General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumspornography and erotica
What is the difference?
Lets have a real academic discussion. While anti porn folks and hard core free speech folks will certainly contribute. I am more interested in the opinions art scholars.
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)I'm not into Science Fiction, either...
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,881 posts)elleng
(130,861 posts)arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Imho
elleng
(130,861 posts)but it came up in a google search for 'pornography.'
Here's an example of their erotica:
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Lint Head
(15,064 posts)Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,881 posts)Am I turned on by it? No.
She's not engaged in a sexual act. She's merely posing, showing the incredible beauty of the human form. When I look at this, I'm not fixated on her breasts or vagina. Sorry... I'm just not.
elleng
(130,861 posts)mathematic
(1,434 posts)Any history buffs know if this was this a "thing" even back then? Is this just a Goya interpretation? If her pubic hair is an accurate indication then she might just be on the lightly-haired side of things. Still, it seem odd that she doesn't have any armpit hair.
elleng
(130,861 posts)but 'lightly haired' may be the answer.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)It's erotica without much content.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)how do we codify artistic value. In a world where "vaginal egg drops" are art and people get off on being peed on, how do we differentiate? The minute we come up with an art canon some wise ass will drive through it with a Mack truck.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Just egotistical performance art.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)It isn't good art, but it's art. Replace it with the Vagina Monologues if you like.
Performance art is almost by definition egotistical. I have a hard time getting into it myself.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)But it isn't pornographic or erotic imho
rrneck
(17,671 posts)but there are some seriously weird people out there. And if the artist didn't want erotiocism to be a part of the work she could just as easily wear clothing for the performance.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Dead on. Art is indeed a very subjective thing.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)arely staircase
(12,482 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Not as erotica but as an example of art leaving room for the viewer to do some work themselves.
Hitchcock doesn't show her getting slashed. He lets our own minds do it. And it thus more memorable and ultimately powerful.
I'd say there's an underlying issue of control involved. Porn is part of a culture of control.
I have also posited the idea that our increasing lack of imaginative outlets, where we play and create using our own imaginations, is part of what is leading to violence in society.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)but check out Gruenwald or Bosch. And lots of Asian and Indian art is quite explicit as I recall.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)There is also an attempt at idealization and beauty.
Thanks for your input .
rrneck
(17,671 posts)It seems so now because it's so pervasive. It's how we're used to seeing images. Isometric projection can be just as erotic.
TeeYiYi
(8,028 posts)TYY
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)At least the most thought provoking.
lame54
(35,282 posts)arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Typicall DU porn wars? I am pleased it hasn't become that.
lame54
(35,282 posts)arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Glassunion
(10,201 posts)Octopus.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)other than to arouse. It does not try to be art.
Erotica does arouse, but it often weaves in art, making it very hard to separate the art from the erotic.
"Debbie does Dallas" Porn.
Erica Jong "fear of flying" erotica.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Bonhomme Richard
(9,000 posts)Erotic is for those that pretend not to know what they are watching.
reflection
(6,286 posts)but I'm stealing it.
Bonhomme Richard
(9,000 posts)kentauros
(29,414 posts)though I have had my share of art history courses in getting my graphics education, so I'll offer up my views.
I think it just depends on the viewer as to what defines porn in their minds. You get plenty of people that aren't educated in any of the arts, much less have ever step foot in a museum of fine art, telling everyone else that anything "nekkid" is bad and just panders to prurient minds (like their own.) And that's one of the biggest differences between the US and Europe.
Anyone that's had a "life drawing" class, i.e., naked models, just doesn't look at the human body the same way any more. Yes, my libido is still affected by those forms I find sexually appealing, but I can look at any naked form in any piece of fine art you can name and not become aroused. And it's not just content, as in the case of erotica. While that certainly does show off the human body in a manner that can arouse the viewer, it's also doing so in an artistic way.
I guess to better organize my thoughts, the difference between the two is that pornography has the intent to not only arouse the viewer(s) but to also make money off of that arousal. The intent of erotica is more about artistically creating arousal for the purpose of making art, whether it makes money or not.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Basic rule of thumb. Stuff you like is erotica, everything else is porn.
Example: I write what I consider to be porn. The few carefully selected friends I've shown it to consider it to be erotica.
petronius
(26,602 posts)Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Or the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter (whether you agree with them).
pintobean
(18,101 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Erotica costs about 150% more.
name not needed
(11,660 posts)Kablooie
(18,625 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)libodem
(19,288 posts)But the human body is pretty beautiful. Seems like most classes have to draw the naked human form. Sculptures and nudes have been around since antiquity. The poses and drapes add interest.
Seems like lingerie and fancy shoes and that sort of stuff makes it erotica. Leaving more to the imagination makes it much more interesting.
I'm out of my element here. I should know when to keep quiet.
kentauros
(29,414 posts)without automatically seeing porn. Another reason why art classes need to be returned to schools. Understanding how to interpret art, beyond the knee-jerk reactions of various prudes, is important to all
Here's a site if you want to study erotica through the ages: Erotica en la Historia
I've never finished going through it as so much art is represented on it. And some is rather eye-opening...
c588415
(285 posts)What's wrong with smut?
