Have I said this before?

[Thomas Drablézien]

Imagine two photographs:

Photo 'A' is of a woman sitting, facing the camera, her legs spread wide and her fingers pulling apart her labia. Everything is revealed in sharp focus.

Photo 'B' is also of a woman, maybe the same woman, in profile, set in front of a lit window and draped in some diaphanous garment. One can see she is naked, possibly even aroused but the details are obscured.

One is pornography, the other is erotic art.

I think stories can be like this too. Some, right in your face, everything is there to be seen. Others more subtle leaving more to the imagination. Both approaches are valid, 'horses for courses' as the old saying goes.

I know which type I prefer, how about you?

 

[sr71plt]

Both, thanks. I don't think of myself as one dimensional. Plus, I like to leave room for others to be able to enjoy themselves with their own preferences as well. (Haven't we been here before?)

 

[LaRocha]

porno puts the graphic in -graphia. You make it clear in your examples. One is graphic, meant to shock, the spread labia. The other is obscured, sex obscured is sex symbolized, available for interpretation. I like both erotic and pornographic stories, same as I like erotic and pornographic pictures.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Imagine two photographs:

Photo 'A' is of a woman sitting, facing the camera, her legs spread wide and her fingers pulling apart her labia. Everything is revealed in sharp focus.

Photo 'B' is also of a woman, maybe the same woman, in profile, set in front of a lit window and draped in some diaphanous garment. One can see she is naked, possibly even aroused but the details are obscured.

One is pornography, the other is erotic art.

I think stories can be like this too. Some, right in your face, everything is there to be seen. Others more subtle leaving more to the imagination. Both approaches are valid, 'horses for courses' as the old saying goes.

I know which type I prefer, how about you?

When I write, I take the first kind of photo a little further. She would be spreading her labia with the fingers and thumb of one hand, while the other would be plunging a dildo or vibe or maybe just some fingers into the hole being created. Either that, or there would be another person kneeling before her and leaning forward preparing to eat her out. I make no pretense of writing anything other than smut. I have nothing against the second kind of photo, but I believe the raunchier the better.

 

[Stella_Omega]

many people agree with you, and consider "erotica" to be synonymous with "softcore."

I think "softcore" already is a perfectly good descriptor, and "erotica" has a wider meaning-- something about context, maybe, or secondary meanings, or emotional engagement as well as genital engagement.

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

My preference is for the kind of erotic writing that speaks the kind of truth which both my frontal cortex and my loins like to hear.

 

[oggbashan]

I think that is too simplistic.

What is erotic and what is pornographic depends on the person looking at the pictures.

In medieval times, in some countries, the only permitted art was religious. Some of the art works were erotic or pornographic by modern standards even though they overtly showed the Virgin Mary or the *interesting* life incidents of a female saint.

In Victorian times in the UK, nudity was acceptable if it was in a classical context such as Ancient Egypt, Greece or Rome. Alma-Tadema was a noted exponent of classical semi-erotica. Then some artists actually produced studies of modern women in contemporary settings. Shock! Horror!

The portrayals of women were the same. The contemporary settings tore away the Victorian's moral fig leaf.

What is erotic, what is pornographic, depends on the viewer. What is acceptable in California would be criminally outrageous in Saudi Arabia.

The National Geographic magazine introduced more young men to naked female breasts than Playboy ever did. But the National Geographic was educational!

Og

 

[LaRocha]

I think that is too simplistic.

What is erotic and what is pornographic depends on the person looking at the pictures.

In medieval times, in some countries, the only permitted art was religious. Some of the art works were erotic or pornographic by modern standards even though they overtly showed the Virgin Mary or the *interesting* life incidents of a female saint.

In Victorian times in the UK, nudity was acceptable if it was in a classical context such as Ancient Egypt, Greece or Rome. Alma-Tadema was a noted exponent of classical semi-erotica. Then some artists actually produced studies of modern women in contemporary settings. Shock! Horror!

The portrayals of women were the same. The contemporary settings tore away the Victorian's moral fig leaf.

What is erotic, what is pornographic, depends on the viewer. What is acceptable in California would be criminally outrageous in Saudi Arabia.

The National Geographic magazine introduced more young men to naked female breasts than Playboy ever did. But the National Geographic was educational!

Og

In the Western world from classical empire to Church Empire to modern empires you have a fairly consistent view on what is pornographic and what is acceptable in art. Most people today would consider I Modi erotic or pornographic, pretty much as it was considered erotic or pornography in the 16th Century. http://www.artandpopularculture.com/I_Modi

Most will still consider a sensual nude pornographic, however depicted. Anything that might turn you on is still a little dangerous in our culture, shield the child's eyes during a love scene in a classic movie, but let them wander free in the NY Met. As far as I know any depiction of a human being is still a little taboo in many parts of the Muslim world.

The Victorians had a very special brand of pornography, especially with the advent of the camera. There was the orientalist painting: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_cnHn3nFN7...BY/rAHIman5oK4/s320/orientalist+picture+2.jpg which was something erotic, and then there was the pornographic post card: http://www.tittyblog.com/titties/harem-girl-postcard.jpg I don't know that either of these is genuine, but it does reflect an attitude that hasn't really changed in the last 150 years.

 

[Lisa Summers]

Pls forward both pics k thx

 

[moonlitclover]

The National Geographic magazine introduced more young men to naked female breasts than Playboy ever did. But the National Geographic was educational!

Og

young women too and boy what an education it was

 

[Thomas Drablézien]

I put the line:

"One is pornography, the other is erotic art. "

In the OP as something of an afterthought. I wish I hadn't now. Perhaps I was being 'one dimensional' as accused?

