Talk:Opposition to pornography/Archive 1

Benefits of porno?

Is there any article on the positive aspects of sexual expression? LaidOff (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC) Or is everyone is hung up prude? Or is sexual freedom too dangerous to the species and people are too irresponsible not to lie and cheat their partners? LaidOff (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC) Where is the article that discussion?LaidOff (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

What you're actually referring to is sexual enslavement, not sexual freedom, as is rapidly becoming clear from an increasing amout of research on the subject. To my knowledege there are many positive aspect of sexual expression, but none whatsoever from pornography.86.174.74.185 (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

My professor covering this topic (in a course called Psychology of Entertainment Media) says that there hasn't been enough research to capture potentially positive effects, like in couples watching together or the such. (Research is problematic because you have to screen out people that already have a tendency toward sexual violence or the such, but that does result in a group of people more "sound" than typical.) It's not really that surprising that consuming it alone isn't a very positive thing. Experiments (the professor cited Lo and Wei '05, Peter Valkenburg '06) show that porn consumption does lead to greater acceptance of sexual permissiveness and recreational attitudes toward sex...but of course, whether that's a benefit depends on your POV (he listed it as a 'problem'). —AySz88\^-^ 00:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I posted too soon! Zillmann, in fact, says this: "The instigation of sexual interest and desire, as well as the likely expansion of repertoires of sexual techniques through modeling (cf. Bandura, 1969,1971), are — without notable opposition — accepted as positive effects of pornography." I guess that's kinda obvious, though. —AySz88\^-^ 00:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments

I'd like to ask WHY is it necessary to state on the top of this page that "this may not represent a worldwide view", when it doesn't say that on the pornography page? I don't think it seems very fair to make it clear that not everyone is against pornography, and not make it clear that not everyone is FOR pornography either.... In fact I find that QUITE offensive.

That's an issue of POV, not world view. 24.126.199.129 09:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes in organization

I have make a few revisions to this article, including a reorganization of the subjects (moving the government studies to the end as opposed to between the religious and feminist), and removing the conservative portion from the initial list of objections (as some of those who oppose pornography on religious grounds would not call themselves conservatives). --Simao rod15 21:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Who? I don't think anyone who isn't conservative really bothers much about it. James James 07:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

But didn't we already establish that feminists do care? Are they typically considered conservative?

One must remember that conservative is usually in reference to a political movement, whereas those with religious objections may not claim they are participating in a political act. As such one could claim that there are three separate anti-pornographic movements, those arising from a religious objection, those arising from an academic one such as feminism, and those arising from a political one such as conservativism (if poltical conservatives care at all). The basic question should be asked, does one have to be religious AND a conservative in order to object to pornography? Does the conservative movement care about pornography? I would suggest we either separate conservative and religious, or eliminate conservative all together. To have them simply in the same pile can be misleading and fallacious.

One must remember that conservative is usually in reference to a political movement, whereas those with religious objections may not claim they are participating in a political act. As such one could claim that there are three separate anti-pornographic movements, those arising from a religious objection, those arising from an academic one such as feminism, and those arising from a political one such as conservativism (if poltical conservatives care at all). The basic question should be asked, does one have to be religious and a conservative in order to object to pornography. Does the conservative movement care about pornography? I would suggest we either separate conservative and religious, or eliminate conservative all together. To have them simply in the same pile can be misleading and fallacious. --Simao rod15 21:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing why. So far as I know, there is no "liberal" figure in religion who has been outspoken about pornography. "Conservative" is a political label, not necessarily a badge of belonging to a party or movement. You are, I think, defining "political" too narrowly. Politics is about how people want society to be ordered. I think that it's clear enough that antipornography criticism stems largely from feminists and conservative religious types, where conservative is understood as meaning something like "traditionalist" or even "reactionary". They make an interesting pair on account of that: feminists are radicals; Falwellists are not. As I said though, if you can find examples of "liberal" religious objectors to pornography, fair enough. James James 07:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, but to supply an example, one could view the catholic church. Oh wait your saying, the catholic church is one of the most conservative Christian groups around. But the catholic church has many view points, some considered conservative (such as anti-pornography) but I would say some points that are liberal such as an opposition to capital punishment (Section 2267). I would say that liberal and conservative at best fits with specific views and not the church itself. For pornography and the catholic church, its religious views result in conservative political consequences, but are not conservative in and of themselves.

Even if you wish to use labels such as conservatives and liberals on the whole of a religion (which I believe to be inaccurate for many denominations and faiths), then even some liberal faiths such as Unitarian Universalism which calls itself liberal (http://www.uua.org/aboutuu/) says that it "Articulates the General Synod's abhorrence of pornography." (http://www.uua.org/owl/uccres.html).

