What's the difference between erotica and pornography?

Great Debates
1

I read an otherwise mediocre novel the other day (“666” by Truman Dayon Godwin) and at one point the characters were discussing the difference between pornography and erotica. I’ve thought about this before, and have a few ideas what the differences might be, but I must admit I don’t have a clear idea what the dividing line is between the two.

My current (still somewhat nebulous) theory is that erotica is art that is intentionally sexually suggestive or arousing, whether it is graphic or not. Pornography, on the other hand, is erotica that also appeals to the desire for unacceptable power or control over another. By unacceptable power or control, I mean where one partner exercises coercion or physical control over the other party to gain sexual access to that partner, or where the acts engaged in pose a serious threat to the health and/or wellbeing of one or both partners.

Example: “erotica” that portrays children as sex objects is pornography. A child is generally not equipped with the life experience to make an informed decision to engage in sex, and may be overwhelmed by the perceived authority of an adult who tells him/her to do thus-and-so.

What do you think?

~~Baloo

2

Well, if you have a SPECIFIC story/book in mind, The Brunching Shuttlecocks has a handy-dandy little test to help you decide.

3

as a quick check of my website will reveal.

Baloo, while your theory is interesting and creative, and I sincerely laud you for trying to come up with a distinction, I feel you have reached too far.

The difference between erotica and pornography is…(drum roll please…
.
.
.
.
…
.
.
.
.
nothing.

stoid

4

Erotica is sexually-explicit material that turns me on.

Pornography is sexually-explicity material that disgusts me.

5

IMO pornography’s soul purpose is the sexual content. Its purpose is to portray sexual actions to arouse those viewing it. There is no other purpose.

In contrast erotica has sexually explicit content, but it is not just about portraying sexual actions. The sexual content serves a greater purpose in the work than to get a rise.

Basically the difference between an action film and a war film, both have violence but in an action film the violence is its own purpose. In a war film the violence is in it because war is violent and thus it has to be there to realistically portray war.

6

The Supreme Court’s definition of “pornography” is something along the lines of “no artistic merit” and “appeals to the prurient interest”. I’m only guessing, but I’d say that, if you take pornography and toss in some artistic merit, you got erotica.

Of course, as Bill Hicks said about the Supreme Court’s definition: “No artistic merit, causes sexual thought. I don’t know how to break this to you, but that sounds like every ad on TV.”

7

Didn’t High Society publisher Gloria Leonard say that the difference between pornography and erotica was “the lighting”?

8

I read erotica; you read pornography; he reads smut.

9

I don’t know the differnece but I know it when I see it.
So show me!

10

MEBuckner - who said that? I was going to post it, but I couldn’t remember the origin of the quote.

11

I think this hit the nail on the head. Pornography is aimed right at the most primal sexual urges. Erotica usually is aimed at the other senses - sight, sound, taste, touch, smell - and through careful description/manipulation of those senses, produces a very sensual aura.

I base this on my own readings/viewings of both pornography and erotica. I suppose it’s just one of those things that’s hard to describe… a “you’ll know it when you see it” sort of thing.

12

If something gets wet, it’s porn. Otherwise, it’s erotica.

Sua

13

Rich people read (view, listen to) erotica.

Poor people read (view, listen to) pornography.

I know I’ve read at least one analysis on the subject that made a study of what was an acceptable publication and what was an obscene publication based on local sheriffs’/police confiscation or fining of bookstore owners.

Basically, if the magazine/book cost over a certain amount to purchase, it wasn’t confiscated/fined for. If it cost under a certain amount to purchase, it was in danger of confiscation/fine.

The analysis I read (and can’t remember where or by who now) connected this to the old Victorian view of the lower class as being ruled by their animal instincts, so anything that aroused that class had to be controlled. Not a lot of working-class consumers are going to buy a $30 ‘artistic’ magazine, so that’s safe, even if it shows explicit acts or parts of the body. The $3.00 mags are a problem, though.

My personal opinion is that if none of the subjects involved are injured/coerced/threatened in the making of the film/book/magazine (which would exclude kiddy porn, since it would be coercion no matter how it was done), then the law should keep its grubby mitts off of it.

