Pornography vs Erotica (topic-relevant spam only please)

[dragon wench]

This came up in Tony's thread on Pamela Anderson. Okay... or maybe it was just me splitting hairs...

Anyway, I perceive a real difference between pornography and erotica. To me, porn is almost invariably degrading, and it often involves the depiction of sexual acts in a highly graphic manner.

I generally see erotica as much more subtle and tasteful, often 'artsy' and usually just a display of the naked human body. Personally, I see absolutely nothing wrong in human nudity.

Therefore, in my books, Playboy does not really qualify as pornography. Yes, arguments have been made that those photos are doctored.. and yes it has also been argued that a certain amount of... "physical manipulation" occurs to highlight certain parts of the body. But, that is behind the scenes, does that classify the final product as pornography? (EDIT, actually, it is perhaps better labelled as "soft porn")
One can even state that it furthers societal perceptions of an unattainable or manufactured beauty ideal. However, the same holds true for the fashion industry, beauty pageants etc.

Comments?

EDIT:
Okay, three categories to distinguish between (see my exchange with Vicsun below)
*Pornography
*Soft Pornography
*Erotica

[Magrus]

Going by this website's definitions, they are synonyms and have virtually the same meaning.

pornography - Definitions from Dictionary.com

erotica - Definitions from Dictionary.com

It's almost like using "freakin" instead of the more innapropriate version when saying "erotica" instead of "porno". Velveeta vs. Kraft cheese, Caddilac vs. Ford. Both do the same thing, except one is viewed as classier. Those who take offense to veiwing the "money shot" view it as purer to have someone write about making love in order to please themselves with it.

Personally, I find it to be somewhat...childish. I have had girls I have cared deeply for who truly wanted to be involved in dirty, naughty acts. It pleased them. So, why should it be degrading to them if they asked for it and wanted it in the first place? Why should it be degrading if a girl who likes taking a shot in the face chooses to do so for money? If that is what makes her happy, why shouldn't she do so? Rather pretend to be someone she is not at a job she hates to earn money?

I find that to be degrading. It's another one of the personal opinion deals I think. Some people like being submissive, some dominated, some pampered, some spit on. There are movies for it all, and stories! Something for everyone's tastes and believe me, I have seen written stories that were titled as "erotica" that were filthier than the porn I hide from.

[JonIrenicus]

Pornography and erotica, as Magrus says, are the same thing. One is just classified as 'high class.' It all depends what you like or what type of crazy you are. Any photo that is touched up and I mean really touched up like in Playboy has no appeal to me. In my eyes they are as fake as a computer generated model.


There is only a few things wrong with some porno but I won't be opening that pandora box today

[dragon wench]

Erotica:
Literature or art intended to arouse sexual desire.


Pornography:
1. Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
2. The presentation or production of this material.
3. 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).


Hmmm... by that definition they are quite similar aren't they?


Maybe I'm just going with my own particular cultural baggage then If we want to look at dictionary definitions, (which can vary considerably, and thus bolster various sides of a debate), I tend to take mine more from the Oxford:

Erotic/erotica:
Of sexual love, especially tending to arouse sexual desire or excitement; hence or cogn. erotica, erotic literature or art.
Erotic spirit or character.

Pornography:
Explicit description or exhibition of sexual activity in literature or films, etc. , intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic feelings.

The key words here being "explicit" and "aesthetic"



The Merriam-Webster also somewhat reflects my particular view:

Erotica:
1 : literary or artistic works having an erotic theme or quality
2 : depictions of things erotic

Pornography:
1 : the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
2 : material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement
3 : the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick
intense emotional reaction <the pornography of violence>


I do see what you mean though, there seems to be a very fine line.
I suppose, as well, this leads to how one defines "literature" or "art." I guess some people might consider the material in magazines like Hustler to fall into such a category.

[Vicsun]

Gamebanshee ate my post, so here's a short version:

In my books, Playboy is soft-core pornogrpahy. And in my books, soft-core pornography is one that features no penetration, ejaculation or genitalia, but is still created with the intention of arousing the viewer (who would find more explicit pornography distasteful).

Erotica, on the other hand, is different than soft-core in that its intention is to convey an emotion or aesthetically please the viewer; not get the viewer off. I'd say something like Andrew Blake's Aria, would fall on the blurry line between eroticism and soft-core, while Playboy would land firmly in soft-core land. It's just not artsy enough - pictures of naked models aren't automatically art just because the genitalia is hidden.

If you do perceive Playboy to be erotica as opposed to soft-core porno, you would basically deny the existence of all soft-core pornography and put it all under the communal umbrella of erotica. While contrary to my belief, I guess such a view would still be somewhat reasonable.

