Sexual Training Videos :D. So I guess STV is something you watch before getting an STD :dubious:.
A great line from a movie (can’t remember which 'cause I never watched it, just saw a comercial for it):
girl: Why don’t they ever make a movie about what happens after the romance.
boy: They do, it’s called porn.
(paraphrasing)
The thing about pornography is that so many people have such vast ideas about what it is. For instance, if a person that lived back in the more extreme Victorian era or even someone from just over a hundred years ago saw how people (mainly women) dressed, they’d instantly have a heart attack, they’d view skirts as pornographic. Porn vs pornograhic has almost taken on a different meaning altogether, it’s in reference more to an explicit film or series of pictures while pornograhic is anything that’s considered risque (or at least that’s the way I see it). My thing is that porn sounds like something harsh, softcore is not porn, it’s arousing, but unless it’s intense, someone’s screaming “F me”, and at the end the chic gets a facial, then it’s not porn (sorry for the vivid description - just be gald I didn’t describe what I really consider porn to be :D, that would be borderline softcore I think simply 'cause most porn is like that).
I personally think that too many people live sheltered lives, they need to have their minds exposed to some stuff and have their heads removed from their asses. If violence is allowed on the level that it is, then sexuality needs to also be at that same level, either that or get rid of violent movies and games, one or the other. This strange acceptence of gore and shunning of beauty is pure ‘head in the ground’ behavior and it needs to stop…seriously, I’ve had enough with it (“Okay Bosstrain, we already know you despise gore and love sex, enough already, we get the picture dammit” :D).
I don’t see why something either has to be porn or not porn. Why can’t it be a little of both?
That’s the problem with making a legal definition for pornography (or obscenity). I define pornography as anything that turns me on, and does little else. This is a highly subjective definition, where everyone is going to have a different opinion. We can all agree on “backdoor sluts 9,” but what about a film like Showgirls? Some people might watch it and see a movie with sex and no worthwhile story, while others might be entertained by the story without the sex.
I think you can have a movie with a worthwhile story and pornographic scenes. It doesn’t have to be one or the other.
Not at all. There are plenty of things I can’t masturbate to, but which I still recognize as porn, because I know that a lot of other folks masturbate to it.
I’ve never seen Showgirls of course, but in a movie like that the sex is just to add spice (sometimes to distract people from realizing the story sucks though, or so that men won’t get bored and the ladies can watch without complaints from them).
Any media designed to excite the base instincts with no other purpose. Not that there is anything wrong with that. You may define “base instinct” however you like.
I’ve seen “food porn” that does nothing other than excite my appetite. Think a Dove chocolate commercial where attractive (and thin) women coo and moan. It doesn’t teach anything and it doesn’t tell a story, it just makes you hungry.
I’ve seen what I would call “torture porn.” Movies like Saw I-XX for example or any of a thousand movies where the hero just has to graphically torture a bad guy to get what he wants. Some people must really like watching torture but need to hide it, so they watch movies like that. Maybe you could call it “revenge porn.”
Same with sex porn. At one time they had to pretend there was a story. These days they can get away with no story. So, if the point is to excite you sexually, then its porn IMO. Nothing wrong with that.
As far as I can tell, porn seems to be pictures or film of one or more people engaging in sex or a sex act. It might be “kinky sex”, but sex nonetheless. Don’t really understand why there is such a big deal made about porn, unless it’s the inherent voyeurism that is involved, sort of seeing what everybody does behind closed doors and what everybody has under their clothes. Maybe it offends people’s sense of modesty and privacy?
Watch it and come back and tell me if you think someone could enjoy that movie without the sex. Don’t bother if you’re not interested in the porn aspect, I wouldn’t wish that on my worst enemy.
While I think this gets at the core of the matter, the only problem I have with this definition is that requires the viewer to know the intentions of the creator. In most examples this is totally obvious, but not always.
When a matter is disputed, do we go on the claims of the creator of the piece in question or some appointed group of people to tell us?
That gray area is not so minor either: the fields of “erotica” and glamour photography, to name some of the more obvious, are designed (in part) to arouse, but the nature of these works typically have additional qualities going on as well.
For that reason, I tend to think that it is more instructive to use “pornographic” as one of a wide toolkit of descriptors to describe a work than an “on/off state” that determines whether it gets slapped with a single label that nullifies all other facets of the work.
So to answer the question, I’d tend to be inclined to label something as porn when the attention paid to titillation dwarfs all other factors that are found in varying degrees in “erotica” (craftsmanship, artistic expression, narrative, social commentary, emotional resonance, etc.)
That said, I must say that I found “Cum Guzzling Slut Gang Bang 14” stirred me to my soul on so many levels.
I think it was Harry Browne in How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World who defines porn as “…all the sexual things I love to do, when done by somebody else.”
Then there was Tom Lehrer:
“As the judge remarked the day
that he acquitted my Aunt Hortense,
‘To be smut
It must be ut-
terly without redeeming social importance
or…’
the graphic pictures I adore.”
I’d say that in porn the story is structured around explicit sex, and in support of showing it, versus non-porn where the sex is in support of the story. But, done right, it can be a story in its own right. The story in Flesh Gordon made a lot more sense than the story in the de Laurentis Flash Gordon and was a lot more fun, even in the non-porn parts.
I seem to recall that one of Kurt Vonnegut’s characters defined porn and anything related to bodily hair. Does anyone recall the context of this little snippet of memory?