I think that what one should say is that there are religious and feminist objections to pornography. I will make the changes to the article to show what I think would be a better article. If there are those of you that still object however, please feel free to say why and change the article accordingly. --Simao rod15 21:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the UU is a good example of what I was asking for. Thanks for supplying the reference. The labels "conservative" and "liberal" are applied to religion regardless of their accuracy. I think you are mistakenly conflating American political positions with broader labels. Capital punishment is a defining issue in the States but in other places, not so. The Catholic church is not an American institution, but still would be considered by most conservative. I doubt you'd find it describing itself as anything else. It wouldn't see it as an insult! James James 00:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought I had participated enough that I should actually get a user account, so all previous changes and commentary I have made in this article I have decided to put my signature to (hence the odd time stamp) --Simao rod15 21:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph citing a Unitarian Universalist website in a misleading way. If you go to the website indicated: http://www.uua.org/owl/uccres.html the title and opening paragraph state it all. In case you're unfamiliar with the church's programs, Our Whole Lives is an optional sex education program (for the UUA and UCC) used and adapted by individual congregations. The title states that the following pronouncements were made by the United Church of Christ. A different church entirely (they're the ones with the tv advertisements and billboards): http://www.ucc.org/ Furthermore the opening paragraph states: "The General Synod, composed of delegates from congregations throughout the United States, convenes biannually to determine church policy and conduct the business of the United Church of Christ." Throughout the page there is never any mention that the UUA voted to uphold these resolutions. In addition, the "Resolution on Pornography" is dated 1987. I don't know how the UCC works but I know that in the UUA resolutions and pronouncements of the sort are developed at every general assembly thus keeping the church "progressive." I don't believe that it should be implied that the UUA is officially or even in its majority unofficially opposed to pornography unless proof can be found. Gs19 03:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Potential References

The feminist criticisms section has several "citation needed" notes on Catharine Mackinnon's criticisms. I can't get to my copy right now because it's duct taped into a box way far away from me, but the easiest source to work with is going to be her book Only Words. It's primarily about her analysis of pornography and hate speech as actions, rather than words, and consequently undeserving of 1st Amendment protection, but it can also serve as a good source for MacKinnon's overall analysis of porn. The Literate Engineer 14:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Movement?

I'm curious about the intro, and the overall meaning of this article. The following quote is pertinent:

Though objections to pornography might come from many perspectives, they can often be classified as one of the categories noted below.

How can "many perspectives" be a "movement"? It would appear that this article is actually discussing Critics of pornography, or maybe People critical of pornography, or Groups critical of pornography. Try as I may, I just can't see bible-thumpers and radical feminists being part of a "movement" together; yet that is what this article is implying, without any source for the implied claim. Opinions? Kasreyn 05:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

One month later, I remain puzzled as to how radical feminists are united in a "movement" with the likes of Pat Buchanan, as this article would seem to imply. A "movement" implies common goals and a unity of perspective that seems to be lacking amongst the disparate groups and organizations opposed to pornography. How can two groups with entirely different reasons for opposing pornography ("blasphemy" vs. "degrading to women") be considered part of an all-inclusive "movement"?

I would very much like to engender some discussion of this issue here, rather than simply renaming the article "Groups critical of pornography". Cheers, Kasreyn 22:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel I have been quite patient. I will wait one week further for comment, then begin a proposal to move the article to "Groups critical of pornography". Cheers, Kasreyn 08:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts on the issue. The Pornography that I have done lots of work on to try and make it fair and balanced has developed well, and people who seem to be of an anti-pornography perspective have made sure that their perspective is represented there. In this Anti-Pornography movement article, it should be descriptive of the title itself. It should tell about the Anti-Pornography movement, what it's goals were, what people were part of that, reasons for it being formed, reasons why it is in the current state it is in, etc. The Pornography article needs to limit the topic to just a fair view of the facts related to the anti-pornography movement (perception that it is bad), but not the histopry of the anti-pornography movement, and the people, etc. So, renaming the article would seem to me to be a bad idea. Atom 12:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

But the thing is, you haven't addressed my central concern: the so-called "anti-pornography movement" is presented as a single unit, a whole, even though we are actually talking about disparate groups which oppose pornography for entirely different reasons. How can religious conservatives and ultra-feminists be considered allies? The former group opposes pornography because they feel the female body (in fact, any body) is dirty and shameful and must be hidden; they have no interest in "freeing" women. And ultra-feminists oppose pornography because they feel it is degrading to women; they don't care about it being "blasphemy". Their ultimate goal may be the same, but their motivations are almost diametrically opposite. That is not a "movement" as I recognize the term, and so the article is very poorly named. Kasreyn 22:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I won't argue with you on those points. The concept of right wing religious conservatives and left-wing feminists working together is very strange. I think it was more a matter of right wing religious groups using and taking advantage of feminists. Any way you look at it, it makes for interesting reading. That's why this is a seperate article, and shouldn't be merged. As for the title, it has to be something, and both some femininists and some right-wing religious types self define it as an anti=pornography movement. If it were up to me, I would call it the "Pro-Censorship movement".

UK section

Opposition to pornography is therefore more embedded in the state than other countries.

This statement could use some fleshing out since it's not entirely clear to me what it means.

Arguments against pornography were already well developed in the United States before the sale or distribution of hardcore material was legalised in 2000 (much later than other countries...

The above statement seems to be claiming that the sale or distribution of hardcore material was illegal in the U.S. prior to 2000 what is not true. Maybe the author meant the UK and not the US? --Cab88 12:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I have re-written this section to make it a bit more understandable. Somebody has mentioned that there are other anti-pornography groups in the UK. It would be nice to name them. I would research it myself but I can't bring myself to do it. Jezzerk 12:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Although the BBFC is nominally an independent organisation, it is unlikely to do anything that annoys the government, which has the power to remove its authority.

