Pornography/Talk

This page is for discussing the contents of Pornography.

This page is unnecessary. I propose it be deleted. —DonShor

• I applaud your deletion of the pornography entry more so than the deletion of "Fast and Sleazy" which is a widely recognized nickname in town and also recognized on the business' entry on the wiki. It's fine to have a difference of opinion, and I actually do respect your opinion, believe it or not. I'm sorry that if when I called you a "prude" it was an inaccurate statement. I gave my reason for reverting clearly and you said "sigh", which in my opinion, gave me free reign to interpret your actions. Explaining one's opinion generally helps things in this medium. —ScottMeehleib
  

• Quoting the front page, "This project is an interconnected community effort to explore, discuss and compile anything and everything about Davis—especially the little, enjoyable things." While this isn't policy, it does represent the spirit under which this project commenced. Perhaps some pages are unnecessary (FooBar's story¹ comes to mind). I'm not seeing how this page would be unnecessary, though. It documents some *ahem* interesting things student government has done, for example. It also talks about some controversial stuff a UCD professor has done. These are little, enjoyable tidbits about the community of Davis that makes life in Davis a little crazy. —WilliamLewis
  

• I agree. Regardless of one's personal feelings regarding porno, it's difficult to rationally support the deletion of something that is relevant to the town and widely known to exist. Although some may call this the People's Republic of Davis, I resist the efforts to make this a Western Mini-China where factual data is suppressed. -SM
  

I don't know that the businesses listed wish to be considered purveyors of pornography. It is highly subjective as to whether they sell pornography or erotica, and I haven't exactly done any surveys of the stores as to what has caused them to be listed here. Playing games with their names just makes it worse. —DonShor

For what it's worth, the Fast & Easy down at 2nd & B is widely known by that nickname. I've had multiple friends from out of town suggest "The Sleazy" as a downtown meeting place when they get into town. It doesn't make it a fair name, but it is pretty well established. As for the pornography page, I'd say that in terms of the wiki, the listing should be more in terms of what users can expect to find than how the provider would define it. If details about which places have erotica vs. pornography (I'm not sure what the difference is, beyond objections to a label) can be added, so much the better. But if someone comes to the wiki wanting to use it to find pornography in Davis, I think that having a page with that information is a part of what this resource is about. —TomGarberson


Is there a specific case you're thinking of? I'm not 100% sure where you're coming from, so I'm having a hard time understanding what you're getting at. Perhaps saying that the following places sell sexually explicit material, or possibly clarifying exactly the product they carry (magazines, etc)? If it is legitimately part of their business, it would make sense that they want people looking for it to patronize them. As far as the name, I have no idea how common it is, but I just asked Sarah what it's called and she said "Fast and Sleazy". I wouldn't, but then, I am somewhat of a prude in certain ways. Or at least I would be uncomfortable with using the term — then again, I don't casually use profanity either (outside Rocky Horror, at any rate) or kiss in public. Thus I'm probably a bad source. -jw


Yet again, you're proposing we adhere to some standard of what the people who run these businesses would want us to write. This is a dangerous idea that would keep things like Acadian Properties off the wiki. When it comes to statements of fact, a good criteria would be twofold. Is it true? Is it relevant to the community? If a business doesn't wish to be known as a purveyor of pornography (and I note this is purely a theoretical concern at this point), they shouldn't sell it. —WilliamLewis


There are valid issues being raised here: terminology, respect, factual correctness and the danger of inventing derogatory nicknames for the wiki. I believe that all have been addressed, but Don's concern is certainly valid, and that's why I'm asking if there's a specific case where they haven't been addressed. I would say that anybody who sells one of the big three (Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler) would qualify, as would anybody who sold videos from a media label that specializes in adult films (Vivid, etc). As a disclaimer, I do have an issue with the entry and a fix in mind, but it would require a fairly hefty rewrite and change of presentation to fix, so I'm waiting for somebody else to press the same issue. Don is a part of "we", so his concerns are our concerns. -jw


I suggest retitling it Erotica, and removing the Where To Find It section. -DS


I'm not really sure I understand why. Would you mind explaining why erotica is more accurate (or otherwise preferable) than pornography? And should the wiki not have any resource for people who want to figure out where to find it—whatever it's called—in Davis? —tg?


