Erotica and pornography: Is there a difference?

[Verdad]

All good points, Polynices. I might add I'm not being obtuse about the meaning of erotic and pornographic as adjectives—as such, they make better sense, and indeed, Charley's description of pornographic was so great I could not only see what she means; I could smell it! When erotica and pornography are used as labels for genres, though, it becomes more than just a matter of a definable aesthetic. The overall aim and quality of a piece comes into play, as well as the public/publishing consensus. The latter seem to be in so much flux that the label doesn't really tell you what's inside a tin.

I got curious what Martin Amis is saying, though, and I did a quick googling. Upon skimming through a few articles, I see he made more sense to me in your rendition than in his own words. He has a few points that sit very well with me—porn as the ultimate consumerism, inauthenticity of consumer's life, and such like—but he also seems to waffle all over the place.

In part, I guess he's in the same position as someone criticizing violence in movies by making a violent movie, but more important, his thoughts struck me as rather humdrum and not very sincere. In case anyone's interested, here's an interview with him; a review of some of his work; and an article/reportage about the industry he had done in 2001.

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

All good points, Polynices. I might add I'm not being obtuse about the meaning of erotic and pornographic as adjectives—as such, they make better sense, and indeed, Charley's description of pornographic was so great I could not only see what she means; I could smell it! When erotica and pornography are used as labels for genres, though, it becomes more than just a matter of a definable aesthetic. The overall aim and quality of a piece comes into play, as well as the public/publishing consensus. The latter seem to be in so much flux that the label doesn't really tell you what's inside a tin.

I got curious what Martin Amis is saying, though, and I did a quick googling. Upon skimming through a few articles, I see he made more sense to me in your rendition than in his own words. He has a few points that sit very well with me—porn as the ultimate consumerism, inauthenticity of consumer's life, and such like—but he also seems to waffle all over the place.

In part, I guess he's in the same position as someone criticizing violence in movies by making a violent movie, but more important, his thoughts struck me as rather humdrum and not very sincere. In case anyone's interested, here's an interview with him; a review of some of his work; and an article/reportage about the industry he had done in 2001.

Nicely said, Verdad. For some reason or other, it makes me think of a film that came out in 2007 that takes the approach of making a violent film to criticize that kind of filmmaking: Michael Haneke's Funny Games, starring Naomi Watts and Tim Roth. This is a film that is so violent and so well-written and acted at the same time that it makes it impossible to simply dismiss it. Haneke said that he did that film specifically as a way of criticizing violence in American films and American audiences for consuming this kind of material. Yet, his film is more disturbing to me than any straightforwardly "violent" film I've ever seen. When I finished Funny Games, I said something I've never said. I pronounced uncomfortably: "That is the first film I've ever truly regretted seeing and wish I had never looked at because it makes me feel filthy." And, I meant it.

Clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMvfrswF7tg&feature=related

 

[Verdad]

Nicely said, Verdad. For some reason or other, it makes me think of a film that came out in 2007 that takes the approach of making a violent film to criticize that kind of filmmaking: Michael Haneke's Funny Games, starring Naomi Watts and Tim Roth. This is a film that is so violent and so well-written and acted at the same time that it makes it impossible to simply dismiss it. Haneke said that he did that film specifically as a way of criticizing violence in American films and American audiences for consuming this kind of material. Yet, his film is more disturbing to me than any straightforwardly "violent" film I've ever seen. When I finished Funny Games, I said something I've never said. I pronounced uncomfortably: "That is the first film I've ever truly regretted seeing and wish I had never looked at because it makes me feel filthy." And, I meant it.

Clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMvfrswF7tg&feature=related

I'm torn now, because on the one hand, there's Tim Roth in the movie, but on the other, I trust what you just said and have a very good idea of what you mean. It's not entirely analogous to what I meant about Amis—I just got the impression his satire lacks a genuine bite—but I think I can safely say I'll be skipping the movie after all.

I have to thank you for posting that excerpt of Nin's the other day, too. Because it was fresh in my memory, I thought about the reception it might have gotten had it been posted on Lit. Although exquisitely written, it would probably barely register. That says a lot about what all goes into our perception of a piece beside the actual piece.

I'd also mentioned Catherine Millet but edited her out on the second thought because she is contemporary. Her memoir came out in 2002. Yet that it is a memoir—one of a French intellectual with some very unorthodox sexual experiences, at that—grants it the label of erotica as much as what is between the covers. Hence I really don't obsess about the labels, though I like to obsess about everything else.

