4

I'd like to see the porn question re-opened. I agree the question could use some citation and editing, but because it's closed I cant offer suggestions. I think it's an interesting question, and looking at the wiki pages that sort-of discuss the issue such as this one on feminist views on pornography there is clearly a need for further study. The wiki itself admits it's off balance and needs more work. I also think we could cite some recent pro-feminist awards the were issued for porn, as well as the Suicide Girls, who claim to be pro-feminist soft core porn.

4

I have no problem with the specific topic, but the question is super low quality. Fuzzy claim and fuzzy questions don't make for good responses. That is why the question has been closed - you can still edit it and improve it, but nobody can answer. This gives us a clean slate once the question is correctly answerable.

3

The problem with the question was that there was nothing to be skeptical about. It's certainly an interesting question, but it's better suited for a sociology Q&A site, not a skepticism Q&A site. As stated, there are no claims to examine, nothing to be skeptical of.

If you see value to the question that we don't see, feel free to open your own question. Nostrabar's question, however, cannot be salvaged without significant changes.

  • I think this is a key point that should be adressed in the FAQ then. Sociology is a science, but I and others have had our sociology questions closed. If this site is really going to exclude sociology questions, that is disappointing and needs to clearly be stated. Personally I think the characterization of sociology as a soft science is wrong, and there a ton of woo questions that won't be valid here if we exclude sociology. A quick scan shows that there should be enough expert and peer reviewed work to adress this issue. – Dogmafrog Mar 20 '11 at 15:56
  • @Dogmarog: Sociology is on-topic. The problem, here, is that there is no woo to address. – Borror0 Mar 20 '11 at 16:11
  • I'd argue the woo that feminists are firmly anti-pornography is strongly implied in the question, and pretty well established in the public domain. I'm not saying the question doesn't need some citation, but I know that could easily be established. I worried that we're forcing people to overtly state common skepticism, and all questions will start to read like 7th grade social studies papers "I am skeptical that..." before every entry. – Dogmafrog Mar 20 '11 at 16:14
  • @Dogmarog: I have never encountered a person that believed all feminists think porn is bad, unless there was some sort of true Scotsman fallacy involved. I would certainly not call that obvious. Now, if there are such deluded people, then their delusion could be "addressed" by simply saying "Dirty Diaries." But, ya, it'd be on-topic... Seriously? There are people who don't know there are sex-positive feminists? – Borror0 Mar 20 '11 at 16:18
  • I would say that reading the few websites, yes, seriously. Also, pro-sex and pro-porn are two different things. – Dogmafrog Mar 20 '11 at 16:22
  • @Dogmarog: Wow. Well, write a question where you cite their nonsense. As this discussion has demonstrated, not everyone has had the misfortune of being expose to their nonsense... That's why citing claims is important. We all come from different countries. We're not exposed to the same things. What may be obvious to one may not be to others. – Borror0 Mar 20 '11 at 16:25
  • Sounds good, I was hoping to salvage the original but I prob will write a new one unless the questioner edits theirs. – Dogmafrog Mar 20 '11 at 19:48
0

At it's stands the question is at the moment very open. Maybe you could edit it with specific claims to fulfill Sklivvz's demand:

Please add to the question to one simple verifiable claim (and if possible do include a link to the claim). Your question will be reopened once it's improved to an acceptable standard. "

  • Yep I agree it needs some work, but I don't think I can edit a closed question. – Dogmafrog Mar 20 '11 at 14:46
  • @dogmafrog You can edit a closed question, only locking would prevent that and locking is not used often. – Mad Scientist Mar 20 '11 at 14:51
  • I can edit it. As you have less than 1000 reputation points I think that you could make an edit but the edit would have to be approved by someone else. – Christian Mar 20 '11 at 14:52

You must log in to answer this question.