Talk:Gay pornography/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

The article does not mention cartoons!

This article contains no mention at all of gay pornographic cartoons - a serious omission (there is a mention of Tom of Finland's drawings, but it's much too brief). Could someone please add something about this? Skoojal (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Gaping-Butthole.png

The image Image:Gaping-Butthole.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

The link to Jerry Douglas is wrong

The one that is linked is a musician, not a porn director, they are nor the same... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.160.18.4 (talk) 12:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Much of this content is taken directly from my chapter in Sex for Sale. I'm not a sophisticated Wiki user, but I believe that the similarities are extensive enough that this article could be considered to be largely plagiarized. Because I don't know much about Wikis, I can't fix it myself. I believe that several paragraphs should have footnotes at the end indicating that all of the preceding content came from me. Thank you. Joe Thomas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.218.211.246 (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Current image

The two... males in the current image are exceptionally young-looking. Isn't there a more suitable image? Exploding Boy (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Not many although early porn bits may be fair usable. -- Banjeboi 08:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I'd be shocked to find out these two were over 18 at the time of the photo. Perhaps some of the photos of individual actors would work? Exploding Boy (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...I can star in one and take a picture? Individual actors don't really portray a porno, they are just porno stars CTJF83Talk 21:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Since the image (File:IntimateMales.jpg) isn't clearly pornographic, the age of the subject's isn't necessarily a legal matter. But since it isn't clearly pornographic it may not be the best illustration. Furthermore, the photos are from a closed account on Flickr, so the actual copyright status is in a grey area. Didn't Shankbone have a lot of pictures of a porn movie being made? One of those may be a better replacement.   Will Beback  talk  21:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, what is that directors name whose page had the images? CTJF83Talk 22:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I already added one of Shankbone's but I would prefer with two or more folks rather than solo shots. Also some appropriate historical ones may work. I suppose I could check my repositorium to see if any of the dust covered bits may help. -- Banjeboi 01:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

My reading of the problem is that all of the three conditions below have to be met before we can include this picture here:

• the models have to be clearly over 18
• the picture has to be pornographic, and
• there has to be clear copyright permission

Since none of the conditions are clearly met, I'm removing the photo again. I'm not making a legal threat here, but I do note that there is a legal question are severe legal penalties are involved. Smallbones (talk) 04:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll also add from Commons Commons:Photographs of identifiable people "In each case, of an identifiable individual with no consent given, ...

Normally not OK ... Nudes, underwear or swimsuit shots, unless obviously taken in a public place (unreasonable intrusion without consent)" Smallbones (talk) 05:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Gay Amateur porn

need section on amateur porn including perhaps a mention of Randy Blue or other well-known sites for this. -- Banjeboi 04:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move was no move, SNOW close. And personally, I think this is just being politically correct for the sake of it; I've heard of the term "same-sex marriage", but not "same-sex pornography". Sceptre ^(talk) 18:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Gay pornography → Same-sex pornography — I think the word "gay" is a disservice to bisexual porn actors, especially those who mainly participated in same-sex pornography as well as other types of pornography. Feel free to speak your opinions. Gh87 (talk) 23:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose — First, the term "Gay pornography" seems to be consistent and very well supported throughout the article text and the references that are cited. Second, the reason given for the move is the reason that the article Bisexual pornography actually exists.
  — V = I * R (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - Ridiculous, gay porn is a quite distinct industry as is lesbian porn, any merge would quickly be unspun as detrimental to both. Gay porn is the defacto terminology and exactly where those expecting this information would look for it. -- Banjeboi 02:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I went to lesbian pornography and found out it is redirected to Lesbianism in erotica#Lesbianism in contemporary pornography. Since "same-sex pornography" is too vague, I will re-establish it into "Same-sex male pornography"... if that's not too specific for everybody, especially with that redirected page I previously mentioned. If expansion of "lesbian pornography" is necessary, then renaming and moving to another name would be more pointless. --Gh87 (talk) 05:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

