1251:
younger users. I suggest we make a move to remove the image. I'm all for advocating self-censorship and such, but the fact is that
Knowledge is free to use and anyone can pull up any page. Links bounce around between all the articles here, and it would be very easy for an underage viewer to happen on something like this. I don't think the argument of "you don't have to read articles on pornography" or "we shouldn't censor" are valid arguments - we should have the underage kids in mind, especially on something as widely used as Knowledge. Fact is that there are younger kids browsing the site that don't need to stumble onto sexually explicit imagery, we shouldn't just push on them "lern2blockpics, noob!" and other such arguments. -
521:
isn't) then we should use it. The insinuation that a picture from a gay porn shoot is more problematic than a picture from a straight one is quite problematic. I was also somewhat aghast to read SqueakBox's "a non-gay pic should be in the opening." Why exactly? No good reason as far as I'm concerned, unless we have a problem with gay people (but that would not be NPOV, so it can't be that). If you want pictures of men and women getting it on at a porn shoot, then go out and take the pictures (good luck, I doubt it's easy). It's odd that we even have to discuss this.--
31:
481:
opening" is shows me something. Even if Squeak thinks it's a COI (what he read on
Knowledge Review and is repeating here), what does that have to do with why a "non-gay pic" shouldn't be used? As mentioned above, I don't think there are any available hetero porn shoot pictures. If one comes available and the quality is good, then feel free to add it at the top of the page. There can be two pictures. I know, what a shocka! This whole conversation has an underlying suggestion.
181:
facts that really need the support. This article would benefit from some research, but I haven't the means to do it. I hope someone will fill that in soon. Until then, I've tagged this as needing sources cited. And if you want to dispute or discuss my edits, I'm happy to engage in that conversation. Oh but please, if you want to revert something, don't rever to the whole thing, just what you want to change back!
1379:
useful that an image of a dead one. Now, I don't know what the intended purpose of showing straight-or-gay porn is here, but I suspect that the favoring of one type over the other has little to do with our goal of writing an encyclopedia. The current article has no lead image. This should be corrected, and sexual prejudice (however carefully argued) should not be a basis for deciding on the replacement.
1894:
1975:"...mainstream pornographic movies now depict a range of behaviors including anal sex that are high risk activities for STD transmission, as if the taboo status of these activities has made them more thrilling for the consumers of pornography. Anal sex and other similar activities are now part of heterosexual pornography in a way that was unprecedented before the outbreak of AIDS."
1196:
really so necessary to put this image here? And please don't say there are no genitalia seen, it's not what it is about. I do appreciate this site very much as a source of knowledge, but for goodness sake, it IS public and this image IS offensive, and there is no protection here, so please just remove it. And do not put heteros making love in front of cameras instead.
843:
really so necessary to put this image here? And please don't say there are no genitalia seen, it's not what it is about. I do appreciate this site very much as a source of knowledge, but for goodness sake, it IS public and this image IS offensive, and there is no protection here, so please just remove it. And do not put heteros making love in front of cameras instead.
1250:
Uh, I'd also like to throw my two cents in. I think any imagery in this article is inappropriate. There should be no pornographic material, visible genitalia or not, homosexual or heterosexual or whatever. That image we have on the opening of the page is clearly pornographic and inappropriate for our
74:
There is a category listed here called 'shemale' porn. I was under the impression that this term was degrading. I was going to change it, but I was not sure if it was labeled this by someone who doesn't know it is offensive, or if it is popularly known as 'shemale' porn as was thus labeled as such. I
686:
Why does "adult film" redirect to "pornographic film"? As far as I know, an adult-film is one which is made primarily for adults - it does not have to contain pornography for this; it could be a gruesome war film, for example. I vote for creating a new article at "adult film" - does anyone object?
