Porn vs. Erotica

[Guest kcntx5]

What's the difference between erotica and pornography?

 

For me they're defined by their content. Erotica is soft, easy, with long drawn out descriptions of sexual situations. It's full of heaving breasts, silky thighs and sweet mellow kisses that inflame your passion, as well as the characters. It's romance at its sexiest.

 

Porno on the other hand is more direct. It might be considered brutal even. It's filled with those images that are arousing yet they have no finess about them. It's strictly "wham-bam, thank you ma'am." It's probably why men find it more attractive than women. Yet women write it just as many men do. So go figure.

 

Although that's not to say it can't be every bit as descriptive. I write those kind of stories, and I find that if I make the descriptions as detailed as possible, especially if I engage _all_ the senses, it makes for a better piece of work.

 

Does anyone have a different perspective on it? I'm curious to know.

[Mark Arbour]

What's the difference between erotica and pornography?

 

For me they're defined by their content. Erotica is soft, easy, with long drawn out descriptions of sexual situations. It's full of heaving breasts, silky thighs and sweet mellow kisses that inflame your passion, as well as the characters. It's romance at its sexiest.

 

Porno on the other hand is more direct. It might be considered brutal even. It's filled with those images that are arousing yet they have no finess about them. It's strictly "wham-bam, thank you ma'am." It's probably why men find it more attractive than women. Yet women write it just as many men do. So go figure.

 

Although that's not to say it can't be every bit as descriptive. I write those kind of stories, and I find that if I make the descriptions as detailed as possible, especially if I engage _all_ the senses, it makes for a better piece of work.

 

Does anyone have a different perspective on it? I'm curious to know.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I pretty much agree with you. To me, erotica has some sort of emotional feeling behind it, whereas porn is limited to raw sexual activities. I think it's important to remember though that everyone has their own individual definition.

[Rigel]

The difference between lust and love.

--Rigel

[lurker]

The difference between lust and love.

--Rigel

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This discussion reminds me of The Naked and the Nude, a poem by Robert Graves.

[NaperVic]

I hate to sound like a smartass, but a straight friend and I had this discussion a while ago.

 

Porn is what we call 'it' when we are taking about it with our friends.

 

Erotica is what we call 'it' when talking about it with our significant others (who are both a little prud-ish) and we are trying to convince them to watch/read it with us.

 

Vic

[Guest kcntx5]

I hate to sound like a smartass, but a straight friend and I had this discussion a while ago.

 

Porn is what we call 'it' when we are taking about it with our friends. 

 

Erotica is what we call 'it' when talking about it with our significant others (who are both a little prud-ish) and we are trying to convince them to watch/read it with us.

 

Vic

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

So vic, basically you're saying that it's all a matter of semantics, huh?

[sumbloke]

Hmm. Well. We talked about this in a philosophy class. The most interesting idea I thought was that it's about gaze: pornography has either the gaze perspective of an outside voyeur - ie someone who is not a participant and is getting off without being really involved or acting on either participant - or the gaze perspective of one participant only, so that the other participant is only ever an object and never a subject.

 

You have to love French philosophy dontcha?

 

My personal feeling: it's pornographic when it seems to me that writer cares more about themself or their readers cranking one off than they do about the characters having a good time.

[solacelenity]

To me erotica is a story that contains sexual acts, whereas porn tends to be sex written as a story. "Worlds apart" seems a fitting description.

 

Love and Peace,

Solace

[Kay_Derwydd]

I'm also of the mind that the biggest difference is the amount of emotion that is written into the story in question. I'm an author of gay erotica (read: erotic romance between men), but I started by writing porn (read: sex without much plot).

 

My porn included gay men who might or might not be 'in love', but they were most certainly 'in lust'. I still write it on occasion.

 

My erotica is primarily centered around the emotional, physical, mental, and spiritual connections between the men in the stories. The men are most definitely 'in love' (well, the protagonists are), but the lust is most certainly still there, and quite graphic, hence the label 'erotic romance'.

 

I think each genre has a function, and I personally don't consider one superior to the other.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

(I'll be posting my real intro here in a sec.)

 

-Kay Derwydd

[Umbathri]

To me Porn vrs. Erotica, as it pertains to a story, is all about the emotional connection and character development. Is it two handsome guys just out for a f**k, or two lovers just living their lives as best they can.