To put this further in context I have included some fairly detailed descriptions of sexual acts in my own writings I don't shy away from the graphic when I feel that it works for my story. Although I am more interested in the who and the why rather than the what. Others may differ, that is their right. I don't seek to hold myself up and some sort of paragon, I am only too well aware of my limitations both as a writer and in other areas of life.

Of course what constitutes pornography is purely subjective. In Islam, as I understand it, any depiction of the human form is considered blasphemous. How this is reconciled with photographic identity documents, or parading pictures of the Ayatollah in 'student' demonstrations I don't know. - Or is this a question of graven images such as caused a schism in the Eastern Orthodox church?

But I have drifted too far from my point.

I read something last night which did modify the view that I apparently implied in the OP. It contained one scene of exceedingly graphic sex but handled with such skill it was both beautiful and shocking. (Not arousing for me, but that is beside the point.) The story as a whole dealt more with emotion than the physical act but without the sex scene, and the way that was told, it would not have had the power that it did.

I have been accused of trying to force my opinions and preferences on other people, an accusation that I strongly deny. My world view might be rather jaded but I understood that this forum was a place for free speech, I put forward my views and others put forward theirs. If through civilised debate common ground can be found, all well and good. However, I also know when it is time to agree to disagree.

 

[oggbashan]

I put the line:

"One is pornography, the other is erotic art. "

In the OP as something of an afterthought. I wish I hadn't now. Perhaps I was being 'one dimensional' as accused?

...

There is a balance to be struck when starting a thread saying what is, and what isn't anything?

If you give too many examples, are too prescriptive, are too dogmatic - you will deter people from responding.

If you make a fairly simple statement - you can be accused, as you have been by me, of being too simplistic. But that isn't really a criticism. It is an expansion of the discussion. The statement was too simplistic, not the author of the statement. That "simplistic" statement leaves room for discussion and debate.

Too often threads are started by people who think they have found the Golden Rule of writing and want everyone to follow it. What can you respond to that? Either "Yes, how wonderful" or "No, you are full of crap".

What is erotic, what is pornographic, is always a value judgement and values change over time. The UK trial of the book Lady Chatterley's Lover changed what the definition of pornographic is. If the same trial was to be held today the jury would acquit the defendants in minutes.

Og

 

[Thomas Drablézien]

The closing remarks of my last post were not aimed at you Og, but someone else who seems determined to goad me. Although I do take your point on board.

I too had thought of the 'Lady Chatterley's Lover' trial, but didn't follow that thought through.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Fortunately my view prevails.

Its easy to distinguish erotica from pornography. One intends to arouse and the other is the natural sexual condition expressed via all the senses. A knife may be a weapon or a culinary tool or entertainment or sport or art.

What something is, is what it does,

 

[sr71plt]

Too often threads are started by people who think they have found the Golden Rule of writing and want everyone to follow it. What can you respond to that? Either "Yes, how wonderful" or "No, you are full of crap".

Yep. It's fine to have personal preferences. When you initiate threads (repeatedly) to tell us what they are, you are being pushy and limiting and moving into "who gives a rat's ass?" territory.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I read something last night which did modify the view that I apparently implied in the OP. It contained one scene of exceedingly graphic sex but handled with such skill it was both beautiful and shocking. (Not arousing for me, but that is beside the point.) The story as a whole dealt more with emotion than the physical act but without the sex scene, and the way that was told, it would not have had the power that it did.

Now that, to me is the hallmark of true erotica.

I have been accused of trying to force my opinions and preferences on other people, an accusation that I strongly deny. My world view might be rather jaded but I understood that this forum was a place for free speech, I put forward my views and others put forward theirs. If through civilised debate common ground can be found, all well and good. However, I also know when it is time to agree to disagree.

I wouldn't say that you have tried to force your views on anyone else, at least not in this thread. Rather, I would say that your illustrating descriptions were so specific to you that they weren't really useful for purposes of debate-- sex being in the eye of the beholder and all.

One caveat-- "civilised debate" in this forum, is a rare beast.

 

[Thomas Drablézien]

...One caveat-- "civilised debate" in this forum, is a rare beast.

I am reminded of the old English Public School system where new boys might be soundly thrashed by the Prefects simply for having the temerity to be new boys.

Or, there is that scene from 'Animal House:'

"Yes Sir, thank you Sir, may I have another!"

 

[Stella_Omega]

I am reminded of the old English Public School system where new boys might be soundly thrashed by the Prefects simply for having the temerity to be new boys.

Or, there is that scene from 'Animal House:'

"Yes Sir, thank you Sir, may I have another!"

Gods, no-- it has nothing to do with your newness. It's simply that the "free speech" policy the owners have implemented fosters absolute anarchy. AH is one of the more civilised boards here-- take a look at the 'general board' but put on your hipwaders before you do.

In any case, your comment; The story as a whole dealt more with emotion than the physical act but without the sex scene, and the way that was told, it would not have had the power that it did...

I think that is one of the best definitions of "erotica" I have yet heard.

 

[Thomas Drablézien]

In any case, your comment; The story as a whole dealt more with emotion than the physical act but without the sex scene, and the way that was told, it would not have had the power that it did...

I think that is one of the best definitions of "erotica" I have yet heard.

It was an excellent story, all twenty (LE) pages of it. Not one of those "Wam Bam thank you mam" not quite one full page jobs. Damn! I wish I could write like that.

By the way, I am already wearing my full 'Mil Spec' dry suit.