180:
I've done a substantial clean up, which included things like phrasing problems, redundancey, and terminological errors/vagueness all the way to deleting things that seemed to be entirely original research or non-NPOV. However, there are absolutely no sources cited in this article, despite claims and
82:
I think the terminology matches the context - this would be the term used to describe the porn. I would consider it offensive, but I consider offensive the way that "lesbian" porn is used - it often depicts women engaged in sexual acts for the viewing pleasure of a male audience (this is clearly and
1699:
article about celebrities wondering if their show or movie will be popular enough for a porn parody to be made. That aside, since a significant chuck of the production is done in
Southern California, there is already a huge amount of overlap for post production (sound and video editing, promotional
1378:
Not to point out the obvious flaw in your original post, but surely most cats are, in fact, dead. The contention should not be whether one state of something is more common than another, but to what extent an image conveys information useful to the reader. Arguably an image of a live cat is more
1195:
I find this image too explicit and unsuitable for many younger
Knowledge users; Knowledge without images makes almost no sense and that's why it isn't wise to just block images from that site, and still some images are really not for children, who otherwise may and even should use Knowledge. Is it
842:
I find this image too explicit and unsuitable for many younger
Knowledge users; Knowledge without images makes almost no sense and that's why it isn't wise to just block images from that site, and still some images are really not for children, who otherwise may and even should use Knowledge. Is it
1493:
have been successfully marketed in non-sex edits, while
Pirates was widely available in places like Blockbuster in an R-rated edit that was less explicit than your average episode of Girls or Game of Thrones). It's not even recent: Cafe Flesh back in 1982 was a science fiction story with sexually
480:
You're right edg. No real reason has been given to why the gay porn pic shouldn't be used. The title of this thread says it all: "What's with all the gay porn?" When SqueakBox said, "Looks to me like David promoting his own work here at wikipedia. I fully agree that a non-gay pic should be in the
1665:
I removed this from the article because it's problematic for a few reasons: 1) The citation for it is an essay where the author opens by acknowleding that he's just giving his personal opinion, 2) even with another source the statement itself doesn't represent a general consensus, 3) it's simply
1484:
I think this article could stand to be updated with the fact that over the past decade the dividing line between porn and "mainstream" cinema has been disappearing. While there are those who stick to the definition (used by
Knowledge here) that "porn" is any film with unsimulated sexual activity
1405:
From the intro section: "Pornography is a thriving, financially profitable business." giving a 2005 Reuters report as source. I was under the impression that DVD was the main source of those profits, and the the
Internet has, as of 2013, substantially reduced the profitability of the pornography
1270:
instead. (And why do you think the article text is okay? And what about all the other unsuitable-for-children topics and images on
Knowledge? Should Knowledge be gutted of all non-child-friendly material because you don't want to install a filter and direct your children to the appropriate site?
1125:
I don't think its provocative... or at least not too provocative. At the very least, people visiting this article shouldn't be surprised by graphic imagery. So I don't think it needs replacing. But hey, you are going to some effort to get these pics and I respect that. Certainly, if one of those
1080:
Oh believe me, I have no objections to the current image... I'm just wondering if we have to have such a provocative one in such a prominent place. I've contacted Mike South who's mentioned in the past that he has tons of photos we're free to use and asked him what he could contribute that could
503:
Shankbone's pic illustrates that subject without being over-the-top. Shankbone has contributed a lot of great photos to
Knowledge, and I don't see what the problem is in his name being part of the filename. It shouldn't matter whether it's straight or gay porn, since the topic applies to both.
520:
Aside from the brouhaha at ANI (which brought me here) this is a rather disturbing thread. It makes no difference whether the photo we use is of gay porn, straight porn, or some other kind of porn. If that's the best free content we have that applies to this article (and no one has suggested it
1327:
The dead cat argument goes nowhere. The fact is the current picture (1) is GFDL (2) illustrates the topic and (3) does so without even showing genitalia is reason enough to keep. If something comes along that is superior in those three regards, this might be a topic worth revisiting.
569:
removed by various users and IPs for obviously the same reason, it's gay. I left a message on 65.183.142.159's talk page and he/she continues to remove the picture. I'm leaving a message here to show that consensus was reached and the IPs continued removal will be seen as vandalism.
1854:
You should still be able to see all of the article content when a POV template is in place. The template is just a signal to other editors that maybe we can make the wording of the article more neutral. Maintenance templates usually shouldn't be removed unless the issue is fixed.
733:
Oh wait, I see... after doing a Google search and checking usages, it seems that "adult film" = "pornographic film" but "film for adults" = "film made for adults but not usually pornographic". What confusing usage, considering that technically the two terms should be synonymous.
900:
Pornoshoot or not! Leave it out. The current image is way to graphic. This image is extremely offensive! Consider those people the rights of the peole that find this kind of stuff offensive! Its offensive because its inapporopriate and not because its depicting gay sex!
485:
Smell that? Smells like homophobic people wanting to remove anything related to the gay lifestyle from the article? Yes, go ahead and tell me to AGF (I see two users that have assumed none in regards to David), but if walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
1438:
What I wanted to know when I came here is how many people there are in the porn industry. I imagine this would be a hard number to get exactly right, but some estimates would be nice. Like how many people take advantage of the porn star STD prevention program.
195:
On this article and many of the articles that link off of the first paragraph have a "gay porn" photo as the primary photograph of the article. Also it seems like all the photos are from the same set which leads me to believe it's one person with an agenda.
421:
and I can point you to more discussions. Third, we use what we have, and you can't tell the gender of one of the people, nor can you see any genitalia. Pornographic film is pornographic film - we use what we have and is free, and they are good photos.
