Difference between revisions of "Talk:Pornography"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Needs Citations)
(Needs deletion)
Line 89: Line 89:
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. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:27, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
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. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:27, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
== Needs deletion ==
Simply put: terrible. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<sup><code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code></sup> 18:10, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Revision as of 22:10, 23 April 2007

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)

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 penises 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[Citation Needed]. 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)

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)

Needs deletion

Simply put: terrible. --Hacker(Write some codeSupport my RfA) 18:10, 23 April 2007 (EDT)