14

Ha!..just try doing an Internet search that includes the words “erotica”, “pornography”, and “smut”…sheesh!

The only other place on the net I could find it was on this page of quotes about sex, where one Christian Wagner is either quoting someone else or has coined the phrase himself. Actually, I thought I was I just doing a variation of the well-known “conjugations” game, the original of which was apparently by Bertrand Russell, and which is variously given as “I am firm, you are obstinate, he is a pig-headed fool”; “I am firm, you are stubborn, he is a pig-headed fool”; etc. I’m pretty sure I never saw that particular page of quotations, but whether I saw it somewhere else or Mr. Wagner and I both independently conjugated the verb I don’t know.

To get back to the OP of this thread:

From the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:
erotica – Literature or art concerning or intended to arouse sexual desire.

pornography – Written, graphic, or other forms of communication intended to excite lascivious feelings.

“Lascivious” gets defined as “of or characterized by lust; lewd; lecherous” (but with a secondary definition of “exciting sexual desire”); “lewd” is then defined as “licentious; lustful”; and the definition of “licentious” is (or includes) “lacking moral discipline or sexual restraint”. “Erotica” derives from the “erotic”, meaning “of or concerning sexual love and desire”, whereas “pornography” is ultimately derived from the Greek word for prostitute.

So, the difference in the denotations of erotica and pornography is close to nonexistant, but the connotation of pornography is a good bit more disapproving. However, I doubt you’d be able to placate those who disapprove of pornography just by calling it “erotica”, or that you’d really convince, say, Edwin Meese or Mrs. Grundy that there’s really any difference among the various forms of lascivious, lecherous, lewd, libertine, libidinous, licentious, lubricous, and lustful literature which are out there. Personally, I don’t really care about any of it so long as it’s actually made by consenting adults. I wouldn’t call the stuff which is made by non-consenting adults or non-adults (“consenting” or otherwise) “pornography”; I’d call it “rape”, “child molestation”, and so on. I would also add that Cecil has already talked about snuff films.

15

The difference is simple.

  1. Amount of time spent talking, seducing, etc.
  2. Length of time required for somebody to get all the important parts uncovered.
  3. Camera angle.
  4. The existance of anything that can be called a real plot.

Now draw a nice long line for each of the above and figure out which end is going to be erotica and which is going to pornography, its pretty easy. Now when judging the work of art, assign a value on all 4 lines and see what you come up with.

Then again, you could just watch it and decide if its porn or not.

Alantus

16

Erotica suggests.
Pornoghraphy delivers.

17

Its erotica if you use a feather.

Its pornography if you use the whole chicken.

18

Anything is erotica by default until you want to use coercion to prevent some people from seeing it. Then it’s pornography. “Pornography” is what you call erotica you dislike.

Stoidela’s right; there is no difference. Don’t be fooled.

19

The problem is, there is no real dividing line. There can be pure smut written in proper English with polysyllabic words and poetic metaphors and there can be erotica written in language that would make the gutter dry up. There is hard “erotica” AND “soft” porn.

FWIW, The Tim provides the best, most straightforward proposition for a definition IMO, and jayjay brings in the ever-important “class” element into it (and that includes “academic” class: female grad students read “erotica” and get in touch with their bodies, male underclassmen read “porn” and masturbate).

As for the definition that pornography is the one that involves degradation and/or exploitation and/or asymmetric power relationships, that opens the entire other can o’ worms as to exactly by whose definition of those terms!

jrd

20

The funny thing about “pornography” is that it’s one of those weird constructs that no one in the business actually uses (just as you’ll never, ever find an arcade patron who uses the phrase “Animated Violence: Strong” in a sentence). The operative term is either “adult entertainment” or “18+”, at least officially. I also noticed that the real heavyweights, esp. Playboy, don’t even bother with a label; they just release the magazines and videos as is, and presumably their reputation is supposed to precede them. You know, so kids don’t accidentally pick up one or anything.

In any case, “pornography”, I’m fully convinced, is nothing but a loaded term used to get people riled up, a la “abortion holocaust”, “Feminazi”, “devil’s music”, and “God hates fags”. Don’t pay it any heed.