Talk:Gay pornography/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Barebacking Neutrality

The word 'vituperative' is not a neutral one and needs to be removed immediately. See below:

"The premise on which some industry figures (notably Chi Chi LaRue) base their sometimes vituperative objections[13] to bareback pornography" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.237.106 (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Themes in Gay Porn

I'm not sure of the relevance of this glossary of gay porn terms. I think it was better in a separate article, it could be called "Glossary of gay sex terms" or "Terms used in gay porn." This article should give historical and formal details about gay pornography. Mentionning the relevance of the various "themes" in one paragraph should be enough. I feel this list is too much detail, and it concerns only the contemporary gay porn video industry, which is only a part of what "gay pornography" is. Em79 18:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I corrected the erroneous links from this list, there was a lot! "Black" and "White" (in ethnicities) were linked to the actual colors. "Creampie" to the article on cream pie (the one your grandma makes!) "Daisy Chain" to the article on the flower arrangement. "Fingering" to the musical technique, and so forth and so on... Actually, that was hilarious, thanks to the one who did it. However, please verify your links before submitting your changes.

Now, that just confirms that this list was done by someone who does not know Wikipedia very well, and I didn't like this section at first anyway. The sexual terms have articles on their own, so why list them here? And a list of different sports, and ethnicities? Does that gives information to anyone about gay porn? Moreover, a lot of the terms are not even used in the gay porn industry. I've worked for many years in a gay porn shop, and it's not like you "come across" those terms.

I simply think that this list isn't useful in the article and should be removed. Someone might want to write a paragraph about the fact that gay porn has different niches, and that would be enough (and look less ridiculous.) Em79 04:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and would add that these are not "themes," but rather sex acts, locations, costumes, and so on. Get rid of them. Exploding Boy 05:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thirded. It's just a list; it doesn't add to understanding. (If someone had the knowledge to write a section on, e.g., when the different genres arrived, and could add some context to explain why they became popular at a given time, that would by contrast be a very good addition to the article.) Barnabypage 00:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Nobody did anything about it! I deleted the section.--Dmz5 20:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Temporal Headings

The 'timeline' concerning the history of gay pornography seems ill-suited to the current content of hte article - there's two stubs for the 70's and 80's that are completely empty. Headings should conform to the content available to the article, not the other way around...? I'm also not sure that the year-headings make sense. New to Wikipedia so I'm just voicing that they should be removed. --Artificialard 16:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Article quality

I'm not sure how mentioning three totally different studios in a sentence about the major controversy in gay pornography has to do with "commercial links." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.107.152.73 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

POV Adjective
I changed the "nymph-like Europeans" adjective, its the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen and is totally POV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JDnCoke (talk • contribs) 17:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think "early gay porn" should be dated in the early 1940s. "Gay porn" is undoubtedly a genre that goes back into antiquity. Also, calling men in g-strings examples of gay porn is erroneous. A man scantily clad in a g-string is not pornographic, any more than Charles Atlas in his leopard skin trunks was porn. This article needs a lot of rethinking. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.252.38.73 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. It is very well written as it is now. Perhaps the previous writer cleaned it up? --Mccommas 19:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Whoever Wrote This Article Must Be About 18

The basic theme of this article seems to be that gay porn was illegal and so deeply in the closet that it was hardly available until the 1990s. This is completely false.

There was an *enormous* amount of hardcore gay porn easily available in any sexshop by the mid-1970s. Books (written), photo magazines, 8mm loops. At least there was in California, in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego, and certainly in New York City. There were separate sections for gay porn, just to make it easier to find and browse through. I know this for a fact, as my wife and I used to buy gay porn for a gay friend of ours who lived overseas and either mail it to him or carry it to him along with our own straight porn.

I recall, for instance, two film loops that we bought him no later than 1975. One was called "Truck Fuck" and had 3 teenagers in various combinations cavorting around a pickup truck parked in a suburban driveway. Another one, whose title I forget, involved 2 teenagers on top of a van with a masked-out California license plate parked in the countryside. Both films were in color and were of comparable quality to the 8mm straight loops available at the time. They cost, I suppose, about $15 apiece.