Erotica has a wider definition. For example, I have no reason to believe Newsbeat carries pornography. But they might carry erotica. Some people think the magazines JW listed are pornography; others might disagree about, say, Playboy. If someone wants to keep the listings updated as to who carries it, fine. But otherwise the list is kind of pointless and invites juvenile humor. — DS


Bingo. That's my issue as well, although my biggest objection is with labeling the content later in the entry all as pornography. My idea for a rewrite is to phrase this as adult rather than pornography, which would better cover all aspects of publishing with an aspect of sexual content. I'd personally disagree with Playboy being strictly pornography, but I would call it an adult magazine. I have a collection of issues of Playboy with great science fiction (authors like Philip Jose Farmer, Ray Bradbury, Ursula Le Guin, and Joe Haldeman) that sits next to my SF pulps. Libido Magazine (rest in peace) was a good example of a highly explicit magazine that was not pornography, per se, but certainly had adult content. It would also much better cover things like Darrell Hamamoto's films, which seem to have a serious point other than sexual gratification, but are sexually explicit. I do think that a list of where to find adult publications — including purely salacious ones — in Davis is reasonable, as it is something that is provided by local merchants and sought out by local customers. I would hope that it could be treated with the same level of industry and care that, say, a list of Pizza places does. There's no reason to be childish about the subject. I heartily support creative and witty writing on the wiki, but I'd say that neither applies to most of the cheap shot gag edits. -jw


I can't believe I'm making a comment about this of all things. I agree with Tom. I don't like it either, but my personal opinion aside the simple fact is that it's in davis, stores sell it, it's legal to sell to people over 18. While I don't think that the page should be featured on the site, it feels like it goes against wiki ethics to delete it. I say, of you don't like the page, don't look at it. — jsbmeb


I believe there's a more subtle point being made in relation to the classification and the treatment of the content rather than the nature. I think you and a few others might be arguing against a non-existent position (unless I mistake Don's intent). -jw

As a fan of erotica as an art-form and detesting pornography, I tend to believe the page should be left as is. Each and every shop, without exception, here in Davis that sells some form of erotica also sells pornography (images, videos, and written text portraying sexual activity). The most clearly drawn line between the two is the fact that erotica is more about the portrayal of sensuality whereas pornography is about the act of sexual activity. For example, an image of a woman in a lingerie set would be erotica, but the same woman engaged in either auto-sexual activity or sexual activity with a partner would be deemed pornography. — Wes

• There also appears to be political speech in there, in the form of a racially pointed series of movies. I'm not sure that best fits under the title "pornography". Nor does a genderqueer activist making a speech really fit, although the discussion being about pornography in the Bay Area and racial and gender issues does put it close enough to fit a slightly wider term. The focus on the list of businesses to use as a single point to define the entry confuses me... the bulk of the content is not the list of businesses. -jw
  

Would a rename to "Pornography and Erotica" resolve things? Are they sufficiently closely related that fixing the terminology would do the trick? —tg

• Seems good to me. A few here are trying to make the point that erotica is something quite different than porn though. I understand their point of view, but I would argue that the vast majority of people use porn and erotica interchangeably. For example, Hamamoto has referred to his work as both erotica and porn. P.S. I have never actually witnessed people outside of Davis Wiki or the porn industry use the term "erotica." Generally when the vast majority of Americans are going to wank to something, no matter how classy or meaningful it is, they call it a porno. —ScottMeehleib
  

• That would be part of the distinction. What do you call sexual subject matter that is clearly *not* intended to "wank to"? -jw
  