274:
Err, David yes I do. I just look at your contribs and get to see exactly what you are up to on wikipedia. Why would you think otherwise? Do you think your contribs are secret or what exactly inspired this strange bordering on nonsense comment. Thanks,
1010:
Tabercil, that is also a good picture but the current one shows more non-acting participants, and also doesn't have a large light in the way. I think the current one is better, and I don't think we should have to compromise on quality for this guy.
1291:
I don't believe that a picture of gay porn accurately reflects the preponderance of work filmed out there. Perhaps it could be changed. We would not have a picture of a dead cat for the article on kitties even if it were technically quite correct.
983:
I agree that the image is surprisingly non-explicit... but I'm wondering if we should have it as the top-most one. Maybe we can move it down further in the article (say to around the Sub-genres subsection) and replace it with something like
1700:
artwork, etc.) between the two. They both use the same companies to accomplish this. I know this from personal experience as well. I used to work for a web design company that had nearly half of its revenue come from the adult industry. --
1222:(there may be valid arguments about whether particular images are useful or not, but being offensive, or unsuitable for children, is not one of them, especially since the article it is used on is also unsuitable for children). Also see
294:
215:
and take some shots of a straight porn shoot, if it's bothersome to you...? Maybe Jenna Jameson will let you photograph her. Otherwise, we use what we have access to and is free, and Lucas Entertainment is a major porn company.
950:
For someone who seems so upset about supposedly indecent material, why are you reading an article entitled Pornographic film? Don't be surprised to see an image containing sexual imagery in an article that deals with porn. Read
1414:
in the case of this particular article: Rose is a journalist who is regularly published elsewhere, and I believe this part of AlterNet is subject to editorial oversight: in any case, the Guardian and AVN are definitely
1834:
1175:
You have the right not to visit Knowledge, you have the right not to read articles on pornography if you find them offensive, and you have the right to block those images on your computer. See my comments to you in
1660:
1271:
Personally I wasn't allowed even a TV in my room until I reached a certain age - I find this idea that it's now okay to let young children roam the Internet unrestricted and without supervision quite worrying...)
83:
often explicitly the target audience). But like "lesbian," "shemale" is the term they use in this insdustry, and so I assume then that it is most appropriate (for this article, not for something like
1970:
The article could really use some references and better external links, not just things like the adult film database. I'm sure good books have been written about the history of pornographic movies.
1848:
1732:
1489:. And then you have productions such as Pirates and the parodies of Axel Braun (and others) where the sex is actually secondary to the story (to the point where a number of production such as
1675:
1591:
463:
of editors. I also feel a need to add that objecting to the photographer's name (real or pseudonym) seems a bit ... petty to me. I am sorry if that is not sufficiently "content based". /
706:
Ditto. Adult film means pornographic film. Dictionaries and thesauruses I have handy all seem to agree (although it doesn't show up alot in dictionaries since it's a two-word phrase). --
1760:
1081:
specificly replace this image. He's sent a pair of images which I think will do the job; I just need to nail down the permissions before I can put them on Commons for all to review.
1741:
438:
That, David, is a content based defence, so different from all this faffing about on ANI. I never implied Shankbone was your real name, squeakBox isn't my real name either. Thanks,
926:
The image is remarkably non-explicit. No genitalia are visible, and the photographers are in the foreground, not the putative sexual activities. I think the image is quite apt.
551:
Consensus was reached above to leave the picture since it depicts the subject of the article and as far as I know, it's the only free picture we have of a pornographic film shoot.
172:
Forgive me if this sounds stupid, but why has a "citation needed" tag been added to the first sentence in the 2000s? The following sentence gives an adequate example does it not?
1977:
The first half of the first sentence is undeniable, and the second sentence is arguably true if vague, but the combined implication - that the risk of AIDS and other STDs is the
1609:
1605:
138:
Yes, I think redirects from slang terms (or to any term that's extremely different from the article title) imply that we should explain or at least mention the term. Similarly, "
1844:
408:
But why a gay pic at the top? And why one whose image name promotes David Shankbone? Botht hese questions need addressing, thes epics may be appropriate for gay porn. Thanks,
1748:
1666:
false: producers of pornographic films consistently assert "artistic merit" for their work as legal justification for it under US and other countries' free-expression laws. -
1981:
there's more anal sex in hetero movies - is quite a leap, and should either be cited as the opinion of some particular writer(s) on the subject, or removed as too much like
1811:
339:
1839:
Just let us see what we want to see stop protecting us. I am speaking for basically stop protecting me against "neutrality dispute" I means what's that come on please.
617:
1840:
805:
763:
1797:
1807:
1207:
854:
1959:
334:
1864:
1685:
Read in today's paper that the industries are bound to merge - I've come across this prediction a few times recently. Anyone have decent links on the subject?--
1061:
972:
515:
2000:
1825:
588:
552:
129:
809:
1793:
1723:
1339:
671:
646:
498:
87:). However, much of the other terminology in this article is innacurate, and some of it seems pretty non-NPOV, so I'll try to do a clean-up sometime soon.
