Defining Pornography

[CharleyH]

This may be really... strange, considering where we are.

I consider porn to be anything written/recorded/produced SOLELY for sexual response by the audience. Which means, to me, stroke is porn.

Erotica gets into the sex, yes, but there's a reason to the sex- it isn't a "Hi, I'm Joe, wanna fuck?" There are emotions under the skin, and erotica, to me, gets to that.

Porn gets a physical response- erotica gets an emotional one. Smut for the soul- that's my goal.

I disagree and really hate to toot my own horn (I really do because its tacky), but I did write a pretty fucking awesome piece of stroke called 'The Screening'. There are no emotions other than sexual ones. There is little back story and even a smaller amount of why they fuck other than that they do.

Yet, it is a fuck piece that many might view as erotic.

The story gives a physical response more than an emotional one, so? Why is it not porn?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Is a cartoon of Tony Blair taking it up the arse from Bush pornography or political commentary?

I may write a stroke story that contains unlimited use of imagery, iconism and themes, is that just a stroke story?

Or a movie with the iconic train-entering-a-tunnel shot (especially pasted in on the heels of a passionate kiss, appropos of nothing else in the plot. )

 

[CharleyH]

But then, as a friend of mine insists (and who am I to deny her) whatever you write, film or draw, your audience takes from it what they will. They bring themselves to your work.

Is a cartoon of Tony Blair taking it up the arse from Bush pornography or political commentary?

I may write a stroke story that contains unlimited use of imagery, iconism and themes, is that just a stroke story?

I may symbolise inner turmoil and deep rooted psychological/emotional content by use of the weather, a tawse and particular speech patterns but if you don't see any of that is it just stroke?

Well, as I have stated from the start - porn is another word for censorship. Getting into semiotics? I believe a skilled writer makes one feel the difference between getting off and getting off with satisfaction. As readers? What gets us off?

 

[Weird Harold]

Gynelogical closeups in Hustler are porn. This is erotica. (Credit to Sophia for discovering.)

I think the format of that image -- a stereo-opticon slide -- pretty much defines it as pornography and the photographer would be surprised to find it in the Metropolitan Museum as an example of erotic art.

I think the intent of the author/artist has to be considered to some extent -- if it can be determined -- because there are so many images, literal and literary, that are considered "erotic" or "artistic" where the intent of the author/artist was clearly to titilate customers and make money; such as that stereo-opticon slide or Hustler's "gynocological closeups."

I think the premise that "pornographic" is a word coined solely for censorship has some merit, but it's an incomplete premise.

"Erotic" is permissible and enjoyable because it pushes the limit of what we're comfortable with; "Pornography/obscenity" is forbidden because it breaks the limits of what we're comfortable with. Since everyone has different "comfort limits" the distinction is entirely subjective.

 

[CharleyH]

"Erotic" is permissible and enjoyable because it pushes the limit of what we're comfortable with; "Pornography/obscenity" is forbidden because it breaks the limits of what we're comfortable with. Since everyone has different "comfort limits" the distinction is entirely subjective.

Tricky question for me, yet interesting. Again. Is not pornography but a word for the censors? You are mixing in obscenity, which is a truly American definition.

 

[Liar]

Is this the good old erotica vs porn debate all over again? If so, I'll just cut n paste mo standard definition.

Porn is about having sex.
Erotica is about sexuality.

There, go home. Thread is closed.

 

[Weird Harold]

You are mixing in obscenity, which is a truly American definition.

But I am and always have been an American and have to approach the question from what I know.

However, the "a word for the censors" premise probably fits "Obscene" better than it does "Pornography" since "Pornography" has a history that predates it's connection with censorship -- going all the way back to it's derivation from "Pornae" which were the lowest caste of prostitutes in the Roman empire.

If you approach the question from the roots of the word, "Pornography" is simply "Low-class Erotica" aimed at the "unwashed masses." It's not a "word for the censors" but "a word for the "snobs" and "cultural elite" to distinguish their refined sensibilities from the animal passions of the commoners.

 

[minsue]

Are you sure that wasn't for its self-absorbed tedium?

. .

 

[CharleyH]

Is this the good old erotica vs porn debate all over again?

No it is not, but it's hard to teach old dogs new tricks.

 

[minsue]

No it is not, but it's hard to teach old dogs new tricks.

Have you tried showing 'em porn as a reward?

 

[eroscalling4U]

Intent is the definition...

