This is an archive of past discussions about Pornography. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I think a part should be done about the court ruling over whitehouse.com(i think) that said that pornography could be distributed over the internet, this gave internet pornography a wide audience. http://www.idreamofporn.com/ForumXXXv3/index.php?
Statistics?
Something I've been curious about for two years would be the amount of people who have participated in pornography and published or had it seen by an audience. Does anyone have statistics of such a thing? Does anyone know how many people are hired by porn industries? I'm quite curious as to the statistics. Also, I think statistics may be wrong. Adultfriendfinder.com has people that display pornographic pictures of themselves. One could say an average of 30 persons per town have displayed themselves in a pornographic nature. I assume that means the numbers are wrong, or there is more to this than meets the eye. I assume that at least 1 out of 10,000 people have displayed themselves in an erotic manner to the general public. However, the amount of people who have taken pornographic pictures of themselves without an audience would be higher, perhaps 1 out of 5,000. The number could be higher for younger generations. --75.21.104.315:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
PORTAL!??
That is ignorantly stupid.
Wikipedia has a portal for pornography that dishes out all the latest news on porn and such. How untasteful. Why is it that they have this on porn and not on fashion, or celebrities for the latest news?
Any opinions?
Russia did not, as of 2002, have specific laws prohibiting child porn though this may have since changed. Some countries do not prohibit the possession of child porn, only it's production or sale, so the above sentence is misleading should be made clearer. --Cab8814:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Neural, why would you want to know? Almost sounds as if you need/want a place where it's legal. Freak. -by a person who beilives the earth is less than 10,000 years old-hahahaha
Banned categories of porn in NZ
Porn depicting urination or defecation is illegal in NZ, if anyone knows the correct technical term for it and cares to add it to the article.
Why remove it from the first picture subtitle? Some of those pr0ns even contain something written in that weird writing of the Jews. 201.23.64.204:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
In that weird writing of the Jews? Hell why not just gas a few if you're going to be that anti semetic.
I would say that it is legal so long as you do not copy the pornography onto your hard drive with the intention of watching it later.
I removed the contradictory statement and replaced it with more accurate info a the legal status of net porn in Singapore. I could not find any info on whether their was a exception under the law for just looking at porn sites (content only temporarily saved in web browser cache) as apposed to actually permanently saving internet porn to one's hard drive (outside of the cache). --Cab8822:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
External Links?
In the external links there is an Advocacy section; why isn't there a Critical section?
Ted Bundy interview?
Why was the link to Ted Bundy's last interview removed from the sociology section? The bulk of the interview was on the topic of pornographic material.
No reason given; it's going back up.
SemiProtection
This article seems to be vandalized quite often. Why don't we protect or semiprotect it? Just a thought. --Wscc0520:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I can imagine that this is vandalised often, while I would like to think that this is a subject that can be viewed objectively, Im not niave enough to believe that. Its a pity, as as a study of humanity and human perception of sexuality one would think it is fairly intergal. To protect it seems contrary to the principles of Wikipedia, but to leave it open is to leave it open to the vandalism of fools. Its a tough call. After all, how does one become an expert on pornography?
Religion and Pornography
(Note: this is my opinion, and as such is posted here, and not in the article. It is the basis for my attempt to make the article NPOV, and express many perceptions, rather than just Fundamentalist Christian thought).
Not all religions consider sex for purposes other than procreation to be sinful, immoral, or obscene. A sensitivity to sexuality, as is seen in the United States, is a relatively recent phenomenon, since the time of the Puritans and the Victorian era. Not all cultures find the human body to be obscene, and before the last few hundred years, few cultures found it obscene. Fundamentalist religion of many sects, including Christianity, Islam, and Judaism in recent times find overt sexuality to be obscene or immoral, but a majority of sects of Christianity, and many other religions outside of the Fundamentalist fringe find sexuality to be human, normal and healthy. Buddhism may prohibit their priests from non-responsible sexual behavior, but do not consider responsible sexual acts by their members to be immoral. Paganism, Wicca, Druidism certainly don't consider sexcuality to be immoral. The majority of the U.S. population, with faith in a wide variety of religions, predominantly Christian protestant sects, do not think of sexuality or nudity as inherently immoral. Many of these people might debate greatly what the difference between erotia and pornography are, and what is, or is not obscene, and therefore, Pornographic, -- but that is the whole point made in the article. As we move away from the fundamentalism responsible for most of the violence in the world today, and towards more moderate political and religious views in the next hundred years, sexuality will be considered less as something immoral outside of procreation, and more as normal human response. Trends towards acceptability of same-sex relationships, non-monogamous relationships, and extended families not involving marriage are symptomatic of this slow change. These trends reverse co-relate with the movement of people away from fundamentalist religious thought and toward more moderate religious thought (in all religious faiths), as well as away from religion in general, and the growth and re-emergence of pre-christian religions.
Atom12:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
The talk page is expressly for discussing issues in order to clarify what the reasoning for various things written about on the main page. In this case, there were several cases of reverts because someone did not agree with particular wording of pornography versus religious issues. In particular an editor who felt that all "mainstream" religions were against sexuality and therefore, pornography, and changed my wording that "fundamentalist" religions (not just christianity) tended in that direction. I'm okay with NPOV by others expressing other viewpoints, but not with them removing my opinon and replacing it with theirs. Hence, the explanation above. Atom11:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Atomaton. You might have noticed I removed the sentences about religious objections from the intro. Reading through article, I found that the stuff about religion seemed a complete non-sequitur. So I moved it into the section discussing various objections to pornography.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back16:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Towards a Scientific Rationale and Basis For/Against Pornography
I am sure that there exists some research or social scientist who has done work in these regards. However, I wanted to think about pornography from the point of view of something that is meant to be universally accepted - the scientific method.
