method of writing. I would love to do this for this website, but unfortunately I am blocked from editing most articles because they are controversial and have been locked. I could probably find other examples of unclear sentences, but I can't remember which articles I have looked at.

Keep up your beliefs. It takes all kinds to make up this world, and we need both conservative and liberal viewpoints. I'd love to help you guys, but you consistently block me. Oh well. Your loss.



I don't think the number of locked articles are as bad as you seem to think. Surely there are some that you'd be interested in editing that are not locked. And once the administrators see that you are doing a good job, they might even be willing to unlock articles for you to tidy up.
I suspect that the original author(s) use male pronouns in a generic way, not specifically indicating males.
I improved the article a little bit in line with your comments (but I agree it could do with more).
Philip J. Rayment 10:54, 5 July 2007 (EDT)
Pornography consumers are overwhelmingly male (by a nearly 3:1 margin), so the only substantive point made by "Neko" above is not persuasive.[4]--Aschlafly 11:15, 5 July 2007 (EDT)
Candy often contains chocolate, so lollipops may cause you to suffocate in your sleep. Sorry for the non sequitur; I was just pointing out that the above argument doesn't have any clear connection from clause 1 to clause 2. "The only substantive point?" Of course, you're referring to the lack of fluidity on many locked articles, right? Oh, and I recognize that "Neko" (you go girl) has a couple of typos here and there, but her points comes across strongly. DanieleGiusto 00:43, 20 December 2009 (EST)
I didn't know the actual figures, but yes, I had meant to mention something along those lines also. Nevertheless, I gather (it's just an impression) that pornography use by females is on the increase. Philip J. Rayment 11:26, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

I read somewhere (I actually think it was a claim by Pat Robertson, so take it with a grain of salt) that women tend more to read erotic literature.

In any event, I think it's very interesting to present this from both a Christian and an Islamic perspective, as Ed has done here. DanH 11:58, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Why porn is actually bad

Should we sight more sources for why pornography is bad...maybe we should offer counterpoints to why pornography is bad, then shown arguements against those to make our case stronger. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kaji132007 (talk)

Him Vs Her and Person

Why are all the references to males? "Porn says that happiness is found by having the same experience over and over again with lots of different women(my girl isn't interested in women); true eros says that happiness is found by having different experiences over and over again with the same person"

"Viewing or reading pornography day in and day out has an effect. It desensitizes a person, makes him more withdrawn, and makes him view others (and other males?) like objects rather than the people they are."

I wanted my girlfriend to look at this page because she does use porn quite regularly much to my disappointment. Its something we are trying to deal with and work through, but the inherit bias toward males in the article has turned her attention to topics of feminism and such and the original point of asking her to read this as been lost on her. --DjWizard 20:51, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

I don't get your point - or if I do, I disagree with it. We assume a porn user is a man, the same way we assume a nurse is a woman. --Ed Poor Talk 21:02, 7 October 2007 (EDT)
And both assumptions would be invalid some of the time. My general answer is that "male" terms are actually generic terms (as "man" is a reference to a member of "mankind"), although some specific instances might bear being reworded. Philip J. Rayment 23:42, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

I don't see oyur problem with you Girlfriend looking at porn, I mean, is it causing any actual relationship problems? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kaji132007 (talk)

You don't see a problem with portraying someone in a degrading manner? Philip J. Rayment 23:42, 7 October 2007 (EDT)
But people should be free to create it, even if it is degrading. LeftieConservative (talk) 08:05, 12 September 2019 (EDT)

Religious perspectives

Perhaps it's time to re-visit this issue. Much as it is a touchy subject, it does need to be addressed. A well-balanced and scholarly article would explain why it's bad, and not (as "Neko" suggested) merely make general assertions. --Ed Poor Talk 21:09, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

Pornography actually lowers rape rate

I was looking at statistics for rape rate in Japan, and It would seem that pornography and rape are inversely related. As porn sales go up, rape rates go down. Should we include this in the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bias (talk)

"It would seem"—seems rather uncertain to me. Is the source on-line? If so, post it here (on this talk page) and we can look into it further.

No, sorry, it's not online. If you would like, look in to it. Bias 22:19, 31 January 2008 (EST)

I do remember seeing an article that pointed out that pornography has become much more widely available in recent years, because of the Internet, and in that same time, the rate for rapes in the U.S. has gone down, although the article pointed out that law enforcement procedures had improved over that time too. Unfortunately, I don't remember the name of the article or where I saw it, but it's an aspect of the issue that's worth investigating.--Frey 15:50, 3 March 2008 (EST) Walkie 16:26, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Useful external link

Despite its misleading introduction, the following is not a porn site: The #1 Christian Porn site - includes accountability software, forums for couples, men, women, and teens... and useful articles. Anti-porn merchandise too! xD Nate 12:40, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

Would these be the xxxchurch forums where debate reigns and the notorious Suricou patrols? They can get quite hostile at times. NewCrusader 18:52, 22 September 2008 (EDT)


Can this be unlocked? I realize it's a touchy subject, but it needs some work. HelpJazz 23:31, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Cite #1

How can a reference back up an opinion with another opinion? Is there any proof of either of these claims? NateE Let Us Communicate 15:34, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

Now that I've messed it all up, which ref were you talking about? HelpJazz 20:30, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

Market forces

It should be considered that if there was no market for it then pornography (or erotica or anything else) would not exist. The fact that a very large part of the internet, content of mainstream movies, and "adult" publications , fairly clearly shows that there is a market for such material. Rather than fight to ban such materials (which is somewhat like prohibition , which didnt work very well) more effort in educating peoples to renounce them is needed. Its somewhat interesting that in polls no one admits to buying magazines like Playboy and yet it sells a lot of copies. Certainly those forms which are illegal should be prosecuted or some arrangement made to block access (if originating in another country). In the United States this subject is considered a First Amendment issue , the right of free expession. Markr 12:31, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Using your argument for a moment; try replacing "pornography" with "crack cocaine". Doesn't sound like a very good argument then does it? We need to go after all the pornography that is polluting our world just like we go after hard drugs in this country. There is little difference to The Lord between a playboy and a crack pipe. It encourages lustful feelings, which is a sin. Need I say more? Patriot1505 18:47, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

This page needs to be locked.

This pages seems to get vandalized quite often. Can a mod lock it before some idiot starts adding pictures? - Georgearnold

Criticize my contribution, please!

Similar to the [Hollywood Values]] page, I was thinking of adding a section on how the industry has proved dangerous/deadly to those working in it. A quick search online turns up many names of pornographic models/actors who have died from disease contracted from their work, drugs or other factors.

However, I've already unintentionally run afoul of the CP commandments regarding a reference to pornography, and am not sure how to handle this idea without getting it reverted. My idea was basically a sentence or two explaining how it's proved dangerous, with a short list of those affected. Does that run afoul of the "family-friendly" commandment? I feel like omitting names makes it very unencyclopedic. Feedback please! EMorris 01:23, 17 February 2010 (EST)

I made some very minor changes, and would ask that you make sure all the links are as family-friendly as the subject matter can be. If you have any questions about content, please ask before adding anything questionable. You might also want to look at the draft linked to at the very top of this page. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 02:25, 17 February 2010 (EST)

Deadly industry

The point "deadly industry" lacks of reference and there is no comparison to set the names and numbers in context.