[Foundation-l] Is random article truly random

[Andreas K.]

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Thomas Morton <morton.thomas at googlemail.com
> wrote:

> >
> > That there is a pornography project would be empirical evidence to the
> > contrary. That a random page load can load pages with CBT images, genital
> > piercings, or ejaculate leaking from or flowing over various body parts
> is
> > also problematic.
> >
> >
> Well, strictly speaking that isn't pornography - because the intent behind
> the images is not to arouse, but to inform.
>
> I realise that is being pedantic in definition - but it is important,
> because if an image on an article is genuinely "pornography" in the
> strictest sense, then it should be removed as un-encyclopaedic :)
>
> All of the images that might be problematic should have educational
> validity.
>
> Tom
>



Well, here is one of those edge cases. The article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Good_Old_Naughty_Days contains an embedded
pornographic short film, which is "genuinely pornography in its strictest
sense". Made for showing in brothels, it is old (1920s), black and white,
but does feature spanking, cunnilingus, masturbation, fellatio, and
penetration.

The same video is embedded in
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polissons_et_galipettes

Another similar example is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convent_pornography –
this includes an embedded video, also from the 1920s, featuring cunnilingus,
fellatio, and anal as well as vaginal penetration.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornografie includes the same video.

I wouldn't say that these videos (part of a cinema release of old porn
videos a few years ago) do not have educational validity, but it is worth
noting that their propagation via the internet – without access protection
via an age verification system – is a criminal offence in Germany, and that
this content would be illegal on a German server under German youth
protection law, according to the German Federal Department for Media Harmful
to Young Persons* *(Bundesprüfstelle):

http://www.bundespruefstelle.de/bpjm/information-in-english,did=33902,render=renderPrint.html

Looking at intent to arouse vs. intent to inform, 26 out of 28 images used
to illustrate the articles listed in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Bondage_positions show women. It's a
striking gender imbalance that seems more reflective of male pornographic
interest than actual gender-specific preferences.

Andreas