Erotica and pornography: Is there a difference?

[Guest]

. . . . .

 

[Edward Teach]

Erotica and Pornography: Is there a difference?

Not if you do it right, baby. Not if you do it right.

 

[bronzeage]

Is there any reason to ask this question, except to declare one to be superior to the other?

Then what do you do?

 

[glynndah]

Porn has fewer syllables.

 

[polynices]

Is there any reason to ask this question, except to declare one to be superior to the other?

Then what do you do?

Hi bronzeage. Actually, I asked the question to try to find out why other people make a distinction between pornography and erotica. On the whole I don't - so I certainly wouldn't argue for the superiority of one over the other myself - not at the moment, anyway.

If the two terms are placed in opposition - and they often are, as can be seen from this discussion so far - then it's clear that some people at least feel a need to make the distinction. I'm curious as to why.

I think it's very interesting that it's so difficult to define a clear difference between the two when that difference is invoked so often. For example, on TV last Saturday, the British novelist Martin Amis deplored the ubiquity of pornography in modern life because, he said (if I'm paraphrasing him accurately), it swamped and devalued genuine, legitimate erotica. I have a lot of respect for Amis - he's a good writer - but I would have liked some clarification from him on this - and particularly some clear definitions.

My point is simple: a significant section of liberal western society discriminates between the erotic and the pornographic - between erotica and pornography - but leaves the actual difference fuzzy. And it is true - as you may be implying - that the distinction is almost always made in favour of the superiority of erotica. Interestingly, Amis said that pornographers defend their right to produce and disseminate pornography on the - to him - specious grounds of 'free speech'. (I wonder if he visits Literotica at all? If you do, Martin, perhaps you could put in your own two penn'orth to this discussion.)

I think there's going to be a significant backlash against pornography in Anglo-American culture over the next few years, with an assumed distinction between what's seen as legitimate sex art and what's deemed illegitimate. I'll be very suspicious of that if it happens, but I think it's important to at least get our terminology straight before we begin the argument. I don't like empty buzz words. I like to know what people are talking about.

(And, incidentally, although I don't think I've arrived at a clear understanding yet, I do think this discussion so far has clarified things for me to some extent - so many thanks to everybody who's contributed so far.)

- polynices.

 

[PoppingTom]

1. Pornography and erotica are essentially the same. However, the term 'pornography' is pejorative, while 'erotica' is either neutral or celebratory.

They're not quite the same, as pornography is more explicit.

2. Pornography is failed sex art, while erotica is successful sex art. (Of course, I'm using 'art' in a very general sense here, so it would include writing.)

I'm not that much an artist, so I absolutely don't know if art can fail anyway. How will I know if an art is failed ?

3. It's all a matter of taste - one person's porn is another person's erotica. If you liked it, it was erotica. If you hated it, it was porn.
4. It depends on how you feel afterwards. If you felt good or uplifted after reading, looking at or watching it, it was erotica. If you felt bad, it was porn.

OK, if you like it, it's pop. If you hate it, it's heavy metal. Not scientific, but useful.

5. There's a spectrum between the two poles: clear cases of erotica are at one end; obvious pornography is at the other. However, it's difficult to tell the difference near the middle.

I don't know if I should care as a writer. Henry Miller was clear pornography. Anyway, enjoying to read.

6. There's an absolute difference between the two. Porn crosses a line of acceptability and damns itself as a result. (This is a counter-position to 5, above, of course. )

Porn can be an art form, I'm convinced. The acceptability is different from country to country, so you can use that word for smattering cataloging.

7. There's no difference at all. It's just a pseudo-distinction made by people who can't bring themselves to admit that they really, really like porn.

Well, I think, erotica is kind of covered porn. That's why it's easier to accept. The main focus of erotica is the attraction, while the focus of porn is to have sex.

8. Pornography is unrealistic, impossible fantasy; erotica is somehow (however tenuously) rooted in the real world.

There are enough examples to call this simply "Bullshit". Because there's absolutely no difference in these cases by both of them.

9. Pornography is erotica without feeling.

It CAN be without feelings, and mostly it is because many pornographics don't care much about that. There can be sex without love, and love without sex, but absolutely nobody obliges you keep that like it is. You CAN put love and porn together.(To be honest, that's what I try to do with my stories.)

10. Pornography is always, in some sense, sadistic; erotica is always about love.

No, but I know where it's come from.

If you have a kind of breed or education that teaches sex as something bad or forbidden, and you step at one moment across that border, with really a lot of sexual desire, then you tend to move to the maximum thing of pornography, which seems to be BDSM. The truth is: it's your thing if you like that or not.

That's one point, the other is that erotica features a lot of communication. Pornography CAN be without any communication at all, so it CAN be watched from a single point of view.But if the existence of communication is the only thing that differs erotica from porn, I write erotica.

11. This century's erotica was last century's pornography. That is, standards and attitudes change continually.

It would be good if this was true. Anyway, John Holmes dreamed about his movies will be treated as ordinary movies in the future, shown at primetime. This was 40 years ago. Pornography developed further from that time to be harder, but the acceptance seems to be lower.