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

I'm torn now, because on the one hand, there's Tim Roth in the movie, but on the other, I trust what you just said and have a very good idea of what you mean. It's not entirely analogous to what I meant about Amis—I just got the impression his satire lacks a genuine bite—but I think I can safely say I'll be skipping the movie after all.

I have to thank you for posting that excerpt of Nin's the other day, too. Because it was fresh in my memory, I thought about the reception it might have gotten had it been posted on Lit. Although exquisitely written, it would probably barely register. That says a lot about what all goes into our perception of a piece beside the actual piece.

I'd also mentioned Catherine Millet but edited her out on the second thought because she is contemporary. Her memoir came out in 2002. Yet that it is a memoir—one of a French intellectual with some very unorthodox sexual experiences, at that—grants it the label of erotica as much as what is between the covers. Hence I really don't obsess about the labels, though I like to obsess about everything else.

Yes, I see what you mean about Amis.

I'm pleased you enjoyed the Nin excerpt the other day. I have always liked her work and she has a way of describing sexuality that is both elegant and erotic to my mind. I agree with you, though. If that story were posted on Lit, it would be almost completely overlooked and probably receive pretty low ratings. Sad, really, because I happen to like that kind of work.

I have not read Millet, but I will check her out, given what you said about her. She sounds fascinating. Thanks for the recommendation.

 

[Verdad]

Yes, I see what you mean about Amis.

I'm pleased you enjoyed the Nin excerpt the other day. I have always liked her work and she has a way of describing sexuality that is both elegant and erotic to my mind. I agree with you, though. If that story were posted on Lit, it would be almost completely overlooked and probably receive pretty low ratings. Sad, really, because I happen to like that kind of work.

I have not read Millet, but I will check her out, given what you said about her. She sounds fascinating. Thanks for the recommendation.

Here's google book preview if anyone else is curious.

 

[WRJames]

Do the characters fuck, have sex or make love?

Ah -- isn't this the eternal question -- not just with what we write? How many of our own sexual experienes are actually "making love?" What is it about a sexual experience that turns it into "making love" rather than simply fucking? It's not simply that you are in love with the partner. It's not even that both partners enjoy it. One may be full of love and tenderness, the other may just be in a hurry to get fucked and get it over with.

My characters do all three, but the making love is something of a rarity.

 

[polynices]

Thanks for all the responses to my question: Is there a difference between erotica and pornography? I’m going to try to gather the threads of the argument together now in order to begin making a formulation of my own.

Here's the state of play as I see it at the moment (though I grant there are a few uncertainties about which categories particular opinions ought to go into):

1. There’s absolutely no difference between pornography and erotica.

a) Wyldfire: Both are smut at the core. You can dress a pig in silk but in the end it's still a pig.
b) The Fool: 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. (Of course, this might go into Category 5. instead. It’s difficult to tell.)

2. There may be a difference but it’s difficult to define, and there’s a lot of overlap between the two in any case.

a) Verdad: I don't believe a hard line can be drawn between porn and erotica, with the entire production of sexually explicit materials falling neatly on one or the other side, but ... In short, I'd say erotica enriches one's erotic imagination while porn dulls it, but I'll repeat it couldn't stand as something definitional but merely as a reflection.
b) ketalia: I don't think that there's a hard and fast line for me either. My personal definition is this: If the story is sufficiently interesting to me that I would read it again, even if it had less (or even no) dependence on the sex than it is erotica. If the story resonates only with my nether regions, then it's porn.
c) Verdad: But the main point remains: as soon as we move away from the crudest vids of spurting dicks, I see no way of firmly separating porn and erotica in a meaningful way and no need for it either.
d) Verdad: 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.
e) Verdad: 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.
f) Stella Omega: 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.