 

It there more to the story then just sex

[BoyNeedsTherapy]

Hmm, well, I tend to think that porn is pretty much just sex, little plot, but with erotica, I expect a plot, some kind of story, sex when it feels right in the story not just for the sake of it...which is I guess what other people have said too.

[reapersharvest]

Simply put; Erotica has a thousand words for one picture, porn has cheap manicures

[JamesSavik]

There are some who would automatically stamp anything gay as pornographic. In fact, some politicians are attempting to ban books with gay themes or content from public libraries in the states. (ACLU- are you awake?)

 

However, those of this opinion are people I don't give a rats ass about anyway.

 

Porn and erotica are easily distinguished, I won't try to define either one. One appeals to our basest impulses while the other to our best nature. You know which is which!

[Masked Monkey]

Unfortunately, all of this falls under the "I know it when I see it" definition of indecent.

 

The very terms "pornography" and "erotica" stem from patriarchal and misogynistic historical attitudes. They arise from the rhetorical use of received notions to suppress and then reclaim open sexual expression in society (oops, gotta turn off that knee jerk radical feminist response, I guess I hung around too many angry womyn in college).

 

For years I have believed that the homo/hetro/... division is of a similar base nature. IMO, the proper divide is between pro-sexual and anti-sexual. The use of homo and hetero are just linguistic red herrings to disguise what you are really saying. For the erotica/porn debate, it is really pro- and anit- free 'literary' sexual expression. To say that a raw sex scene is 'porn', but the 'touch-feely' loving expression is 'erotica' is to imply that one content of fantasy is morally superior to the other. In the literary sense, we are not talking about real people, so arguments of abuse, exploitation ... are meaningless.

 

Snow Dog the Domaholic Danderthal

[lurker]

Unfortunately, all of this falls under the "I know it when I see it" definition of indecent.

 

The very terms "pornography" and "erotica" stem from patriarchal and misogynistic historical attitudes.  They arise from the rhetorical use of received notions to suppress and then reclaim open sexual expression in society (oops, gotta turn off that knee jerk radical feminist response, I guess I hung around too many angry womyn in college).

 

For years I have believed that the homo/hetro/... division is of a similar base nature.  IMO, the proper divide is between pro-sexual and anti-sexual.  The use of homo and hetero are just linguistic red herrings to disguise what you are really saying.  For the erotica/porn debate, it is really pro- and anit-  free 'literary' sexual expression.  To say that a raw sex scene is 'porn', but the 'touch-feely' loving expression is 'erotica' is to imply that one content of fantasy is morally superior to the other.  In the literary sense, we are not talking about real people, so arguments of abuse, exploitation ... are meaningless.

 

Snow Dog the Domaholic Danderthal

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I see nothing wrong with implying that one fantasy can be morally superior to another.

 

Sex takes many forms and shapes. One of the biggest divisions I see is sex-with-meaning vs. sex-without-meaning. Sex can be one of the greatest expressions of intimacy that two people can share (or more than two, depending on how you feel about polyamory). Or it can be a physical pleasure/enjoyment independent of meaning. This is the dichotomy that this thread raises. I think you're right that the hetero and homo labels can be red herrings.

 

The anti-gay sentiments of the past century often turn on labeling homosexual sex as sex without meaning - no love, no relationship, just physical sex. Acceptance of gay rights has been linked to the realization of gay relationships as no different from straight ones in a romantic/sex-with-meaning sense. And to the extent people conflate sexual intimacy with marriage, the debate spills over into the issue of same-sex marriage. Many (though not all) of those who reject same-sex marriage are rejecting the idea of gay relationships as having sex-with-meaning intimacy.

 

It is the societal norm to believe that sex-with-meaning is better than sex-without-meaning. But this is also a point that I think many of us can substantiate from our own experiences. Perhaps it is the societal construct that tells us so, perhaps it is our theology, perhaps it is an innate sense related to our desire to connect with other people - the reasons differ. The evidence, though, favors sex-with-meaning.

 

Taking the reality to the fantasy world alters things. Morality forces us to draw lines in different places. Some people reject even the fantasy of sex-without-meaning because they find that for them it demeans sexuality and lessens the experience in reality. Many people who don't want to experience sex-without-meaning in real life enjoy the fantasy of sex-without-meaning precisely because they crave/desire the physical without the intimate connection at times, though they would not act on these feelings.

