I’ve just been thinking about this lately. So many people define anything to do with sex as pornographic. I’ve seen people refer to Michaelangelo’s David as “gross” and the paintings of nudes by John W. Waterhouse as “sick.”
And then I found the following article by Andrew Greeley, and it seems so many have sex on the brain. It’s almost as if people who see this have dirty minds-someone wearing a short skirt! Oh-that’s sexual!
I would define pornography as the exploitation, (in most cases sex, although it can probably pertain to any number of things, if you want to get deeper into it), the degradation of sex, sex for the sake of being dirty, raunchy, shocking, etc. Often, porn is very violent, degrading and somewhat explicit just for the sake of being explicit.
Erotica, on the other hand, would be more the celebration of sex, the love and beauty of it all-that is, enjoying the beauty that is sensuality and that sex is in and of itself a beautiful, good and noble thing. It can be more explicit than porn, but it isn’t exploitive.
Does this make sense, or is your old pal Guin speaking out of her ass again?
I’m not sure, but I heard an item on All Things Considered yesterday that left me with similar thoughts.
The subject was a new showing of some Goya nudes. A few in particular were refered to as “almost pornographic,” while the female curator and female interviewer were giggling about how naughty the paintings are.
I’ll have to dig up a transcript, but I was almost shocked by the reactions of these two to a couple of artistic nude paintings.
Well, only took a couple of minutes to find: here.
Actually seeing the painting in question has me really wondering: why are these two educated women (one a museum curator, at that) so giddy about a relatively tame nude, calling it “almost pornographic?”
As a corollary question, how come those frothy romance novels – my first stepmother used to call them “heaving alabaster bosom” books – how come they aren’t called porn?
They’ve got tearing off of clothing, fingers fondling swelling bosoms, the hot iron of manhood, explicit penetration, repeated thrusting, clawing of fingers on sweaty backs, and all the other stuff that usually gets fiction branded as smut. If you actually filmed one of them as-written, it would almost certainly be rated NC-17.
This seems to tie back to Bosda’s only-semi-tongue-in-cheek definition. Jenna Jameson’s movies are consumed by sex-hungry perverts (mostly men), and thus are marketed in blacked-window corner shops in the bad part of town. Romance novels, consumed as they are by perfectly ordinary people (mostly women) and sold openly on the shelf at Fred Meyer and Wal-Mart, get a pass.
Is it just me, or is there more than a hint of a priori thinking in there?
Because romance novels, although they often contain sex, are not about sex primarily. They’re about falling in love - which tends to lead to sex. Some contain no sex at all, others quite a bit, but it’s not the main focus of the story as it is with porn or erotica.
Porn/erotica, on the other hand, is mainly about sex and may have nothing whatsoever to do with love.
As to the difference between porn and erotica, I would say that porn is about the mechanics of sex, while erotica is about the sensations.
Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
The presentation or production of this material.
Lurid or sensational material: “Recent novels about the Holocaust have kept Hitler well offstage [so as] to avoid the… pornography of the era” (Morris Dickstein).
e·rot·i·ca
pl.n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)
Literature or art intended to arouse sexual desire.
It’s funny, both definitions are semantically similar yet each evokes an entirely different image.
Interesting to note the difference in the definitons
pornography - …to cause sexual arousal.
erotica - …to arouse sexual desire.
This seems in line with nonny’s point that one is about the mechanics and the other is about feelings.
I think it’s similar to sexuality vs sensuality
Of course there is also the obvious…You can buy Erotica at borders…Pornography at 7-11
Wasn’t it Andrea Dworkin who said that it was porn if the man comes first?
Seriously, I think it’s totally subjective. On the surface I think of erotica as anything that involves heaving bosoms and throbbing manhoods, and porn as anything Donald Wildmon doesn’t want me to see. But scratch that surface and the definitions get hazy. For me, as long as the act involves consenting adults, nothing patently illegal, and turns you on, I don’t have a problem with it and would probably consider it erotica. True devil porn (i.e. shouldn’t exist) would mainly involve kittie porn, violence, and anything involving Bea Arthur.
Is it just me, or is there more than a hint of a priori thinking in there?