In the USC listed earlier, pornography is, in MY (warped ) mind predicated on two things (aside from the more deviant things) the way genitals are depicted.
the term "lascivious" is used as a condition of portrayal of genitalia to actually define pronography. ie:
(iii) graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person; "Lascivious" as defined by Merriam Webster is:

Main Entry: las·civ·i·ous
Pronunciation: l&-'si-vE-&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin lasciviosus, from Latin lascivia wantonness, from lascivus wanton -- more at LUST
: LEWD, LUSTFUL
- las·civ·i·ous·ly adverb
- las·civ·i·ous·ness noun
Lasciviousness seems to ad that "come fuck me" element; whereas to display
say an image of a woman laying across a bed with the breeze blowing in through a window having her legs open causing her genitals to be exposed WITHOUT the "come fuck me" look or even looking at the viewer at all is simply art.
I had a short conversation with shyguy the otherday on just this very subject-asking why there were no nude profile pics here. (Which I STILL don't understand how other websites can do it)

It seems to be the intent of the image-whether or not is is created to be erotically arousing that is what makes it porn or something else (erotica, art, etc) I hope that I'm babbling here does this make sense?

 

[CharleyH]

But I am and always have been an American and have to approach the question from what I know.

However, the "a word for the censors" premise probably fits "Obscene" better than it does "Pornography" since "Pornography" has a history that predates it's connection with censorship -- going all the way back to it's derivation from "Pornae" which were the lowest caste of prostitutes in the Roman empire.

If you approach the question from the roots of the word, "Pornography" is simply "Low-class Erotica" aimed at the "unwashed masses." It's not a "word for the censors" but "a word for the "snobs" and "cultural elite" to distinguish their refined sensibilities from the animal passions of the commoners.

Thank you, but you are wrong, kind of, as I have articulated already. Getting back to the original question: Is pornography nothing but a word giving licence to censors or is it something else?

 

[CharleyH]

Have you tried showing 'em porn as a reward?

OMG you sicko! LOL

 

[eroscalling4U]

The question:

"pornography" is a vague label that is applied to any art that anyone finds "offensive" so YES it IS a label created solely to allow censorship of art.
As I said-it is the intent of the work which bears fully on the question;
some people want a line drawn to say "this is too much" This is OKAY-that is not so they say it's porn and censor it. How's that?

 

[CharleyH]

"pornography" is a vague label that is applied to any art that anyone finds "offensive" so YES it IS a label created solely to allow censorship of art.
As I said-it is the intent of the work which bears fully on the question;
some people want a line drawn to say "this is too much" This is OKAY-that is not so they say it's porn and censor it. How's that?

Some people do want a line drawn, surely, and isn't the one they draw bound to pornography?

How's that?

 

[eroscalling4U]

YES-Definitely

Think about this: Porn has two basic elements: the body and sexuality(implied or real). Now I have observed that one can discuss just about any type of aberrent behavior but the one that drives people absolutely WILD is sex/pronography.
I have SEEN it-In my community, I have seen the "moral" masses pickett adult bookstores, and heard pornography denounced more than anything else.
It's "moral" for businessmen to screwing people over, robbing them of their money, but because I do nude photography/artwork, I'm a pervert, the worst sort of low-life. what IS it about "porn" that drives people crazy?
"porn" is the strength and crux of censorship.

 

[Pure]

yes, charley, i think the point of a pornography definition is usually to draw a line, and say "this graphic display i won't allow." or better "this graphic display corrupts morals."

after that, however, if you look at the US Code, things go weird, since they try for a list based on objective facts, e.g. a close of up a pubic area. yet that will never work, for the next question is 'what about Gray's Anatomy [the book]'. even so, someone then says, 'but some pervs find the anal area arousing,' so the anal area is added.

in this town, there is a law against displaying a 'disgusting object.' same problem: there are things generally agreed to be disgusting, but trying to make an 'objective list' goes off the mark. example: in this town a woman made a display of tampons, some of them used. she was arrested under the law. perhaps many a guy and some women would say, 'a used tampon is disgusting. but....

a similar problem is around 'public indecency.' we have a general idea, but cities that try to write down limits go wierd: 'the stripper may expose the upper breast but not any of the areola.' then someone says, 'how about a little?' and so the law is changed to 'no more than 1/4 inch of areola.'

---
here is a question for this discussion: what is Lolita {the book}-- porn or erotica or what?