1168:
941:
767:
582:
535:
442:
433:
343:
259:
240:
164:
1781:
227:
1473:
1406:
industry because of greater competition through lowered cost of entry, the availability of amateur content and widespread copyright infringement. See
858:
1322:
834:
791:
1923:
1090:
1027:
997:
800:
The lead image should show one or more men having sex with one or more women, as God intended. Or a lesbian scene. Please think of the children!
728:
701:
128:
I was redirected to this page from a search with the keyword "blue movie" I expected some type of explaination as to how that term has come about.--
1996:
1821:
889:
1727:
1361:
279:
1719:
1189:
1712:
1689:
1244:
475:
418:
412:
321:
1380:
1120:
743:
403:
366:. If you wish to broaden Knowledge's image library of free-use images for a certain type of content, here are some links you may find helpful:
1777:
1388:
205:
1910:
Knowledge is not censored, and it covers all topics of general interest, including pornography. Your proposals to delete this article and
1503:
1454:
710:
631:
1428:
1280:
1680:
1655:
1530:
753:
459:
I don't see any reason it should not be a gay film. If you really feel it must be Jenna Jameson or nothing, we need a free image, and a
1940:
1884:
919:
132:
1211:
955:
and you can disable images from Knowledge appearing on your computer. I'm not sure how, but someone else might be able to tell you.
236:
Looks to me like David promoting his own work here at wikipedia. I fully agree that a non-gay pic should be in the opening. Thanks,
190:
1410:
for a summary of recent developments from David Rose via AlterNet, citing the Guardian and AVN as sources. I think AlterNet is a
819:
248:- you don't have any clue about anything I do. When you get a non-gay photo of the filming of a pornographic film, use it. --
1311:
pornography shoot as the lead, right? Even though no genitals are shown, and you can barely make out the genders. It's gay.
1260:
1152:
I don't believe that you visit the porn film article, and expect non-explicit material, you simply desire non-gay material. --
1815:
1485:
produced for the purposes of arousal, there have been mainstream films with the same mandate, such as Michael Winterbottom's
801:
759:
598:
562:
91:
1801:
1495:
911:
185:
2004:
117:
1446:
1400:
1301:
1203:
850:
531:
369:
332:
I oppose the removal of Shankbone's photograph until a more representative free image of equal quality can be found. --
601:) is now removing the photo. The IP is registered in Burlington, Vermont. 65.183.142.159 is registered there as well.
1829:
1522:
1553:
1433:
1785:
1536:
1479:
1608:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
1982:
1955:
1266:
But Knowledge is not intended to be a child-friendly encyclopedia - it has adult topics. Send your children to
1054:
965:
669:
615:
580:
496:
1407:
885:
830:
787:
691:
642:
471:
399:
317:
113:
I think cliché is perhaps the wrong word here. I will attempt to find a word better suited to this section.
1756:
1223:
1950:
then. That should remove any demonic influence from pornographic films that you might possibly download.
1870:
776:
1627:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1177:
160:
The etymology of these terms may be more appropriate in a dictionary, not an encylopedia. I'm not sure.
1552:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
1494:
explicit interludes, most of which were designed not to be arousing, yet it is considered a porn film.
374:
363:
146:
with no explanation. I hate to bring this up without fixing it myself, but I probably don't have time.
38:
1951:
1045:
956:
895:
660:
606:
571:
487:
1510:
1307:
So you're problem is that it's gay, right? You're problem is that we have a big budget, mainstream
592:
556:
123:
874:
1936:
1911:
1880:
1860:
1752:
1499:
1218:
What are your children doing reading articles about pornography in the first place? Knowledge is
1180:(where I also give a link explaining how to block images, as mentioned by AgnosticPreachersKid).
915:
1612:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
1628:
1450:
1336:
1160:
1133:
1019:
933:
724:
698:
527:
512:
47:
17:
1671:
1647:
1615:
1526:
1219:
952:
1709:
1635:
1582:
1518:
1470:
1442:
1316:
1231:
If you want a Knowledge that is suitable for children, then I would recommend checking out
1199:
907:
846:
427:
253:
221:
75:
was thinking maybe 'transgender' 'pre-op' or 'gender-fuck' as alternatives. Any thoughts?
8:
1424:
985:
460:
212:
107:
1737:
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
1352:
On second thought, my one and only argument against was that most porn is not gay porn.
870:
866:
1932:
1905:
1876:
1856:
1594:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
1286:
1086:
993:
201:
69:
1634:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
1919:
1545:
1384:
1330:
1154:
1130:
1116:
1013:
927:
882:
827:
784:
720:
639:
522:
506:
468:
396:
379:
314:
306:
758:
Interesting to see gay porn as the lead image. Is wikipedia an advertising service?