 

I disagree with the argument you seem to be making that fantasy is fantasy and no fantasy is morally better than any other, because no one gets hurt. On one level, I disagree with the 'no one gets hurt' issue as it relates to questions of how societal norms develop. But that's not the real debate here. Let's say I assumed that fantasy is victimless. Even then, I think the expression of a morally superior reality through fantasy can indeed make the fantasy morally superior. If I think that sex-without-meaning is porn and sex-with-meaning is erotica (which is not what I've said, but seems to be a common opinion in this thread), then perhaps I am rightfully saying that sex-with-meaning EVEN in literary fantasy is morally better than sex-without-meaning.

 

This doesn't mean that literary fantasies (if victimless) should EVER be suppressed. It just explains why some people might think one fantasy type is morally 'better' than another, with good reason.

[Masked Monkey]

I couldn't come up with a better statement to say "see, that is exactly what I mean". Your belief in 'moral superiority' (as it applies here) comes from a Deistic point of view. You then choose 'value' words to assign that pont of view to things.

 

It is no differnet than saying "it doesn't matter what race people are, they should not be discriminated against, but I still say that N***** are better at picking cotton than any machine will ever be" (NO, I am not implying that you are racist, it's just a good inflammatory example)

 

Snow Dog the Domaholic Danderthal

[lurker]

I couldn't come up with a better statement to say "see, that is exactly what I mean".  Your belief in 'moral superiority' (as it applies here) comes from a Deistic point of view.  You then choose 'value' words to assign that pont of view to things.

 

It is no differnet than saying "it doesn't matter what race people are, they should not be discriminated against, but I still say that N***** are better at picking cotton than any machine will ever be" (NO, I am not implying that you are racist, it's just a good inflammatory example)

 

Snow Dog the Domaholic Danderthal

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ignoring your example, because I respond to substance and not rhetoric, I think you read my post through the filter of knowing that I am a Deist and missed a little of what I was trying to say.

 

First, let me point out that I did not say that I personally viewed sex-without-meaning in fantasy as morally inferior to sex-with-meaning in fantasy. I haven't actually said anything in this thread about my value judgment on that issue, even though I have indicated that I deem sex-with-meaning in reality to be morally superior to sex-without-meaning (which you correctly deduce as stemming from my own theology).

 

Second, I specifically pointed out that people can believe that sex-with-meaning is morally superior to sex-without-meaning for various reasons: because society tells them too, because of theology, because they believe in innate morality independent of that.

 

There are people who believe in morality without theology - or at least think they do (personally, I think the 'non-believing' are far more influenced by being socialized in a religious world than they might think they are, though this is a tangent).

 

As a Deist, I find morality without theology incoherent, but I don't find it nearly as incoherent as moral relativism. My suspicion, based on your comment about the literary world not posing any threats of exploitation, is that you believe in morality without theology rather than complete relativism. Otherwise, why would exploitation be wrong? But I don't purport to know what you believe.

 

At the end of the day, if you are posting to say "Aha! See! You can't do anything without being informed by your theology," then by all means, you are correct. My belief core shapes my view of the outside world, and my view of the outside world informs my beliefs. It is a complementary cycle.

 

But if you are posting to say, "I disagree with you, because you're just giving things value judgments based on your beliefs. There is no such thing as a bad fantasy, because nothing is really 'bad,'" then we fundamentally disagree on the existence of morality.

 

If you are posting to say "I disagree with you, because you're just giving things value judgments based on your beliefs. There is no such thing as a bad fantasy, because fantasies are harmless," then we fundamentally disagree on the source of morality. You have decided that fantasies are all ok based on the value that 'if no one gets hurt, it is ok.' The fact that you have no specific theology in mind does not make this any less a value judgment. Nor does it even mean that our specific values - despite their different origins - differ in this regard.

[Masked Monkey]

"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy."

Richard Feynman

 

regarding the example, the point was non-rhetorical, the example was seething with received notions.

