Not really. In the UK, Ireland, Australia and Canada it’s not illegal to sell it (a Wiki article that seems well-cited), but is illegal to buy it. Punishing the buyer rather than the seller still means that prostitution isn’t legal in any practical way.
Do you draw the line only at porn of children, or also at porn for children? i.e. do you think we should have any restrictions on what children should have unrestricted access to?
I don’t think we need to protect kids from glimpsing a naked breast or buttock in classical art, or even on TV; but it would bother me if they were watching hardcore porn.
My stuff is erotica, your stuff is porn, and the stuff in the museum is “pictoral nudity.”
I’m not sure which specific citations on that page you’re referring to. It isn’t illegal to buy sex in any of those countries. At most, it’s illegal to solicit sex on the street (as either buyer or seller). But street prostitution accounts for only a small minority of overall prostitution. The vast majority takes place indoors and it is not illegal to buy sex indoors.
In some of those countries it is also illegal to buy sex from a person who has been trafficked, but again, that’s a minority of prostitution.
no one will care, but my two cents as an artist:
Porn seems to be made to get you off.
Erotica MIGHT get you off, but there’s some creativity and a semblance of artistry to the creational aspect of it that comes as the first intentions. getting you off might just be a by product and an indirect consequence of the subject matter and execution. Twilight is vampire erotica vs a porno of two people getting it on with plastic fangs in.
Pictorial Nudity is kind of broad. like…medical journal photos? or paintings in museums?
“nudity” is far different than “nakedness.” one is an examination of form and fuction, line, shadow and beauty, while the other is exploitative in nature.
these are only practical guidelines and not legal policies. i think it boils down to intent. take youtube: you can show a video of bare, naked breasts when it’s for breast examinations. you cannot show bare naked breasts of a girl gone wild on spring break.
in art school we had an idealess attention whore who would vie for gallery space in the open forum of the main art building and would then put up photos of various penises and created “sculptures” of weaponized dongs.
even tho it was under the guise of art, what she was doing was thinly veiled exploitation. i don’t know if i’d call it pornography, but it wasn’t art or erotica.
what about The Tin Drum debacle in Oklahoma?
This thread makes me think of a study I found somewhere while researching for a History of Art paper. Apparently women actually see more pornography than men, but don’t talk about it.
I also wonder about some literature - is explicit literature pornography or erotica? I’d say pornography; there’s no difference between reading explicit material for the same, er, use, than watching it.
I don’t think it depends on the material, I think it depends on what it’s used for. And IMHO, either is okay and natural.
And don’tbesojumpy, as far as I recall, The Tin Drum was banned in a few places due to the exploitation of underage sexuality. That strikes me as somewhat unfair as the same places seemed to sell the book. So the book was erotica and artistic but the film, while showing the same content was pornographic and exploitative?
The answer is simple. Erotica is what I like. Porn is what you like and that I think is disgusting. Pictorial nudity is the stuff that the public library down the road lets children look at.
Well, in the UK, at least, it’s also illegal to run a brothel, pimp someone else out, place cards offering your services in phone boxes, encourage anyone to be a prostitute (ie. ask them to do it rather than them offer) or live off the “immoral earnings” of prostitution. I think that makes rather a lot of prostitution illegal.
Well, I don’t support the banning at all, but one significant difference is that the film involved a real 13-year-old boy simulating sex with an adult woman.
On the bolded part, it’s illegal (under Section 52 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003) to incite someone else to sell sex for gain. But it’s not illegal to ask someone else to sell you sex, unless of course this takes place in public in which case it falls under the soliciting laws.
In any case, obviously these laws make a lot of aspects of prostitution illegal. But they don’t make prostitution itself illegal–as I said, it’s still entirely legal to sell sex provided you do it under certain conditions. In Britain and Ireland, this means working independently indoors. The conditions are even narrower in Canada, but significantly broader in most of Australia and in New Zealand. Only in most of the US and parts of English-speaking Africa is prostitution simply illegal, full stop.
You guys are making this way too complicated. Erotica is indirect, and porn is direct. Usually, this means that erotica is words, while porn is pictures, although sometimes it also means that erotica is just nudity or implied nudity with hints of sexual activity while porn actually shows sex. By extension, erotica is less rude, because the latter, by being direct, is also being crass.
The idea of just using it to mean stuff I like versus stuff I don’t is just people misapplying the words, caring more about their connotations than their denotations. But, as far as I know, we aren’t currently at the point where the connotation is the denotation.
And, of course, pictoral nudity is just a catch-all term for both porn and other nudes in picture form, as well as a way of distinguishing between porn and other nudes. I know that sounds weird, but it’s common in English to have one word refer to both the whole thing and a specific part, leaving you to figure it out from context. Dogs: dogs and bitches. Cows: cows and bulls.
I think this is also a derivative definition. The basic difference is the intent of the creator. Pornography is primarily intended to sexually excite the viewer and act as an aid to physical stimulation and orgasm. Erotica, while depicting subjects of a sexual nature, is not primarily intended for that purpose.
There is no meaningful distinction to be made because one of the terms, porn, is based upon a fundamentally flawed concept: that explicit images of people fucking are bad for you. The term porn is like the term “nigger” as used by white people for most of the term’s history. “Nigger” represents the distilled essence of all the prejudices white people have had about black people: shiftless, lazy, stupid, and generally deserving of all the ill will any person might have. Porn is the same class of word, bundled with all sorts of prejudice. Sex-positive folks are trying to reclaim the word, but let’s not be naive about its origins.
TBH, the reason this came up as because of the OP’s rather odd assertion that people are using the word pornographic wrongly because supposedly the origins of the word are about prostitution, and also supposedly English speakers act as if porn is illegal. If all that were true, then the illegality of many aspects of prostitution would mean that English speakers weren’t necessarily being stupid by acting as if ‘written prostitution’ is illegal.
But really it was a dumb point to begin with, so I probably shouldn’t have bothered addressing it.
I always wondered that myself. It seems like the 3rd prong would be a slam dunk for any porn movie. Unless, they count the absurd scenarios like the cable man knocking on the door and the female homeowner answering the door in the nude as part of an artistic plot of the movie.
Courts are very reluctant to find that anything, even something that starts with fucking and ends with a bang has no literary, artistic, scientific, or political value.