Is there any justification whatever for this statement? I am removing it.Salim555 04:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think there is justification, but it would require extensive explanation of the structure of the BBFC and it's previous history of censorship; it’s secrecy over certification of hard core pornography and policy on such; its attitude to producers of what it regards as 'non artistic' submissions and the circumstances by which it (and the government) was judicially forced to allow hard core pornography in the first place. All of this is on record but it would probably take an article in itself to explain that goes well beyond the simplicity of the statement you’ve removed. It’s probably best not gone into. Backdooruk 09:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Surely "This makes the UK's media one of the most regulated liberal democracies." should read "This makes the UK's media one of the most regulated in a liberal democracy." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.160.143 (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It is debatable whether the UK should be classed as a liberal democracy. The government is appointed by the monarch and wields the absolute power invested in the monarch- the government are literally sovereign. It is only a convention that the prime minister is appointed from the parliament; the monarch can appointa anyone she likes, and the parliament is purely advisory. Laws are passed in the monarch's name. The UK is conistently the most illiberal of the "liberal" "democracies" and it is truly questionable whether it should be considered to be one. It is notable that the USA's founders, having experience of the British government system, deliberately created a system for themselves with division of powers, checks and balances and constitutional restraints which stand above the lawmakers, limiting their actions; none of which exist in the British system of "delegated monarchy". On this particular issue, the BBFC are literally wielding the delegated power of the Crown, not of "the people". Britain is the most authoritarian of the "liberal democracies" because it is constitutionally neither liberal nor a democracy.82.71.30.178 (talk) 02:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Pornography Category and Propornography POV on wikipedia

I'm deleting my concerns off the discussion page because someone has just written to me to explain that the wikipedia POV IS pro-pornography and prostitution. That's really sad. --Nikkicraft 22:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

See How_to_create_categories. I'm not sure if Wikipedia has a pro-pronography (and pro-prostitution) bias, because I'm not closely familliar with those entries. Although Wikipedia has been originally funded largely through capital accumulated in the pronography industry, it does not necessarily follow that it tends to promote the practice. Maybe it does. I suppose, at this point, it comes down to the strength of the aforementioned explanation, which I, myself, am not privy to. So it might be useful to present it on Talk:Countering systemic bias. El_C 01:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who wrote to tell you such a foolish thing. Wikipedia is intended to hold to a Neutral Point of View. Of course, there are often disagreements as to where that neutral point of view lies. As to WP funding through the porn industry, as mentioned by El_C, I've never heard of this before. What is that all about? Kasreyn 05:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't confuse a stance of rejecting censorship with one of promoting Pornography, they aren't the same at all. Wikipedia is not pro-pornography nor anti-pornography. There are many people who feel strongly about violence against women, I happen to be one of them. Some people feel that pro-sexuality, and pornography is responsible, or exacerbates violence against women. I don't happen to agree with that. Wikipedia is neutral on the subject of whether it does, or does not, and gives a forum for presentation of existing facts, studies, commissions, and references to either view. As a feminist I believe that a core principal is that women should be able to express themselves freely without being censored by men, by governments, by patriarchy, by religion, by world corporate culture or by other feminists. The remedy to opinions or expression that you disagree with is to state your own opinoins and views, not try and stop others from expressing their differeing views. In the case of Wikipedia, it is more limited, in that people should express some kind of trail of facts, and not their person 'causes' or opinions. Atom 17:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

ever going to get citations?

Is anyone ever going to be able to find citations for these statements: "Those that favour a complete ban on pornography are actually a small minority[citation needed], but they tend to receive more attention in the media.[citation needed] The majority of feminists would consider porn to be a small issue.[citation needed]" Until some organization surveys all feminists around the world (not bloody likely) it seems doubtful that such statements could ever be verified. Natalie 23:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

There are a large number of statements made on the page that could use citations. We could delete the article, or we could mark the whole article as being too unreferenced, or clutter the page with a hundred cite tags. If something is unsupported, and controversial, then remove it. Marking things that you don't agree with with a site tag, and then not discussing what is wrong with the statement wastes everyones time.

The statements above are an alternate POV from the article to give the article balance, so that it is more neutral POV (would be my guess). I would like to see cites also. But, most feminists would probably agree that those statements are correct, so why focus on them exclusively and not ask for sites for the other stuff too?. If one side or the other marks every statement that they disagree with, the article would be full of cite tags.

• "They say sex is reserved for married couples, and assert that use of pornography could lead to an overall increase in behavior considered to be sexually immoral."
• "They advocate rejecting corporate control of sexuality as exemplified in publications like Hustler and Penthouse, protesting particularly what they see as the dangerous conditioning practice of intermixing violence and sexuality for titillation and entertainment as in pornography and other mainstream media for the purpose of achieving orgasm."