1965:
1667:
1643:
1357:
1297:
1256:
175:
1705:
1701:
1695:
Depending on your perspective, its already happened. There's a good quote in the
1549:
1466:
1462:
1163:
1022:
182:
161:
114:
97:
88:
565:) is now removing the picture without giving a reason why. The picture has been
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
1420:
1276:
1240:
1185:
627:
602:
439:
409:
355:
298:
276:
237:
84:
1600:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
1765:
1082:
989:
739:
707:
245:
197:
1947:
1915:
1419:
with full editorial oversight. Can this be updated, one way or another? --
1416:
1411:
1112:
878:
823:
780:
635:
464:
392:
359:
351:
310:
302:
1835:
How do I remove those warning messages that talk about neutrality dispute?
1696:
1686:
1601:
1353:
1293:
1252:
697:
As far as I am aware, "adult film" has always meant "pornographic film."
681:
309:
and propose it here. You are welcome to add your name to the filename. /
143:
76:
391:
Until then, please do not remove David Shankbone's image. It is fine. /
106:
I expected to see "The gardener comes in for a drink of water," etc.
1272:
1236:
1181:
139:
1771:
1989:
1986:
735:
688:
383:
150:
147:
1561:
417:
First, Shankbone is not my real name, it's my User name. Second,
211:
Wow, you're quite the deductive sleuth there - why don't you call
1486:
1733:
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
1267:
1232:
1661:"usually do not claim any artistic merit, or aesthetic appeal."
873:. As for keeping "offensive" images off the "public" internet,
1567:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the
419:
the question of naming rights of files is not self-promotion
350:
Gutch: Part of Knowledge's mission is to build a library of
1973:
Also, here's a claim that is really begging for a source:
1556:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
1461:
You should probably hang out in the Forum for IAFD.com. --
295:
Image:The making of an adult film 8 by David Shankbone.JPG
362:" images, and most copyrighted images will usually be
370:
how to request free use images from copyright holders
358:-licensed images will always be preferable to other "
1742:
A young private endures a brutal Army physical 1.jpg
1126:
images does a better job then I would support it. --
305:
image that is more appropriate, please upload it to
1604:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
634:. All are encouraged to help by adding evidence. /
1772:http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:Blonde_stag_film.ogg
1747:Participate in the deletion discussion at the
1590:This message was posted before February 2018.
869:. For instructions on how to hide images, see
297:seems well-suited to me. If anyone can find a
632:Knowledge:Suspected_sock_puppets/Magustrench
1544:I have just modified one external link on
1509:
1111:So Knowledge is censored now apparently.
1875:Can someone please remove this article
14:
1708:banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy...
1469:banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy...
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
1770:how about a screen capture from this
1579:to let others know (documentation at
1178:Talk:Pornography#Inoffensive_Pictures
246:Comment on the edits, not the editors
25:
1681:Mainstream and porn film industries
754:wikipedia as special-interest shill
23:
1901:Not done and not likely to be done
24:
2015:
1548:. Please take a moment to review
1892:
29:
1562:http://bizreport.com/news/8560/
1560:Corrected formatting/usage for
1511:
1830:19:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
1690:17:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
1429:19:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
768:06:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
744:07:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
13:
1:
1948:old priest and a young priest
1946:Ah. Sounds likes you need an
1281:15:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
1268:http://schools-wikipedia.org/
1261:03:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
1245:15:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
1233:http://schools-wikipedia.org/
890:16:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
191:What's with all the gay porn?
1931:But Pornography is Demonic!
1914:are not likely to anywhere.
1786:04:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
1728:21:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
1531:08:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
1340:03:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
1323:03:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
1302:03:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
1224:Knowledge:Content disclaimer
1212:23:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
859:23:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
7:
1865:11:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
1849:11:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
1676:15:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
1504:14:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
904:Please, remove the image.
835:13:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
810:04:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
792:13:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
777:Knowledge:Assume good faith
692:17:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
10:
2020:
1992:June 30, 2005 21:48 (UTC)
1924:13:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
1885:10:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
1761:01:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
1621:(last update: 5 June 2024)
1541:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
1455:17:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
1401:Still a thriving industry?
1389:03:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
1362:15:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
1139:09:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
375:Knowledge:Image use policy
153:17:36, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
104:Pornographic movie cliches
1816:11:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
1713:10:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
1656:22:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
1474:11:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
1190:09:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
1169:05:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
1121:13:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
1091:12:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
1062:06:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
1028:05:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
998:02:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
973:01:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
942:00:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
920:00:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
711:20:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
702:20:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
672:09:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
647:09:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
618:07:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
583:01:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
186:00:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
165:02:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
133:06:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
118:02:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
92:02:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
2005:22:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
1802:11:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
1434:Missing some information
729:07:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
536:22:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
516:06:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
499:02:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
476:01:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
443:19:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
434:18:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
413:18:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
404:18:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
344:18:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
322:18:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
280:18:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
260:17:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
241:17:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
228:19:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
206:18:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
1960:19:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
1941:18:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
1912:Pornographic film actor
1537:External links modified
1480:Merging with mainstream
18:Talk:Pornographic film
42:of past discussions.