I suggest that someone more knowledgeable rewrite this article completely. Hayford Peirce 17:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I would point out that a number of notable directors and studios are missing - where's Al Parker? The creators of Falcon (indeed, where is Falcon)? Colt? William Higgins and Laguna Pacific? Arthur Bressan? Also, there's an incomplete description of the transition from theaters to private viewing - involving zoning, the general reduction in "red light districts" around the country, the rise of home VCR use, and changes in mail order (at one time, it was quite illegal to mail porn, which has changed). I wouldn't know how to sum up all this history but a great deal of material is missing. Nycweboy 04:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

List of notable gay porn movies

It would be great if this list remained a list of movies that are important in the history of gay porn, for a reason or another, and not a list of your best porn. I consider "important" a porn that introduce a new element to the genre, a pivotal movie in the career of a performer or director, a production that is representative of a period, etc. Eventually, the whole article could refer to the list, or separate article can be created for each movies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Em79 (talk • contribs) 22:58, April 25, 2006 (UTC)

I removed this item writen by User:Dirtyboyvideo

• Dared (Various, 2006) Dirty Boy Video

Please do not write about yourself: Wikipedia:Autobiography
And the movie does not seem notable, yet.
Em79 22:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Kept only ony movie by Bruce Cam (Titan). It is very notable, but I think that we should only put the one or two most important movies for each director, else it will be too long for this article that is generally about gay porn, and it looks like promotion. (I put 3 movies by Joe Gage in the 70s because they are a trilogy.) Em79 01:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I propose turning this into an annotated list. As it stands, there's no way of knowing why these films are notable, or if they even are (most of them are not). The format would be:

• [title] ([director], [year]) [production company]: [reason for notability]

Fireplace 16:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

As there were no objections after 5 days, I've removed all entries that aren't annotated. Feel free to add any of them back in, just say why it's notable. Fireplace 15:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Fireplace: some of the movies you deleted were mentionned in the body of the article (Boys in the Sand). Others had links in them to pages consecrated to their directors, if not the movies themselves, explaining their notability (i.e. Cadinot, LaBruce, Lucas, Morris, and many others). Please read a little more before you erase. Em79 22:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Commando?

I removed this. If anyone can document the existence of Oskoui or Commando! or Eric Levin, please do it. Em79 04:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• The ubiquitous promiscuity that characterized the club scene in the seventies can be closely linked to the influence of Gaybeat music, which began when Andrew Oskoui and the Pounders released their first album, Commando!

Case cleared. A user under IP address 128.252.xxx.xxx (last 5-6 numbers vary) makes vandalism on many pages. Don't hesitate to revert his changes. Em79 03:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I have removed this obscene and disgusting image from this page. Skinnyweed 22:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

And I submitted this stupid image for deletion.

Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 May 18

Em79 22:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Sources?

I would tend to disagree with the following statements from the beginning of the article and wonder what the source of the information is:

• Today, gay porn constitutes a disproportionately large part of the pornography industry.
• It has attracted much less attention from the anti-pornography movement than its straight counterpart.

Chidom 09:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I added a source for the first statement. Em79 22:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that a source from 1997 is outdated and a new source needs to be found. 67.169.200.177 02:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Expansion Tag removal

I don't know how expanded this article needs to be before the {{expand|December 2005}} tag can be removed; should it just be removed and if someone objects, they can put it back and explain why? Chidom 09:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest it should stay until the article reads less like "Gay pornography in the United States". Then the geo tag could be removed as well. Mallanox 00:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Economics and Pay

It would be great if we could get some info about how much porn actors get paid, and what the working conditions are like. What makes a porn flick successful, what portion are, etc? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.146.20.127 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following sentence from the introduction paragraph:

• "It's "employees" are some of the highest paid porn stars ever, they make 5 times more than the straight males do."

It is unverified, and it is unlikely that "employees" of gay porn earn even close to what Jenna Jameson, Ron Jeremy and the like earn. Yes, it would be great to add some business details about this industry, but to my knowledge, no efficient research has been done or published about this. If you have sources, let us know on this talk page. Em79 17:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Very unencyclopedic article

This article is full of unsourced statements, original research and stuff that's almost made up (like the "Sets" or "Guys" section). Bronzey 10:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

I added the "neutrality" tag to the article; please see Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. This can be added to the list of other problems with the article; it's particularly apparent in the Notable movies section. Phrases that include words such as "groundbreaking", "influential", "legendary", and "representative", to name a few, need solid sourcing.

For phrases such as "one of the biggest" (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style:Big, little, long, short.