  I'm not sure of, and honestly don't care about, the motivations that may be driving this movereq, but the fact is that WP:COMMONNAME easily applies to the current title. No matter what you suggest for this article it's fairly certain that it will see significant opposition based on the references and the content of the article itself. If there's a related issue with a different article (lesbian pornography?), then that should either be addressed there, or a multiple page movereq could be made. Consistency within a category of similar articles is nice, but is not necessarily required.
  — V = I * R (talk) 05:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - As for Ohms law's (Ω) reply, participating in Bisexual pornography is different from "gay (same-sex) pornography". And "gay" could have many definitions and be assumed as "homosexual" or "same-sex", yet it is more likely used for male homosexual. --Gh87 (talk) 05:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Um, no. Bi porn is an emerging industry but is generally treated as an offshoot of both straight and gay porn. There are multitudes of sub-genres in all these but I've never heard of let alone imagined someone would try to spin gay porn as same-sex porn likely as porn consumers aren't defining themselves that way. -- Banjeboi 10:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - Common naming and common sense apply. The gay porn industry calls itself that rather than same-sex porn. If a bisexual porn star (or a straight one for that matter) appears in a gay porn film or gay pornographic magazine, then the film or magazine does not suddenly become not-gay. The pornography is defined by its target market rather than the sexuality of the actors who were photographed.—Ash (talk) 07:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Obviously. -     allstar▼echo     07:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, and I think WP:SNOW applies here. Zazaban (talk) 08:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Gay" in this case refers to the porn, not to the actors. Powers ^T 17:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - If "Same-sex pornography" doesn't work out, but "gay pornography" doesn't either to you--even with common sense which is very important to everybody, what could be another name? Should we make "Same-sex pornography" as disambiguation page or redirect page? --Gh87 (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lead image

We need a new lead image. Any ideas? Zazaban (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

How about a stack or shelf of gay porn magazines and/or videos for sale in a shop, or would this break copyright?—Ash (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That might work, but it doesn't really tell you what it is. To be honest, I'd probably go for a porn image. Zazaban (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I could go to a gay sex forum and see if there's any exhibitionists about. Zazaban (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Why not use one of the photos of porn stars in Wiki Commons? For instance, File:Colton Ford.jpg or File:Matthew Rush.jpg. 75.60.200.224 (talk) 05:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps some could release some photos taken at the Grabby Awards or a similar gay pornography based conference / convention?—Ash (talk) 05:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Got a picture off of commons. Zazaban (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Request removal of original research

Can someone please edit this sentence: " Since most gay men of this time were deeply 'in the closet', actual depictions of sexual activity were rare." - While none of the material in that section is properly sourced, the analysis presented in this sentence is particularly bothersome to be left in the article.207.69.139.135 (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done CTJF83 chat 01:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The legal discussion of gay pornography is also slightly inaccurate in this article. In the 1950s, the United States Supreme Court ruled -- quietly -- that homosexuality as a theme or depiction in the press/media was not per se obscene. The case involved an early general interest gay rights publication. The subsequent cases in the 1960s and 1970s were building upon this earlier legal precedent in the 1950s. Basically, the court was saying that whatever legal definition was to exist for 'obscene material' -- not First Amendment protected -- had to apply equally to gay and straight depictions of adult human sexuality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.245.20 (talk) 10:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate link

Hi, could somebody please edit the link to SpyBoy in the Notable movies -> 2000s section. The link points to an unrelated page. Thanks 91.37.247.121 (talk) 13:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed.—Ash (talk) 14:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

"Gay pornography is the representation of sex between men with the primary goal of sexual arousal in its audience."

That can't be true because gay pornography sometimes involves underage boys as well as adult men. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurie Anderson Fan (talk • contribs) 00:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Then its child pornography, not gay pornography. Zazaban (talk) 02:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

How come gay pornography and child pornography are mutually exclusive? If a porno movie or book is about an adult man having sex with young boys, that's gay porn and kiddie porn. Laurie Anderson Fan (talk) 03:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Generally, 'gay' is a term generally reserved for somebody attracted to adult men rather than young boys. Thus, if there is children involved, it is no longer 'gay' pornography by most standards. Though I suspect it would still be considered 'homosexual' porn. I think the cutoff is probably around 14. Zazaban (talk) 03:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That is total bullshit. People call it gay any time someone with a penis wants to have sex with someone else with a penis. Laurie Anderson Fan (talk) 03:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, but I understand the consensus is otherwise. Zazaban (talk) 03:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Being gay is more than just a sexual act, it includes a cultural identification of being gay. Someone who has homosexual relations does not automatically identify themselves as gay and someone who has had no same sex relations may still identify themselves as gay. See gay.—Ash (talk) 08:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

"Pre-Condom" era vs. "Humpin' in The Raw" era

I looked up this article to to see if it contained a section and/or information regarding the subject line. I feel it is important to discuss the differences, especially for younger people who may not be aware of the differences. With the advent of the internet, early (1978-1988) porn films are easily available to anyone who wishes to seek/view them. It needs to be noted that movies produced prior to the late eighties, the "pre-condom era", did not use condoms due to AIDS being unknown and/or safer sex measures being not taken, as where 2000-current features make it a point to avoid condom use ("bareback") to attract a fetish/niche market. I feel certain people may not fully understand that production dates play a role in categorizing the films, and condom use was either "unnecessary" (pre-AIDS awareness/lack of proper education regarding it) or intentional (films marketed as "bareback"). Production dates aren't always clear; older movies can look recent.