Has anyone thought about rationalising their views according to the above. For example, I have heard of surveys that try to relate pornography availability to societal violence (the mechanism of thought being that pornography can over-sexualise and therefore make aggressive the human mindset in such a way as to promote violent tendencies). Also, there seems to me to be the issue of whether or not societies with overly free sexual attitudes are more likely to suffer from higher/lower levels of STD's due to the cultural effects of pornography (seeing risky sexual behaviour being committed by others can conceivably cause that behaviour to be copied).
There is also the issue of how pornography effects the mechanism of human procreation in society at large - can having free access to pornography explain the low birth-rates in the western world (this part doesn't require too much explanation). There is also the wider philsophical issue of the type of society that is wanted - one in which citizens are sat in front of computer screens in order to create more technology at work, or one in which citizens spend time at home in front of computer screens doing, errr...., something not so work related.
Also, given that, in most societies, it is men who are physically in control of a large amount of what societies do - then shouldn't there be some tacit acceptance that patriarchal societies need to have strong controls over human sexuality that maintain the necessary levels of discipline for, say, technological progress? Does allowing men and scantily clad women in the workplace *increase* or *decrease* the economic (as measured via both intellecutally creative output/industrial ouput) gains of that workplace in comparison to a workplace where the sexes are segregated? Does this not point to an overall sexual psychology of males that should be recognised by the stated (and pragmatically controlled henceforth?). The sexual psychology being that, independent of race, social class, or other differences, most men, when exposed to sexually enticing material will ultimately reach a situation where that material will distract from their otherwise productive activities?
Basically, pornography over-sexualises the male brain (and potentially has psychologically damaging effects on the female brain) and so is a bad thing when taken beyond moderation. FURTHER, GIVEN THE HIGH RISK OF OVER-INDULGENCE TO PORNOGRAPHY WHEN THERE IS A SMALL EXPOSURE TO IT, IN THE SAME MANNER THAT THERE IS A HIGH RISK OF ADDICTION TO NICTOINE OR MORPHINE EVEN WHEN GIVEN A SMALL EXPOSURE TO THESE, THEN IT WOULD SEEM SCIENTIFICALLY PRAGMATIC TO PLACE HEAVY LEGAL CONTROLS AND LIMITS UPON EXPOSURE TO PORNOGRAPHY DUE TO ITS HIGH POTENTIAL FOR 'ADDICTIVE VALUE'. THAT IS, IF ONE ACCEPTS THAT MAKING NICOTINE OR MORPHINE/HEROIN ILLEGAL HAS ITS BASIS IN SOUND SCIENTIFIC RATIONALE, THEN, DUE TO THE *SCIENTIFICALLY* PROVEN SIMILARITY BETWEEN METHODS OF SUBSTANCE ADDICTION AND 'PORNOGRAPHIC OVER EXPOSURE', ONE MUST ALSO ACCEPT THAT THE SAME CONTROLS BE PLACED UPON PORNOGRAPHY.
Further, it is also likely that placing these controls on the way that women dress is in agreement with the same scientific principles that control the above (as is reflected by obscenity and Decency laws in both the US and the UK). There must be a strong (societal or law-based) dress code according to which women accord in order to maintain social stability and prevent obscenity in public places. That the police and law implementing authorities many times allow current obscenity and decency laws to be re-interpreted to the benefit of women is AN AFFRONT TO THE SCIENTIFICALLY MINDED SPIRIT IN WHICH THOSE LAWS WERE ORGINALLY FOUNDED.
Where is the scientific method in a page long rant of your views? I agree only that the article should contain properly referenced scientific research on the effects of pornography, socially and psychologically. I assume this is actually a joke comment as you've put 'scientifically' in inverted commas yet used it to justify your argument in favour of public dress codes (Burkas?)Jameskeates08:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Not only lack of scientific method, but also lack of facts. In 2005, Ofcom (communications regulator in UK) performed public consultation into updating the UK broadcasting standards, and admitted in said consultation that, despite much research, there is NO evidence of a causal link between damage to viewers, and pornography. In 2006, the UK Home Office performed another consultation, about so-called 'extreme pornography', and again admitted a lack of evidence of causality between porn use and harm or violence. Add to that the direct evidence of countries who have liberalised their pornography laws, and seen a subsequent REDUCTION in sexual related crime (Denmark, Portugal, Japan for examples), then I think the page long rant is just that - a rant.
Link to Always Causing Legal Unrest (ACLU) Removed
Someone who describes himself a "slut" "nudist" on his talk page has removed the link to Always Causing Legal Unrest (ACLU) which is a site that is critical to pornography and I am putting it back up. If it's removed again it will be reported as vanadalism unless someone can give me a rational reason why the material listed on this page is not considered to be critical of pornography. thanks --Nikkicraft22:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I would be that person. I'm quite a few things, not just the few that you mentioned.
Anyway, back to business. There was a link under "Criticisms of Pornography" that pointed to an unrelated web site that attacks the ACLU. My point is simple. Although I am a supporter of the ACLU, I welcome your criticism of the ACLU. Perhaps
you could put that on the ACLU page though, not on a page that describes erotica and pornography?
What do we find following the link? A quote from Nikki Craft herself "First Amendment Fundamentalists scoff at those who desecrate magazines or books. But, if burning a flag is speech, then ripping pornography is speech too. --Nikki Craft"
So, Nikki, I respect that you have an opinion that disagrees with the first amendment, but what does that have to do with Erotica? Your friend, Atom23:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. There's over fifty resource articles links on the ACLU page that are critical of pornography. I did not write any of the lower links. They are written by MacKinnon, Dworkin, Jensen etc. Read the index. There's nothing listed in the "Criticism of Pornography Section" of the pornography article that belongs there more than Always Causing Legal Unrest.