3. There is a difference between them.

a) OnlyByMoonlight: Pornography is flat and has one purpose/meaning: to sexually arouse. Erotica is round and can have multiple meanings, be symbolic and allegorical as well as sexually arouse
b) LaRocha: Erotica is highly sensual, pornography is highly mechanical. ... ‘Pornography is erotica without feeling.’- More or less, yes.
c) Handley Page: To my mind, pornography is a sort of "in your face" artificial sex. It does not represent anything; it has no artistic merit (usually). ... Erotica is the 'suggestion' of pornography; a light shining down a path that leads to sex in one form or another.
d) CharleyH: ... porn is bluntly unapologetic and erotica is teasingly apologetic. Both induce sexual arousal, the writers of such just choose to do it in different ways.
e) CharleyH’s husband: Erotica is Pornography without the balls.
f) voluptuary manque: ... erotica needs a real plot. Porn doesn't.
g) CharleyH: Erotica is the story of sex. Porn is the sex.
h) The Fool: Erotica is the story of sex, porn is the exaggeration and/or exploitation of sex, sex is sex.
i) Lisa Summers: Erotica sometimes gets an "E." Porn doesn't.
j) PoppingTom: They're not quite the same, as pornography is more explicit. ... 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.
k) Wyldfire: 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.
g) 3113: Erotica is unapologetically demanding a story, sex isn't enough for it. It's porn that apologetically, timidly, sadly says, "My audience will vanish if I put in a story; all they want is the sex...
l) 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.
m) UltimateSwitch: What is the argument? Erotica is pornographic literature, while pornography is visual and not written.
n) CharleyH: ... porn is gooey bukkake, a cum-splattered bitch, hard hairy balls dripping with cunt juice, raw wet cunny and a gaping hole you can spit into when it's been fucked so hard that you have to wonder if you could take it if you were on a receiving end. It's cunt, it's cock, it's cum and gape and it's downright dirty. Porn is nothing if not dirty. Erotica can be explicit, but it's never dirty.

4. It’s up to you: If you want to say they’re different, then they are; if not, then they’re not.
a) JAMESBJOHNSON: It’s the old question of: Is manure shit? Is a diamond coal? Is water ice? Maybe the correct answer is: What's the outcome you want?
b) rgraham66: It's like beauty. Different things for different people.

5. Who gives a fuck if there’s a difference? I’m too busy getting off to care if it’s porn or erotica!

a) sweetsubsarahh: I do have a cause though. It is obscenity. I'm for it. (Is there an implied ‘Who cares? preceding this? I’ve assumed there is.)
b) sweetsubsarahh: This porn vs erotica discussion has happened before. It's happened a great many times, as a matter of fact. Many of us don't bother to get worked up about it.

Do the characters fuck, have sex or make love?
Is it explicit? Well, that depends on the readers' opinion.
Is it arousing? Well, that depends on the readers' kinks.
Does it use clinical descriptions (vagina, anus, penis) or do the characters get raw and nasty (cunt, asshole, cock)?

I write smut. Hopefully it isn't poorly written.

 

[oggbashan]

Sorry - error. Post coming later. (I can't work out how to delete this.)

You can't. You can only edit out the contents but leave at least 5 characters.

Og

 

[elfin_odalisque]

Thanks for all the responses to my question: Is there a difference between erotica and pornography? I’m going to try to gather the threads of the argument together now in order to begin making a formulation of my own.

Here's the state of play as I see it at the moment (though I grant there are a few uncertainties about which categories particular opinions ought to go into):

1. There’s absolutely no difference between pornography and erotica.



2. There may be a difference but it’s difficult to define, and there’s a lot of overlap between the two in any case.

a) OnlyByMoonlight: Pornography is flat and has one purpose/meaning: to sexually arouse. Erotica is round and can have multiple meanings, be symbolic and allegorical as well as sexually arouse
d) CharleyH: ... porn is bluntly unapologetic and erotica is teasingly apologetic. Both induce sexual arousal, the writers of such just choose to do it in different ways.
e) CharleyH’s husband: Erotica is Pornography without the balls.
f) voluptuary manque: ... erotica needs a real plot. Porn doesn't.
g) CharleyH: Erotica is the story of sex. Porn is the sex.
g) 3113: Erotica is unapologetically demanding a story, sex isn't enough for it. It's porn that apologetically, timidly, sadly says, "My audience will vanish if I put in a story; all they want is the sex...
l) 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.
m) UltimateSwitch: What is the argument? Erotica is pornographic literature, while pornography is visual and not written.
n) CharleyH: ... porn is gooey bukkake, a cum-splattered bitch, hard hairy balls dripping with cunt juice, raw wet cunny and a gaping hole you can spit into when it's been fucked so hard that you have to wonder if you could take it if you were on a receiving end. It's cunt, it's cock, it's cum and gape and it's downright dirty. Porn is nothing if not dirty. Erotica can be explicit, but it's never dirty.