Atom 12:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Religious objections

This section should contain some biblical references or somthing to show that it isn't just a few extremist Christian leaders fringe view. Right now it reads like only ultra conservatives would have an objection to it, when in reality most Christian groups take a stance against pornography, even the more liberal ones. --E tac 16:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, but it is a few extremist right wing organizations. The majority of the population in the U.S. and U.K. are christians, and pornography grows because it is a business that people spend their money on. Obviously, Christians are the predominant supporters of pornography. Are you suggesting that most christians live their lives differently than what their churches preach? Or maybe although it is not something talked about in church, but most christians are okay with people choosing their sexual interests and behavior as long as it is kept to a personal level. Maybe some christians believe that sex is okay, and that their sexuality is something between them and their God, and not a community decision? Whatever the case, the facts speak for themselves. Pornpgraphy is created, propogated, distributed, purchased, and consumed primarily by christians. Atom 17:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I would say the majority of pornography opponents in the UK are inspired by feminism. There is something of a lacuna in the coverage of the UK in that it does not cover Lord Longford's 1970s investigation and report, for which he came in for considerable criticism (and mirth at his expense). Sam Blacketer 18:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

"Maybe some christians believe that sex is okay", whoever said sex was not ok? It sure was not me. "Pornpgraphy is created, propogated, distributed, purchased, and consumed primarily by christians." Do you by any chance have a source to defend that statement? Note that I said groups, by the way the bible does say there will be lots of people in churches who are fakes and complete hypocrites, and yes many Christians do strugle with pornography, but I doubt you will find many who do not have a moral objection to it, or many churches that would disagree with that. The only groups that wouldn't are a very small minority on the far left. The bible itself is really to clear on the issue for there to be much debate by anyone who is even semi-serious about their own faith. I wouldn't say Christians as a whole are as vocal as the femminist groups about shutting down the industry completely, but they are still against what it is about. --E tac 21:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I hear what you are saying, and hypocrisy is practically a requirement for being a christian. I'm not suggesting that churches would advocate pornography, but the fact is that most feel that what you do behind closed doors is your own business.

As for feminism be against pornography, of course there are a few, but predominantly, feminists are for freedom of speech, and there are large numbers of pro-sex feminists, many more than the anti-pornography feminists. And, you might consider reading your bible more closely, as not only would I disagree that the bible "is really clear on the issue" but there is absolutely nothing in the bible that talks directly anout pornography. The closest it comes is to generally denounce people who are immoral as not going to heaven. Atom 01:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

"And, you might consider reading your bible more closely, as not only would I disagree that the bible "is really clear on the issue" but there is absolutely nothing in the bible that talks directly anout pornography."

Seriously, there are plenty of verses dealing with lust, which correct me if I am wrong but the entire porn industry is based on enticing lust. Most often when the bible speaks of sexual immorality in the new testament, it is translated from the greek word "pornia" whch is where the word porn comes from so that likely includes all forms of pornography.

"The closest it comes is to generally denounce people who are immoral as not going to heaven."

Have you ever even read the book? This definately goes to shows you lack any understanding of real Christianity at all. --E tac 01:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, stop trying to bait me, I have put in my 2 cents, and I am done here. --E tac 02:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Scale of the movement

The article only talks about the movement in U.S., U.K and Canada. Does the movement exist at all outside those countries? How big a movement is it in U.S., U.K., Canada and elsewhere? Has its size varied in time? Most of the events mentioned in the article are from the last century, does this mean that the movement has declined since? I think it would also be useful to separate description of the current situation from historical matters. Almost everything in the Feminist objections section is history, which is why it is so much longer than the Religious objections and Feminist Criticism of the Anti-Pornography Position sections. -- 130.233.24.129 02:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I can imagine that, probably in China, there would be something like harsher laws against pornography (castration of those caught, police punishment, flogging, the usual asian punishments for such immorality). MrASingh 11:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Freespeech

Pornography is not speech. Stop the freespeech bullshit NOW!. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.57.16.139 (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Nowadays people generally use the umbrella term "freedom of expression". No, pornography is not speech, but neither is any form of visual artistic expression. That statement is rife with fallacy. I don't even know why I bothered to respond to that post...Antimatter---talk--- 05:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The statement that pornography is not speech is presented as fact when in it is clearly opinion!! Whether pornography counts as speech is entirely subjetive based on an individuals stance on human sexuality and representations of it.

Add Links to Online Petitions?

Are there links to online petitions? What if one wished to donate money to the cause of the eradiation of all online pornography (bearing in mind that this is a non-trivial task!).

More links are needed. MrASingh 11:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If we present these, we should in balance present links to provide funds for anti censorship movements too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.168.171 (talk) 10:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Advocacy Section?

Why is this section on this page? This is a list of books/articles/authors promoting pornography. The length of this list is much longer than the anti-porn list, so it makes the article seem biased - biased against the subject of the article! plus, the fact that it comes closer to the top lends some "weight" or importance to it, so maybe that list should be moved lower on the page.

how about another page called the pro-pornography movement, and that list could be the start of that page? or, change the title of this page to reasons for and against pornography, and balance out the two viewpoints.

just some thoughts.

I agree. It doesn't make any sense for an advocacy section to be here unless it is "advocating" anti-pornography, which is what this page is supposed to be about. It certainly shouldn't be under the "Further Reading" section, because that section should be filled with resources for people who want to know more about the anti-pornography position. All and all, it just ends up confusing (esp with the criticism section being filled with supporters of the topic of the page!) I'm going to be bold and remove the section entirely. If someone else want to put it back in, at least make sure that it's properly labeled and placed below the actual anti-pornography resources.Vesperal 05:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I fixed it myself without removing it. Probably needs more Anti-pornography links, but that's not my area so someone else can do it.Vesperal 05:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

For the benefit of men...

Does anyone know if there is an anti-pornography movement that wants to get rid of pornography for the sake of the men who view pornography since pornography actually helps to ruin mens' lives?

Here we go again!!! You present opnion as fact. It is unclear whether pornography "ruins mens lives".. In fact, researchers in sexual health consistently suggest pornography can play a role in enhancing peoples lives. Debate not polemic please!!!