Thanks to you too. Could we refer to the well respected MacKinnon, Dworkin and Jensen criticisms and cite them appropriately, rather than an anti-aclu site? I can see why someone could want to promote the work of feminists, even older generation feminists like Dworkin and MacKinnon, but why would anyone in their right mind criticise the ACLU and the first amendment? Anyway, continually promoting your "Always Causing Legal Unrest" site smacks of self promotion rather than the fair, balanced, NPOV focus on Pornography that we are all working towards. If that happens to be your cause, more power to you, but this site is about Pornography and its many positive and negative aspects and history, not the ACLU. Atom10:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks also for your consideration that censorship of the left anti-corporate critique of pornograhy portrays a POV that is against wiki policies as I understand them; that I continue to hope is the case. I'm trying to provide Wikipedia with some resources and research materials that will balance out the current wikipedia bias. I hope I will be allowed to do so without this information against prostitution and porngraphy being censored. They are valid contributions and I'm willing to work very hard as a wiki editor to provide a balance that does not currently exist and I would like some administrators who will advise me along the way so that I do not make mistakes and so I can have some allies in doing so. It really needs to happen. Or would it be better to just keep the current bias and just continue to promote porn and prostitution with wikipedia? Sincerely, --Nikkicraft00:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh and btw, the reason the link is not on the american civil liberties union page is because they are censoring it from being there. they won't allow it. they censor stuff they don't like. Hope y'all don't as well because it's really hypocritical. --Nikkicraft00:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Wiki has a strong bias against censorship and for "Neutral Point of View". wp:NPOV. Please consider "Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point" also (wp:point). The NPOV mans that we strive to represent views fairly and without bias. I welcome your hard work. IMO someone who has the energy to add breadth to the article in the area of anti-pornography advocacy is welcome. That is not an area that I have time to add very much to. The information you add though should not be your opinions, but should be verifiable and citable sources. I know that's something I have to work hard to remember. Sources other than web pages are preferred (Books and journal articles).
Also, while you are referencing Andrea Dworkin and Dr. Catharine MacKinnon, maybe some fresher faces (as their work was in the 80's -- along with the Meese commission) like Nadine Strossen, Susie Bright, Pat(rick) Califia and Wendy McElroy. How about referencing FFE (Feminists for Free Expression) or the NCAC (National Coalition Against Censorship). You give the impression that feminists are against pornography, when frankly there is a large movement of pro-sex and liberal feminists that are not for censorship, or against pornography. As an ardent feminist, I support your efforts to express your personal views -- it's just that this article is not the place for that. Atom10:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
There is a section for all the feminist proporner references in the advocacy section called "Feminist & Faux Feminist Websites that Defend Pornography". I've even listed them first. Before you make changes to the area marked "critical or pornography" I would appreciate you checking with me. You say I'm over promoting the ACLU Anti Pornography site, but that would be pretty difficult to substantiate as i don't think there is one link for it in all of Wikipedia that I know anything about. Also the list of the sites critical of pornography are in alphabetical order so please do not destroy the hierarachy of the list I spent all night working on, and my efforts and labor. I'm adding all the names of the feminists and faux feminists you list in the previous paragraph into the advocacy section however someone else will have to find the links for them. Also I replace one of the websites about pornography helping women that had been in the advocacy section since I'm not sure if I deleted it or not. --Nikkicraft13:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed the following text from the violence section. It should have never been put there in the first place, but I'm not sure where it should go so I'll just leave that to someone else:
Some more recent pornography has been produced under the rubric of "by and for women". For example, the Feminist Porn Awards were created to honor women's contribution to the genre. In order to receive an award it is required that: "A woman was substantially involved in the creation of the film as producer, director, or cameraperson; the film portrays real orgasms, and women getting their fair share of genuine pleasure; and the film expands the range of sexual expressions for women." [1] Thanks --Nikkicraft14:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Atomaton, please respect (or at least discuss) others' atttempts to improve an overly long, repititious and poorly organized article
See the note I left on Atom's talk page for details. I'd like to know what others think about this article's length and the humble (and completely reverted) attempts to improve it. Specifically, I thought Pschemp's decision to create a separate article called History of erotic depictions was brilliant, given that so many of the images discussed pre-date the concept of "pornography".
I apologized to The Fat Man Who Never Came Back for the clumsy edit, as surely it was. With some tweaks primarily by him, myself and a few others the clumsy elements are repaired, and it is a better article overall. It seems clear that a way to shorten or compact the history section, without losing any value would be good.
Atom17:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Atomaton, you are editing our additions with a bias and POV
Your editing has POV that expects that you can portray all feminists with the right wing. Stop removing my edits on the "Criticism of Pornography" section or I'll request admins assistance for vandilism of this page. I would rather not do that. I'll replace them again. If you remove them I'm going to have to ask for assistance about what to do. Thanks--Nikkicraft17:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC).
Hi: I'm sorry that you can't see any value in my copyedits, as I have been supportive and encouraged the development of your area of interest. In my view my edits are trying to maintian the article as NPOV. I have no agendum, but support the Wikipedia policy of no Censorship. In your case, as seems evident from your web site, you are practically an anti-pornography crusader and for censorship. I have no problem with you presenting references,citations and associated facts that support your preferred position. When you remove data that disagrees with your position or name a section title with somehting that is clearly biased and slanted directly at your view, I have to disagree with you.
One thing I would like to point out is that feminists, like women in general, can't be categorized in ine area. There are old women, young women, handicapped women, black, white, asian and hispanic women (among many races represened by women), conservative and liberal women, women of every religious and spiritual belief system, as well as non-theistic women. Women pro-sex, women against sex, women how are politically involved and women who are not. My point is that feminists, like women can't be categorized. There are indeed feminists who are anti-pornography, like yourself, and feminists who are anti-censorship. Your attempts to support your position by suggesting that most feminists are against erotica or pornography is in error. Probably more likely is that older feminists might be more prone to supporting your position (Dworkin/MacKinnon) and younger, 3rd generation feminists, more likely to support the pro sex/anti-censorship positions. Perhaps even that very broad statement is to specific to apply.
We need to work together, like I have with numerous other people, to reach a fair, balanced article without "hot-button" words or a slant in any one direction, and just present the facts.
The article isn't about convincing people of anything, either that Pornography has value, or that it does not. To maintain NPOV, we should allow facts supporting all positions that someone proposes to be fairly represented. And in any case, ther article should be more about the description and history of the subject, and not only limited space to mention controversial aspects of the subject in a factual sense (mentioning that controversy may exist, and highlight the high level of what the controversy may be about.