4. It’s up to you: If you want to say they’re different, then they are; if not, then they’re not.
a) JAMESBJOHNSON: It’s the old question of: Is manure shit? Is a diamond coal? Is water ice? Maybe the correct answer is: What's the outcome you want?
b) rgraham66: It's like beauty. Different things for different people.

5. Who gives a fuck if there’s a difference? I’m too busy getting off to care if it’s porn or erotica!
[/I]

Being rude, all this is anally retentive. Pornography derives from the word prostitute and encompasses all the current vid streams that have porn stars going through the motions of pretend submission in 'suck, squeeze, bang, blow', even though the models are now in control and paid well.

Erotica was invented (as a word and an activity) by Victorian England and was meant to give arousing photographs 0f scantily clad ladies in total oppostion to the standards of the time.

CharleyH has got closest but Polynices misses the point that Penny Birch writes for a male audience and is 'porno-lite'.

 

[polynices]

(Warning: I know this is long-winded, and it probably states the obvious for a lot of people. However, like any exploratory writing, it allowed me to get to a place I hadn’t been in before - so I thank you for your indulgence if you bother to read on.)

In my last post, I outlined five categories of response to the question ‘Is there a difference between erotica and pornography?’ They were:

1. There’s absolutely no difference between pornography and erotica.
2. There may be a difference but it’s difficult to define, and there’s a lot of overlap between the two in any case.
3. There is a difference between them.
4. It’s up to you: If you want to say they’re different, then they are; if not, then they’re not.
5. Who gives a fuck if there’s a difference? I’m too busy getting off to care if it’s porn or erotica!

The majority of opinions fell into categories 2 and 3 – i.e. either that there may be a difference but it’s hard to define, or that there really is a difference between erotica and porn.

Having started out as a probable Category 1, thinking there was no difference between the two, I’ve now decided I at least fall into Category 2 (‘there may be a difference but it’s hard to define’), or possibly category 3 (‘there is a difference’). Here are my reasons:

I can’t imagine a couple settling down for an evening’s entertainment and saying: “Let’s watch some erotica on the DVD.” Sex videos and photographs are generally known as ‘porn’, not erotica. On the other hand, sexy drawings and writing are frequently described as ‘erotica’.

Aside from the points we discussed earlier about publishers’ marketing strategies, I think this may be to do with the difference between the presentation of actuality on the one hand (i.e. photographic porn) and mimesis – that is, representation or imitation - on the other (written or drawn porn/erotica).

Pornographic photography, still or video, is a record of an actual sexual act. He really did fuck her; she really did lick that other woman’s pussy; etc. A very large part of a porn film’s erotic charge seems to stem from the brute fact of the act itself.

(I remember my response to my first, rather tame, porn film – in which a man simply fucked a woman on-screen. I thought ‘Wow! They’re really, really, really doing that!’ It made my head spin! The effect was electric, but short-lived. Soon after, the mere sight of two people screwing on-screen wasn’t exciting at all, and I needed far more exotic happenings to give me that original sexy thrill. I was psychically numbed to the reality of that first scene. )

Sex stories and sex drawings, on the other hand, are not real. They’re representations - imitations. In some ways, that means they have less impact than photographic and video porn, but the writer and the graphic artist have to work harder – they have to exercise more artifice - to draw the reader or viewer into the scene. That is, they have to put in more art to make it feel real or, at the very least, to persuade the reader to suspend disbelief.

I don’t agree that pornography is not art. Technically, there are wide differences between effective porn films and boring ones (the out-of-focus ones, for instance, that you wish you’d never chosen). And, beyond that, some porn directors are obviously more imaginative, more inventive and more attuned to their viewers’ fantasies than others are. And the performers themselves vary in their ability to relate to the viewer through the camera. So, although I’d agree that a very large proportion of porn films are bad or mediocre art, I still think art is involved in them. After all, film direction and acting are classed as arts in the non-porn world. I think the term can be applied to porn as well.

Nevertheless, I think there’s proportionally more art required in sex writing and drawing than there is in porno films – for the simple fact that, as I said, they’re acts of mimesis and not direct recordings of actual events.