While there are references listed, more information about items needs to be included in the article rather than just directing the reader to the reference. A reader should be able to get and understand information here; the references are for either additional information or verification of what's here; they should be two different sections.—Chidom ^talk  23:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Buff

I came across the word 'buff' while trying to do some copyediting, and found I couldn't decide what it meant in the context. It needs altering for something more specific. Suggestions anyonw? Sandpiper 17:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's more likely that whoever wrote that part meant "muscular" or "in shape" than that they meant "naked." But there needs to be a citation for such an assertion anyway, I think. I have made an appropriate edit. Carolfrog 00:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyediting

I would suggest that this article has been copyedited sufficiently in its present state; the most pressing issue now is the sourcing. I'm going to remove the copyediting tag. Carolfrog 01:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Just Erase The Hole Article

) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.225.172.136 (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

I swear if that was a pun it wasn't funny. 23:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by M0u5y (talk • contribs)

tee hee! I thought it was funny you stick in the mud.--69.37.169.48 (talk) 22:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

European outsourcing

It seems that more and more gay porn is coming from Europe. Is there any info on this? I think it would make an interesting addition to the article if some decent references could be found. Herorev 20:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Eastern Europe has been a major source of porn production since at least the late 80s - these days Russia too, I guess. I don't have any sources beyond anecdotal, unfortunately. There might be something mentioned in Coren/Skelton's book 'Once More With Feeling'. Barnabypage 12:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

Is there any reason that the first sentance should not read:

Gay pornography is the representation of male bodies, and sometimes sexual activity among males, with the primary goal of sexual arousal.

Instead of the current (awkward) phrasing:

Gay pornography is the representation of male bodies, and sometimes sexual activity among males, with the primary goal of sexual arousal in a gay or bisexual male audience or a heterosexual or bisexual female audience.

I don't see that any 'intended audience' makes any meaningful addition to the definition, and if heterosexual women can be an intended audience of gay porn - why can't straight men also be an intended audience???207.69.137.23 04:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Tend to agree with you. I suggest:

Gay pornography is the representation of male bodies, and sometimes sexual activity among males, with the primary goal of sexual arousal in its audience.

...just to clarify that the primary goal is not sexual arousal in the creators of the pornography. Barnabypage 13:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Needs pictures

sock of banned user - post removed.Proabivouac

Two issues we have with pornography on Wikipedia is the unavailability of free-use images, and the legal requirement to maintain records of the subject's ages. If you can find a way of avoiding both of those then it'd be fine to have some pictures. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Does fair use not apply to pornographic movies? And as to the age verification, there are other nude pictures on Wikipedia without any sort of age verification (see penis, breast, smegma, etc.). Where are you seeing this "requirement?" -Elmer Clark 09:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use implies that the images hosted here won't harm the owner's ability to sell his product; by offering it for free here, we undeniably do that. It's a different animal when the picture IS the product. -Kingoomieiii (talk) 04:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

If you need pictures I could make sum up real quick. Goodness knows there isn't enough gay porn out there yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.169.48 (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Stubbified

Unfortunately, the former version of this article devolved into a huge rat's nest of libelous vandalism targetted towards living persons, to the point where it would be impossible to separate out the problematic edits as the vandalism had become intertwined with the actual content of the article. I have reduced the article to a stub. The prior history of the article is still available; please only reintroduce content that is well-sourced, though, to ensure the content was not added vandalously. --krimpet✽ 06:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an extremely bad move. The page has been vandalized, so you simply destroy it???? You've got to be kidding! I'm going to see where this round of vandalism started and revert back to a prior version. Stubbifying it is simply ridiculous. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Illustrations needed

This article is about a very visual genre, but there are only two photographs, and they are both rather dreary. Perhaps some cover shots illustrating the different styles, time periods, and notable titles would be helpful to give a better visual flavor. -- Beland (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe I fulfilled the request for photos. --David Shankbone 02:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Changed wording of the article

I have changed the introduction of the article so that it refers to men, not 'males.' No one refers to himself as 'a male'. Skoojal (talk) 03:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Porn/Pornography

This article uses a mixture of the terms 'porn' and 'pornography.' There is no apparent rationale to this. 'Porn' is a slang expression, so I will be changing all cases of 'porn' to 'pornography' soon. Skoojal (talk) 23:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

it is not slang. you are wrong, it is an acceptable shortening in the same form as phone/telephone fax/facsimile auto/automobile. so if you change this change all the other entries too; else just don't be a 'n00b.'--77.132.194.167 (talk) 08:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The term 'porn' is colloquial. It may be useful or necessary to use colloquial expressions in some cases; this is not one of them. Besides, the article used an inconsistent and unjustifiable mixture of 'porn' and 'pornography.' I have made it consistent. Skoojal (talk) 05:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sex / sexual activity

These terms mean the same thing - as a look at a good dictionary will confirm. Sex is an extremely broad term, and does not mean specifically intercourse, as the editor who changed my edit may think. See the article on sexual intercourse, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_intercourse. Properly speaking, the term doesn't apply to gay porn at all.

Note that the article says that, 'the term sex, in the context of sexual intimacy, is often understood more widely to include any mutual genital stimulation.' This being so, there's no need for 'sexual activity' - plain 'sex' will do. Skoojal (talk) 08:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)