1952:Symmachus Auxiliarus
1602:regular verification
986:Image:Porn Set 5.jpg
871:Talk:Muhammad/FAQ#Q4
867:Talk:Muhammad/FAQ#Q8
1871:Remove this article
1841:Anonymous Mayekisoh
1592:After February 2018
1571:parameter below to
875:good luck with that
820:previous discussion
630:report is filed at
213:Vivid Entertainment
1753:Community Tech bot
1597:InternetArchiveBot
1983:original research
1808:Hshajebsodhzosjzj
1654:
1622:
1546:Pornographic film
1533:
1521:comment added by
1512:www.sex video.com
1445:comment added by
1202:comment added by
1167:
1026:
922:
910:comment added by
896:No graphic images
888:
849:comment added by
833:
790:
699:Arundhati lejeune
645:
534:
474:
402:
380:Wikimedia Commons
320:
67:
66:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
2011:
1909:
1899:
1896:
1895:
1650:
1649:Talk to my owner
1645:
1620:
1619:
1598:
1586:
1516:
1515:
1513:
1457:
1334:
1319:
1314:
1214:
1158:
1137:
1059:
1051:
1044:I agree Carbon.
1017:
970:
962:
938:
937:
930:
905:
881:
861:
826:
783:
719:Adult = puerile
666:
638:
612:
577:
525:
510:
493:
467:
430:
425:
395:
364:deleted outright
335:AnotherSolipsist
313:
256:
251:
224:
219:
124:Explaining slang
63:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
2019:
2018:
2014:
2013:
2012:
2010:
2009:
2008:
1968:
1903:
1897:
1893:
1873:
1837:
1804:
1768:
1749:nomination page
1735:
1683:
1663:
1653:
1648:
1613:
1606:have permission
1596:
1580:
1554:this simple FaQ
1539:
1482:
1440:
1436:
1403:
1332:
1317:
1312:
1289:
1197:
1138:
1128:
1057:like a lollipop
1055:
1047:
968:like a lollipop
966:
958:
935:
934:
928:
898:
844:
756:
684:
662:
608:
573:
508:
489:
428:
423:
254:
249:
222:
217:
193:
178:
142:" redirects to
126:
100:
72:
59:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2017:
1967:
1964:
1963:
1962:
1929:
1928:
1927:
1926:
1872:
1869:
1868:
1867:
1836:
1833:
1792:
1767:
1764:
1745:
1744:
1734:
1731:
1716:
1715:
1682:
1679:
1668:Jason A. Quest
1662:
1659:
1646:
1640:
1639:
1632:
1565:
1564:
1538:
1535:
1481:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1435:
1432:
1402:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1345:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1288:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1248:
1247:
1228:
1227:
1220:WP:NOTCENSORED
1193:
1192:
1172:
1171:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1127:
1123:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
978:
977:
976:
975:
953:WP:NOTCENSORED
945:
944:
897:
894:
893:
892:
840:
839:
838:
837:
813:
812:
802:71.182.179.188
797:
796:
795:
794:
760:208.111.233.85
755:
752:
751:
750:
749:
748:
747:
746:
714:
713:
704:
683:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
652:
651:
650:
649:
621:
620:
589:132.198.101.63
553:65.183.142.159
549:
548:
547:
546:
545:
544:
543:
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
452:
451:
450:
449:
448:
447:
446:
445:
389:
388:
387:
377:
372:
347:
346:
329:
328:
327:
326:
325:
324:
287:
286:
285:
284:
283:
282:
267:
266:
265:
264:
263:
262:
231:
230:
192:
189:
177:
174:
170:
169:
168:
167:
155:
154:
130:63.196.199.219
125:
122:
121:
120:
108:Koyaanis Qatsi
99:
96:
95:
94:
85:Transsexualism
71:
68:
65:
64:
52:
51:
34:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2016:
2007:
2006:
2002:
1998:
1993:
1991:
1987:
1984:
1980:
1976:
1971:
1961:
1957:
1953:
1949:
1945:
1944:
1943:
1942:
1938:
1934:
1933:Kitsotshipa23
1925:
1921:
1917:
1913:
1907:
1906:Kitsotshipa23
1902:
1891:
1890:
1889:
1888:
1887:
1886:
1882:
1878:
1877:Kitsotshipa23
1866:
1862:
1858:
1857:Larry Hockett
1853:
1852:
1851:
1850:
1846:
1842:
1832:
1831:
1827:
1823:
1818:
1817:
1813:
1809:
1803:
1799:
1795:
1794:Molefi Mohapi
1791:
1788:
1787:
1783:
1779:
1774:
1773:
1763:
1762:
1758:
1754:
1750:
1743:
1740:
1739:
1738:
1730:
1729:
1725:
1721:
1714:
1711:
1707:
1703:
1698:
1694:
1693:
1692:
1691:
1688:
1678:
1677:
1673:
1669:
1658:
1657:
1651:
1644:
1637:
1633:
1630:
1626:
1625:
1624:
1617:
1611:
1607:
1603:
1599:
1593:
1588:
1584:
1578:
1574:
1570:
1563:
1559:
1558:
1557:
1555:
1551:
1547:
1542:
1534:
1532:
1528:
1524:
1520:
1514:
1506:
1505:
1501:
1497:
1496:68.146.52.234
1492:
1491:Star Wars XXX
1488:
1475:
1472:
1468:
1464:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1456:
1452:
1448:
1444:
1431:
1430:
1426:
1422:
1418:
1413:
1409:
1390:
1386:
1382:
1377:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1363:
1359:
1355:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1346:
1341:
1338:
1337:
1335:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1321:
1320:
1310:
1306:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1299:
1295:
1282:
1278:
1274:
1269:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1258:
1254:
1246:
1242:
1238:
1234:
1230:
1229:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1213:
1209:
1205:
1201:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1179:
1174:
1173:
1170:
1165:
1162:
1157:
1156:
1155:Carbon Rodney
1151:
1150:
1136:
1135:
1132:
1124:
1122:
1118:
1114:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1092:
1088:
1084:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1063:
1060:
1058:
1053:
1052:
1050:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1029:
1024:
1021:
1016:
1015:
1014:Carbon Rodney
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
999:
995:
991:
987:
982:
981:
980:
979:
974:
971:
969:
964:
963:
961:
954:
949:
948:
947:
946:
943:
939:
931:
925:
924:
923:
921:
917:
913:
912:38.119.98.197
909:
902:
891:
887:
884:
880:
876:
872:
868:
864:
863:
862:
860:
856:
852:
848:
836:
832:
829:
825:
821:
817:
816:
815:
814:
811:
807:
803:
799:
798:
793:
789:
786:
782:
778:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
769:
765:
761:
745:
741:
737:
732:
731:
730:
726:
722:
718:
717:
716:
715:
712:
709:
705:
703:
700:
696:
695:
694:
693:
690:
673:
670:
668:
667:
665:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
648:
644:
641:
637:
633:
629:
628:sock puppetry
625:
624:
623:
622:
619:
616:
614:
613:
611:
604:
600:
597:
594:
590:
587:
586:
585:
584:
581:
579:
578:
576:
568:
564:
561:
558:
554:
537:
533:
529:
524:
519:
518:
517:
514:
513:
511:
502:
501:
500:
497:
495:
494:
492:
484:
479:
478:
477:
473:
470:
466:
462:
458:
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
444:
441:
437:
436:
435:
432:
431:
420:
416:
415:
414:
411:
407:
406:
405:
401:
398:
394:
390:
386:image library
385:
381:
378:
376:
373:
371:
368:
367:
365:
361:
357:
353:
349:
348:
345:
341:
337:
336:
331:
330:
323:
319:
316:
312:
308:
304:
300:
296:
293:
292:
291:
290:
289:
288:
281:
278:
273:
272:
271:
270:
269:
268:
261:
258:
257:
247:
244:
243:
242:
239:
235:
234:
233:
232:
229:
226:
225:
214:
210:
209:
208:
207:
203:
199:
188:
187:
184:
173:
166:
163:
159:
158:
157:
156:
152:
148:
145:
141:
137:
136:
135:
134:
131:
119:
116:
112:
111:
110:
109:
105:
93:
90:
86:
81:
80:
79:
78:
62:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
1994:
1978:
1974:
1972:
1969:
1930:
1900:
1874:
1838:
1819:
1805:
1789:
1775:
1769:
1746:
1736:
1717:
1704:- Just your
1684:
1664:
1641:
1616:source check
1595:
1589:
1576:
1572:
1568:
1566:
1543:
1540:
1517:— Preceding
1507:
1490:
1483:
1465:- Just your
1447:72.187.99.79
1437:
1404:
1329:
1315:
1308:
1290:
1249:
1204:80.51.10.181
1194:
1153:
1129:
1056:
1048:
1046:
1012:
967:
959:
957:
929:siℓℓy rabbit
903:
899:
851:80.51.10.181
841:
757:
721:Peter Damian
685:
663:
661:
609:
607:
595:
574:
572:
566:
559:
550:
523:Bigtimepeace
505:
490:
488:
482:
461:WP:CONSENSUS
426:
352:free content
333:
301:-compatible
252:
220:
194:
179:
171:
127:
103:
101:
73:
60:
43:
37:
1697:porn parody
1583:Sourcecheck
1523:49.126.0.46
1441:—Preceding
1253:User:Korubi
1198:—Preceding
1164:but be nice
1023:but be nice
906:—Preceding
845:—Preceding
659:Thank you.