It isn’t difficult to imagine a bad porn film – for example, the kind where the camera focuses for minutes at a time on a close-up of a penis going in and out of a vagina. There may be art in there somewhere, but there isn’t much of it, beyond lighting and basic camera technique. However, it would be difficult to imagine an equivalent sex story. Here’s a try at one:

‘John put his eleven inch cock into Mary’s wet pussy. He fucked her for a long time. She said: ‘Oh! Oh!’ She came ten times. Then, when he was ready, John pulled his cock out and cummed on her. The End.’

Even if it was extended to meet Literotica’s minimum words criterion, I’d be surprised if this ‘story’ would be accepted for posting on the site. And I’d be even more surprised if anybody actually submitted such a limited piece. It might make a viable – if bad - porn film, but it doesn’t make a story at all.

So I find myself in agreement with the people who say that erotic writing depends on something beyond the sex itself. It requires setting and character and probably plot - and some kind of ‘feeling’, as well, though I doubt if that feeling needs to be love. But emotion of some description is required.

So where does that leave me? Well, surprisingly, I have to admit that ’erotica’ is a valid term for the kind of writing we post here. That said, I think a lot of the writing on this site – including my own – is also pornographic. In fact, I think ‘erotica’ is a sub-set of pornography. All forms of porn – written, drawn, photographed and filmed - are primarily intended to arouse, to provoke a sexual response. But sex stories and – in a different way - sex drawings have additional requirements. So, for that reason, I’d call them erotica.

- polynices

 

[LaRocha]

Being rude, all this is anally retentive. Pornography derives from the word prostitute and encompasses all the current vid streams that have porn stars going through the motions of pretend submission in 'suck, squeeze, bang, blow', even though the models are now in control and paid well.

Erotica was invented (as a word and an activity) by Victorian England and was meant to give arousing photographs 0f scantily clad ladies in total oppostion to the standards of the time.

CharleyH has got closest but Polynices misses the point that Penny Birch writes for a male audience and is 'porno-lite'.

Being a philosopher of language, who cares about the etymology of the words 'pornography' and 'erotica'? Erotica wasn't invented in the 19th century. The question was about what we classify as pornography as opposed to what we classify as erotica. There are examples of both pornography and erotica from 2000 and 4000 years ago.

Erotic art, 'erotikos', the origin of our word 'erotica' was a Greek label for sexually explicit paintings in the 17th Century. The label transferred to photographs depicting the harem girls of the Orient. But etymology is irrelevant. What we now classify as erotic and art, vs. pornography isn't much different than the Greek and Roman classifications.

Pornography as a label doesn't encompass and describe all the current vid streams. You have many amateur videos from committed couples side by side with professional(prostituted) productions. Just because something's on video doesn't mean it's porn, just because something's written, doesn't mean it's erotica. We were attempting to describe those distinctions that we all recognize by educated instinct.

 

[bronzeage]

Being a philosopher of language, who cares about the etymology of the words 'pornography' and 'erotica'? Erotica wasn't invented in the 19th century. The question was about what we classify as pornography as opposed to what we classify as erotica. There are examples of both pornography and erotica from 2000 and 4000 years ago.

Erotic art, 'erotikos', the origin of our word 'erotica' was a Greek label for sexually explicit paintings in the 17th Century. The label transferred to photographs depicting the harem girls of the Orient. But etymology is irrelevant. What we know classify as erotic and art, vs. pornography isn't much different than the Greek and Roman classifications.

Pornography as a label doesn't encompass and describe all the current vid streams. You have many amateur videos from committed couples side by side with professional(prostituted) productions. Just because something's on video doesn't mean it's porn, just because something's written, doesn't mean it's erotica. We were attempting to describe those distinctions that we all recognize by educated instinct.

"educated instinct"?

 

[LaRocha]

"educated instinct"?

If I just said "Instinct" it'd be a battle. It just means, 'we read and write porn and erotica, we know the difference because we're immersed in it.' To know something by instinct doesn't have to derive from what we were born with. It's just another way to use language.

Main Entry: instinct
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: gut feeling, idea

 

[Stella_Omega]

‘John put his eleven inch cock into Mary’s wet pussy. He fucked her for a long time. She said: ‘Oh! Oh!’ She came ten times. Then, when he was ready, John pulled his cock out and cummed on her. The End.’

Even if it was extended to meet Literotica’s minimum words criterion, I’d be surprised if this ‘story’ would be accepted for posting on the site. And I’d be even more surprised if anybody actually submitted such a limited piece. It might make a viable – if bad - porn film, but it doesn’t make a story at all.