• Sexual subject matter that is not commonly wanked to, I would call a "drama." For example if a Jew gets raped by a Nazi in Schindler's List, it's quite different than Hamamoto's film with a 70s porn groove and a "money shot." -SM
  

I've been staying out of this, in part because I'm not sure of what the issue is, and in part because I'm not sure what to say. But here are some thoughts. One, part of the problem seems to be that no one (myself included) seems to want to do the hard work of visiting these businesses and seeing what they do, and do not, sell. (I would not rely on asking the person who answers the phone to categorize their stuff as "pornography" or "erotica"). Without that information, it seems virtually impossible to settle the issues raised here. Two, there is a difference between pornography and erotica, although there may be some instances that are borderline. Three, some people are definitely seeking pornography rather than erotica, and vice versa; this has implications for how the page is named, or at least organized. —CovertProfessor

That's a very good point... I'm still not 100% sure I understand what the issue is. To those with concerns about the page: what's the problem with the page and what are some ideas for fixing it? Let's see if we can't focus on resolving content rather than having this turn into another interminable talk page. —tg


This is a grey question of morality and values that can never really be solved. For example, there are some who view erotica and porn as deserving separateness. In my worldview, erotica is just porn with some high-brow shit added to it. For example, Hamamoto talks about all the 'meaning' he imbued in his film, but he also talks about the 70's porn-groove music and his "money shot" in interviews. This sort of thing can never be resolved in a satifactory matter. That's life! To quote Don Shor: "sigh." ;) But I do think, if we all try to look objectively, Tommy Garberson came up with the best possible compromise. —ScottMeehleib


Let's leave morality out of this for now. Without saying that one is more ethical than the other, I can tell you, for a fact, that there are people who interested in one but not the other. That at least suggests that we need to be clear about which is which on the page, if not to have separate pages. So, while I like the spirit of TG's compromise in terms of making wiki editors happy, I am not sure that it is the best thing in terms of usability for the wiki. —cp


• I really don't think you can leave morality out of it, unfortunately! Especially since, at least historically, the label "pornography" has also implicated a moral judgment. If you want to try to address each item and say something like "some people view Hamamoto's work as porn and some view it as erotica or a mixture", then I think that's the best one can do without outright following Tom's suggestion. I have no real dog in this fight because I find the whole thing rather silly (but mildly interesting). It started as Han and (drunken) I making a few silly comments that were only vaguely related to the matter at hand, and yet it led to this. Mr. Shor, with his distaste of juvenile antics, didn't get his way over a harmless comment and then he decided to delete the whole page! So here we are speculating about some drama that would would have never surfaced if Don had his way. -SM
  

• I dunno, I thought Wes gave pretty good definitions of the two that left out the moral component, with JW's elaborations to be added (to the extent that I understood them, which I didn't fully). I have no dog in this fight either. I would never let my dog star in a porn film or an erotic film. —cp
  

• I went back and reread how Wes defines them. I guess it's fair to separate them by category, but I don't think we can have totally separate pages. My reasoning is that most people would think of the two categories as being softcore and hardcore porn. There is also a type of porn called non-nude (NN), and I suppose that's what the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue would be considered. I don't know how erotica would fit into all that though because I'm not familiar enough with how the term is usually applied, but I'm guessing it's a lot more subjective. -SM
  

OK, so another proposal: if the distinction needs to be made, why doesn't someone who cares about it go ahead and make it (i.e. write it up)? Of course, we could always continue to talk it to death. —tg

• As I said above, I personally wanted to make sure that it was something that other people cared about before modifying it. I try not to nitpick the wiki and instead let many things pass by so as to let other people's structure and views sit out there. -jw
  

• As I said before, I think someone has to do the footwork in order to sort out the list of businesses on this page, which seems to be the controversial part. (must... not... make... snarky... remark). As you said, someone who cares about this issue. I don't count myself among those. —cp