I'd also like to point out that there is a wikipedia article already entitled Anti-pornography movement with numerous contributors, many of them with similar feelings and emotions to yours. You could probably contribute to that in a very meaningful fashion, and it would not be likely that many people would claim that you lacked objectivity on the subject, as some might claim with this article.
Having said that, it would seem wise that we put a clear and descriptive section in this article pointing TO the Anti-pornography movement, and excise the political debate from this article in favor of factual descriptions of what the subject is about.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is not a collection of source documents or trivia, a dictionary, a soapbox, a newspaper, vanity publisher, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a web directory. It is also not the place to insert your own opinions, experiences, or arguments — all editors must follow our no original research policy and strive for accuracy.
Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics. When a conflict arises as to which version is the most neutral, declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed; hammer out details on the talk page and follow dispute resolution.
Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit. All text is available under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and may be distributed or linked accordingly. Recognize that articles can be changed by anyone and no individual controls any specific article; therefore, any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited and redistributed at will by the community. Do not submit copyright infringements or works licensed in a way incompatible with the GFDL.
Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles elucidated here. Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles, because the joy of editing is that although it should be aimed for, perfection isn't required. And don't worry about messing up. All prior versions of articles are kept, so there is no way that you can accidentally damage Wikipedia or irretrievably destroy content. But remember — whatever you write here will be preserved for posterity.
I feel we should put a clear and descriptive section in this article pointing TO the Anti-pornography movement, and move a bulk of the Anti-Pornography stuff to where it belongs. That article expresses that subject in much more breadth than could be done well in this article. This article should describe what Pornography is, it's history and facts related to that. Atom21:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I might not currently have the knowledge to know how to keep it from happening on wikipedia but I would personally not agree to that. I'd like to suggest this, that since you've got the largest portion of this page, and besides that you've probably got 100s of pro porn/prostitution pages scattered everywhere anyone looks all over wikipedia, why don't you try your best to allow us a few links on this page? That's not a lot to ask is it, in the interest of a little fairness, to allow us to offer these links and references in a space (Wikipedia) that at least attempts in principle not to present a biased POV? In fact I believe, and hope, that because of the preponderance of propornography/prostitution articles and even a propornography portal that Wikipedia has the extra reponsbility to give us support and assistnce to assure that bias does not occur on this, and related pages, in your and the pornoraphers favor and that is what I would request from Admins when and if I am forced to contact them over this. I hope that can be avoided. --Nikkicraft23:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree, bulk of the material should be moved there. Currently, most of the content of Anti-pornography movement is included here, which is excessive. Much of the text is really obscure stuff to non-U.S citizens. E.g. is there really need to quote U.S case law here? Legal excerpts are rather tedious to read, and in this case irrelevant outside the U.S.
The "legal status" section doesn't even explain the U.S status, referring instead to the list of statuses in various countries. In contrast, the section about this movement contains mostly U.S material. Perhaps this indicates that the movement is not internationally notable? If so, having the material here (taking half of the text in the article!) is U.S. POV. In any case, summary and a prominent link for the interested reader should suffice.
There's also much about investigations into the controversy (e.g. in "U.S. Government Commissions" and "A case study: Japan"), but all of this is way too detailed. When reading an encyclopedia article that is not about controversies per se, I don't expect to spend a whole evening reading and assessing investigations and arguments, but just to get an executive summary of what any controversies are about and where to read more. -- Coffee2theorems | Talk17:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Feminist & Left Websites Critical of Pornography
This is a misnomer. A better title (as I have suggested) is "Feminist Websites Critical of Pornography". First of all as I pointed out before, feminists are across the spectrum, and could not be accurately labeled as Pro or Con, as a general rule. Second, the feminists that are "pro-sex" amd "against censorship" are feminists on the "left". Feminists that are conservative, for censorship, and anti-sex are feminists on the "right". Commonly they are associated with the right-wing fundamentalist christians that are referenced. (Concerned Women for America, Morality in Media). "Feminist on the right; Websites Critical of Pornography" might be more accurate. "Feminist Websites Critical of Pornography" is accurate, and yet neutral. Clearly all feminists "on the right" are not for censorship, and all feminists "on the left" are not against censorship.
Regards, Atom22:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
You have a section for feminists who support pornography. If Religious & Right Wing worked fine for all this time, then Feminist and Left Wing will work for our little section. Stop trying to control the POV to align feminists with the right. That's all you're trying to do and you know it. Stop trying to silence our voice and give us the right to define ourselves like we want to. It's only fair. I'll change it to left-wing now.
btw, you are misguided, many of us consider ourselves sex radicals because we reject corporate control of sexuality. That's further left than most of the left. Many of us have been arrested for public nudity which is probably more than you've ever done. So stop trying to fit us into your little POV box and stop trying to censor reality. Y'all have been able to do that for decades, but you better not be able to do it here. If you get away with this then Wikipedia's policies won't mean much. --Nikkicraft23:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
oh and btw, I despise morality in media and concerned women. I added them on to the links section for the pornography article because I am attempting to compile a throrough and well researched links section for the pornography page. I'm not putting in all this work to be shuffled off to the anti-pornography page by you. --Nikkicraft23:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Have no fear Nikkicraft. I believe in consensus. I brought the suggestion purely because it makes sense. If no one else agrees, then nothing changes. I might suggest that you consider adding your hard work and research already done here, to the anti-pornography movement page regardless of the outcome.