 

If you are posting to say "I disagree with you, because you're just giving things value judgments based on your beliefs. There is no such thing as a bad fantasy, because fantasies are harmless," then we fundamentally disagree on the source of morality. You have decided that fantasies are all ok based on the value that 'if no one gets hurt, it is ok.' The fact that you have no specific theology in mind does not make this any less a value judgment. Nor does it even mean that our specific values - despite their different origins - differ in this regard.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have not stated my personal theology because as far as my arguments are concerend, it is irrelevant. I am among the "against abortion, then don't have one" and "pro child & pro choice" crowd, in that my moral beliefs apply to me and not others. While I refuse to get semantical, there are huge differences between personal morals, societal mores and behavioral ethics.

 

I don't view fantasies as having good/bad value judgements because a true fantasy exists outside of our relationships with others (except your Deity(ies) if you so believe). Good/bad only has meaning in relation to others (things or people). I don't believe that thoughts or feelings are ever good/bad, actions are good or bad based on the relationship. The relationship key is critical because it requires the connection of the beliefs of two (or more) people.

 

Now, the act of reading a story or viewing still or moving images is a behavior, and the value of that behavior is based on relationships. For a single guy at home one evening to get off on Vampire Jared as opposed to an encounter between Owen and Aiden, or an innocent marshmallow lick between Jude and Quinn isn't a situation of good/bad. If he is avoiding his friends or a partner in order to spend his time reading the material, or if he has a partner who has a strong belief about reading/viewing certain materials, then values have a place, but the value is in the relationship, not the material.

 

Also, if you relationship with your Deity is affected by your viewing of such material, then you may place your own personal moral jusdgement on the use of such material for yourself. To a prior ascribe those same values/morals to others for their private (non-relationship) behaviors is no differnet than requireing them to hold you theological views.

 

So, the label of porn/erotica as a bad/good label only applies when the behavior is brought outside of the individual and is placed within a relationship.

 

 

Snow Dog the Domaholic Danderthal

[lurker]

regarding the example, the point was non-rhetorical, the example was seething with received notions.

 

Then to reply to the example, I don't understand how it is analogous to our discussion or either of our positions. It sounds like the statement of someone who undermines the fact-based premise he says by insisting on a value-laden judgment that differs with that premise. I don't think I've used a value-laden term that undermines my own position. It might disagree with yours, but hey, that's what the debate is about. [And rather than reporting you to the analogy police, I chose to accept it as rhetoric and move on initially.]

 

I have not stated my personal theology because as far as my arguments are concerend, it is irrelevant.  I am among the "against abortion, then don't have one" and "pro child & pro choice" crowd, in that my moral beliefs apply to me and not others.  While I refuse to get semantical, there are huge differences between personal morals, societal mores and behavioral ethics.

 

I don't view fantasies as having good/bad value judgements because a true fantasy exists outside of our relationships with others (except your Deity(ies) if you so believe).  Good/bad only has meaning in relation to others (things or people).  I don't believe that thoughts or feelings are ever good/bad, actions are good or bad based on the relationship.  The relationship key is critical because it requires the connection of the beliefs of two (or more) people.

 

Now, the act of reading a story or viewing still or moving images is a behavior, and the value of that behavior is based on relationships.  For a single guy at home one evening to get off on Vampire Jared as opposed to an encounter between Owen and Aiden, or an innocent marshmallow lick between Jude and Quinn isn't a situation of good/bad.  If he is avoiding his friends or a partner in order to spend his time reading the material, or if he has a partner who has a strong belief about reading/viewing certain materials, then values have a place, but the value is in the relationship, not the material.

 

Also, if you relationship with your Deity is affected by your viewing of such material, then you may place your own personal moral jusdgement on the use of such material for yourself.  To a prior ascribe those same values/morals to others for their private (non-relationship) behaviors is no differnet than requireing them to hold you theological views.

 

So, the label of porn/erotica as a bad/good label only applies when the behavior is brought outside of the individual and is placed within a relationship.

 

 

Snow Dog the Domaholic Danderthal

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ok. I understand you. We disagree. The true fantasy can be good/bad in my world, and it can not be in yours.

 

Personally, I view your system that bases moral judgment in a relationship with people or things to be a theology of its own. Here is a question about your relationship oriented view of morality: is it ever possible to do wrong to yourself? If you choose to focus on feelings and thoughts that are painful to you or refuse to forgive yourself for something, have you done yourself wrong? Does the relationship with the self ever mirror the 2 person situation you mention?