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)The fucked-up cultural ideas about sex that are often reproduced in porn, are a different matter.
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)What I like is erotica.
What you like is porn.
What they like is utterly revolting disgusting filth.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)What I like is utterly revolting disgusting filth...
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)kentauros
(29,414 posts)The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)tularetom
(23,664 posts)I thought there would be a lot more pictorial examples.
IMO, "erotica" is a word coined by pretentious people who like to check out pictures of naked women (or men as well I suppose) but don't want anybody to think they are looking at "porn".
Cleita
(75,480 posts)considered art. Take burlesque. Although the strip teasers were thought of to be no better than sluts, back when, today, it's considered performance art. One of my aunts back in the thirties was a burlesque performer. She was married with a child. It was how they made it through the Depression. I remember her as the person who taught me to knit and crochet. It was only years later that I learned of her "scandalous" past.
The minute you start passing judgement on another person's creation, you'd better be very sure of yourself.
rppper
(2,952 posts)The infamous Brooke Shields nudes taken in the late 70s while she was 10 are considered child porn by today's standards...
Danni Diesel, of "American pickers" fame, is a dedicated burlesque artist btw...check out her Facebook page if you get a chance.
De Leonist
(225 posts)No matter the arguments I read for how to define either term I find them ultimately subjective at best and quite frankly with no way to objectively define either term. My stance is thus, human sexuality is multidimensional and extremely complex. I view pornography and erotica as essentially the same thing in nature. Visual, and at times literary, expressions of human sexuality meant to arouse us in some fashion. Yes often unrealistic and idealized. But also sometimes closer to reality than others. I count anything from what many might perceive to be the dirtiest, nastiest, raunchiest, hardcore and violent "smut" to the most elegant, beautiful, tender, and loving "erotica" and all the forms of "porn" in between as having the same purpose.
Some I suppose will not like that because in their minds pornography is supposed to be exploitive while Erotica is not. I don't find that "definition" particularly useful in this sort of discussion Now that is not to say that serious and widespread issues of exploitation do not exist in industries that specialize in producing sexual entertainment or that they do not deserve our utmost attention in solving. But rather that even in "porn" that many here might mind offensive to their personal mores or tastes (well the legal kind anyway) it is possible to find people who are aware of and consenting to what their doing and at the same time actually find it to be a sexually desirable activity on their part, whether that person be a man or a woman. Also I think when it comes to judging whether something is a morally acceptable representation of human sexual activity it should be, imho, based on at least 3 factors.
1. Consent: If it is not deliberately clear and consensual on the part of all those involved in it's production than it is by it's very nature immoral, cruel, and out right illegal. Now many forms of porn are found offensive by vast swathes of people. But still the question needs to be is it consensual on the part of those involved in sexual activity as THE defining aspect as to whether it is morally acceptable or not. I also include fictional portrayals of sexual activity that might be interpreted as being "rape porn" in this as well since I just can not think of an intellectually honest reason to automatically condemn it.
I realize many find such depictions outright disgusting and that yes I am aware those who have suffered such horror in real life can have their emotional trauma retriggered if they inadvertently stumble upon it. But in the few studies I am aware of on the subject no evidence has actually been found to suggest that those who enjoy fictional depictions of forced sexual activity are anymore likely to participate in actual attempts of rape than those who do not, or any other violent or illegal activity for that matter. Nor have am I aware of any evidence that suggests it contributes to increased amounts of rape. Now if there is evidence that such depictions do contribute to either or any form of sexual violence that I haven't mention than please by all means share. Before moving on I feel I should say in my experience those who like take to part in sexual roleplaying of nonconsensual sex whether in private or for the viewing pleasure of others seem to prefer the term "ravishment" to rape.
2.Safety: I think this one is fairly straight forward. The well-being of all involved should be just as important as consent. If doesn't prioritize the safety of the actors and other individuals involved it needs to be ceased at once. Though I do think how much consideration that is given to safety, to a certain extent, can be left up to the personal discretion of those involved.
3. Legality: Last but certainly not least is the Legality of the sexual activity involved and those who will be portraying the sexual activity. In other words are those will be participating in any sex of any kind allowed to do by law. If the sexually active members of the production are not legally able to consent or if the sexual activity depicted is illegal than, again, it's production and distribution should be ceased immediately.
In my opinion the above three factors should be the bare minimum at deciding whether or not something is an acceptable depiction of sexual activity. Not, as some have wished to do, have a panel of censors who try to decide if it's "Erotica" or "Porn" based on factors that aren't really all that solid and pretty much subjective to each person.