Well thank you for the idea and I'm sure that the first few minutes I have when I'm not replying to you that I probably will. :@) also, and I forget too, but will you please try to remember to sign your posts just so I can know for sure who I am speaking with? thanks. --Nikkicraft23:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I changed this to coincide with the order we wrote it in for flow and readablity. Hope that is okay and if not please feel free to change it back. --Nikkicraft01:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
As for being arrested, you are correct. Although as a naturist, I've been naked plenty of times. As for rejecting corporate control -- I had not heard that slant. My perspective as a feminist is that it isn't anyone else's business to define my/our sexuality. A woman should control her own body and her own definition of sexuality -- it isn't to be sanctiond, approved, or censored by anyone. As for my POV, again refer to my earlier posts calling for Neutral Point of View on your part, as well as my repeated calls for non-censorship. Atom
I realize it is against policy to hash out positions on the discussion page, and I don't want to do that even if I could. But I would like to close off our discussion by saying to you that it's no surprise that you have never been exposed to this position before, and that is because there has been a calculated effort to silence it by the mainstream media and the pornographers. Great that Wikipedia is giving you the opportunity to examine another viewpoint; it's what wikipedia is all about. I hope now that you understand this you will understand that it's especially important to, rather than austracizing the criticisms off where they will not be seen, that you will help me and others here to protect these links, educational resources and our editorial efforts, so that others might be able to consider these, what may be new ideas and ways of approaching thinking about pornography and prostition, for the first time as well, whether you, or they, agree with it, or not. Thanks for saying what you did. I feel differently about you now and have a little more trust in you that I did before. --Nikkicraft01:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Removed Inappropriate "Awards" material from section on violence against women
"We came up with the idea for the Feminist Porn Awards because people don't know they have a choice when it comes to porn," said Chanelle Gallant, manager of Good for Her and the event's organizer. "Yes, there's a lot of bad porn out there. But there is also some great porn being made by and for women. We wanted to recognize and celebrate the good porn makers as well as direct people to their work."
i removed that again. you are welcome to put it somewhere in else in the article, but it DOES NOT belong in the section about violence against women. Stop doing these kinds of sabotage Atom it's not right. Celebrating what you call good pornographers is not to be included in the section about violence against women. --Nikkicraft00:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I didn't put that quote in, someone else did (IronDuke). I checked the source and expanded the quote to give it the correct context. Remove or move elsewhere, fine by me. Atom01:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I just removed all that junk from the violence against women section. If you want to start a section for "whores in action hohoho" i coud care less, but don't insert sabotage in the violence against women section. it's not appropriate and it does show that you are compulsively intent upon sabotaging this page rather than making really valuable contributions. That is untrustworthy behavior. --Nikkicraft00:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
First, again, I didn't put the quote there. Second, our goal is *not* to create an anti-pornography article, it is to accurately document the history and development of pornography. I think you are right, the quote goes in a different section. Whomever put it there first should have seen the context of the quote, and put it in a different section. When I fixed the mis-quote, I should have recognized that it belonged someplace else. Atom01:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thanks for the reminder. i wasn't aware of mediation and I'll certainly consider that if this sabotage continues. --Nikkicraft00:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
NPOV TO FRONT PAGE
The only thing I know to do at this time, if I can't correct it, is to add a NPOV to the top of this page as long as there are addtions like Feminist Awards in the Violence Against Women section. --Nikkicraft00:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Someone please advise on what would be the most appropriate way of handling the section for Violence Against Women and the unassociated materials that have been inserted into it? --Nikkicraft01:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
It's violence against women to insert this into a section called "Violence Against Women". For the record this is the section I'm speaking about that needs to be moved to a pro whore section:
"We came up with the idea for the Feminist Porn Awards because people don't know they have a choice when it comes to porn," said Chanelle Gallant, manager of Good for Her and the event's organizer. "Yes, there's a lot of bad porn out there. But there is also some great porn being made by and for women. We wanted to recognize and celebrate the good porn makers as well as direct people to their work."
Some recent pornography has been produced under the rubric of "by and for women". According to Tristan Taormino, "Feminist porn both responds to dominant images with alternative ones and creates its own iconography." Some say no porn could ever be feminist. Lots of us disagree. But that doesn't mean we agree on what it is: each filmmaker defines her or his work differently. For me, feminist porn is about character, choice, and consciousness. I like to collaborate with performers on how their sexuality is represented, rather than give them a script or formula to follow. I want to capture complex, three-dimensional beings rather than stereotypes, to create an open environment that's safe for everyone—especially women—to take charge of their pleasure and be able to express their desires freely. I want to represent sex as positive, fun, healthy, and adventurous. I consciously work to create images that contradict (and hopefully challenge) other porn that represents women only as objects and vehicles for male pleasure.
In my chosen porn genre, gonzo (the cinema vérité of porn, unscripted, where the camera is acknowledged), the trend is toward hardcore imagery that supports every anti-porn feminist's claim that porn is degrading and offensive. Its emphasis is on rough (often bordering on hostile) sex, circus-like stunts, and what I call impalement contests (how many things can we fit into how many orifices simultaneously?). I'm not saying all gonzo is bad or all rough sex exploitative by nature, but a lot of it has become very one-sided. The lack of female pleasure in porn just sucks. I mean, if you're going to go to the trouble of sticking a girl's head in the toilet, you damn well better give her an awesome orgasm. "Political Smut Makers"; Village Voice;6/8/2006[18]
btw, i did remove that tag because I would prefer to work it out other ways. --Nikkicraft
Thanks I will check it. What do you think about the idea about removing that abusive insertion in the violence against women section? It needs to be fixed. It's very unprofessional for the image of Wikipedia for hurtful to victims of sexual abuse visiting this page. No reputable encyclopedia would include anything like that. Can't some administrator correct this?
Nikki I'm not sure who added the link in that section, but they put a partial quote, out of context. I checked the source when that person added the quote, and saw that the context was entirely different that the original person had portrayed, or intended.