[Masked Monkey]

Personally, I view your system that bases moral judgment in a relationship with people or things to be a theology of its own. Here is a question about your relationship oriented view of morality: is it ever possible to do wrong to yourself? If you choose to focus on feelings and thoughts that are painful to you or refuse to forgive yourself for something, have you done yourself wrong? Does the relationship with the self ever mirror the 2 person situation you mention?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It has been my experience that most ordained Christian Ministers/Priests believe that guidance in The Bible is all about relationships, with the primary relationshop being that between the individual and God/Jesus. I haven't had the opportunity to study Jewish, Muslim, Buddist/Hindu ... tradition on this subject. I believe that once the human brain is imprinted with language (not a specific language, but the imprinting that allows language) all thought and knowledge is relational, things are defined by what they are not.

 

The relationship with the self is the fundamental issue of (non-organic) mental disorders, it is the dissonance in this relationship that generates the behaviors we associate with mental illness. The key is in the thought-feeling-action tirad. In our relationships with others, only our actions have power, our thoughts and feelings may inspire use to take certain actions, but ultimately it is only the actions that matter. Others may have interest in our thoughts and feelings to better understand/explain/excuse/justify our actions, but bottom line it is the actions that matter. In our relationship with a Deity, as with our relationship to ourselves, all 3 matter.

 

When one's feelings conflict with one's thoughts, the result is generally bizzare beahvior. To regain any balance, one must allign (at minimum) 2 of the 3 parts. Cogniative therapy attempts to allign thoughts and baehavior, understanding that feelings will eventually follow the lead. Psycho analysis attempts to allign thoughts and feelings so that behavior is ultimately arrects. Most Deistic theologies attempt to dictate feelings and insist that thought/action follow consistently, in general, this is much more difficult.

 

I hate the term 'moral relativism', it imples situational based morality, I prefer something like 'moral individuality'. Societies are based (at a minimum) on 'balanced' (thought/feeling/action) individuals accepting common codes of conduct (ethics), often supplanting behavior based on individual morality with behavior based on the societal ethic. I feel no moral necessity to stop at a stop sign in the wee early morning hours on rural roads with clear visiblility and no other cars. I do it anyway because that is the societal ethic (plus it builds up kharma for when you accidentally blow through one ).

 

Getting back to the subject at hand, (I apologize that I must use an inflammatory rhetorical example, but I have to make sure that any dissonance in my thoughts ring clearly). Thoughts about violently raping young children are not in and of themselves wrong, nor are feelings alone. Actually doing it is obviously wrong based on relationships. Seeing a child and having thoughts or feelings of raping that child is wrong because the act of seeing a particular child is involving that child in a relationship. Thus, I believe that all visual material has an implied relationship outside the self/Deity, and thus has all the moral trappings of that type of relationship. Reading a non-fictional accounts about the rape of a child, and using that for personal fantasy, falls into the 'visual' category, becuase the use of the child's life/image/circumstance constitutes a relationship outside the self/Deity. Using a fictional account of the rape of a child for personal fantasy keeps you relationally disconnected from any real child. Focusing that fantasy (generated from fiction) to a real child falls into the 'visual' category, maintaining it free of a real child keeps it within the realm of fanntasy and eleminates any relationship beyond that with your self/Deity. If you are (feel) disgusted with yourself for having thoughts about raping imaginary children or enjoying fictional accounts, then you have a relationship issue with yourself that will most likely begin to manifest with symptoms of mental illness/criminal behavior depending on action. This would be a classic case of doing wrong to yourself. When thoughts and feelings are in conflict, the relationship with the self is damaged.

 

 

Snow Dog the Domaholic Danderthal

[rainbow]

Hi All

 

I agree with Rigel here it is the difference between lust and love. Porn is just raw sex and nothing else its harsh and without feeling where as erotica show the feeling of love. As the dictionary says quote:- erotica is matters of love.

 

Rainbow

[JamesSavik]

Hi All

 

I agree with Rigel here it is the difference between lust and love.  Porn is just raw sex and nothing else its harsh and without feeling where as erotica show the feeling of love. As the dictionary says quote:-  erotica is matters of love.

 

Rainbow

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Bravo Rainbow. You nailed it.

[alyse48201]

I think porn is basically straight to the point the f*** and it's over.In erotica there is a story line there is seductive scenes,foreplay scenes.i personally like erotica better than porn because i like to see a story line behind sex.