To say that it "ruins some mens lives" is a fact, perhaps we should go with that.Mondoallegro (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC).

The effects of Pornography: An International Perspective

Public health effects of pornography says that this is a response to "Effects of Prolonged Consumption of Pornography" - so which is correct? The quote says:

Lab experiments typically do not take into account context and other crucial social and situational factors in considering the audience or the material... In real life, individuals are free to satisfy different sexual urges in ways unavailable to students in classroom or subjects in laboratory situations.

Mdwh (talk) 11:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Zillmann, Dolf: "Effects of Prolonged Consumption of Pornography", [1] contains two findings:

(1) extensive viewing of pornographic material increases viewers willingness to engage in sexual assault

(2) extensive viewing of pornographic material produces certain other sociological effects, including increased sexual promiscuity, and decreased respect for marriage and family.

Finding (1) is described in Public health effects of pornography because the result asserts an unequivocal effect on public health. Finding (2) is not described in Public health effects of pornography, but instead in Anti-pornography movement because, per WP:NPOV, Wikipedia does not claim that increased sexual promiscuity, a decreased desire to have children, etc, would necessarily constitute adverse public health effects -- after all, a significant portion of people in many countries believe that sexual experiences should not be "repressed" by limitation to long-term monogamous relationships, that having fewer children is beneficial to an overpopulated planet, etc. "The effects of Pornography: An International Perspective" [2] is almost entirely devoted to a consideration of the effects of pornography on sexual assaults, and, in this vein, critiques only finding (1) of the Zillman study. John254 01:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

US vs. Williams

I added this one here with new link and the PDF full decision, where the summary called sylabus can be found. It is a landmark ruling on this subject. The USA Supreme Court on May 19, 2008 upheld a 2003 federal law,” the Prosecutorial Remedies and other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act, the Protect Act, aimed at child pornography, in a 7-to-2 ruling penned by Justice Antonin Scalia in "United States v. Williams." It dismissed the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit's finding the law unconstitutionally vague. Michael Williams of Florida was caught in a 2004 federal undercover operation and found guilty later of “pandering” child pornography, since he offered to sell nude pictures of his young daughter and other forms of child pornography in an Internet chat room.nytimes.com, Supreme Court Upholds Child Pornography Lawwww.supremecourtus.gov,UNITED STATES v. WILLIAMS, No. 06–694, Decided May 19, 2008theweekdaily.com, Busting child pornography, real and imagined--Florentino floro (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Antisemitism

I noticed that certain anti-pornography activists had been making antisemitic allegations, i.e. that Jews control the pornography industry. This could maybe be added as a footnote on some of the sociological issues that surround the anti-pornography movement. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] ADM (talk) 05:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of this long-standing allegation by white supremacists. However, I'm not sure if it belongs here – 1) white nationalism is a fairly marginal perspective, and 2) while white nationalists raise control of the porn industry as one of their many charges against Jews, I see little evidence that anti-pornography activism or writing is part of the white supremacist perspective.

There also seems to be an emerging anti-porn men's rights perspective, but until that amounts to more than a few web pages and blog posts, I don't think it amounts to a notable anti-porn perspective. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Christian view of Anti-Pornography

I have worked to try and resolve a difference of viewpoint with an editor who seems inclined to force his POV. I have discussed this with him on his talk page, but here I would prefer to discuss the issue to look for input from other editors.

The section on the Christian View on Anti-Pornography is the one in question. After discussion with an editor telling him that he needed to cite his viewpoint, and removing uncited material without references, I offered this as a compromise to try and express POV of some Christians accurately, with quotes.

There is no direct prohibition of pornographic media in the Bible. Pornography was neither as prevalent or as well developed during Jesus' life as it is today. Some Christians feel that biblical passages regarding lust as a sin apply to pornography.

The editor reinserted his text: " Instead, Christians can rely on exegesis of Matthew 5:27,28 (part of the Expounding of the Law) to find biblical prohibitions against pornography.

   You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

The problem with his text is, as I see it:

• He makes a statement as if it were fact, rather than one of many valid perspectives. He states that "Christians can rely... on Matthew... to find biblical prohibitions against Pornography", when the first sentence in the paragraph says "There is no direct prohibition of pornographic media in the Bible."
• The first cite to support that is a Sermon, essentially a verbal editorial, or statement of opinion. The topic of the Sermon is Adultery. Apparently the theory given is that the Bible expounded to not commit adultery, and that lusting after your neighbors wife is the same as adultery. From this he tries to imply lusting after someone else wife is sinful, that lust in general is sinful. From there, since Lust is sinful and pornography causes one to lust, then it must be sinful too. From that he gets that the bible has given prohibitions against pornography.
• The second reference is yet another sermon by another non-notable person, who offers his opinion that lust is sinful, not discussing Pornography at all. With the same verse from Matthew backing his opinion.
• He inserts a bible quote from Matthew into the article, the one prohibiting Adultery. Somehow as if the quote clarified the POV given.