My suggestion would be to either 1) Delete it altogether, and see if the originator of the quote insists on putting it back, or 2) Move it to another section, as the quote seems to be pertinent as an example of "by and for women". Either way is fine by me. Atom01:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Atom. I agree with you except that I would not think there is any reason to delete it. Just move it out of there. Why don't you set up a section for whatever you want it to be and just get it out of that section as soon as possible. It's so abusive. Also I'm sorry I accused you of trying to sabotage the site. You reentered that quote without understanding and I should not have jumped to that conclusion; not only because it is against Wiki policies either, but because it's not fair and I don't want to do it. --Nikkicraft01:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the section could be pared down. However, my understanding is that there is a group of self-identified feminists who are making porn that expressly does not contain violence or exploit women (or so they argue - I can't say that I have seen any examples). I think that information is relevant, and in the correct section. IronDuke01:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Recent edits
I think some of the recent edits aren't quite right. Some unsourced stuff has been readded, and the fem sex-positive stuff is just a content dump from the article I cited. We can do better than this. IronDuke04:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't sure who removed all of the history section. It was too long, I edited it, and it is still too long. It is very interesting though and informative. I think your primary point that there are no references is a problem, but I'd like to keep it there until we can source it. It seems well written enough that it may be copied from a book. Short exceperts might be okay, but longer could be a problem, and either way should be attributed.
Previously there was nothing in the Feminists sex-positive section. I added many of those, and not from your article. Regardless, I think it is long, and wonder if there is a way to clean it up.
The new section "Pornography by and for women" is exactly the reference you added, moved from the Violence againt women section, per the complaint by Nikki Craft. The article is much longer, but it is hard to trim it without just cutting out two paragraphs, and then it loses context completely. It does seem to show an inside look at the pornography industry, and an organized attempt by women directors and producers to create porn the way they want it, rather than controlled by (or for) men. I would think that should have a place, in some form. Maybe adding an introductory paragraph that explains that briefly and, again, some way to trim the content; and maybe find a different reference that supports the same kind of trend. Atom11:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Atom, please please be more careful with your edits. You have removed sourced material (the terminology section for example) and replaced it with older versions. I am assuming this was an innocent mistake, but in the future please take more care. pschemp | talk15:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I looked at the diff, and I don;t think that it was me that changed the terminology section. If so, my apologies. Atom16:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi. The history section was never removed, it was relocated as it is large enough to stand on its own, hence its own article that was spun off. History of erotic depictions. The porn article is already too long, and a link to the new main article detailing the history of porn and erotic pictures is what we do in this case, while leaving a short summary. I've putting this back the way it was, Please don't reinsert. All that material is there, plus much more more in new the article, which is clearly linked (and thoroughly referenced unlike the info you pasted since I have totally rewritten it). Please don't reinsert the section. The whole point is to keep the main article a useable length. pschemp | talk15:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
It *was* there, check the edit history. The diff clearly shows the link was there and you over wrote it. Please be more careful in the future. pschemp | talk16:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. As I recall, I did a couple of clumsy edits at that time, and was soundly chastised about it. As much as I enjoy being chastised, I hate stepping on others toes. My apologies to you, and others. Atom17:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok folks, this article is in desperate need of sources. However, most of the ones inserted lately have been websites in the incorrect format. Please learn how to use {{cite web}} so we don't have to go back reformat references, which is a giant waste of time. This will automatically list thme in the references section. Also, keep sources that are used out of the further reading and external links, if it is used a reference, it needs to go in the reference section according to the manual of style. Thanks. pschemp | talk15:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Video: Betamax, VHS, DVD, and future formats Addition
I request that someone needs to include the new fluxDVDs (from cinemanow.com) that can be downloaded (legally) onto DVD-Rs and Blu-ray.
This section is just horrible and should probably be removed. It's not informative; it consists almost entirely of rambling Tristin Taromino quotes with no context or analysis.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back14:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. For one it gives an interesting and unique insight into some of the people in that culture as well as a perspective that there are women who produce Pornpgraphy, and what their motivations may be.
I *do* agree that it needs to be formatted and changed in some meaningful way to bring the informational content while eliminating the long quote.
Perhaps a summary written that there is a sub-culture of women who create pornography for women, by women, and that their goals include trying to raise the art form to be more focused on the womans perspective. The article could be used as a refence to that statement. Atom17:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
ACLU question?
I just went to the ACLU website, and I don't have a clue what its about. Maybe I missed the puncline in my cusory glance. Anyway, is it a creditable enough website to be refererenced in what is ostenisbly an encyclopedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.74.210.169 (talk • contribs)
I removed the link (Always Causing Legal Unrest) one time, as I did not see the relevance to the article. The web-site owner, an anti-pornography crusader, complained that it should be here, as it (among many other things) includes anti-pornography information and links. She reverted. I checked, and there is (somewhere) anti-pornography propoganda there. Atom19:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the link once again. There may be slight relevance to the article, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, *NOT* a soapbox. This is an article about pornography and though each side deserves their point of view, I fail to see how this website is anything other than shameless self promotion on the part of Nikki Craft for her personal website which adds very little as compared to more professional and established anti-pornography websites.
I also see her constant reverting and attempts at exertion of editorial control over the article as being a breech of NPOV. Her website linking also falls under Vanity and Original Research guidelines and the acceptance of it appears to be nothing more than a concession to avoid further hostility. Please see the following references for more information on proper linking:
Number 3 - "A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link." is most the relevent thing here though much of that website is also unverified information too. I for one do not think the link belongs in this article, as more scholarly and appropriate critics exist. pschemp | talk18:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
FAC failure - Goals
Someone nominated the article for Featured Article Status. Various people reviewed, and it did not meet the grade. Here is an edited summary of things that were suggested that can improve this article:
Suggest peer review prior to FAC consideration, and it hasn't gone through peer review. It should get cleaned up per recommendations before asking for a peer review.
"...this article needs more images."
"Legal status of pornography" section needs to be converted to prose, with the listy stuff split off into another article.
"...Needs a total reorganisation. Anti-pornography movemement material is several times the size of the history section. Entirely too focused on the twentieth century. Image in lead is a very weird choice."
"It needs a lot more work to become FA. Stubby sections, bad categorization, and the prose stinks.
"the section on Porn by Women doesn't even mention Annie Sprinkle!"
"The article has some great info but most of it is woefully disorganized, meandering, spammy and sometimes incoherent.
