Talk:Alt porn

Alternaporn and culture

Does anyone have any insight into the effects of pornography on culture, and what alternaporn may point towards? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.205.96.61 (talk contribs) 02:47, 9 April 2005.

Do you mean the effects of culture on pornography? If so, I think altporn is a reaction to all the blonde-haired, high heel-wearing, fake-boobed women that filled much of films, pornographic and not, through the 1980's. It was kind of like how mainstream rock music went from hair bands to grunge. People just got sick of the fakeness. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.113.104.47 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 7 December 2005.

Retitle article from "Alternaporn" to "Altporn"

I think this page should be renamed "Altporn" rather than "Alternaporn". A search for "alternaporn" on yahoo revealed 760 hits. "Altporn" brought 15,000 hits. The page "Alternaporn" should redirect to "Altporn". Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.99.170.56 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 14 September 2005.

(Done on 01:03, 31 October 2005 by JesseW) Iamcuriousblue 20:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag?

THere's no explanation of why this is considered NPOV. Personally, I can't really see what the tag is for. I'll come back after a while and see if anyone has a response. --Jacquelyn Marie 20:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Not sure myself, but there may be some noise, probably unproductive, given recent events surrounding suicidegirls. [(references: http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,69006,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2], [1], [2]). Maybe wait a week and see if things get messy. --disconcision 06:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

As per above I have removed the disputed tag. The article is admittedly a single (sourced) point of view... and of a slang term no less. No debate or reverting though.--disconcision 04:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

List of altporn websites

I agree with the preceding statement. I also think a separate page should be started listing Alt-Porn websites in alphabetical order. I will be starting this ASAP unless there are any objections? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.173.114.136 (talk • contribs) 08:39, 14 April 2006.

WP:NOT a links repository. NicM 09:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC).

If that is true, then why are there so many of them here? There's a link repository for mainstream porn studios with their own personal web sites. The truth is that alot of people use this for marketing themselves and their companies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.173.114.137 (talk • contribs) 10:44, 17 April 2006.

A lot of people may try to do so, but they are not supposed to. If you see a mainstream Wikipedia page being used as a links repository then either a) fix it or b) list it {{prod}} or for AfD. NicM 14:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC).

I can't find a links repository for mainstream porn studios anyway. List of pornographic movie studios links only to Wikipedia articles, not to personal web sites. Which page were you thinking of? NicM 14:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC).

Here's a good example, follow: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pornographic_movie_studios and you will see a list of porn studios. If you follow a link, there is a description or article, along with an external link. It's like a backdoor links repository. So how about starting a whole new article on internet alt-porn? I would be happy to pick this up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.173.114.136 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 19 April 2006.

Well, categorisation is useful, and they don't link to external links, merely to other Wikipedia articles. Most articles have external links, and in articles about companies their website is a pretty relevent one. Most of these articles do contain at least some information aside from the link in any case. If you think the articles are unencylopedic, or the subjects not notable, or they are just advertising, tag them for cleanup or list them for AfD rather than creating more articles that have the same problems. If you want to create articles on notable altporn studios, and a category for it (if there are enough articles to justify it), that is fine, but a page merely listing links is not. NicM 16:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC).

There are already articles on SuicideGirls and Blue Blood, as well as director Stephen Sayadin and photographer Richard Kern, which are linked to in the article itself. I'm not sure what you mean by "studios" - altporn is mostly found on websites. So far, there are articles on Blue Blood and SuicideGirls, and its debatable whether other sites are notable enough to warrant their own article. (EroticBPM, maybe.) Altporn director Eon McKai is notable enough to warrant an article, if anyone would care to write one. As for putting up a long list of links, I don't think that's particularly useful, and goes against the Wikipedia guideline "Wikipedia is not a link repository", or something to that effect. Peter G Werner 16:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I think I will categorize web sites, not studios. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.173.114.136 (talk • contribs) 09:23, 20 April 2006.

"Political pornography" and mentions of specific sites

I removed the following statement added by NicM: "Some also consider political pornography, such as Vegporn.com, to be altporn."

To the best of my knowledge, "political porn" is not any kind of notable trend in altporn or porn in general. The "Vegporn" site is considered "altporn" because of the type of models it features and the "online community" aspect, not because its "political porn". Its not a particularly important altporn site, so I didn't feel obliged to add any text about them.

The three or four altporn sites mentioned in the article right now are in there because they're historically important in the development of altporn, not because I'm cherry-picking personal favorites. BurningAngel and GodsGirls also might deserve some specific mention because of their importance within the contemporary altporn mileau, but I haven't worked them into the article at this point. Iamcuriousblue 20:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR Vandalism

User:Vendar aka User:71.56.142.123 seems to have blanked a sizable portion of this article three times in the last 24 hours. Should this be reported as WP:AN/3RR or just left to Iamcuriousblue to repair or commented on as a user conduct issue where there is already a candidate entry for this user? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.127.62.7 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 5 September 2006.