[dragon wench]

Thanks Vicsun,
That is precisely what I am trying to get at.

Though I think I heavily blurred my distinction between "soft porn" and "erotica," both here and in the Anderson thread. That's what I get for multitasking...

[Darzog]

Well, I didn't post initially because I didn't understand what distinction you were making between erotica and pornography..... looking at the two sets of definitions you just gave:

Quote:

Originally Posted by DW Erotic/erotica: Of sexual love, especially tending to arouse sexual desire or excitement; hence or cogn. erotica, erotic literature or art. Erotic spirit or character. Pornography: Explicit description or exhibition of sexual activity in literature or films, etc. , intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic feelings.

You said that the words explicit and aesthetic were the keys. I think that the key is even in your own definition they are both defined as causing erotic feelings. Your definition of erotica is specifically arousing sexual desire which is the same as erotic feelings. Neither definition lead towards a simple appreceation of beauty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DW Erotica: 1 : literary or artistic works having an erotic theme or quality 2 : depictions of things erotic Pornography: 1 : the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement 2 : material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement 3 : the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction <the pornography of violence>

Even these definitions don't make a distinction between the two words as they both depict erotic behavior.

[dragon wench]

@Darzog,
I think I have managed to confuse myself and everyone else

Anyway, I think Vicsun probably said it best.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vicsun <snip> in my books, soft-core pornography is one that features no penetration, ejaculation or genitalia, but is still created with the intention of arousing the viewer (who would find more explicit pornography distasteful). <snip> Erotica, on the other hand, is different than soft-core in that its intention is to convey an emotion or aesthetically please the viewer; not get the viewer off.

[JonIrenicus]

Well softcore porn has full frontal nudity which shows genitlia...

[Darzog]

DW, I understand the meaning you are trying to convey but none of your definitions articulate the distinction. Even Vicsun has made a distinction that is purely subjective and can't be applied across the board with any uniformity.

Vicsun, Playboy does in fact show genitalia so does that push it to hard core? It may be a more tasteful display of genitalia than some other magazines but what crosses the line? Is Hustler soft or hard core? Is Maxim considered porn? There is no nudity but the intent of the pictures can be said to be the same as Playboy's.

And does it only matter what the intent was? If Victoria's Secret catalogues are made in an attempt to get guys off, do they become porn even without nudity? Or if an artist does what you consider an erotic piece meant to show the beauty of the human body but it is rented out by a "porno shop", does it become porn by its use?

Trying to classify a "tame" form of pornography that is artistic and therefore is not as vulgar as fetish-porn is just smoke and mirrors. Taking a picture of a person's body can be just as degrading as having them perform obscure sexual acts... it all depends on their willingness.

A friend of mine in college had some nude photos of herself taken in some woods near school and displayed the photos in her apartment. When I asked her about them she said they were artistic and that they weren't porn. I asked her the difference. She said "In porn, the woman is looking right at the camera. If you acknowledge the camera then it's porn." So when I pointed to one photo in which she was very obviously looking right at the camera I asked her if that picture was porn. She said No but couldn't explain why. This is the same thing.

[dragon wench]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darzog DW, I understand the meaning you are trying to convey but none of your definitions articulate the distinction. Even Vicsun has made a distinction that is purely subjective and can't be applied across the board with any uniformity.

No...I suppose they don't do it all that clearly do they?
I do think this is a highly subjective thing, and I suspect that maybe cultural differences play into it as well...
I have been influenced by a strong European background, and Vicsun is Danish. I'll be curious to see how SYM members from various regions feel; or maybe I'm out in left field, just speculating here.

I have done a little searching around, here are some links that deal with the debate a bit:
The Erotic vs. The Pornographic
Writing Erotica - What is Erotica? - free Suite101.com course
Erotica vs. Porn

There were more when I plugged "Erotica vs Pornography" into Google.. but a lot I can't post here

[Vicsun]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonIrenicus Well softcore porn has full frontal nudity which shows genitlia...

You're making a blank statement with no supporting evidence. I want concrete examples. We need to be as scientific as possible here!

(for a real reply you can read my reply to Darzog's post which addresses the same thing)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darzog DW, I understand the meaning you are trying to convey but none of your definitions articulate the distinction. Even Vicsun has made a distinction that is purely subjective and can't be applied across the board with any uniformity.

I'd say my definition is 'specific enough' You might as well ask what the difference between sugar and candy is with an argument that would go something like "Both of them are sweet and candy is just compressed sugar anyway therefore there is no difference between sugar and candy!!" Sure, I guess some wise entrepreneur can wrap pure sugar in colorful packets and sell it to kids, but for the most part if it's intended to be (and is) consumed directly, it's candy, if it's used for something else, it's sugar.
If my (wonderful) analogy doesn't make sense, replace "consumed directly" with "getting someone off", "something else" with "providing aesthetic pleasure", and "candy" and "sugar" with "hardcore" and "soft-core" respectively.