Lastly, I think we need to scrap the idea that somehow smut, porn, and erotica are objectively different to each other in any real way. Since they are all depictions of sexual activity between humans or as depictions of single individual in a sexually provocative way it really is pointless to actually try to define these terms outside of personal opinion. Granted some are more explicit with others less so but still at the end of the day they are all still meant to arouse us in some way sexually. Which can occur in a number of different ways in both men and women.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)One quibble, though - while I agree that clearly fictitious depictions of rape (as in feature films) should not be subject to any censorship, when it comes to simulated "rape porn" there need to be clear disclaimers (or other "proof" that what's being shown isn't a real rape. This is necessary because of the unfortunate existence of real rape/torture footage. But I fear that for many viewers of such material, such a disclaimer would ruin the fantasy, i.e. the illusion that they're actually watching someone be assaulted.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)"The feminists say they are anti-porn, pro-erotica, but they offer nothing in illustration of the latter. I wish they would offer up some of their erotica so I can jerk off to it. But the truth is, it's all semantics; if you like it, it's pornography, but if they like it, it's erotica."
This is not my viewpoint, but I think there are many who think this.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Regardless of whether a man takes a copy of Forrest Hump down to the basement with a box of Kleenex or a woman takes a copy of 50 Shades of Grey to the bathtub with the rabbit wiggler, the end result is pretty much the same.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)It's kinda like I don't think a woman dropping paint balls out of her vagina in a public place is art, but some people do which makes it art.
In a free country with internet access, the censorship train has long since left the station anyway en-route to China and North Korea, never to return. What happens between consenting adults just ain't gonna be censored no matter how much the James Dobsons of the world pray for it.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)De Leonist
(225 posts)There are very good reasons to be critical of how sex is depicted, and how women are treated, in the Adult Entertainment Industry. That includes not just the more shaddy operations but also the mainstream companies as well. As much as I love me sum nakked wimminz doin' da freaky deaky! I also would like to see some films of women who are actually enjoying it instead of faking it. Preferably ones that like'em sum crazy sexy time with other wimminz. Oh yeah, and, ya'know, maybe films that aren't made by companies that treat the participants of said crazy sex time like their in indentured servitude or pressure them to do things that they really don't want to do.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)What worries me are the number of (predominantly male) viewers who get off on dominance and humiliation - and I'm not talking about consensual BDSM stuff either.
Blue_Adept
(6,397 posts)The past decade has been great for "better" porn in the manner you're describing. As more and more women are running their own companies, producing material that wasn't made before, you get it.
It's often listed as "female friendly", though a number of my female friends want nothing to do with it since they prefer regular porn.
But companies like X-Art, Nubile Films and others are producing great porn-erotica that's focused on the sex to be sure, but with tone, atmosphere, style, etc to really make it something great to watch amid all the other stuff.
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)Kink being literally far more objective and demeaning to some of its subjects than Brazzar's tame stuff.
It's the greatest conundrum I've ever encountered.
edbermac
(15,937 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)arely staircase
(12,482 posts)But what do you think the difference is ?
Yavin4
(35,432 posts)Both erotica and porn are art, and that's where it ends.
Ready4Change
(6,736 posts).
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)It's easy to passively watch, get off, turn over and sleep, but the mind's another world complete with your own limitations
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)but it still is differs in that it is upfront visuals and the build up isn't there most often. Erotica has a lot of themes and motifs and a build up to it..a crescendo.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Now this is a bit awkward, but I've written erotic fiction, and have given pointers to other writers. One of the first bits of advice covers exactly this question.
"Before you start writing the piece, decide of you are writing erotica, or smut. Stick with that decision." With a visual medium I guess "porn" would replace "smut" but whatever, same concept.
Now, what's the difference?
Porn (and smut) is content that focuses on the sexual encounter(s). An external plot, if it exists, is simply a prelude or pathway to the sexual scenes ("I'm here to fix the dishwasher, ma'am..." . Those scenes make up the bulk of the piece, and are pretty much what it's "about."
Erotica is something that contains some level of sexualized content but isn't about that content's sexuality. Most films that have any sort of sex scene fall into this category, even whatever small handful are actually graphic depictions, the scene is usually just a few minutes, is meant to convey another point of plot, and is included in a large body of non-sexualized content.
it can get tricky; porn / smut is a sub category of erotica, much in the same way that a square is a kind of rectangle, but a rectangle is not a kind of square. And different people may have different stndards; a fetish video of fully clothed women popping balloons may be a heavily sexualized thing for someone who's into that; given that, and the video's focus on exactly that, i'd class it as porn, even though it has no titilation value for me personally.
Those paintings upthread are erotica; they're sexy but they're not sexual. A depiction of sex is not their purpose, even if the intent may be to display the body of a nude woman for titilation purposes.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)A middle aged man and woman are standing in front of a painting of a nude woman not unlike one of those upthread. She looks at him and says, "Trust you to wonder what kind of ass she has." If ya don't want to make it art, the artist can't do shit to help ya.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)It is a fantasy, but unlike pornography, it has less to do with images, the image of the perfect woman etc. in favor of the imagry of the readers imagination.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)House of Roberts
(5,168 posts)Erotica is art you can view with a girl you haven't slept with, while porn is best left to viewing with a girl you have slept with.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Canova's "The 3 Graces" is erotica when in marble, film 3 gals in that situation and it would become pornography. The various statuettes of Priapus and Satyrs from roman times were erotic to the Romans, in Victorian and 20th Century cultures they were described as pornographic and now we have turned back to erotica to describe them.
retread
(3,761 posts)you must first know the difference between naked and nude." ~Bernard Poulin