I was reading the article and it states that Falcon does not produce bareback porn but when I clicked on their website they do make it, and it appears to be current movies, not old movies re-marketed. I didn't check any of the other studios mentioned, but it made me wonder if the article needed updating and possibly some of the other studios noted are also producing bareback porn.Sunfox (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Explicit image not necessary and should be removed

The image "Fluffer_on_set", which shows an erect penis and two men in a sexual act, is very un-necessary in the article should be removed/replaced. Opinion?

Reason? besides "un-necessary"? It shows a porn set, this is a porn article. Note WP:NOTCENSORED for showing a penis. CTJF83 chat 20:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Plus, I never even noticed the penis until you pointed it out, and I clicked to enlarge the image. CTJF83 chat 20:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe this is a still from the fictional film The Fluffer (2001). Suggest either clarifying that in the caption or finding a photo that shows an actual porn set. Or if this really is from a porn set, suggest identifying which one. Maloftim (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)maloftim

No criticism?

Should there be section about the criticism of gay porn? Is there any notable criticism of specifically gay porn? Or is it porn in general? serioushat 04:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Apparently not. Anyway this is the closest thing I can find corresponding to the POV tag so removing it. Lycurgus (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Picture Choices

A bit of industry interference on the page - all of the pictures were for productions on one company; now there of another! Somebody may want to remove the commentary on the photos. The pictures themselves are fine, but there's no need for advertising. 86.29.148.183 (talk) 22:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Fluffer on set.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Fluffer on set.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 207.212.58.139, 21 September 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Some controversy currently exists regarding studios that produce bareback (sex without condoms) videos. Mainstream companies, such as COLT Studio Group, Falcon Entertainment, Hot House Entertainment, Channel 1 Releasing, Lucas Entertainment, Raging Stallion, Lucas Kazan Productions and Titan Media and LGBT health advocates assert that condomless videos promote unsafe sex and contribute to the HIV/AIDS pandemic, both in the pornography industry and in the gay community as a whole. The controversy dates back to the first few years of the HIV crisis, when nearly all gay pornography production companies voluntarily required their models to wear condoms for anal sex. 207.212.58.139 (talk) 20:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Peease give references when requesting additions, thanks.  Chzz  ►  04:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

---

Industry share

I redacted the flagged statement about industry share to the current last ¶ of the lede. That the male population is 10% homosexual, in spite of much Kinsey and other circumstantial evidence would generally not be accepted on the grounds it was way too high. So what's there now should be supported by relatively easily obtainable industry figures. If they turn out to support anything close to the 1/3 to 1/2 that was there with an apparently bogus source, put it back. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, took it out entirely:

Gay pornography comprises a disproportionately large part of the pornography industry.

Joe whathisface's off hand comment isn't an industry statistic. I'm sure they're available so best to just pull it entirely for now. I had put the redacted sentence with the fact tag as noted at start of this thread. There isn't anything else with any industry statistics anywhere in the 6 pages of that article, it's not a source for such a sweeping statement and this is a situation where the actual facts are at least to a first degree knowable. Forbe's may be a start. Although that data is 7 years old, I doubt the global porn industry has grown from the 4 billion Forbes quotes to the 10 or more Joe claims, so I assume the ratios are are him talking out if his ass as well. Higgins corroborates Forbes assesment of the industry at the end of the video. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 04:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Possible Awards Section

An awards section for the lesser known awards like HustlaBall, Cybersocket Award [1], Hookie Awards [2], Blatino Oasis Erotica Award [3], Grabby Award [4], Xbiz Award [5], Golden Probe [6] etc

Hustlaball

• 2012

Lucas Entertainment scored 24 nods [7], while Treasure Island Media scored 19 nominations [8]

• 2011

[9], [10], [11]

• 2010

[12], [13]

• 2009

[14], [15] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.148.15.162 (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

See List of gay pornography awards. Sportfan5000 (talk) 04:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE NEEDED: "List of male performers in gay porn films" redirects to "Bobby Blake"

"List of male performers in gay porn films" redirects to "List of performers in gay porn films" so maybe someone can change the SEE ALSO link.Taikomochiyarichin (talk)

Written gay pornography needs to be treated somewhere

Either here or in a separate article - The Cities of the Plain, Song of the Loon, and many novels and anthologies published by Gay Sunshine, Alyson, Cleis, Naiad, and other small publishers. Sometimes it is labelled "erotica", which I suppose makes bookstores more willing to carry it. But I find the label or category of pornography accurate, even though distasteful to some. deisenbe (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

To others, note that Deisenbe's above post has a new signature because of this change; it's not because he disregarded Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout stating that we should place new sections at the bottom. And, Deisenbe, as for creating a WP:Spinout for "written gay pornography," that is absolutely not needed; it would be an unneeded WP:Content fork. That material can simply be covered in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 08:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree a separate section is not needed. I was hoping someone else would write it because I'm not sure I'm up to it. deisenbe (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I take it that you mean "separate article" by "separate section" in your "17:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)" post. I would write a section on the matter for the article...if I wasn't so lazy on Wikipedia these days. Flyer22 (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I meant separate article. Sorry.