Now that I've compared porno to candy I feel as if I'd done something worthwhile with my time

Quote:

Vicsun, Playboy does in fact show genitalia so does that push it to hard core? It may be a more tasteful display of genitalia than some other magazines but what crosses the line?

The line is blurry and can therefore the exact point of crossing cannot be determined. Here is a picture for you to visualize since you seem to be misunderstanding me. I actually had no idea that Playboy showed genitalia, but if they do that would push them further away from soft-core and more toward hard-core, yes. Just because the distinction is hard to make doesn't mean it doesn't exist - it's sometimes hard to say exactly what color something is, but that doesn't mean colors are subjective to the point where using them is purposeless.

Quote:

Is Hustler soft or hard core? Is Maxim considered porn? There is no nudity but the intent of the pictures can be said to be the same as Playboy's.

I don't know the last time I looked at one of those magazines my age was a single digit

Quote:

And does it only matter what the intent was? If Victoria's Secret catalogues are made in an attempt to get guys off, do they become porn even without nudity?

Yes. In a hypothetical repressed society where people got off to women with lingerie, women with lingerie sold to get people off would most definitely be porn.

Quote:

Or if an artist does what you consider an erotic piece meant to show the beauty of the human body but it is rented out by a "porno shop", does it become porn by its use?

See "blurry line". The artist would consider it "not porn" the porno shop wouldn't. Isn't that obvious?

Quote:

Trying to classify a "tame" form of pornography that is artistic and therefore is not as vulgar as fetish-porn is just smoke and mirrors. Taking a picture of a person's body can be just as degrading as having them perform obscure sexual acts... it all depends on their willingness.

I never bought the "porn is degrading" argument, so I'll ignore that part of your post.
By saying there's no difference between taking a picture of a person's body and having them commit obscure fetishes you're logically implying that both pictures of Adam and Eve and still shots from a Max Hardcore movie should be judged by the same standards. I'm not trying to put words into your mouth, I'm trying to show the ridiculous results following your logic would present us with.

Quote:

A friend of mine in college had some nude photos of herself taken in some woods near school and displayed the photos in her apartment. When I asked her about them she said they were artistic and that they weren't porn. I asked her the difference. She said "In porn, the woman is looking right at the camera. If you acknowledge the camera then it's porn." So when I pointed to one photo in which she was very obviously looking right at the camera I asked her if that picture was porn. She said No but couldn't explain why. This is the same thing.

The only thing your anecdote shows is that your friend isn't very bright.

[Darzog]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vicsun I never bought the "porn is degrading" argument, so I'll ignore that part of your post.

This was more directed at DW who did bring it up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vicsun By saying there's no difference between taking a picture of a person's body and having them commit obscure fetishes you're logically implying that both pictures of Adam and Eve and still shots from a Max Hardcore movie should be judged by the same standards. I'm not trying to put words into your mouth, I'm trying to show the ridiculous results following your logic would present us with.

Even considering your extreme example, I would in fact consider nude photos of Adam and Eve to be pornography. But one thing that may be missed in the translation here, I never said that any or all pornography was bad. But naked people in pictures does fit the definition of pronography.

If you would like to separate pornography into categories so you can call some of it disgusting and some artistic, that's fine. But you're not changing the fact that they all meet the definition.

[Vicsun]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darzog Even considering your extreme example, I would in fact consider nude photos of Adam and Eve to be pornography. But one thing that may be missed in the translation here, I never said that any or all pornography was bad. But naked people in pictures does fit the definition of pronography.

Why are you bringing good and bad into the discussion, when no one has so far mentioned it?

Or are you saying all porn is the same (i.e. porn) but it differs on levels of 'badness' where Adam and Eve paintings is "good porn" and movies in porn shops are "bad porn"? If that's not what you're saying, then what is the distinction between the two?

If you think there is absolutely no distinction between the two, and you would treat them equally (e.g. you would act the same way if your child saw the Adam and Eve painting and a regular XXX movie), then I'll just drop the argument since there'd be nothing left for me to argue about

[Darzog]

No, I would not react the same, but that doesn't change the fact that all nudity is, by definition, pornography. That is the only point I am trying to make; you can try to make a distinction all you want, but it is all porn. Trying to call it something else is just smoke and mirrors (as I said above).

And maybe accepted/artsy vs. unacceptable would have been better terms than good or bad but now you're intentionally misinterpreting what I'm saying.