Several problems:
Subsections are far too short. If a topic is important enough to merit its own subsection, you should have more to say than just one or two paragraphs.
Whole sections lack citations - the "Pornographic stereotypes" section stands out in this regard.
Speaking of which, per WP:MOS, section headers shouldn't include the name of the article; please rename the section headers without using any form of the word "pornography." ("Anti-pornography movement" might be okay, but I think there are ways you can rename this as well and still fully comply with the Manual of Style.)
I'd like to see some discussion of aesthetics: what consistutes good porn as opposed to mediocre or bad? (I'm a bit surprised not to see a reference to the famous dictum "I know it when I see it. Maybe I just overlooked it.)
The lede should summarize the important points of the article, but there are several important sections of the article that get no mention in the lede.
Atom, just removing every instance of the word Pornography in the section headings has left this article with some pretty silly and uninformative titles. They need to be restated so that they make sense, not just chopped up. Also, it is allowable to have the word there when absolutely neccessary, it just is discouraged to cut down on the repetition. pschemp | talk20:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
See Hard_core pornography article please. Hard Core Pornography article is not distinct from this article, but it poorly written, sparse, and short.
FOR merge: user:atomaton Maybe HCP article has european view that could be added as a section here. Otherwise HCP has little to offer on its own.
Against Merge: 70.77.41.10018:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC) The Pornography article is large enough as is, and Hardcore Pornography is significantly different than standard. The current article could use a bit of work, but I believe that a seperation is merited both to keep the size of the Pornography article in check, and to ensure that each area is adequately addressed.
Just a quick look at the Hardcore Pornography article should show anyone that it is pretty badly written, and the bulk of the material is applicable to Pornography. The merge recommendation was more about solving the problems with the HCP article, at minimal size increase in the Pornography article.
Review of See also, References, Further Reading and External links
See Also
Reviewed the "See Also" section, and they seem to all be appropriate.
References
Reviewed the "References" section, and all are tied back to quotes or citations in the article, and all seem appropriate (to me).
Referenceces 3a and 3b (Pornography: The Secret History of Civilization [DVD].) are valid, but if we had a more scholarly reference that supported these, it could improve the article.
Reference 15 needs more detail.
Reference 23 reminds me that the whole "By and for Women" section needs great improvement (only relies on a quote at this point).
The references each need to be checked for accuracy. I'll add that to my to-do list.
I note that there are two "citation needed":
Erotic film producers are expected to play a major role in deciding the next DVD standard. Large outfits tend to support the high-capacity Blu-ray Disc, while small outfits generally favor the less-expensive HD-DVD.
On average, the United States spends more money on pornography than on aid to third-world countries or "legitimate" movies, but less than on theme park admissions per annum.
FFE is non-profit site, not necessary, but balances the "Concerned Women for America" link. Both of them, more or less, on topic as they address censorship and so are on topic.
NCAC, non-profit, also addresses censorship issues, and so is on topic.
Nadine Strossen, Susie Bright, Kate Ellis, Susan Griffin, Juno & Vale, all directly related to Pornography and Censorship.
"Pornography helps women, society" article by UCLA Daily Bruin, interesting, and on topic.
Kimmel look son topic.
Radway, "Reading the Romance: Women, Patriarchy, and Popular Literature" NOt sure if this is on topic. It may be feminist, but not related to Pornography, will need to review the source material.
Tucker, Vance, Newitz, McElroy, all directly related to Pornography and censorship.
"Pro-Sex Feminism: Redefining Pornography" is on topic.
External Links
Feminist & left-wing websites
First three Dworkin references seem on topic
Andrea Dworkin website, non-commercial, not directly applicable, but her primary feminist work is censorship of pornography.
"Anti-Porn Resource Center", non-commercial, is clearly POV and anti-porn. Lots of opinions visible, and not much research. Questionable.
"Coalition Against Trafficking in Women (CATW)", non-commercial, seems to be anti-prostitution. Does not seem to be on-topic. to me.
Feminist Analysis of Playboy on Talking Trash", non-commercial, is clearly POV, Opinions, no research presented, on-topic.
"Hustling the Left", non-commercial, POV, oriented arpund protest of "Hustler" Magazine based on hate speech, not on-topic for Pornography. (Hustler may be a "Pornography" magazine, but the web site attacks the magazine based on hate-speech.
"Concerned Women for America", "Morality In Media" see FFE earlier -- balance, on topic, non-profit, non-academic.
"ObscenityCrimes.org" sponsored by Morality in Media. Somewhat on-topic. Not sure if it has value, applicability to the article.
"Youth, Pornography, and the Internet" non-commercial, on-topic, non academic (governmental).
Government & NGO criticisms
"Asacp.org", non-profit, Against child pornography. I'm not sure whether that is on topic in this article or not.
Commentary
"About Porn" - Commentary, not directly on topic, should be removed.
"How big is porn?" Forbes magazine piece. Applicable elements should be incorporatd in the article, and this moved to references.
"The idea that pornography is a $10 billion business is often credited to a study by Forrester Research. This figure gets repeated over and over. The only problem is that there is no such study. In 1998, Forrester did publish a report on the online "adult content" industry, which it pegged at $750 million to $1 billion in annual revenue. The $10 billion aggregate figure was unsourced and mentioned in passing. "
"According to Adult Video News (AVN), an industry trade magazine, Americans spent just over $4 billion to buy and rent adult videos last year. This figure is baseless and wildly inflated. From there, the numbers get even more obscure. "
The Business Of Smut: What Is It Worth? Adult Video $500 million to $1.8 billion Internet $1 billion Pay-Per-View $128 million Magazines $1 billion Total $2.6 billion to $3.9 billion Sources: Adams Media Research, Forrester Research, Veronis Suhler Communications Industry Report, IVD "
"What pornography lacks is cultural resonance, it also lacks in financial clout. The industry is tiny next to broadcast television ($32.3 billion in 1999 revenue, according to Veronis Suhler), cable television ($45.5 billion), the newspaper business ($27.5 billion), Hollywood ($31 billion), even to professional and educational publishing ($14.8 billion)."
