Talk:Ejaculation/Archives/2008/July

Porn disguised as education ?
In the Pornography section there is no example of pornography, yet there is a loophole ? It seems possible to put anything pornographic under any sexual act and/or image eg. Vagina, ejaculation etc. It seems there are two laws at work here, while wikipedia may wish to inform and debate, it also appears to be a vehicle for pornographic voyeurism (illegal in the UK) since there is not one but five separate explicit images of ejaculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.59.97 (talk • contribs)


 * 1) This is not the page for discussing changes to the article on pornography. This is the page for discussing changes to the article on ejaculation.  If you want to make or change a policy which covers both, there are places to do that as well, and none of them are here.  2) You appear to believe that photographs of vaginas, ejaculation, etc., must necessarily be pornographic; this is clearly not the meaning understood by everyone else.  3) What do you mean by "pornographic voyeurism", under what laws is it illegal in the UK, and what does this have to do with Wikipedia?  4) Please sign your edits using ~ so we know who you are.  Thanks.  The Wednesday Island (talk) 14:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Vaginas may or may not be considered pornographic, but fluid emissions from reproductive organs are almost always considered pornographic in the legal world. Also, UK law does not matter, the servers are located in Florida, so those laws apply.68.60.53.141 (talk) 23:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Official policy (WP:NOTCENSORED) is that pages may contain offensive text or images if those are relevant to the subject being documented. If you don't like that policy, raise your objection on the policy's talk page, and when you have succeeded in changing it, come back here and we'll change the article accordingly.  Until that time, please stop asking us to change things because of the law: it is simply irrelevant.  Such matters either concern the whole of Wikipedia or none of it, and therefore should be handled at a policy level and not here.  If you are trying to convince people to change the policy, you might come up with a statement less vague than "fluid emissions from reproductive organs are almost always considered pornography in the legal world" (do you have any case law citations? specific acts?).  In any case, this is not the place to discuss it. The Wednesday Island (talk) 23:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)