 

[Verdad]

Hi bronzeage. Actually, I asked the question to try to find out why other people make a distinction between pornography and erotica. On the whole I don't - so I certainly wouldn't argue for the superiority of one over the other myself - not at the moment, anyway.

If the two terms are placed in opposition - and they often are, as can be seen from this discussion so far - then it's clear that some people at least feel a need to make the distinction. I'm curious as to why.

I think it's very interesting that it's so difficult to define a clear difference between the two when that difference is invoked so often. For example, on TV last Saturday, the British novelist Martin Amis deplored the ubiquity of pornography in modern life because, he said (if I'm paraphrasing him accurately), it swamped and devalued genuine, legitimate erotica. I have a lot of respect for Amis - he's a good writer - but I would have liked some clarification from him on this - and particularly some clear definitions.

My point is simple: a significant section of liberal western society discriminates between the erotic and the pornographic - between erotica and pornography - but leaves the actual difference fuzzy. And it is true - as you may be implying - that the distinction is almost always made in favour of the superiority of erotica. Interestingly, Amis said that pornographers defend their right to produce and disseminate pornography on the - to him - specious grounds of 'free speech'. (I wonder if he visits Literotica at all? If you do, Martin, perhaps you could put in your own two penn'orth to this discussion.)

I think there's going to be a significant backlash against pornography in Anglo-American culture over the next few years, with an assumed distinction between what's seen as legitimate sex art and what's deemed illegitimate. I'll be very suspicious of that if it happens, but I think it's important to at least get our terminology straight before we begin the argument. I don't like empty buzz words. I like to know what people are talking about.

(And, incidentally, although I don't think I've arrived at a clear understanding yet, I do think this discussion so far has clarified things for me to some extent - so many thanks to everybody who's contributed so far.)

- polynices.

I have no trouble understanding what Amis is saying even though I find the labels of porn and erotica all but useless when it comes to specific pieces.

The labels are kind of analogous to "good art" and "bad art"; we all know there are both kinds, but if we set about classifying all the extant works, we'd never get two neat columns.

We'd still be perfectly justified in commenting on the big picture, though. That the entire corpus of production doesn't fall in two distinct categories in no way precludes us from saying "this decade saw a flourish of refined artistic expression" or "that decade witnessed an unprecedented proliferation of crap."

As much as I've no use for "erotica" as some kind of snobbishly elusive term, I understand how one would use it to draw a contrast and express that one isn't interested in banishing sex and sexuality from art and entertainment but is having reservations about the ubiquity of the most vacuous, exploitative forms.

In my reading, that's the main thrust of what Amis is saying, and it doesn't necessarily contain a moralist note. An author himself, he's more likely to be concerned with the state of artistic discourse and how the blunt commercialization of sex affects it than with anything we might call puritanical.

 

[PoppingTom]

As much as I've no use for "erotica" as some kind of snobbishly elusive term, I understand how one would use it to draw a contrast and express that one isn't interested in banishing sex and sexuality from art and entertainment but is having reservations about the ubiquity of the most vacuous, exploitative forms.

Well, this is like saying "heavy metal" instead of "crap". Similar to today's youth use of the word "gay" meaning "super crap".

As long as "bad taste" is an art form, pornography can be, too.

 

[Wyldfire]

Have any of you saying Erotica and porn aren't the same thing read a lot of the stories here? LMAO.

I might be willing to consider the erotica is soft core porn to Porn's being hardcore. It's still smut! I like smut mind you.

And now the "artists" and "Legitimate writers" will scream.

 

[Handley_Page]

I can think of a nice definition of erotica.
The AV used by Lisa.

 

[oggbashan]

I write erotica: you write pornography.

Or is it the other way round?

Og

 

[Guest]

. . . . .

 

[Handley_Page]

Have any of you saying Erotica and porn aren't the same thing read a lot of the stories here? LMAO.

no but it moves in the same direction. . . . .

 

[driphoney]

Erotica sometimes gets an "E."

Porn doesn't.

I won't comment on which one gets the "H."

Oh God, thank you for that!

And I thought the thing was just a short stroker and plain ol' porn.

Yay! Erotica! Yessss. *pumps arm*

Now ... if I could just figure out how to write again ...

 

[Stella_Omega]

The site is called literotica, but that's just a brand name. It doesn't mean anything.

I'm seeing a classic misinterpretation in some of these posts; "erotica" is not; Softer than, sweeter than, nicer than, less violent than, girlier than, or any less graphic, than is "porn."

What it tends to be, is a little more meaningful, in some way; context, or concept, or construction. There is another reason to read or view it besides the money shot.

If there's any actual difference, and I think there is not-- that might be it. Otherwise, there's engaging, sexually arousing material, and then there is sexual material that gets you off once but so what...

 

[WRJames]

I think there is, possibly, a distinction between stories that have some sexual content in them as opposed to ones that are about sex.