Out of every ten posted stories here, nine are probably of this caliber.

"Literotica" is only the name of the site. It isn't actually a description of the contents.
You know, like the smelly strip joints that call themselves "The Gentleman's Club." Or the line of one-armed bandits in a dinky joint with a sign; "Casino Royale."

 

[bronzeage]

If I just said "Instinct" it'd be a battle. It just means, 'we read and write porn and erotica, we know the difference because we're immersed in it.' To know something by instinct doesn't have to derive from what we were born with. It's just another way to use language.

Main Entry: instinct
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: gut feeling, idea

In this context, I believe the word for which you seek is:

intuition n. The act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes; immediate cognition.

 

[WRJames]

I think most of us have been saying, one way or another, that, if there is a distinction at all, erotica is tonier -- not as crude, more artful.

Let's look at the difference between Playboy and Hustler -- although I'm sure none of the ladies have ever looked at Hustler -- that may be a clue right there. No woman in Playboy for the last decade has had an asshole. It is an amazing feat of posing or airbrushing. If they have pussies at all, they are tight little slits of smooth skin.

Every shot in Hustler shows an anus and a drippingly wide open pussy.

So is Hustler porn? Unabashedly so.

Is Playboy erotic -- or just a formerly exciting publication which has lost its way?

I remember hearing an interview with Larry Flynt where he was mocking the phony sophistication of the Playboy life style. Put another way, Hustler is unabashedly blue collar, and it doesn't care if that it called porn. Playboy is trying to be classy.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Hustler is hardcore porn, Playboy is softcore porn.

Neither of them has any connection, or context, in the photos. Playboy sometimes publishes an erotic story or two.

I mostly write hardcore erotica. There is (almost always) connection and context. And there are anuses and wide open pussies, and deep red dripping cocks.

Softcore does NOT make something erotic. Sometimes it just makes it even more boring.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Good, interesting discussion of a never ending viewpoint between two poles.

ooops! Did I say "poles?" Whatever did my id mean by that, I wonder? And the "viewpoint between" them? Was my above sentence just a mere subconscious euphemism for two cocks and a pussy/browneye? Because I personally happen to love and enjoy threesome erotica/porn?

Ai yai yai! It's just sex on the brain in this place!

Erotica is the story of sex.

Y'know, we could just end it like that and it's 'nuff said. I might make this a sig phrase.

Softcore does NOT make something erotic. Sometimes it just makes it even more boring.

I've always been of the notion that softcore is softcore only because it's not allowed to be hardcore, so it does what it can do within the constraints given.

Now...if the mind creating the softcore was left unfettered, why...ummm...uhhhh...

*ghulp*

 

[Stella_Omega]

<snip>
I've always been of the notion that softcore is softcore only because it's not allowed to be hardcore, so it does what it can do within the constraints given.

Now...if the mind creating the softcore was left unfettered, why...ummm...uhhhh...

*ghulp*

it would be yours?

 

[bronzeage]

Have we figured out which one pays better?

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

Have we figured out which one pays better?

I think it's a bit like asking which pays better: Street-hooking or high-end escorting. I think it depends on the lady in question as I've formulated it. A street-hooker with a steady clientele can earn a lot on a busy night, while the big spenders (at least in the present economy) that typically see escorts just aren't willing to pay for sex at that premium, so the escort sits by the phone and doesn't earn a dime.

With respect to porn versus erotica, it all depends. It all depends on how well the writer is guiding you...how expert the writer is at giving you something you want....and what the person who reads it is seeking.

 

[WRJames]

Hustler is hardcore porn, Playboy is softcore porn.

Neither of them has any connection, or context, in the photos. Playboy sometimes publishes an erotic story or two.

I mostly write hardcore erotica. There is (almost always) connection and context. And there are anuses and wide open pussies, and deep red dripping cocks.

Softcore does NOT make something erotic. Sometimes it just makes it even more boring.

Deep red? I've had my balls turn red, never my cock.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Deep red? I've had my balls turn red, never my cock.

Have you ever stayed hard without release, for an hour... or two?

 

[WRJames]

At my age the trick is coming in less than an hour -- but my wife tends to get restless long before that.

I had my cock turn blue once -- I thought the thing was frostbitten.