Yea Verily, I say unto you:

• The bible does not have any prohibition of Pornography. As it does not say anything at all regarding pornography, Wikipedia should not say that it does.
• There does exist a viewpoint in Christianity that lust is sinful. Some view that pornography is sinful since it involves lust. In this, the anti-pornography article, we can find a citation from a notable person (Christian or otherwise) expressing that *they* think that Pornography is bad or sinful, then we should quote that, and not try to offer it as fact, when it is not.
• The quote from Matthew is not on topic. "Lust=Adultery" is not "Pornography is prohibited"
• As there are likely many well meaning, respected and notable Christians who feel that Pornography is bad, it can't be that hard to quote one as saying that they feel that way. Trying to incorrectly state that the Bible prohibits it is just not correct.
• It is okay to say that some Christians are against pornography. It is not okay to say that the Bible prohibits it.

Atom (talk) 21:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Funny how you deliberately didn't mention all the book references that use Matthew to object to pornography. I'm not the one with the POV here, you are - You are clearly pushing an agenda that pornography is acceptable within Christian beliefs. There are several reliable sources in the article. As per WP:V - a core Wikipedia policy, your own interpretation of the passage does not matter, there are several reliable sources to establish that Matthew is used by Christians to object to pornography. If you want to add something from a reliable source to act as a counter argument, then fine. But do no delete or distort sourced material. EuroPride (talk) 09:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You didn't address any of the issues I commented on.

You say that I am the one with a POV, when all I have done is ask you to follow Wikipedia policies to say what you want to say. My version of it, as you recall was "There is no direct prohibition of pornographic media in the Bible. Pornography was neither as prevalent or as well developed during Jesus' life as it is today. Some Christians feel that biblical passages regarding lust as a sin apply to pornography." That is certainly not my POV. My POV obviously is that the bible says nothing about pornography, and yet I have done my best to assist you to properly state your POV. You seem for some reason to think that I feel that pornography is acceptable within Christian beliefs. When in fact a number of times I have said that I respect that your view, and the view of a number of Christians is that Pornography is not acceptable. What is clearly true is that the Bible does not prohibit pornography. Wikipedia policies on NPOV not only allow multiple POV's but require expressing them in a balanced way. I have asked you over and over to puty your POV regarding the issue, with reliable citations into the article. Yet, you keep putting the quote from Matthew into the article, rather than just expressing your POV and backing up with citations. I don't have a counter argument, as I do not have the opinion, or POV that all Christians find pornography to be acceptable. My view, as I am sure is yours, is that there are some Christians who feel that Pornography is lust, and lust is sinful, and other Christians who feel that Pornography is acceptable and not prohibited. A citations that you yourself added described an evangelical minister who expressed his disagreement with Catholic priests who had opined that Pornography when used by a married couple to spice up their marriage was acceptable. That citation in itself showed that their is no clarity on the matter, but a spectrum of opinion.

As I have said over and over, it is fine for you to say what the POV of some Christians may be, and fine to express (if the cite supports) that they use Matthew as the basis for their viewpoint. That does not validate Matthew as prohibiting pornography and allow you to make a claim that the Bible prohibits pornography though. The fact is that the Bible does not prohibit pornography. Matthew does not prohibit lust, only adultery. Wikipedia does not allow original research or synthesis of information. You may offer several POV's (in alignment with wp:NPOV), but you can't make false claims.

Again I offer the point that the article topic is "anti-pornography". The text should remain on topic. Expressing that some Christians are against pornography is accurate, verifiable, and therefore acceptable. Theological discussions regarding whether, for Christians, lust is acceptable, and under what circumstances, and whether Pornography is lust or not, and when it is if it is acceptable or not, and whether Matthew when it discusses lust is only directed at married people, or all people, etc is not the topic here. Keep it short and simple. Express your POV that some Christians are against pornography (anti-pornography). Cite it. Leave it at that. The quote from Matthew, not addressing pornography in any way, is not on topic should not be in the article.

Finally, It is clear you intend to force your POV. Since you aren't willing to follow policy or compromise, I will ask other editors to give their opinions on the matter with an RFC. Atom (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment -- Christian viewpoint

Request comments regarding the Christian viewpoint. Atom (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see previous section Talk:Anti-pornography_movement#Christian_view_of_Anti-Pornography.

• The short version is that the topic of the article is anti-pornography. One editor has an POV that he insists on protecting. A biblical quote that discusses adultery continues to be injected as a basis that the bible prohibits Pornography. It is well known that there is a spectrum of opinion regarding pornography within Christianity. One end of the spectrum, that some Christians are against pornography, should be expressed. However, it should not be expressed that all Christians are against pornography (not true), or that Christianity is against pornography (not true) or that the bible prohibits pornography (not true).

• A compromise I have already offered, but was rejected was:

"There is no direct prohibition of pornographic media in the Bible. Pornography was neither as prevalent or as well developed during Jesus' life as it is today. Some Christians feel that biblical passages regarding lust as a sin apply to pornography."

• Why do I feel that this is a good compromise? It is accurate and factual. The article is on anti-pornography, and it addresses Christian objection to pornography without getting into biblical interpretive/philosophical issues (which can be found by clicking on the "Religious views on pornography" link in the header.) It expresses what some Christians feel, and cites that, and does not try to tell the reader what the Bible means (As there is no agreed upon Christian viewpoint).

  The block quote from Matthew "Do not commit adultery. But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." discusses adultery. The article is on anti-pornography. It does not belong there.