I'm not clear on just what 71's agenda is and why he's carrying out these multiple edits of the blueblood-related pages, but he or she has gutted this article of important historical information on this topic for some unknown reason. I consider it vandalism and will revert it when I see it. However, I have looked at the history page and I see no violation of the three revert rule so far. Iamcuriousblue 16:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. 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 debate was no consensus after two weeks. -- tariqabjotu 06:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Altporn → Alternative Pornography — Altporn is a contraction of "Alternative pornography." See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms) and Alt-rock vs Alternative rock. JaysPuppet 06:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

• Strongly Oppose. "Altporn" is the established name for this genre, not "alternative pornography". A simple Google test demonstrates this amply:

"alt porn" -wikipedia: 93400 hits

altporn -wikipedia: 48400 hits

"alternative porn" -wikipedia: 11500 hits

"alternative pornography" -wikipedia 477 hits

Based on the above, it is clear that "alternative pornography" is not the favored term here, so strict application of Wikipedia guidelines would create a highly artificial title for this article. (A case could be made for changing the title to "Alt-porn", however.) Also note that in the case of alternative rock, "alternative rock" gets 36 million hits while alt-rock only gets 12 million. In that case, the contraction is not as widely used, unlike the case with "altporn". Iamcuriousblue 21:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Addendum

Google testing some other synonyms:

"indie porn" -wikipedia: 26800 hits

"independent porn" -wikipedia: 537 hits

"independent pornography" -wikipedia: 282 hits

Peter G Werner 22:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed Joanna Angel quote

I removed the following quote from the article:

Joanna Angel of Burning Angel has described altporn simply as "Porn that comes from the heart".

I could not turn up a source for this quote after numerous Google searches, nor did I get a response after asking about it on the Burning Angel message board. Based on this, I think the above quote needs to be treated as apocryphal unless a source for the quote can be found. Iamcuriousblue 21:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

AltPorn Spamming the entry

This is almost becoming a page filled with spam and biased data rather than factual. AltPorn.net timelines for example, and the BlueBlood About Us page. As seen in any Blueblood related Wikipedia entries, the owners and affiliates are abusing the Wikipedia guidelines. They have been actively indulding in the creation of their own references in order to validate the false data they present as factual. A more experienced editor should look into every page being edited by this user and into the BlueBlood marketing inaccuracies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.38.155 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 23 May 2007

I happened to write most of this article and I have no connection with BlueBlood. I wrote it from what sources I can find. I have been a fan of the altporn genre for many years now and can vouch for the accuracy of the facts stated in the article – other than proto-altporn filmmakers and photographers like Richard Kern and Stephen Sayadian, BlueBlood Magazine pretty much started the genre. They also have the earliest recorded online presence, predating NakkidNerds and RaverPorn, which are pretty some of the first distinctly altporn sites that I remember. (What's your version of altporn history? Yet somebody else who thinks SuicideGirls started it all, I suppose.) If you actually have citable facts to add to the article or can point out concrete inaccuracies in the present version of the article, by all means do so. But if you're just going to snipe and make baseless accusations from behind an anonymous IP, I can only conclude that you're simply trolling. (Also, for future reference, new comments go on the bottom of the page and should be signed.) Iamcuriousblue 21:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I already removed the following statement added by a user: "Some also consider political pornography, such as ShhList.com [3], to be a good source for altporn." 109.40.1.42 (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

"Racism and Sexism in AltPorn" section

I edited to remove the section titled "Racism and Sexism in AltPorn", which consisted in its entirety of a POV essay/commentary, perhaps taken from a college or academic paper, which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and that an extended discussion of opinions about racism and sexism in pornography really has nothing to do with the subject of the article. Thanks, --MCB 07:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for removing that – it was clearly an undergraduate essay that somebody had simply tacked on to the article. Not only was the slant of the article very much in violation of WP:NPOV, in also gave undue weight to the whole issue (the essay was several times longer than the rest of the article), and was very much a piece of original research. Some of the sources in the essay might be salvageable for parts of the "Controversies" section. Iamcuriousblue 16:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Be as it may, it was still a valid viewpoint. Perhaps we should give it its own section as "criticism of altporn"? 66.157.50.26 (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if its a valid viewpoint. The question is, is it a citable and verifiable viewpoint from a published source? Once again, "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" to air personal views, nor is it a forum for original research. If there criticism of altporn from a notable, verifiable published source, then by all means, it should be summarized in this article. BTW, I'm not sure if you are familiar with the policies and guidelines for editing Wikipedia, but I really suggest you familiarize yourself with these rules before making uninformed statements on what does and doesn't belong here. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)