 

[Mesachie]

What an interesting discussion and this is the best of forums for it, since we are interested in the exactly the elements that erotica and/or porn contain. I've seen simple definitions that reduced the difference to artistic merit. Erotica has it, porn does not or has very little. Now what constitutes artistic merit is an even harder nut to crack.

I personally agree with Liar:

Porn is about having sex.
Erotica is about sexuality.

But I find compelling elements in the argument that surround class and educational distinctions as well. I admire the stroke writer, the classical pornographer, who does not seek some ethical redemption but directly acknowledges and often revels in satiating physical desire.

A good story with sex, is just that, a good story. Literary merit is not a pretension, but an acknowledgement of effective and usually a more complex form of story telling. Primal sexuality is tempered with other components to make a story resolve into a more intellectual and supposedly satisfying experience.

Perhaps that is the sword that slices the gordian knot here? If it does not rely on complexity and intellect, but speaks to our most animal desire, then it is porn. If it marries other aspects of humanity to it, enriching the reader's experience, but dilluting the sex, then it should be considered erotica?

Just a couple of ideas to consider. I like stories from both camps and I hope in the future, to write for each. I also think that the word "pornography" is used by censors (or wannabe's) as wantonly as some of us like to use each other!

Mesachie

 

[The_Fool]

What is an author? What is a post-modern poem? What is pornography?

I think we're going to have to take up a collection to get you a dictionary, m'dear....

There is no porn....there is no poetry.

 

[Salvor-Hardon]

I agrees that "pornography" is a censorship word, it has negative conotations and is never valued or esteemed. What it may be differs from culture to culture, society to society, but those who use the "porn" label do so specifically to demonize the object they label.

The other debate to bring in to this is also "author's intent" versus "the viewer's perception". I may want to write a deeply moving story exploring the passion and commitment of domination and power exchange, but a reader may only see some hot bondage smut. How do we as authors / artists / creative types put forth our intent clearly and yet not distract from the art itself? Can we be emotionally stirring, intellectually stimulating and also clear and unmistaken about what we are expressing?

Or is all art a reflection of the viewere once it leaves the artists hand? and despite our best efforts, we take the "porn" label when slapped on us?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Perhaps that is the sword that slices the gordian knot here? If it does not rely on complexity and intellect, but speaks to our most animal desire, then it is porn. If it marries other aspects of humanity to it, enriching the reader's experience, but dilluting the sex, then it should be considered erotica?

But what if it is a "stew" with both ingredients included, but as discrete components of harmonious whole? One page is a sex act that "speaks to our most animal desire," and another section contains "intellect, complexity, and aspects of humanity." In one bite is sex that is not "dilluted," and in another bite is something else.

 

[Liar]

There is no porn....there is no poetry.

Maybe porn is poetry.

Someone clever once told me that the difference between poetry and other writitng is that poems can skip past pesky little things like narrative and characterization, and go straight for the feeling.

Kind of like porn. Plot? We need no stinking plot. And the only character traits that matter are Hot and Fucking.

 

[eroscalling4U]

It is my understanding that

"lolita" is a term used to denote an erotic model that is, or portrays to be, under the legal age of consent, who is , as Wordnet defines "a sexually precocious young girl"
Sites use the term to describe lolitas like thus:
"LOLITA PICTURES - PICTURE ARCHIVES OF SEXY LOLITAS 18+ TEEN PORN Horny teenage girls who want their tender pussy filled. ..."
and
"Lolita pictures published by glitterdestroyme. ... free lolita pedo kids pics, best collection nude art children, very very young preteen underage ..."
PERSONALLY, I can't understand what one would get out of pedophilia-I want a WOMAN, not a little girl.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I don't write porn or erotica.

I write smut.

I'm with you, Rob. I have had some people trying to tell me that I write erotic stories. Believe me, I let them know otherwise. I write SMUT, damn it!

There used to be a distinction between soft core and hard core porn. Soft core was something that was restricted to adults only, such as Playboy or certain paperback books. Back then, Playboy showed breasts but not even pubic hair. The distinction had pretty much evaporated but people still use it, which seems pretty silly. For a theater to advertise that they show "hardcore porn" is a contradiction in terms. I guess the only hardcore porn around now would be something erotic featuring a person under 18.

 

[The_Fool]

Maybe porn is poetry.

Someone clever once told me that the difference between poetry and other writitng is that poems can skip past pesky little things like narrative and characterization, and go straight for the feeling.

Kind of like porn. Plot? We need no stinking plot. And the only character traits that matter are Hot and Fucking.

Pondering porn, poetry and pragmatism.