Atom (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'm going to start off narrow, here. Re: the block quote only, that specific passage is definitely not enough to justify a statement of "pornography is wrong" when it's talking specifically about adultery, mainly because it doesn't really mean that it's wrong for an unmarried man to look at pornography. I fail to see how you can commit adultery without first being married, and if you can, that needs to be explained to the reader not fluent in Biblical teachings. It probably is a good quote for stating that the Bible prohibits looking at pornography while married, but that's not what's being stated here. Especially given the context of the article, there's a big difference.

I'm not really as "sure of myself" in some of the larger points here, but it seems this is probably a case where A) "all Christians" is unessecarily general, given the diverse opinions of Christians even on matters that are actually directly mentioned in the Bible but that B) "Many Christians" might be very viable, if the sources support it. I'd caution two things: A) The opinions of Christians should be found via sources trying to figure out what Christians think themselves, rather than arguing that Christians should logically think X based on interpretation Y, since short of a direct simple statement I've found there's always a group of Christians that finds wiggle room, and of course people aren't always logical. B) Just because we appear to have an editor who seems to (in good faith) confuse his interpretation of the Bible (which isn't out there or anything) with what every Christian ever believes, doesn't mean we should automatically assume that the opposite point is true; it could be very well that there are at least identifiable, large segments of Christians who subscribe to this belief.

The way forward should be adding more detail on the views of Chrisitans, something which the article this section summarizes doesn't have either, and which neither editor here really provides. If not nessecarily here, than in Religious views on pornography. In fact, it's probably better to hash it out there and then take the conclusions back here. Yoshi348 (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Relevancy if listing laws regarding pornography by country?

I would argue that this section (entitled "by country") is quite irrelevant - it has nothing to do with the anti-pornography movement which is mainly a political/feminist/social movement that has nothing to do with religious or moral laws of specific countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondoallegro (talk • contribs) 13:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Lack of substance

There seems to be very little in this article about the movement itself, which has a long history, is related to many activists and publications, and has a lot more to say about pornography than is intimated by this anemic entry. I'm not an expert on the Anti-Pornography Movement, but unless anyone else is willing to contribute something more substantial to this article.Mondoallegro (talk) 13:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, how much of a worldwide movement against pornography is there? Note that there are separate articles for anti-pornography movements in the UK and US. —C.Fred (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about it being a worldwide movement, but it is a very large and important movement in Western countries. In my opinion the introductory article does demand much more information on the subject.Mondoallegro (talk) 22:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Religious Objections

Doesn't make sense to have a section called "Religious Objections" in an article ostensibly about the Anti Pornography movement, after all these objections are not to the movement, they are objections to Pornography and should therefore be moved to the Pornography article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondoallegro (talk • contribs) 23:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

How many feminists oppose pornography?

Sanguis - you claim that to say "many feminists" is POV, "some" is also POV, neither are accurate enough qualifiers for a wikipedia article. Also, to say that "Radical feminists ...." is not only inaccurate, it's misleading since it gives the reader the impression that only radical feminists oppose pornography. If we want a more accurate article then a little more verifiable research needs to be done, e.g. what percentage of feminists oppose pornography per-se? As this kind of figure is extremely hard to ascertain we're left stuck in a situation where POV is the only option, unless the strcuture of the paragraph is completely changed. It's very hard to write anything about "feminists" in this context that gives the reader an idea of who's against who. From my own reading I've come to the conclusion that "most" feminists are opposed to pornography.Mondoallegro (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Here're some random numbers from Google:
Search term "feminists for pornography" About 502,000 results
Search term "feminists against pornography" About 2,090,000 results
Mondoallegro (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

At a global level, I would definitely say that most feminists are opposed to pornography. Outside of the US, "sex-positive feminism" and other feminist movements which claim that porn is "liberating" for women, or similar, are very weak, and definitely in minority. Europe is currently influenced by a strong anti-porn/anti-prostitution feminist and left-wing movement (see Sweden, Norway and Iceland which have outlawed the buying of sex, and the other EU countries which are considering the same, see Iceland which has outlawed striptease, and so on). "Many feminists" is the most appropriate, but it kept being reverted to "some", so, as a compromise, I changed to "radical feminists", which is clearly problematic and misleading, as Mondoallegro said, but I saw it a little better than "some", which, in my view, is strongly POV, as it gives the impression that feminists opposing porn are in minority. 123username (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Article is in poor state and needs major rewrite

I am going to attempt this, but I don't believe it could be any worse than it is now. The Anti-Pornography movement, as a Movement, should refer to the political movement that grew out of feminism, in the 70's. It has nothing to do with medical objections or laws in specific countries. I'll make a start on cleaning up the article, and try to continue at a later stage with the larger task, e.g. tracing the development of the movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondoallegro (talk • contribs) 12:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You're applying only your definition of anti-pornography movements. Why do you, for example, get to decide that a religious movement against pornography doesn't qualify for this article? I don't mind revisions, but you're literally gutting the article without discussion. Please try to talk this out here first before cutting so much. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying this article can't use improving. I'm saying, based on your edit summaries, you're pushing a POV about what constitutes the only a-p mvmt appropriate for this article. Please discuss here before such a drastic change. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

