Talk:Pornography

Contextualizing WP, at least

If we are to bring over content from WP and contextualize it, as with Lady Gaga, we are going to have to have solid baselines for context. This article only starts a complex topic. --Howard C. Berkowitz 03:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Visual and other arts

But what about aural sex? Howard C. Berkowitz 22:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The Music Workgroup. Hayford Peirce 23:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Not Theater? This is a good example of where three workgroups are not enough. Hmmm...if we started a Pornography Subgroup, just to be interdisciplinary, do you think that would attract interest? Of course, we don't necessarily have Editors for all the relevant groups. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The whole Subgroup topic is a mystery to me. But since there are only about a dozen of us working these days, I don't think we need Subgroups to attract our attention.... Hayford Peirce 00:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think in the future we should also add stuffs from ancient India (i.e. temple sculptures depicting the 1,000 yrs of continuous sex by 2 Hindu gods) and other places too. Something to keep in mind. (Chunbum Park 00:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC))

1000 years? That isn't "do you smoke after sex?" but "during". Seriously, that's yet another question that the family-friendly policy did not address. Things that are legitimate religious objects to an Eastern religion could be offensive to a conservative Christian. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It may be 1 million years actually. (Chunbum Park 00:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC))

Family friendly

To be serious for once. I just took a look at the Charter draft and did a search. No "family" turns up, nor does "friendly". Does this mean that the Charterists have decided to deep-six this thing, or is it just in abeyance for other people to figure out later on? Hayford Peirce 00:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)