"Online Consumer Porn, Free vs. Pay" Opinion, not much value to the article.
"Rushdie Turns India's Air Blue", Interesting reading
"This time Rushdie has again risked the fury of Islamic clerics, as well as Christians, by arguing that a free society should be judged by its willingness to accept pornography."
Databases
Internet Adult Film Database - database of all films. Does it need to be here? I don't think so.
Government
"Attorney General's Commission on Pornography Final Report." I think this is in the references already.
"Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section page on child pornography"
"Freedom of expression has contributed much to the development and wellbeing of our free society. In the exercise of the First Amendment right to free expression which everyone enjoys, sex may be portrayed, and the subject of sex may be discussed, freely and publicly. Although material is not to be condemned merely because it contains passages or sequences that describe or depict sexual activity, the courts have consistently held that the right to free expression does not extend to material which is obscene." COuld be moved into the article, and referenced.
"The first law that legalized pornography", Could be incorporated into the article and referenced.
Sociology
"The Roots of Western Pornography", academic, interesting, parts could be incorporated into the article.
"Pornography, Rape and Sex Crimes in Japan", again, material that could be incorporated, and referenced.
"The Link Between Pornography And Violent Sex Crimes. " dead/bad link, should be removed.
"Pornography and Censorship in: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ", POV opinion, backed with references.
"Ted Bundy's Final Interview ", not academic, POV, maybe move to commentary, or remove.
Recommendations
Resolve "citations needed"
Check references for accuracy
Remove FFE, NCAC, CWA, MIM, Media Watch links (more appropriate for censorship article, or anti-pornography article)
Remove Dworkin web-site references, but leave three Dworkin pornography censorship references.
Remove Radway, "Reading the Romance: Women, Patriarchy, and Popular Literature" reference.
Remove "Anti-Porn Resource Center
Remove "Coalition Against Trafficking in Women (CATW)"
Remove "Feminist Analysis of Playboy on Talking Trash"
Remove "Hustling the Left"
Remove "Porn Myths"
Remove "ObscenityCrimes.org"
Remove "Asacp.org"
Remove "About Porn"
Incorporate parts of Forbes ""How big is porn?" into the article and reference.
Remove "Online Consumer Porn, Free vs. Pay"
Remove "Internet Adult Film Database"
Remove "Attorney General's Commission on Pornography Final Report." already in references.
Remove "Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section page on child pornography" as it should be referenced in the child pornography article, and not here.
Incorporate parts of "The first law that legalized pornography", and reference.
Remove dead link ""The Link Between Pornography And Violent Sex Crimes."
Remove "Ted Bundy's Final Interview ", or move to Commentary.
This statment about religious objections to porn doesn't sit right with me: "Fundamentalist religious tradition generally limits sexual intercourse to the express function of procreation. Thus, sexual pleasure or sex oriented entertainment... are usually considered immoral by conservative religious sects."
I'm sure that's true in some cases, but several "conservative" religious traditions I'm familiar with do not see sex simpy as a simply a utilitarian function for breeding. They see it as a sacred, godly, highly pleasurable activity that is only to be enjoyed with one's spouse--whether or not the "express" goal is to make a baby; these traditions do not condemn sexual pleasure in and of itself, but they impose severe limitations on the circumstances under which sexual pleasure may be properly experienced. So their primary problem with porn would not be that it promotes sexual pleasure--but that it seems to celebrate and trivialize a "sinful" version of sex, which takes place outside the confines of a righteous marriage. These traditions can still, in my opinion, be considered backward/fundamentalist/conservative, but they don't frown on people enjoying sex.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back20:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
What religious sects do you speak of? Catholics have a view similar to what you suggest, but do not, as far as I know, view sex for pleasure as appropriate, only sex for procreation. There is a broad range of religious thought, even within cristianity, so I would not be surprised. But, if a religious sect is okay with recreational sex (or call it sex not intended for procreation) with married couples, are they conservative or fundamentalist? Most christian sects seem to be moderate or in between the ends of the spectrum. (Presbyterian, Lutheran, some Baptist, Quaker, and Methodist) I would not say that Pentocostal, Greek or Ukrainian orthodox, Mormons, Anglican, Mennonite, or Amish would. We need to find a reference, and make it as factual as possible. I'll look around when I get a chance. Atom00:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Mormons, many strict Jews and followers of Hare Krishna (not a conservative relgious per se--but they are highly restrictive of members' behavior) subsribe to the view I described. I will try to find some references.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back07:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Fundamentalist/Conservative Protestant theology generally holds that intercourse within the bounds of marriage is acceptable for both procreation and intimacy. The view is often based upon Hebrews 13:4 - "Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge" There are other passages in the Old Testament (Proverbs 5:19, Song of Solomon, et al.) that would suggest that pleasure experienced by a committed husband and wife is acceptable to God.
Pornographic material, however, is roundly rejected as being immoral and contrary to God's design for human sexuality. user:209.59.33.220
What is an agreed upon definition of "pornographic material"? What do you use as a reference for "Pornographic material, however, is roundly rejected as being immoral and contrary to God's design"? That would gather a spectrum of opinion even within the protestant christian world. Adding catholicism and judaism would add to that. Adding views from paganism, buddhism and hinduism would make that even broader. Are you just saying that it is your opinion that pornographic material (anything involving sex) is not acceptable to god's design? Could we even agree (see religions above) on what god's design is? Atom17:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you didn't see the first sentence. In Fundamentalist and Conservative Protestant theology, pornography is rejected as immoral. I wasn't referencing liberal Protestant thought, Catholic doctrine, Judaic teachings, et al. I don't have any problem with, and think there would be some benefit to, having other religious views on the topic.
If you are asking why conservative Protestant theologians arrive at this conclusion, perhaps you should avail yourself of the plethra of online resourses on the matter. There has been plenty of ink spilled by past and contemporary theologians and clergy.