For example, why not propose specific changes here first, or write a draft article, before you alter everything? Qwyrxian (talk) 12:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Religious views and or objections are just that - objections. If anything they belong in the "Criticism" or Objections secition the Pornography wikipedia article. They do not constitute a movement, nor do they merit an encyclopedic article - they are objections to something. In contrast, the A-P movement is a real political movement and although it is diffused, it has a clear and concise political goal, a history (from 70's), protagonists, philosophy etc. etc. and as such merits an article in its own right. Since this article is titled Anti Pornography Movement that is what it should be about. Sorry for cutting to much before discussing this on the talk board ... but everything I cut really belongs in the Criticism section of the pornography article, but since that article is locked I cannot move it there myself.Mondoallegro Mondoallegro (talk) 14:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Omission of earlier anti-pornography movements

This article currently omits any mention of previous waves of anti-pornography movements: for example, Frederic Wertham, and the Legion of Decency movements -- not to mention earlier movements against "vice" and indecency, all of which were driven largely by conservative, rather than feminist, ideology. Perhaps it should be renamed 20th-century feminist anti-pornography movement with a main article that describes the various historical anti-pornography movements of different eras?-- The Anome (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Was the Legion of Decency part of a movement against pornography per-se? This article *might* be more accurately titled Feminist anti-pornography movement, but as far as I know when referring to the anti-pornography movement what is usually meant is the feminist ap movement kickstarted in the late 70's and whose argument were formulated by Dworkin, McKinnon and later Russel and Dines.Mondoallegro (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, these movements were explicitly against pornography (see the Hays code for an example), in addition to numerous other things they believed were indecent or corrupting (such as the depiction of homosexuality or illegal drugs). On review: a lot of this article needs to be refactored into Feminist views on pornography, which seems to be the appropriate place for its detailed emphasis on the feminist aspects of the anti-pornography movement. Some older versions of this article, which also mention the various different strands of current and past anti-pornography movements (for example, Saudi Arabia bans pornography, but cannot be considered to be feminist in any way) seem much better to me. See, for example, Christian views on pornography, which should at least be dealt with in a sub-section here. -- The Anome (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the more I read it, the worse it seems. There is a long history of objection to, and campaigning against, pornography that pre-date feminist ideas by centuries: see, for example, the Obscene Publications Act 1857, and R. v. Curl before that, and before either of those, much older religious opposition to lewd works, none of which is dealt with here. This is not to say that we should not have an article on the 20th century feminist anti-pornography movement -- on the contrary, we should have an excellent one, and more than one if necessary to describe the movement in sufficient detail, and a good summary of it within this aticle -- but to simplify the entire history of anti-pornography campaigning to one single movement dating back only to the 1970s does this article a disservice. It also ignores pre-1970s feminist opposition to pornography: see Militant Discourse, Strange Bedfellows: Suffragettes and Vorticists Before the War, and Crying 'the horror' of Prostitution: Elizabeth Robins's 'Where Are You Going To … ?' and the Moral Crusade of the Women's Social and Political Union for example. (And, while I'm at it, a few moment's Googling also finds Jeffreys, S. (1982). "'Free from all uninvited touch of man': Women's campaigns around sexuality, 1880–1914". Women's Studies International Forum. 5: 629–645. doi:10.1016/0277-5395(82)90104-2.) The impression given here that feminist history started with Dworkin and MacKinnon is completely misleading: they are major figures in the history of feminist thinking, but to ignore previous feminist history is again, a disservice to history.

It also does not say very much for the quality of scholarship in this article that recent authors have neither known how to spell Catharine MacKinnon nor cared enough to correct it later. I am very tempted simply to rename and refactor the content currently here to, say, 1970s feminist anti-pornography movement, and restore this article to an earlier version.

I'll raise this to the attention of Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism and Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography, and see if they can help. -- The Anome (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Update: I've now reverted this article to the version as of 7th July. -- The Anome (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Origin of term

The IP who posted that tale about "porn-ea" is mistaken. As per EO,[9] "porno" simply means "prostitute" and "graph(y)" refers to "writing (about)", or more broadly, "depicting". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Religion Section

• I've placed a "tone" template on the section of this article which contains the material regarding religious objections to pornography. It seems to be written from the perspective of the respective religions without maintaining an objective voice. Specifically: the Christian subsection stating that "Christians can rely on..." and the Islam subsection has an admonishing tone. bwmcmaste (talk) 03:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Prevalence in Jesus' life

The claim "Pornography was neither as prevalent or as well developed during Jesus' life as it is today" should be rewritten or removed. There is evidence that pornography was prevalent in the Italian portion of the Roman empire around that time (see Pompeii excavations), and unless there is evidence that Judea was isolated from this aspect of Roman culture (in which case it should be cited) this explanation for the absence of direct prohibition of pornography in the bible should be presented as a theory rather than a fact. I agree that early Christians were probably against pornography, but the Religion section comes off as biased and unprofessional, and this sentence seemed to be overlooked by everyone else. Lunarztrain (talk) 11:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

thou shalt not uncover

The section under religion is inaccurate for Jews, Leviticus 18:17-18 says "Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness. Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.". Feel free to dispute, here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.1.76 (talk) 03:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Any chance you could translate that into modern, unambiguous, meaningful English, and explain exactly what you think the problem is with the article please? HiLo48 (talk) 03:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I take it to mean that orgies with your in-laws are a No-No. ←baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

"In Popular Culture" section

I was bold, and added a pop culture section. I listed a couple of examples I've come across. It's a skimpy section now, but my prediction is that, as pornography becomes a more accepted cultural accessory, it will also be a more freely criticized one. ScSabella (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)