[WikiEN-l] So, why do we provide porn?

Wily D wilydoppelganger at gmail.com
Wed Feb 27 18:05:08 UTC 2008

On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 7:26 PM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/27/08, Wily D <wilydoppelganger at gmail.com> wrote:
>  > Why is this discussion so long?  We provide porn so people can learn
>  >  about sex & the like.  We provide images of women masterbating so
>  >  people can learn about ... women masterbating.  Doesn't seem like
>  >  there's really tons to discuss.
>  Here's something to discuss:
>  a) Do you think an amateur photo is necessary to explain the concept
>  of "woman masturbating"?
>  b) How many images do you think is enough?
>  c) Are there any limits to how far your logic should be applied?
>  Should we provide graphic images of felching, squicking, or for that
>  matter, decapitating?
>  Steve

a)Err, obviously professional is preferable to amatuer.  But uh ...
back when I was a ten year old boy, such material was highly
instructive, and fairly difficult to obtain.  It's very easy to say
"Oh, you don't need a picture to explain it" when you already
understand it, but very basic educational research shows you explain
things better and people retain more with instructive diagrams,
photos, videos and the like.  But, quite frankly, to explain the
subject to someone with no experience with it whatsoever, yes,
photographs are helpful.
b)Err, depends on a variety of factors - in all honesty, I'm not sure
a specific number is really called for. Commons has no reason to
delete media unless it's repetitive or useless.  A Wikipedia article
obvious has some called for quantity, but I'm not sure how many - I
doubt more than a couple (note that in Canadian English, this could
mean 3 or 4) - depends on the length and depth of the article -
obviously as it gets better, the more that are called for.  Of course,
such images would almost certainly be freely licensed (seems unlikely
any appropriate fair use ones would exist) and such images should be
on commons, which also supports other projects - a textbook at
Wikiversity on human sexual practices might easily call for a dozen
such images.
c) I'm sure there are actually images of decapitating around, and I'll
be they're instructive too. Seeing a decapitated body is different
from hearing about it.  We have photos of bodies hanged at lynchings,
and they sure convey to me a lot I didn't get from the text, lynchings
being so far removed from my experiences.  Beyond this - there
probably are limits, but where exactly they lie I'm not sure - where
the "disruptive anti-value" of such images exceeds their educational
value.  While this is clearly not the case for a woman masterbating,
I'm not sure exactly where it is.


More information about the WikiEN-l mailing list