A lot of mainstream fiction will have a sexual incident or two in them, some of them may be rather explicit. Has anyone else read Gravity's Rainbow? It is a complex novel with a lot of raunch.

I wrote the Eden series primarily as science fiction -- but with a lot of erotic content. My daughter just sort of skimmed over the sex scenes -- they weren't that interesting to her (I suppose reading sex written by your father can be a little unsettling). Before anyone asks -- she is married and in her twenties. When she got to Goddess, the plot and sex were so intertwined that she really didn't care for it. But anyway, even though the sex is rather graphic (enough to offend Stella) I would call these erotica.

The Descent, on the other hand, is more purely a vehicle for sex, as are most of the stories I post here. So are they "porn"? Does literary quality count?

 

[Lisa Summers]

I can think of a nice definition of erotica.
The AV used by Lisa.

Thank you. It's classy, ain't it?

 

[Stella_Omega]

I think there is, possibly, a distinction between stories that have some sexual content in them as opposed to ones that are about sex.

A lot of mainstream fiction will have a sexual incident or two in them, some of them may be rather explicit. Has anyone else read Gravity's Rainbow? It is a complex novel with a lot of raunch.

I wrote the Eden series primarily as science fiction -- but with a lot of erotic content. My daughter just sort of skimmed over the sex scenes -- they weren't that interesting to her (I suppose reading sex written by your father can be a little unsettling). Before anyone asks -- she is married and in her twenties. When she got to Goddess, the plot and sex were so intertwined that she really didn't care for it. But anyway, even though the sex is rather graphic (enough to offend Stella) I would call these erotica.

The Descent, on the other hand, is more purely a vehicle for sex, as are most of the stories I post here. So are they "porn"? Does literary quality count?

As I recall, the scenes I read weren't graphic enough.

 

[polynices]

Shocking Disclosure! by Lesly Sloan, on Literotica, at:

http://www.literotica.com/stories/showstory.php?id=21316

includes this:

'The biggest shock of my life was the discovery that my wife Helen was writing dirty stories. ... When my wife got home I confronted her with the evidence and indicated that our marriage was now over ... She begged me to consider her point of view. First of all, she stated that she was writing erotica instead of "porn." They were quite different, she claimed. ... She explained that she was a member of some outfit called ERA (Erotic Readers Association) which promoted high class "erotica" (whatever the Hell that is), rather than obscene scribblings. ..."

I don't claim that this piece does anything to pin down the elusive erotica/porn distinction, but the story's a lot of fun. I especially liked the mock-pompous narrative tone.

- polynices

 

[neonlyte]

They are both the same and if you read, write or rub either one of them all over your body, sweating copiously in the process, you are going to HELL.

That's a bit strong!!

There's many a gal here I've rubbed all over my body and not once have I gone to hell!


I've gone to heaven a few times

















Actually... loads of times... SJ,SSS,CM,SRDS,Mty,MP,P,BS, et al, Brutus!

 

[LaRocha]

I don't understand why it's such a difficult distinction. Pornography has little to zero artistic merit while erotica has more than a little artistic merit. Ulysses is supposedly an Erotic novel, because it's highly sensual. Erotica is literature dealing with sexual love, without the 'love' you just have pornography. Intimacy vs. mechanics.

I admit I write pornography, most of Literotica is pornography. Every once in a while you get someone who writes a few Erotic stories or scenes along with the normal porn production. Most of Nabokov is erotica, Ada erotica. Eros vs. Mutinus Titinus -- Greece vs. Rome. Art vs. decadence.

 

[PoppingTom]

That's a bit strong!!

Well, my european background would rather call this a joke. But I realized there are people really thinking like that...

 

[PoppingTom]

I don't understand why it's such a difficult distinction. Pornography has little to zero artistic merit while erotica has more than a little artistic merit. ... Erotica is literature dealing with sexual love, without the 'love' you just have pornography. Intimacy vs. mechanics.

I admit I write pornography..

And I admit, I write erotica....following your definition.

 

[LaRocha]

And I admit, I write erotica....following your definition.

Nah brah, you write porn.

http://www.literotica.com/stories/showstory.php?id=458580

"Little Carrie from Minnesota is a brave girl and will licking everything clean."

Isn't she? He never said that, but I always had felt his excitement whenever I did such a thing. My tongue moved tasty over his veins at pelvis height. To be honest, this was something that I always wanted to do.

"Pay attention to his balls! A black man always deserves to get good ball treatment."

CBW was a bit weaken, and Little Carrie may be dumb and moist in her face by that juice of the black man, her own fault, anyway, she had nothing but love for that balls with that connected, still erected black cock. What a man! What a beautiful cock! How good black balls tasting! LCM was close to become a prostitute, for a man who even couldn't speak because of an orange slip in his mouth."

 

[LaRocha]

That's good though, Tom, we can go over why your story is porn and what erotica would look like. If you want we can use your story as an example. See, if you're going to call it 'art' you have to make a distinction between erotica and porn, just like I do when I call it 'porn'. I think the difference between the two is evident, definitional.