I'm getting kind of bummed out with editing articles with lots of page watchers. Too many people to revert things, which sometimes I agree with and sometimes not. I know there are remedies if I don't agree with a revert, but I'm tired of that sort of hassle.deisenbe (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I know that I've reverted you at more than one article, but it was done for a good reason the vast majority of the time. Flyer22 (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Anyone who hasn't read it might want to look at Criticism of Wikipedia.

Gay-for-pay under 1980's tab

Under the 1980’s tab, there is a mention of straight men as actors in gay porn being considered a rare commodity. I am proposing an edit to say that straight men are not a rare commodity and in fact compose about 60% of actors in gay porn (Escoffier). There should be more information here about the basics of gay-for-pay, including the pay difference between gay and straight porn for male actors. It should include the general opinion of the gay community on the proliferation of straight actors in gay porn.--Rachbohm (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Rachbohm (talk · contribs), I see that you are with Education Program:University of Illinois/Queer Lives, Queer Politics (Fall 2014). Make sure that you add one or more WP:Reliable sources to support whatever content you include in the article. The section in question is currently completely unsourced and therefore needs sources anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Note to other editors

I have drafted additional information to "Bareback" for the page "Gay Pornography" in my user sandbox.

Link to User/MHayashi95/Sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mhayashi95/sandbox

Mhayashi95 (talk) 07:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)MarieHayashi (talk)

Mhayashi95 (talk · contribs), I see that you are with Education Program:University of Illinois/Queer Lives, Queer Politics (Fall 2014), and are working on the bareback aspect in your WP:Sandbox. Your WP:Sandbox is the place for all of that material, not the talk page. If you want editors to know about your WP:Sandbox on this matter, all you have to do is start a section on this talk page about it, explaining it, and then link to the WP:Sandbox. You've already started this section and linked to your WP:Sandbox; so that will suffice for letting other editors know about your work on this case. Flyer22 (talk) 07:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for cutting back your talk page content, Mhayashi95 (talk · contribs). Flyer22 (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to add new sections

I would like to add new sections entitled: Mid-1980's shift, Views on Gay-for-Pay Authenticity, Tops and Bottoms, and Gay and Straight Actor Interactions. Please see my sandbox for more details. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rachbohm/sandbox

heterosexual prevalence? beefcake must be said to be only for two groups of people?

Two magazines were quoted as to the beefcake being only allegedly for straight women and for gay men but this touches on the second point whereby even on this page we seem to must be able to hear about "heterosexual" prevalency. According to research, everybody is bisexual. Pupil dilation studies among many solid others have shown this (penile plethysmography). I feel that beefcake is and can be consumed by anybody and that anything else is a cop out and applies for the whole article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.151.36.160 (talk) 05:17, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

Edit to mention California Proposition 60 with respect to condom usage / bareback. This should be self explanatory from here, but if you need elaboration, I can be sure to give it to interested parties. 71.91.178.54 (talk) 05:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Also I tried looking at the reference you provided but it wouldn't load the page. Could you double check the reference? ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 13:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2018

Change "Softcore gay pornography also exists; it at one time constituted the genre, and may be produced as beefcake pornography for heterosexual female and homosexual male consumption."

to "Softcore gay pornography also exists; it at one time constituted the genre, and may be produced as beefcake pornography for heterosexual female and homosexual or bisexual male consumption." 121.213.163.168 (talk) 04:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I think that is redundant. Bisexual males who love gay pornography are covered by the homosexual part. -- Flooded with them hundreds 17:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2019

Please add the following hatnote:

This page is about male homosexual pornography. For female homosexual pornography, see Lesbian pornography.

114.75.69.38 (talk) 04:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Not done: no need - gay is known to refer to male DannyS712 (talk) 05:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Partly done: added to see also, per request from the IP on my talk page DannyS712 (talk) 07:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Sexist Article

I appear to have stumbled on a planet where gay pornography is limited to males and not females. How convenient for heterosexual males.73.151.47.103 (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Transphobia

I would like to note that *all* references to trans men have been scrubbed from the article. There is now no reference of trans men at all. This is problematic and cissexist. Satyricon2 (talk) 08:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)