Give us your personal definition of what is porn, as opposed to a legalistic definition that would satisfy a court (which is why I’m posting this in Cafe Society and not Great Debates or IMHO … I’m looking for the personal opinions of movie fans rather than legalistic or moralistic formulas. Maybe also explain your attitude about porn: does it define movies you would never watch, or is it just another category of film, such as adventure, romance, mystery, science fiction, etc.?
I’ll start. I define porn as a film that is made only for the purpose of sexually arousing the viewer. Doesn’t matter how it goes about sexually arousing the viewer, but if it has any other goal than sexual arousal, it’s not really porn. That is, humorous romance like “Zac and Miri Make a Porno” is not porn to me, because it does have an actual story to tell about the protagonists that does not involve sex, even though it has some fairly explicit sex scenes in it.
To me, porn is just another genre of film, got no problem with it.
Porn is that which becomes much, much less interesting after you orgasm. (note: under this definition in some instances your significant other may be classified as porn, which she may not appreciate)
But baby, you’re the best porn ever! Because you’re free!.. run!
Hardcore involves 2+ people and penetration or direct oral stimulation. Softcore involves 2 people with touching or simulated sex (e.g. late night on premium channels), or one person doing something to themselves more active than sitting there.
Artful nudes are not porn. Some forms of the softcore stuff technically count, but they’re not the first thing I think of.
I don’t think porn has to have the sole purpose of arousal. It usually does, but anything with explicit sexual activity will be labeled as porn by many people whatever it’s purpose. I find most short fiction to be lacking in sufficient depiction of explict sex, so it’s difficult to come up with examples.
I would say that it’s porn if arousal is the primary purpose, not necessarily the only one: One is reminded of things like adult performers quoting Shakespeare while in the act, so as to get around laws that forbid content with no cultural value.
Depictions of specific acts aren’t necessary. A naked person posing suggestively, for instance, can certainly be arousing, and I would imagine that that is the intent of the vast majority of such images. Granted, there are some artistic nudes that are not, but then again, “tasteful artistic nudes” and porn aren’t mutually exclusive, either.
One also shouldn’t specify a medium: Porn can be video, of course, but it can also be still pictures, or audio tracks, or text, or probably some other media I’m not thinking of.
I would say that porn doesn’t qualify as a genre of cinema, and also that porn stars should not be referred to as actors. A real film, whether drama, comedy, horror, action, musical, or what have you, is a story. Actors are essentially storytellers who collaborate with one another, the director, and the crew to tell a story. There isn’t that much of a difference between someone telling a story to a group of people around a campfire and an actor playing his part of a scene on a sound stage.
As mentioned by others already, the purpose of porn is to arouse the viewer. It is not a story, despite any nods to propriety that are tacked on. Porn stars collaborate with one another (and the director and crew) to arouse the viewer, not to tell a story. They have more in common with prostitutes, models, or even athletes than they do with actors. That’s not to say that porn star isn’t a legitimate occupation; that’s a discussion for another time. I’m just saying we shouldn’t call them something they aren’t.
This is begging the question. You first have to find a means of distinquishing porn from other forms of art. Your criteria fails to do that. Story is not a required component of art or entertainment. And I’ve seen several porn starlets who were excellent (but probably limited) actresses. I would agree that the vast majority of porn performers have more in common with models, athletes, and prostitutes than actors. That doesn’t disqualify porn as a cinematic art form though.
I don’t know about that. There are plenty of action-adventure movies where the story is just a cobbled-together mess of nonsense designed to allow the hero to beat guys up and be in the vicinity of huge explosions and drive cars real fast that they aren’t very different from some porn movie where the horny housewife has sex with three of four guys before having sex with her husband and discovering that he is – bom chicka-wow-wow – the best!
Under your definition, Pirates is either not porn, or it has no story, neither of which statement is completely sensible. Granted, it is not typical, and granted, “films” like “Anal Angels 23: New Ends!” has little or no story structure and if there’s acting, it’s of the “why do they even try?” variety. But still, not a COMPLETELY useful definition, as it also leaves out the growing subgenre of porn parodies like “This Ain’t I (fill in the blank).” And what about softcore films which always have plots and acting along with the fake sex?
Granted, it may well work for you, which is oK, I’m not interested in saying one definition is superior to others, just curious about different standards for what porn is.
Whoah, now, I didn’t use the term art. In fact, I won’t declare that porn isn’t art (mainly because discussions about the definition of art tend to get tedious). I said that porn isn’t cinema, i.e. that it isn’t in the same category as stories told using the medium of the motion picture.
An important distinction to be made is that in action flicks, as a rule the performers aren’t actually getting beaten up or shot, and the buildings aren’t actually being exploded. The violence is part of the (admittedly vapid) story, not a series of unsimulated spectacles linked together. In (hardcore) porn, the performers are actually having sex, and a big part of the draw is that they’re actually having sex.
Not having seen Pirates, I can only go by what the wiki article says about it. It sounds like porn with a big budget, and the plot elements no different term than the nods to decency in a stereotypical porn movie (though perhaps done more for the sake of ego than for decency). I’ll admit that softcore blurs the line a bit, but people still watch it to see naked people writhe around, not for the plot elements that string together the naked writhing.
Well I don’t think a definition of porn has to be an all-inclusive legal definition, for the purpose of this discussion. I think most people have a practical, pragmatic, if not thoroughly thought out, definition of porn that they use. I think the outer limits of the range might be, “Can I masturbate to it?” which basically includes everything (see: Rule 34) to “Is it something that’s ONLY useful for masturbating to?” which strikes me as a pretty good definition, though still rather personal: one man’s whack stack is another man’s compilation o’ boredom.