603:Coincidence
483:sniff sniff
144:Pornography
36:This is an
1702:Scalhotrod
1463:Scalhotrod
1287:Lead image
567:constantly
354:media, so
183:149.43.x.x
162:149.43.x.x
115:149.43.x.x
102:Hm, under
89:149.43.x.x
70:Sub-genres
1997:Pappas 28
1916:• Gene93k
1822:Thylacost
1636:this tool
1629:this tool
1421:The Anome
1318:Shankbone
440:SqueakBox
429:Shankbone
410:SqueakBox
277:SqueakBox
255:Shankbone
238:SqueakBox
223:Shankbone
140:Stag film
61:Archive 1
1966:Sourcing
1790:I agree
1776:I agree
1720:Weryurry
1642:Cheers.—
1519:unsigned
1443:unsigned
1333:itsJamie
1200:unsigned
1083:Tabercil
990:Tabercil
908:unsigned
847:unsigned
708:Cheeser1
599:contribs
563:contribs
532:contribs
509:itsJamie
384:free use
360:fair-use
198:Gutch220
176:Clean-up
1706:average
1652::Online
1569:checked
1550:my edit
1487:9 Songs
1467:average
1381:Acannas
1113:Garda40
605:maybe?
307:Commons
98:Cliches
39:archive
1979:reason
1778:Ettsow
1710:(Talk)
1687:Shtove
1577:failed
1471:(Talk)
1354:Vranak
1294:Vranak
1134:Rodney
1131:Carbon
77:Sylvea
1995:Sure
1766:Image
1718:Wert
1417:WP:RS
1412:WP:RS
1313:David
424:David
250:David
218:David
16:<
2001:talk
1956:talk
1937:talk
1920:talk
1881:talk
1861:Talk
1845:talk
1826:talk
1820:Yes
1812:talk
1806:Yes
1798:talk
1782:talk
1757:talk
1724:talk
1672:talk
1573:true
1527:talk
1500:talk
1451:talk
1425:talk
1408:here
1385:talk
1358:talk
1331:OhNo
1298:talk
1277:talk
1273:Mdwh
1257:talk
1241:talk
1237:Mdwh
1208:talk
1186:talk
1182:Mdwh
1161:Talk
1117:talk
1087:talk
1020:Talk
994:talk
936:talk
916:talk
877:. /
865:See
855:talk
822:. /
818:See
806:talk
779:. /
775:See
764:talk
740:talk
725:talk
593:talk
557:talk
528:talk
507:OhNo
356:GFDL
340:talk
303:free
299:GFDL
202:talk
1990:Hob
1751:. —
1610:RfC
1587:).
1575:or
1508:se
1309:gay
1049:APK
960:APK
879:edg
824:edg
781:edg
736:Esn
689:Esn
682:Ugh
664:APK
636:edg
610:APK
575:APK
530:|
491:APK
465:edg
393:edg
311:edg
151:Hob
2003:)
1985:.
1958:)
1939:)
1922:)
1883:)
1863:)
1847:)
1828:)
1814:)
1800:)
1784:)
1759:)
1726:)
1674:)
1623:.
1618:}}
1614:{{
1585:}}
1581:{{
1529:)
1502:)
1453:)
1427:)
1387:)
1360:)
1300:)
1279:)
1259:)
1243:)
1235:.
1210:)
1188:)
1119:)
1089:)
1011:--
996:)
988:?
940:)
918:)
857:)
808:)
766:)
742:)
727:)
626:A
526:|
422:--
382:–
342:)
216:--
204:)
1999:(
1988:←
1954:(
1935:(
1918:(
1908::
1904:@
1898:N
1879:(
1859:(
1843:(
1824:(
1810:(
1796:(
1780:(
1755:(
1722:(
1670:(
1638:.
1631:.
1525:(
1498:(
1449:(
1423:(
1383:(
1356:(
1296:(
1275:(
1255:(
1239:(
1226:.
1206:(
1184:(
1166:)
1159:(
1115:(
1085:(
1025:)
1018:(
992:(
932:(
914:(
886:☭
883:☺
853:(
831:☭
828:☺
804:(
788:☭
785:☺
762:(
738:(
723:(
643:☭
640:☺
596:·
591:(
560:·
555:(
472:☭
469:☺
400:☭
397:☺
338:(
318:☭
315:☺
200:(
149:←
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.