Talk:Pornography

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

The redirect Naughty pictures has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 17 § Naughty pictures until a consensus is reached. — An anonymous username, not my real name 04:06, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "There's been a gradual increase in the consumption rates across different age groups with the increased availability of free porn over the Internet." to "There has been a gradual increase in the consumption rates across different age groups with the increased availability of free porn over the Internet."

(just removing the contraction at the start) ~2026-13703-26 (talk) 11:57, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done tgeorgescu (talk) 13:16, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

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)

Pornography is a pejorative and erotica is not. By excluding hated categories (via arbitrarily and bizarrely demanding that the definition of pornography include consent) they're trying to excise the pejorative nature of the term. Pornography is negative term for erotica and is thus a subset of the term erotica that is most appropriate for exactly the kinds of negative appraisals McDonald & Kirkman seek to excise from the word pornography. It's frankly outrageous and Wikipedia can do better. I know why this absurd contorted definition exists, though. ~2026-17568-64 (talk) 03:53, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia has confused the two words for a long time as far as I know. I remember there was a pornography portal (I don't know if that's still around) instead of an erotica portal. Just because the moralizers won the terminology war doesn't mean Wikipedia has to promote terminology misuse. Refer to the argumentum ad populum fallacy. It's a simple plain fact that erotica is a non-pejorative term that encompasses all erotic material while pornography is an intensely pejorative term invented by a Victorian moralizer as far as I know. It is a subset of the term erotica precisely because it is restricted to negative erotica (from the point of view of the appraiser). Most appraisers are capable of finding at least some forms of erotica as non-negative. ~2026-17568-64 (talk) 03:58, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

"I know why this absurd contorted definition exists, though." Good, keep it secret, only known to yourself and the voices in your head. We are not going to speculate what is going on in there. Dimadick (talk) 09:26, 21 March 2026 (UTC)